Nam Power

63 Wessel Road Rivonia 2128 PO Box 2597 Rivonia 2128 South Africa Telephone: +27 (0)11 803 5726
Facsimile: +27 (0)11 803 5745 Web: www.gcs-sa.biz
NAMPOWER COAL FIRED-POWER STATION Arandis East Site SPECIALIST STUDIES HYDROGEOLOGY, SOILS, HYDROLOGY and WATER SUPPLY
Version FINAL June 2012 Aurecon GCS Project Number: 11-169
Aurecon
NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study
NAMPOWER COAL FIRED-POWER STATION Arandis East Site SPECIALIST STUDY HYDROGEOLOGICAL, SOILS, HYDROLOGY & WATER SUPPLY
Report Version Final June 2012
11-169
DOCUMENT ISSUE STATUS Report Issue GCS Reference Number Final GCS Ref 11-169 NamPower Arandis Hydrogeological, Soils , Hydrology & Water Supply Name Author 1 Author : Hydrogeology Author: Hydrology Author: Hydrology Director Claudia Brites Marlese Nel Leon de Jager Kevin Scott Andrew Johnstone Signature Date March 2012 March 2012 March 2012 March 2012 April 2012
Title
11-169
26 April 2012
Page i
Aurecon
ACRONYM LIST
ESEIA Eskom EMP FGD KBMC /s mm/a MAP NamPower PCD Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment South Africas power utility Environmental Management Plan Flue Gas desulphurisation Kuiseb Basin Management Committee Litres per second millimeters per year Mean Annual Precipitation Namibian Power Corporation (Pty) Ltd Pollution Control Dam
11-169
26 April 2012
Page ii
Aurecon
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NamPower envisages the construction and operation of a greenfield coal -fired power station in the vicinity of Arandis in the Erongo region of Namibia. The study is investigating the construction of a power station of up to 800 MW. GCS (Pty) Ltd were appointed as a specialist consultant by Aurecon to undertake a baseline assessment of three alternative sites for the scoping study. GCS were also appointed to undertake a more detailed assessment the soils, hydrogeology and hydrology study as part of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). These GCS deliverables form part of the ESEIA and related Environmental Management Plan (EMP) whereby impacts are identified and mitigation measures are proposed in order to avoid or reduce these impacts on the groundwater environment. No intrusive groundwater work was conducted for this phase of the project. GCS also undertook a preliminary study of the water supply options to the Power Station. The supply of water in the Erongo region is operated by NamWater, who have indicated that supply (as supplemented by the proposed NamWater desalination plant) is adequate for the power station demands. NamWater has an existing pipeline to and a reservoir at Rssing Uranium mine, some 10km from the proposed Arandis East site and has also indicated that infrastructure is sufficient to cope with the additional demand. A number of potential environmental impact associated with the proposed power station were identified. The impacts were then assessed for significance and measures recommended suggested to mitigate the potential impact.
The following potential impacts were identified: Storage of coal in a stockpile to allow for continuous operation may result in potential leachate generation if it is not adequately managed. Seepage from ash storage facility may be a source of poor quality artificial recharge, if leachate generation if it is not adequately managed; Water storage and treatment facilities to store and treat process water, including raw water dams and dirty water dams may result in seepage of poor quality water reaching the groundwater system, if not adequately managed; Development of infrastructure on areas of unsuitable geology may result in stability concerns; potential failure of structure and environmental impact and contamination of groundwater resources if liners are ruptured [the geotechnical
11-169
26 April 2012
Page i
Aurecon
study undertaken by Aurecon in 2012, after completion of this report, has since indicated that there are no voids or cavities in the substrate and the founding conditions are suitable for the power station in general]; Storage of solid and other waste can result in potential poor quality leachate production; Poor quality water impacting on surface water during rainfall events; The reduction in runoff from catchment; Potential diversion of heavy rainfall event runoff in drainage lines, based on the current position of the ash storage facility; Construction of infrastructure within floodlines; Stripping of soil - all construction; and Increased pressure on the current water sources in the region (either of the 2 wellfields in the region or from desalinisation) to be regulated by NamWater who have indicated that there is available water capacity for this development. The significance of the impacts identified (both before and after mitigation measures are implemented) is tabulated below. BEFORE MITIGATION Significance Groundwater 1 2 3 4 5 Impact on groundwater from leachate from coal stockpiles Poor quality artificial recharge from the ash storage site Poor quality water recharging the groundwater from water treatment facilities Poor quality leachate and runoff from solid waste storage site Poor quality water from wastewater treatment facility Medium (-) Medium (-) Medium (-) Medium (-) Medium (-) Low (-) Low (-) Low (-) Low (-) Low (-) AFTER MITIGATION Significance available soil should be stored for rehabilitation post
Impact description
Surface Water 1 2 3 4 5 Reduction in runoff from catchment Contamination of surface water resources as a result of operations Potential diversion of stream Construction within floodlines No implementation and / or incorrect operation of a stormwater management system Very Low (-) High (-) Very Low (-) Medium (-) High (-) No mitigation measures applicable Very low (-) Very low (-) Very low (-) Very low (-)
11-169
26 April 2012
Page ii
Aurecon
Soils 1 Removal of soil Medium (-) No mitigation measures applicable
Based on the impacts identified, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Water storage and treatment facilities, as well as pollution control dams where leachate production is possible should be lined to effectively prevent any vertical migration into the underlying soil and groundwater. A liner system will be an impermeable barrier to effectively prevent any vertical migration. A stormwater management plan must be developed and implemented to ensure that contaminated runoff from dirty areas is collected and contained and re-used as far as possible. It is extremely important to map the relevant floodlines and ensure that no construction of infrastructure occurs within the floodlines. If infrastructure cannot be completely removed from the floodlines, the design of infrastructure must be such that the flow of flash flood water is not impeded. It is recommended that the ash storage facility is designed out of the flood lines. NamPower has since committed to this. The respective infrastructure components should be planned, designed and operated according to relevant best practice guidelines and legislation. Surface water controls to ensure the proper management of any poor quality surface water must be in place, including the separation of dirty water and clean water and the implementation of storm water controls and storage of contaminated water in lined pollution control dams. Water consumption to be monitored and recorded for both construction and operation. Soil is stripped from all area to be disturbed and stored for rehabilitation post construction. With the predicted climate change impacts and subsequent rainfall variability, a dry storage facility will allow for infiltration of rainwater and entrainment of water in the ash storage facility without exceeding saturation levels. This will minimise the formation of leachate.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page iii
Aurecon
A groundwater management plan will be required to monitor the groundwater levels as well as the groundwater hydrochemistry. This should be in place prior to the establishment of a power station to investigate the pre-operational conditions against which the operational groundwater levels can be compared to detect possible impacts. At this stage it is envisaged that monitoring will required for the following: pH, EC, TDS, Na, Ca, Mg, K, NH4-N, Cl, SO4, F, NO3-N, PO4 and Total Alkalinity and all metals. During construction and operation, hydrocarbon analyses (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) in the vicinity of sites where oil spillages/seepage may impact on the groundwater must be undertaken. Bacterial analyses (E. coli, total coliforms, total plate count) must take place at the sewage treatment facility. These results must be monitored against the baseline. Groundwater levels and quality must be monitored on a regular basis. If the monitoring data indicates corrective action, the magnitude of the impact must be assessed by an appropriately qualified and experienced specialist and the necessary measures identified based on the magnitude of the impact. Under these conditions 3 monthly sampling of water quality will be sufficient. Under these conditions 3 monthly sampling of water quality will be sufficient. Monitoring should begin some six months prior to the commencement of operation. An important part of the stormwater management plan is regular monitoring of surface water quality around the development. For this site, surface water is rare and occurs only temporarily after significant rainfall events. The proposed monitoring plan would include sampling runoff as it occurs and groundwater in the vicinity of streams both downstream of the planned development and in the stream to the north of the site (for comparative analysis). Limited data are available for this specific site. The following studies should be completed to inform final design: Detailed contour map of the site Determination of floodlines based on site work Surface water management plan to include detail of sizing and locations of pollution control dams Measures for management of ash storage facility operation
11-169
26 April 2012
Page iv
Aurecon
CONTENTS PAGE
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ - 1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. - 1 BASELINE INFORMATION FOR EAST OF ARANDIS SITE ................................................................... - 3 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. - 3 SEISMICITY IN NAMIBIA............................................................................................................................... 6 CLIMATE CHANGE AND VARIABILITY IN NAMIBIA............................................................................................... 8 GROUNDWATER DATA FOR THE AREA ............................................................................................................ 9 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................. 12 Groundwater levels ......................................................................................................................... 12 Groundwater quality ...................................................................................................................... 12 Rainfall and recharge ..................................................................................................................... 13 Groundwater Chemistry ................................................................................................................. 13 Availability of groundwater ............................................................................................................ 16 SURFACE WATER ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Legislation and Liabilities................................................................................................................ 16 The Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 17 Climate ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Flood Estimation ............................................................................................................................. 20 SOIL ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................................... 28 Soil Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 29 Pre-Construction Use and Capability .............................................................................................. 30 Sensitive Areas ................................................................................................................................ 30 WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 31 ASH STORAGE FACILITY LEACHATE ................................................................................................... 34 Potential leachate from ash storage facility at a typical coal-fired power station ......................... 34 Lining of ash storage facility versus no lining ................................................................................. 35 The chemical composition of fly ash ............................................................................................... 36 Typical leachate characteristics ...................................................................................................... 36 Impact of leachate on groundwater resources ............................................................................... 37 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 38 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 39 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... 40 Impact of coal stockpiles on groundwater ...................................................................................... 40 Poor quality artificial recharge form the ash storage facility ......................................................... 40 Poor quality water recharging the groundwater from water facilities........................................... 43 Poor quality leachate and runoff from solid waste storage site ..................................................... 44 Contamination of groundwater from wastewater treatment facility ............................................ 45 SURFACE WATER ..................................................................................................................................... 46 Reduction in runoff from catchment............................................................................................... 46 Contamination of surface water resources as a result of operations ............................................. 46 Potential Stream Diversion ............................................................................................................. 47 Construction within floodlines ........................................................................................................ 47 Lack of and / or incorrect implementation of a Stormwater Management System ....................... 48 SOILS .................................................................................................................................................... 48 Loss of topsoil ................................................................................................................................. 48 NO-GO OPTION ............................................................................................................................. 51 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................... 51 GROUNDWATER ...................................................................................................................................... 51 Groundwater Management Plan .................................................................................................... 51
Aurecon
Groundwater Level Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 52 Hydrochemistry............................................................................................................................... 52 SURFACE WATER ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Monitoring of Surface Water Systems ............................................................................................ 54 Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan ................................................................................... 54 INPUT INTO TOR FOR DECOMMISSIONING ESEIA............................................................................. 57 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 57 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 61
List of Figures
Figure 1: Geological Map of the East of Arandis Site indicating where infrastructure is proposed (the limestone mine that is indicated is not part of the power station infrastructure ............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Tectonostratigraphic Map of Namibia (source: Geological Survey of Namibia) . 7 Figure 3: Existing Boreholes Locality Map (G. Christalis, 2012) ............................... 11 Figure 4: Local Rainfall Distribution (9 year record) (Digby Wells & Associates, 2008) ....... 18 Figure 5: Site Layout and proposed water management features: (layered on Google Earth Image) ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 6: Khan River Flood Model....................................................................... 23 Figure 7: Site Layout (layered on a Google Earth Image) .......................................... 27 Figure 8: Drainage line Figure 9: Soils and pebble stone layer Figure 10: Bedrock outcrop 29 Figure 11: NamWater Erongo Region Water Supply infrastructure (source: NamWater) ..... 33 Figure 12: Recommended Design for Concrete Channel ............................................ 56
List of Tables
Table 1: Site conditions for East of Arandis ........................................................ - 3 Table 2: Available Borehole information outside of the Khan River ............................. 10 Table 3: Groundwater Chemistry (G. Christalis, 2012) ............................................. 15 Table 4: Flood Estimates ................................................................................. 21 Table 5 : Revised Flood Estimates ...................................................................... 24 Table 6: Design flood for Catchment 1,6km2 ........................................................ 24 Table 7: Design Flood for 2,4km2 Catchment ........................................................ 25 Table 8: Downstream Catchment ....................................................................... 25 Table 9. Results of the preliminary soil survey (GCS Specialist Study, 2012) .................. 30 Table 10: Water supply options (GCS, 2011) ......................................................... 31 Table 11: Major elements found in groundwater due to leaching from different ash disposal sites in South Africa (Adapted from M. Kolosa (2012) .............................................. 37 Table 11: Groundwater Impact Table Description ................................................... 49 Table 12: Surface Water Impact Table Description ................................................. 50 Table 13: Soils Impact Table Description ............................................................. 50
Aurecon
NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study
BACKGROUND
NamPower envisages the construction and operation of a greenfield coal-fired power station in the vicinity Arandis in the Erongo region of Namibia. GCS (Pty) Ltd were appointed as a specialist consultant by Aurecon to undertake a baseline assessment for the scoping study to investigate the geological, hydrogeological, soils and hydrological aspects of potential sites for the proposed development of the Erongo coal-fired power station in Namibia, presented as part of the scoping report. GCS also undertook a preliminary assessment of the potential water supply for the proposed power station. GCS were also appointed to undertake a more detailed assessment the soils, hydrogeology and hydrology study as part of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). These deliverables form part of the ESEIA and related Environmental Management Plan (EMP) whereby impacts are identified and mitigation measures are proposed in order to avoid or reduce these impacts on the groundwater environment.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this study is to identify all potential impacts on groundwater, surface water, and soils and determine the potential impacts associated with the development of the coal-fired power station. In addition, mitigation measures are identified in order to reduce or avoid negative impacts.
GCS undertook a baseline desktop study of all the proposed alternative sites in order to collate sufficient information to compile the baseline report. The data were assessed to enable GCS to address the geological, soils, hydrogeological and hydrological aspects of all the sites for the proposed power station developments including the potential water supply options. The baseline report is appended to the Scoping Report for the ESEIA. Additional information for the East of Arandis site was obtained during this assessment phase of the study. This includes information regarding the seismic activity in the area, groundwater chemistry and groundwater levels from hydrocensus boreholes and typical ash leachate composition from similar studies. The groundwater data was obtained from the hydrogeological study conducted in 2008 by Water Services for Valencia Uranium, which provided groundwater level and chemistry data for hydrocensus boreholes. Groundwater data was also provided by (G. Christelis, 2012).
The proposed site was surveyed for soils in March 2012. The soils were visually assessed and sampled with a hand auger to determine the physical properties at random locations throughout
11-169
26 April 2012
Page - 1 -
Aurecon
the site. The soils were classified according to the Taxonomic System for South Africa (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991). Typical characteristics of the soil can be inferred from the predominant and typical Mispah/Glenrosa classifications.
This report focuses on detailed assessment of the East of Arandis site, as determined in the site selection process and scoping report submitted to the environmental authorities on 3 February 2012. The key outcome of this specialist study is information that will allow Interested and Affected Parties to engage in informed debate on the implications of the proposed project and that will allow NamPower to make an informed decision on key elements of the project, based on an understanding of the range and benefits of implementing possible mitigation measures. Most importantly, the aim of the ESEIA is to provide the Ministry of Environment and Tourism with an opportunity to review and decide on the environmental acceptability of the proposed development. The ESEIA will be undertaken in terms of the standard accepted impact assessment methodology as outlined in the Scoping Report by Aurecon.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

No intrusive drilling work undertaken; There is limited baseline information for the specific project site, so this study used information which exists for projects undertaken in the greater area; The footprint area was used as the development envelope, with the assumption that identified components can be moved within the footprint area based on detailed information from geotechnical studies (about to be undertaken as a separate contract); High level discussions are required between NamPower and NamWater as to allocation of water this aspect is outside scope of this study; No detailed contour information was available for the site and catchment boundaries were estimated from spot elevations generated from Google Earth imagery; and It is particularly difficult to establish a justifiable flood estimation model for extremely arid conditions that exist on site, flood estimation using conventional methods do not produce credible results for arid areas and there insufficient local flood data is available to calibrate calculations methods. These limitations must be borne in mind when reviewing the flood data estimation.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page - 2 -
Aurecon
BASELINE INFORMATION FOR EAST OF ARANDIS SITE

Table 1 below provides a brief description of the conditions associated with the East of Arandis site which was identified as the preferred site for impact assessment, as discussed in detail in the Scoping Report. More detailed information is provided in the subsequent sections. Table 1: Site conditions for East of Arandis
Soil Topography Geology Hydrogeology The associated faulting and lithologys may provide aquifer potential. Presence of dolerite dykes may alter the groundwater flow paths and may there be greater potential for groundwater . The geotechnical study undertaken by Aurecon in 2012 indicated that this issue is not likely to be a concern, especially in light of the water pollution abatement measures to be implemented. Land Cover and Use Hydrology
Petric gypsisols
The site area slopes in a south westerly direction.
The geology of the area is variable the geotechnical study undertaken by Aurecon in 2012 indicated that the founding conditions are suitable for the development.
The area is largely undisturbed and there is no active agriculture occurring.
The site is associated with ephemeral river drainage system, which will only flow for a short period after a significant rainfall event or flash flooding.
Geology
The lithology of the East of Arandis site consists of biotite granite (foliated and porphyritic), dolomitic marble, granite (red, heterogenous and foliated), red granite gneiss and surficial deposits (Christelis, G. & Struckmeier, W, 2001) (Figure 1). Several dolerite dykes are present within the site area which may affect the groundwater flow paths associated with the site. Dykes form zones of secondary permeability. The intrusive dykes may also have an effect on the structural integrity of the site. Majority of the infrastructure is located on surficial deposits, however this may be underlain by marbles and therefore the detailed geotechnical investigations will be required to determine this and to inform the final layout. The geotechnical study undertaken by Aurecon in 2012 indicated that the founding conditions are suitable for the development and that pollution of groundwater resources is not likely to be a concern, especially in light of the water pollution abatement measures to be implemented.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page - 3 -
Aurecon
Intrusive investigations were outside the scope of this specialist assessment for ESEIA. However, Aurecon have completed detailed geological and geotechnical investigations to inform the placement of specific infrastructure (for example, the stack, boiler hose, turbine and generators) on the most suitable, stable foundations. This assessment has therefore focused on a general understanding of the area. It was recommended that the following data be obtained during the geotechnical study about to be undertaken as a separate study to this ESEIA study, so as to provide detailed site relevant groundwater data to inform detailed design: Water strikes recorded during drilling; Water levels recorded on completion of the drilling; Construction details of the boreholes including casing details; Soil logs as recorded during drilling; and Laboratory testing to be conducted on samples collected.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page - 4 -
Aurecon
Figure 1: Geological Map of the East of Arandis Site indicating where infrastructure is proposed (the limestone mine that is indicated is not part of the power station infrastructure
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 5
Aurecon
Seismicity in Namibia
Although earthquakes are not common in Namibia or on the southern African subcontinent in general, they do occur with a frequency of one to two events per year. Many of them however are so weak that they remain unnoticed, and are only detected with the aid of sophisticated instrumentation.
Some 160 ground tremors between magnitude 1.0 and 5.6 have been recorded in the last hundred years, occurring all over the southern Africa but favouring certain zones of structural weakness in the Earths crust, such as the Waterberg Thrust, the Windhoek Graben or the Kuboos-Bremen Line of intrusives crossing the border to South Africa (see Figure 2).
Six seismological stations (Windhoek, Tsumeb, Rundu, Kamanjab, Aus and Ariamsvlei) form the National Seismological Network in Namibia. The network records earthquakes countrywide and provide data for the Earthquake Hazard Map of Namibia. The Tsumeb station is also part of the Global seismological Network and Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (GSN/IRIS) and the station contributes to worldwide earthquake monitoring. Three more seismological stations are planned for the near future at Opuwo, Arandis and Gobabis (Geological Survey of Namibia, 2006).
The last recorded earthquake in Namibia was on Sunday, April 11, 2010. It registered a magnitude of 4.0 on the Richter scale. The center was at 480km NNW of Windhoek and 495km NNE of Swakopmund.
The East of Arandis site is located in a relatively low seismic activity area, as classified according to Namibia Geological Survey, and there is not likely to be a large impact on design requirements for foundations to accommodate seismic high activity. The detailed design should however, be informed by more detailed investigations, following on the geotechnical survey about to be undertaken.
The following map (Figure 2) shows the simplified tectonostratigraphic map of Namibia.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 6
Aurecon
Figure 2: Tectonostratigraphic Map of Namibia (source: Geological Survey of Namibia)
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 7
Aurecon
Climate change and variability in Namibia

At the end of 2011, Namibia launched its new National Climate Change Policy. The policy provides a legal basis for addressing climate change and its projected impact on Namibia. Namibia is among the most vulnerable countries to climate change, as it is one of the driest (Turpie et al., 2010). Even more so, it is highly dependent on climate change sensitive sectors such as agriculture, livestock management and fishing. The policy provides a framework for resource mobilisation for the country to embark upon adaptation and mitigation measures (Turpie et al., 2010).
Current climate observations in Namibia include: a) a definite increase in annual temperatures, b) more frequent higher rainfall events, and c) a shift in annual rainfall patterns.
Although there are many data limitations, climate change experts predict that Namibia will experience an increase in temperature and evapotranspiration at all localities, with the maximum increase in the interior. Warming is likely to be less along the coast than along the escarpment and inland regions (Turpie et al., 2010). A number of the climate change models predict that Southern Africa and Namibia will become drier, that rainfall variability is likely to increase and that extreme events such as extended periods without rain causing droughts and short duration, high intensity rainfall causing floods are likely to become more frequent and intense (Turpie et al., 2010; Schulze, 2005).
Therefore, the management implications of expected climate change and variability in Namibia are: Available water resources will become more challenging than in the current situation, which must be factored into water supply studies for the power station. Climate change generally refer to the increase variability of rainfall The design of waste storage facilities (including ash storage facilities), must design for the regular or increased occurrence of 1/100 year rainfall events, more extreme winds and unpredictable weather patterns (more detail is provided on the discussion on Ash Storage Facility Leachate).
More specific implications for this project include:
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 8
Aurecon
The potential more frequent, higher intensity rainfall events will result in a modification and possible increase in groundwater recharge flowing through the potentially contaminated ash storage facilities.
An increased occurrence in high intensity rainfall events resulting in increased runoff could result in contaminated surface water recharging groundwater at a larger scale through focused infiltration.
More extreme winds may have implications for dust control mitigation measures on site.
Groundwater Data for the Area

Information studies undertaken in the surrounding areas have been used to inform the discussion about groundwater on the site.
A hydrogeological study conducted in 2008 by Water Services for Valencia Uranium within a 30km area from the proposed Arandis site provides the most applicable information as to the hydrogeological conditions in the area. A hydrocensus was conducted and 22 farms situated in a radius of 30km from the Valencia Uranium Mine were visited (the study site falls within this radius) (Digby Wells & Associates, 2008). During the hydrocensus water level data were mainly captured from boreholes not in use, to ensure that water levels were not affected by pumping operations. Water quality data were gathered from operational boreholes. Water levels in the study area are highly variable and range between 4.8 and 59m below surface. A frequency analysis of the hydrocensus data shows that the majority of the measurements made were between 30-40m, whilst the depth to groundwater generally is less than 40m.
The water quality survey indicated high TDS values in the surroundings of the mine area, which are predicted for the study area as well. The area north of the Khan River mostly contains group C and D water (poor quality water for domestic use in terms of the Namibian Drinking Water Standards), although some exceptional group B quality water (good quality water) does occur. Elevated nitrate and sulphate concentrations appear to be the main contributor to poor water quality in the area.
Groundwater usage within the 30km radius of the Valentia mine was considered. These users can be divided into two main groups: i) those abstracting groundwater from the Khan River Alluvium; and ii) those abstracting groundwater from secondary aquifers associated with fractured rock environments of fractures and faults, as well as from a nearby palaeochannel (Digby Wells & Associates, 2008).
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 9
Aurecon
The hydrocensus data indicates that groundwater is not extensively utilised in the area and is mostly used for stock and game watering, with no major irrigation occurring. It can therefore be concluded that relatively small quantities of groundwater are abstracted for farming purposes in the Valencia study area. There was no sign of abstraction within the immediate vicinity of the East of Arandis site. In addition, the area around Arandis is undeveloped state land. No formal agriculture occurs, hence no groundwater development. Volumes abstracted by the local farmers in the agricultural areas to the east of the East of Arandis site are limited to mainly stock- and game watering.
Borehole information gathered from the DWA groundwater database is summarised in Table 2 below (see Figure 3 for location). Table 2: Available Borehole information outside of the Khan River BH Elevation Co-ordinates BH Number Depth (mamsl) Latitude Longitude (m) WW62083 WW62084 WW62085 WW62086 (well) WW62087 WW62088 WW62089 WW62090 WW62091 WW62092 WW62094 WW17218 WW63003 WW63005 (fountain) -22.2718 -22.2739 -22.2738 -22.2723 -22.2716 -22.2660 -22.3266 -22.3259 -22.3466 -22.3378 -22.2505 -22.2987 -22.2194 -22.2472 15.1002 15.1041 15.1018 15.1027 15.1037 15.1148 15.0731 15.0754 15.0853 15.1065 15.1318 15.1731 15.0652 15.0061 803 803 803 803 803 810 732 735 725 744 854 715 799 709 27.0 26.0 20.0 36.0 26.0 37.0 26.0 20.0 17.0 56.0 0.0 109.7 44.5 0.0
Yield (m /h) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 3.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3
RWL (m) 17.00 15.00 11.00 12.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 14.00 -1.00
Borehole yields are generally low with boreholes WW62089 to WW62090, that are situated between 4 and 5 kms to the north-east of the intended construction site, having the highest yields of 3.6 m3/h. WW63005 is a fountain situated in the path of one of the palaeochannels. The remaining boreholes show water levels ranging from 9 to 17m below collar elevation (G. Christalis, 2012).
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 10
Aurecon
Figure 3: Existing Boreholes Locality Map (G. Christalis, 2012)
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 11
Aurecon
Hydrogeology Groundwater in Namibia occurs in a wide range of rock types, making groundwater management a complex process. While this provides a buffer against drought in many regions of the country, but is also makes the system vulnerable to over-abstraction and pollution. The East of Arandis site has some groundwater potential based on the water quality, recharge and marbles. This will have to be further investigated once the site layout is confirmed. The rest of the site is the Damara Sequence, which generally hosts aquifers with very low permeability.
The secondary porosity caused by the dykes and fracture zones that are predicted on site could result in higher groundwater flow rates, but flow is still driven by the water level gradient. The gradient is expected to be very flat in this area, which would result in very slow groundwater movement. Currently there is a severe lack of regional groundwater data that impede the quantification of groundwater resources in the Arandis area. Additional data based on geophysics, drilling and pump testing is required to determine aquifer characteristics. This will allow for a detailed groundwater management plan to be developed.
Groundwater levels Groundwater levels from the hydrogeological study in the area indicate relatively deep levels around 30-40m below surface (Digby Wells & Associates, 2008). If the water levels are indeed this deep at the East of Arandis site, the risk for groundwater contamination is lowered substantially. However, should water levels prove to be much shallower at the site (<10m below surface), the risk for groundwater contamination will be much higher. Monitoring boreholes must be drilled as soon as the final plant layout is approved in order to determine the exact depth to groundwater levels at the site. It has also been recommended that certain hydrogeological information be collected during the geotechnical study to increase the level of hydrogeological data for the site.
Groundwater quality
High sulphate and high nitrate values were recorded in the close vicinity of the Arandis site during the hydrocensus by Water Services cc in 2006. These could be elevated further by the operations at the power station (such as ash co-disposal of sludge from wastewater treatment works and brine from water treatment plants), if not managed appropriately.
11-169
June 2012
Page 12
Aurecon
Rainfall and recharge Groundwater is recharged mainly from rainfall, which means that the more rain an area receives, the more groundwater is replenished and more water is thus available for abstraction. The annual rainfall figures for Namibia indicate that groundwater availability is very low in most parts of the country.
Long-term mean annual rainfall in the Inner Namib is less than 20 millimeters per year (mm/a), while totals may range from 0mm to over 100mm per year. The reported average rainfall for the Arandis region is 70mm. Wet years of >100mm rainfall are very rare in the Inner Namib area and have been recorded only in 1934, 1976, 2000, 2006 and 2009. The increasing frequency of high rainfall events in the past decade may be a reflection of climate change or may be a short-term fluctuation (MME, 2010).
Should the increasing frequency of high rainfall events be on going as a result of climate change, it could have significant effects on groundwater in the area. These effects include: A higher volume of water reaching the water table, influenced by the geology in an area. Unsaturated alluvial deposits are expected to receive more recharge than areas covered with hard rock/thin soil cover (the latter is characteristic of the site). The recharge mechanism within the area where the ash storage facility is to be located is expected to change from preferential pathway recharge only to a combination of preferential pathways 1 and piston recharge2 (both the 300 & 800MW stations). An increase in ground water levels over time could increase the potential for pollution of groundwater resources from the power station. A discussion is included in the Section on Ash Storage Facility Leachate on the implications in change on recharge mechanisms. Groundwater Chemistry
Definitions of piston recharge - The most recent water arriving from the soil displaces downwards the whole column of water already in the unsaturated zone, rather like the movement of a piston, so that the water at the base of the column is pushed out to the water table.
2
Definition of preferred pathway recharge - Preferential flow or non-uniform downward water movement along preferred pathways, such as fractures and roots.
11-169
June 2012
Page 13
Aurecon
Groundwater chemistry data are available for most boreholes (see Table 3).
The
groundwater within the basement is brackish to saline and characterized by elevated sodium and chloride/ sulphate values. It is assumed that the groundwater chemistry at the intended site of the power plant will be similar (G. Christalis, 2012).
11-169
June 2012
Page 14
Aurecon
Table 3: Groundwater Chemistry (G. Christalis, 2012)

Determinant pH TDS 62083 7.5 8599 62084 7.3 6985 62085 7.8 7535 62086 8599 62087 7514 62088 7.6 7514 62089 7.2 13893 62090 7.3 13026 62091 7.0 25290 62092 12699 17218 7.7 63003 7.5 70478
12699
Calcium Magnesium Sodium
2096 405 2040
1688
1613
1661 295 1844
3763
3505
3934
2419 761 3350
5913
333 1670
312 1896
963 3113
857 2898
1261 7350
8518 20270
Chloride
3630
2900
3110
3130
6120
5800
12850
5760
35800
Potassium Silicate Sulphate Nitrate as N Fluoride Total alkalinity
132 49 1305 134 2.3 110
96 35 1052 95 2 150
120 53 1136 126 2.4 155
1305 134 2.3 -
1112 115 2.3 -
116 44 1112 115 2.3 140
185 17 2060 178 2 145
180 25 1820 165 2 160
110 17 2200 114 1.7 227
1655 114 2.3 -
295 36 1655 114 2.3 142
1200 13 5800 461 3 90
11-169
June 2012
Page 15
Aurecon
Availability of groundwater
The proposed site for the power plant is situated close to the watershed of the northern bank of the Khan River and the palaeo-channels to the north. Within the surroundings outside of the main Khan River alluvial beds, only the Karibib and Arandis Formation marbles are considered as potential aquifers due to the physico-chemical nature of the carbonate rock. No high-yielding boreholes were indicated in the existing data that was gathered from boreholes within the basement rocks. Due to the hard rock nature of the underlying formations groundwater flow is mainly along fractures, faults and geological contacts. Some of the palaeo channels may also have better hydraulic properties although the water quality is expected to be inferior (G. Christalis, 2012).
The East of Arandis site is mainly associated with the Damara Sequence. The groundwater potential of the Damara Sequence is limited due to the unfavourable aquifer characteristics and low rainfall resulting in lack of flow recharge. A potential exception to this is the marble lithology associated with parts of the East of Arandis site which could have aquifer potential. This would need further investigation and needs to be confirmed by a hydrogeological investigation.
The volume of groundwater available for sustainable abstraction is equal to the volume of water that is recharged to the groundwater system. If more water is abstracted than what is replenished over a given period, over-abstraction of the groundwater will occur. Any use of groundwater on site must be informed by the presence of dolomites in the area as the development of sinkholes in dolomite/karst areas is the direct result of groundwater levels that have been drawn down too deep below the surface by pumping.
Surface Water
Legislation and Liabilities The management of water resources in Namibia is governed by the Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2007) and the Water Resources Management Act (Act 24 of 2004). In addition it was assumed management of water resources as related to this project will be undertaken to accepted international norms and standards.
11-169
June 2012
Page 16
Aurecon
The Physical Environment The East of Arandis site, located to the east of the town of Arandis, is a rocky desert area, with a large amount of exposed bedrock, shallow soils, poor vegetative cover that tend to form a crust that increases the intensity of runoff during flood events. The proposed site is located in a range of rocky hills, approximately 55 km from the coast and towards the edge of the coastal mist belt. The following photograph gives a general indication of local topography and land cover.
Photo 1: Typical Local Topography Climate Although daytime temperatures may be moderated by the influence of the coastal mist belt, the general climate can be described as extremely hot and dry. Daily maximum temperatures in summer can peak at 50C, while the annual average high is of 24 oC is experienced. Night-time temperatures drop severely and variations between pre-dawn and mid-day temperatures of 30C will not be uncommon. The site is expected to experience a Mean Annual Rainfall of 70 mm, which will invariably occur between 1 and 4 individual rainfall events per year.
11-169
June 2012
Page 17
Aurecon
Rainfall is most likely in the months of February and March, with some long-term average precipitation being shown for a summer rainfall season that stretches from January to April. A second rain season around October and November rarely yields rainfall for this area. Rainfall distribution is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Local Rainfall Distribution (9 year record) (Digby Wells & Associates, 2008) Average Annual A-Pan evaporation (the most common of three standard methods of measuring evaporation) will be 3000 mm/annum and will vary between 200 mm per month in mid-winter and 300 mm per month in mid-summer. However, climate change is expected to have a significant future impact on this region. The majority of General Circulation Models predict increased likelihood of rainfall between December and February. Local climate systems are largely dominated by two continental weather systems; namely the Central African monsoons have been seen to oscillate southwards in recent years and the Botswana high pressure system, which diverts frontal weather systems around Namibia, and has weakened on occasion. In 2011 both of these phenomena occurred simultaneously, and many parts of Namibia experienced 500 mm of early summer rainfall more than normally expected. With climate change, this is likely to happen with increasing frequency in the future. The likelihood of a major flood-producing rainfall event in January and February can more than double.
The site is located in a desert area, with limited surface waters. All rivers and streams are ephemeral and runoff will occur only in the form of temporal flood peaks that are directly linked to local rainfall events. The most note-worthy of these rainfall events will produce significant local floods, the magnitude and impact of which are discussed later in this section.
11-169
June 2012
Page 18
Aurecon
Catchment Areas
Consider the following site layout:
Figure 5: Site Layout and proposed water management features: (layered on Google Earth Image)
The significant elements of this layout are: An un-named watercourse to the north of the site may overflow into the site during extreme flood events. This overflow can be prevented by the construction of a berm of up to 3m height as indicated by the orange line shown on the layout. A proposed limestone quarry to the south of the site is isolated and excluded from this study. The proposed site of the power plant (yellow) and ash discard facility (purple) are contained in a reduced dirty water catchment Coal stockpiles, various process facilities, switching sites and area set aside for future development are also restricted to this dirty water catchment. All runoff from the dirty catchment is caught in a pollution control dam and allowed to evaporate (or is cleaned for re-use in dust suppression).
11-169
June 2012
Page 19
Aurecon
All water from a clean water catchment to the east of the proposed site is diverted by means of a concrete channel, around the dirty water catchment into a small downstream catchment, before being released to flow downstream.
No detailed contour information was available for the site and catchment boundaries were estimated from spot elevations generated from Google Earth imagery. Existing 1: 50 000 maps have a 20 m contour interval
Catchment areas are estimated as follows: a. The dirty water catchment that denoted the possible pollution footprint of the proposed plant = 1.6 km2 b. The clean water catchment to the east of the plant area, where runoff must be contained and diverted around the dirty water catchment = 2.4 km 2 c. The smaller clean water catchment area to the south of the proposed plant that must receive water diverted from the eastern catchment = 1.0 km2 d. The total catchment of the area directly impacted by the proposed development = 5 km2.
Flood Estimation As stated previously, it is particularly difficult to establish a justifiable flood estimation model for the extremely arid conditions that exist on site. conventional methods do not produce credible results. used to estimate potential flood returns. Flood estimation using Insufficient local flood data is
available to calibrate calculations methods. A description is provided below of the methods
The TransNamib railway line linking Walvis Bay to Windhoek passes immediately south of the site which will be used for transport of coal to the site, by means of a spur off the line to the coal stockpile area (see Figure 7). There are drainage lines that cross the northwestern section of site. In order to assess the potential flood volumes the railway line culverts over the drainage line were inspected. Photographs 2 show the culverts and the location of the culverts are shown in Figure 7.
11-169
June 2012
Page 20
Aurecon
Photo 2: Culverts Unfortunately, it would seem that no standard flood estimation methods were used for these structures and runoff from similar drainage areas is served by either a pipe culvert or a large bridge, depending mainly on the width of a dry stream bed.
Flood estimation was undertaken for the site using traditional methods, which produces the following results: Table 4: Flood Estimates
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Description of catchment River detail Calculated by Physical characteristics Size of catchment (A) Longest watercourse (L) Length of catchment centriod (Lc) Average slope (Sav) Mean annual rainfall (P) Return period (years), T 5 6 2.6 0.011 70 km km km m/m mm 10 20 50 100 Kovacs region K2
2
Proposed site for Erongo Coal Power Plant. Arandis east site Defined watercourse L de Jager Veld type Catchment parameter (C) with regard to reaction time Date 20/03/2012 6 0.033616
11-169
June 2012
Page 21
Aurecon
Constant value for Kt Peak flow (m /s), QT based on Midgley & Pitman 0.6 0.2 QT = 0.0377KTPA C 3 Peak flow (m /s), QRMF based on Kovacs 76.6 Return period (years), T QT/QRMF ratios Peak flow (m3/s) Based on QT/QRMF ratios
3
0.67 2.4
0.91 3.2
1.26 4.4
1.6 5.6
50 0.550 42.1
100 0.639 48.9
200 0.733 56.1
These preliminary results will need to be verified by checking the credibility in consultation with other developments such as the railway line, road and Rossing mine. For the Kovacs RMF calculation, estimated 1:50 year floods equate to probable flood producing rainfall falling on the catchment, running off and accumulating to form a flood hydrograph in 20 minutes or less. This is judged to be extremely unlikely. The design floods estimated by Midgely and Pitman are equally unlikely. The main problem with these flood estimation techniques appears to be that the Francou-Rodier formula which provides the basic calculation algorithm for Kovacss Regional Maximum Flood model has limited application on catchments that are smaller than 100 km2 in extent and floods are invariably over-estimated on smaller catchments. Various algorithms are available to down-scale RMF estimations for smaller catchments, but many of these also fall apart when applied to catchment areas of less than 25 km2. Without local flood data, it is difficult to accurately estimate floods for small local catchments. The approach adopted to solve this problem was to develop a flood model for the larger, local Khan River and use results obtained to downscale this model for application on smaller local catchments. The Khan River model derived was also complex. Flood producing rainfall events in a desert region tend to be isolated and rain falls over a restricted area. Flood hydrographs are also not particularly transferable and are site specific as regional floods are lost to evaporation and seepage before reaching downstream areas of the river. The model assumed that the area of influence of a rainfall event was proportional to the total amount of rainfall, and the effective catchment area used to produce flood hydrographs could be reduced proportionally. A hydraulic link to the relatively wet upper catchment was only established with floods that had a design return period of more than 100 years. Flood hydrographs generated are as follows:
11-169
June 2012
Page 22
Aurecon
Flood Hydrographs Lower Khan River

450
400
350
Flood [cubic meters per second]
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Hours
'1:10 '1:20 '1:50 '1:100 '1:200 years
Figure 6: Khan River Flood Model Although, this model could potentially be further refined, a number of trends emerged that could be used in a down-scaled model. These included: Both Rainfall and Flood Peaks tend to be proportional to the cube root of the return period. The volume of water contained in the flood hydrograph appears to be proportional to the return period raised to a power or two thirds. The above implies that the duration of a flood producing storm is likely to be proportional to the cube root of the return period, and The proportion of rainfall that is converted to runoff is also proportional to the cube root of the return period. This correlates well with conventional understanding of the characteristics of desert soils; that they tend to form a surface crust, increasing runoff when precipitation rates reach a pre-determined limit state and that the surface interface may become saturated at a rate faster than the infiltration rate, also increasing runoff. For smaller sub-catchments within a study area, floods are also assumed to be proportional to the catchment area raised to a power of two thirds.
11-169
June 2012
Page 23
Aurecon
This down-scaling of modelled flow on a larger local river system produces a series of algorithms that can be applied to local small catchments. characteristics were accepted: [ Where: MAP = Mean Annual Precipitation R = The design return period (eg. 1:50 year event R = 50) And And And Where: A = Catchment Area [km2] Assuming MAP = 72 mm this custom model estimated floods for the 5Km 2 reference catchment as: Table 5 : Revised Flood Estimates Custom Flood Model 1:50 year Design flood [m3/sec] 29.5 1:100 year 37.1 1:1000 year (RMF) 80.0 [ ] [ ] [ ] ] The following flood
These flood estimations seem to be more credible and defendable for use in assessing conditions on the proposed site. Flood estimations for the range of catchments considered will be as follows: Table 6: Design flood for Catchment 1,6km2 Catchment A Return Period [years] 10 20 50 100 200 1000 Storm Rainfall [mm] 51.71 65.15 88.42 111.40 140.35 240.00 1.6 km Storm Runoff [mm] 11.14 17.68 32.57 51.71 82.08 240.00 Design Floods Storm Duration [hours] 0.61 0.77 1.05 1.32 1.67 2.85 Design Flood [m/sec] 8.06 10.16 13.79 17.37 21.89 37.43
11-169
June 2012
Page 24
Aurecon
Table 7: Design Flood for 2,4km2 Catchment Catchment B Return Period [years] 10 20 50 100 200 1000 Storm Rainfall [mm] 51.71 65.15 88.42 111.40 140.35 240.00 2.4 km Storm Runoff [mm] 11.14 17.68 32.57 51.71 82.08 240.00 Design Floods Storm Duration [hours] 0.70 0.89 1.20 1.51 1.91 3.26 Design Flood [m/sec] 10.57 13.31 18.07 22.76 28.68 49.04
Table 8: Downstream Catchment Catchment C Return Period [years] 10 20 50 100 200 1000 Storm Rainfall [mm] 51.71 65.15 88.42 111.40 140.35 240.00 1 km Storm Runoff [mm] 11.14 17.68 32.57 51.71 82.08 240.00 Design Floods Storm Duration [hours] 0.52 0.66 0.90 1.13 1.42 2.44 Design Flood [m/sec] 5.89 7.43 10.08 12.70 16.00 27.36
From Table 6,
11-169
June 2012
Page 25
Aurecon
Table 7 and Table 8 design values are obtained, which are discussed later in the report.
11-169
June 2012
Page 26
Aurecon
Figure 7: Site Layout (layered on a Google Earth Image)
11-169
June 2012
Page 27
Aurecon
The significant elements of the proposed layout as indicated in Figure 2 in terms of surface water are that an un-named watercourse to the north of the site may overflow into the site during extreme flood events. Consideration must be given to locating the ash storage facility out of the floodlines, or designing the ash storage facility to allow for the flow of water during flash flooding.
Catchment areas for specific components of the power plant are estimated as follows: a. The total catchment of the area directly impacted by the proposed development = 4 km2 b. The dirty water catchment denotes the possible pollution footprint of the proposed plant c. The clean water catchment to the east of the plant area denotes where runoff must be diverted around the dirty water catchment d. The smaller clean water catchment area to the south of the proposed plant that must receive water diverted from the eastern catchment
Soil Assessment
GCS (undertook a reconnaissance soil survey of the proposed NamPower Erongo power station extension area and ash storage site. The site is characterised by undulating topography varying from rocky outcrops to area of deeper soils that are associated with drainage lines. The soils in the area are not well developed due to the arid nature of the climate, and can be classified mostly as Mispah and Glenrosa forms, with some Dundee in the drainage lines. Soil samples were submitted for grading and chemical testing and the results are indicated in Table 9..
11-169
June 2012
Page 28
Aurecon
Soil Characteristics
Figure 8, 9 and 10 below were taken on the proposed site and indicate the typical nature of the terrain (gravelly surface, rocky outcrops, gentle slopes, arid conditions):
Figure 8: Drainage line
Figure 9: Soils and pebble stone layer
Figure 10: Bedrock outcrop
The topography of the area consists of gentle rolling hills and steep eroded rocky outcrops. The geology is predominantly quartzite, granite and schist. Some vegetation is supported in the more sandy areas but little to no vegetation occurs on the gravelly surfaces and rocky outcrops. There are no flowing rivers or streams on the site but there is a network of dry drainage channels. The total area consists of soils of varying depths. Some areas consist of exposed rock only (no soil at all) up to a depth of approximately 1.5m in the drainage lines. The soil was classified as predominantly the Mispah and Glenrosa forms, with some Dundee occurring in the drainage line areas. The Mispah and Glenrosa soils are characterised by shallow, eroded soils overlain by a quartzite gravel layer. The Dundee soils, although deeper, have very high sand and gravel content. These soils have very low to no agricultural potential and are classified as barren land by the Chamber of Mines (1981). Soil sample laboratory Grading and chemical testing results are still pending, and should confirm the eroded, sandy physical properties. Chemical results are likely to confirm low soil fertility the very low agricultural potential.
11-169
June 2012
Page 29
Aurecon
Pre-Construction Use and Capability The proposed site is currently un-inhabited and not being used for any form of farming, commercial use or recreation. As described above, the area can be classified as barren land and has very low agricultural potential. Table 9. Results of the preliminary soil survey (GCS Specialist Study, 2012) 24/5/2012 Nutrient Status Sample Ca Mg K Na P pH(H2 O) pH(KCl) EC no. (mg/kg) (mS/m) Ant Hole 4211.0 86.5 491.5 1755.0 3.8 4.84 4.14 3110 Point M 1162.5 44.0 114.0 510.5 17.7 5.33 4.16 1740
Sample no. Ant Hole Point M
Ca 21.01 5.80
Exchangeable cations Mg K Na CEC (cmol(+)/kg) 0.71 1.26 7.63 5.30 0.36 0.29 2.22 4.96
S-value Base satu- pH(H2 O)

ration (%)
pH(KCl)
30.62 8.67
577.18 175.02
4.84 5.33
4.14 4.16
HANDBOOK OF STANDARD SOIL TESTING METHODS FOR ADVISORY PURPOSES

Exchangeable cations: 1M NH4 -Asetaat pH=7 CEC: 1M NH4 -Asetaat pH=7 Extractable, Exchangeable micro-elements: 0.02M (NH 4 )2 EDTA.H2 O EC: Saturated Extraction pH H2 O/KCl: 1:2.5 Extraction Phosphorus: P-Bray 1 Extraction
24/5/2012 Particle Sample > 2mm no. (%) Ant Hole 31.1 Point M 32.8
Size Distribution
Sand Silt Clay (% < 2mm) 85.2 8.7 6.1 94.6 2.4 3.0
This laboratory participates in the following quality control schemes: 1. Agricultural Laboratory Association of Southern Africa. 2. International Soil-Analytical Exchange (ISE), Wageningen, Nederland. No responsibility is accepted by North-West University for any losses due to the use of this data
The soil analysis results indicate a very sandy acidic soil which is expected for the Mispah soil form identified over most of the site. The nutrient status indicates adequate Ca, Mg and K for plant growth, but the acidity of this soil results in a low level of nutrient availability (exchangeable cations) and therefore low fertility/suitability for crop growth. The P level is also below the critical level to sustain crop growth (the critical value being 30mg/kg). The sandy nature of the soil and high sodium (Na) levels also indicate low fertility and poor soil structure, with the soil prone to dispersion. This soil would not be suitable for agricultural use (Sumner, 2000). Sensitive Areas In terms of the soils and land use, no sensitive areas were noted. There is however, soil associated with the drainage channels if development occurs in these areas. The drainage
11-169
June 2012
Page 30
Aurecon
channels do indicate areas of differing soil properties and indicate seasonal changes on the site. These shallow, rocky soils are difficult to excavate so stockpiling prior to construction will be difficult. It is however very important to stockpile as much soil as possible since it contains a valuable seed bank required re-vegetating during rehabilitation. also be used for rehabilitation post construction. The soils can
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS

Swakopmund & Walvis Bay obtain fresh water from the Central Namib Water Supply Scheme. This scheme is run by NamWater and draws groundwater from well fields in the Omaruru and Kuiseb Rivers. Namibias national water supplier (NamWater) is extracting large quantities o f groundwater, mainly from the Kuiseb aquifers. Kuiseb River groundwater resources support the water demand of Walvis Bay, whilst water derived from the alluvium of the Omaruru River is pumped from Henties Bay to a central pump station at Swakopmund for distribution to Swakopmund, Arandis, and the Rssing Uranium Mine. The balance between water extraction and recharge is being closely monitored by the Kuiseb Basin Management Committee (KBMC) in terms of the Water Resources Management Act 24 of 2004 (GCS, 2008). Currently, there are several options in terms of water supply for the power station. This includes both existing infrastructure and supplies available as well as proposed water supply schemes as discussed in Table 10 below. Table 10: Water supply options (GCS, 2011)
Water Supply Status Resource Description Abstraction from the Omaruru Aquifer Abstraction from the Kuiseb Aquifer Desalination plant with spare capacity Desalination plant Proposed north of Swakopmund Proposed Desalination plant Capacity/Potential Capacity 9 Mm3/a Future Potential Decreases from a total of 16 Mm3/a from both aquifers combined to 11.5 Mm3/a, as the supply from the Omaruru Aquifer decreases from 9 to 4.5 Mm3/a.
Existing NamWater Existing
7 Mm3/a SEA indicated spare capacity is 6Mm /a. Unknown at this stage Proposed capacity
3
Areva
Existing
Unknown
NamWater desalination plant Gecko
Proposed capacity 25Mm3/a. Construction proposed for 2015. Uncertainty regarding whether
11-169
June 2012
Page 31
Aurecon
Water Supply desalination plant
Status
Resource Description north of Swakopmund
Capacity/Potential Capacity of 4Mm3/a
Future Potential this project will be realised.
Current data indicates that 10.5Mm3/a, is currently available in terms of water supply through the existing NamWater pipeline scheme. Of this, 4 Mm 3/a, is supplied to Rossing Mine, 1.5 Mm3/a is allocated to the town of Arandis and 1.5 Mm 3/a has been allocated for the construction of Swakopmund Uranium. Therefore 3 Mm3/a is potentially available from this source as water supply for the proposed Erongo power station. In addition there is the potential to increase abstraction from the Kuiseb aquifer by a further 500 000m 3 (GCS, 2011), as well as desalination water to be provided from the NamWater desalination plant in the future. The infrastructure is shown on the attached plan from NamWater (Figure 11). At present the Omaruru Aquifer supplies Hentiesbay, Swakopmund, Rossing, Arandis and Langer Heinrich and Trekkopje construction. The Kuiseb aquifer supplies the Walvis Bay area. There is a proposed link between the two systems from Kuiseb Quarry reservoir to Swakopmund Base station reservoir. It is proposed to construct a pipeline from the reservoir at Rssing to bring water to the power plant. As indicated by NamWater, infrastructure to supply water to the plant is not a problem, as it is established. Should groundwater be considered as a feasible option in terms of water supply (not part of the scope of this study) in the future, a detailed groundwater assessment will be required to quantify the amount of water available for abstraction. There is also a possibility for sinkhole development depending on the rate of dewatering, and this aspect would require additional investigation should NamPower look at this option in the future.
11-169
June 2012
Page 32
Aurecon
Figure 11: NamWater Erongo Region Water Supply infrastructure (source: NamWater)
11-169
June 2012
Page 33
Aurecon
ASH STORAGE FACILITY LEACHATE

The discussion in this section includes study results from power stations in South Africa, and could correlate well with the ash likely to result from the proposed power station since coal will probably be imported from, amongst others, South Africa.
Potential leachate from ash storage facility at a typical coal-fired power station Many factors contribute to and control how coal and fly ash will affect the environment and the solutions with which they come into contact. Particle size, coal rank, amount of ash, coal mineralogy, type of ash and the trace element content are important variables controlling the combustion and leaching of coal. For fly ash, the original composition of the feed coal, the combustion conditions, the size of the fly ash particles, and the fly ash mineralogy all influence the distribution and mobility of trace metals (Aurecon, 2012b). In South Africa, coal ash and high salinity process water is co-disposed on ash storage sites. The ash is believed to have the potential to adsorb some of the salts and act as a salt sink. As these salts are desorbed over time, the ash storage sites have the potential to impact on the ground and surface water resources. Geohydrological parameters can be used to describe and compare how water and salts enter and move through the subsurface environment. Identifying these parameters for ash storage sites can benefit water resource managers to evaluate their potential environmental impact (Nel, et al. 2009).
Dry ash storage facilities seem to have much higher salt concentration in the ash matrix, compared to wet ashing facilities. The low salt concentration of the wet ash storage facilities do not imply less environmental impact, as the volume of water involved with the lower concentration salts are higher, providing much faster leaching of salts from the ash storage site. The hydraulic properties of the ash storage site give an indication of the relative infiltration rates. The dry ash sites seem to have slightly higher hydraulic conductivities than the wet ash sites.
The above information indicates that dry ash storage sites will store higher concentration pore water and can accommodate some infiltration of water before they will start leaching to the subsurface. If water is allowed to infiltrate excessively into dry ash dumps, then the higher hydraulic conductivities will allow higher rates of leaching of the salts from the ash, compared to wet ash storage. The environmental impact of the dry storage sites would then be significantly higher due to the higher salt concentrations leaching from them.
11-169
June 2012
Page 34
Aurecon
However, should rainfall levels increase as a result of climate change and the type of recharge currently occurring on site be altered, this may have implications for the impacts of leachate on groundwater. Dry ash storage During the operational phase ash is deposited by truck with a conveyor until it reaches final height. The ash heap progresses sideways and the part that is completed can be rehabilitated. Dust suppression is necessary until rehabilitation. Usually the ash is irrigated with process water that contains numerous salts. The ash forms a concrete type substrate that cracks/fractures. Therefore ash blocks will be surrounded with fractures. If only a little rainfall falls occasionally the ash fractures will conduct most of this water. The ash however swells a little when it becomes wet. The fractures will therefore close after some time. If the rainfall increases the first water will follow the fracture, and water after that must use the ash matrix. If the salts and metal leachate are captured in the ash matrix it will leach more under slightly higher rainfall. The timing of rainfall and volume of rainfall is important. Rehabilitation and sloping of site to limit infiltration will reduce this risk. Lining of ash storage facility versus no lining If ash storage sites are operated as dry as possible (up to 20% moisture is safe) no liner system is required. If the dry facility is however operated above 30% moisture, significant leachate can be expected and a liner is then recommended. Wet ashing facilities will most likely require liner systems if they are constructed on geology/soils with any significant hydraulic conductivity. If the hydraulic conductivity is very low, with no preferential pathways the impact will be local. Otherwise a liner will be required.
The small-scale laboratory tests and monitoring of the full-scale FGD lined facility shows that stabilized FGD materials can be used as low permeability liners in the construction of water holding ponds and wetlands. Actual long-term permeability coefficients in the range of 10-7 cm/sec (3 x 10-9 ft/sec) were obtained in the field by compacting lime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD materials (Wolfe et al., 2004). In an American study, leachate from the FGD material was non-toxic for most potential contaminants meeting the relevant national primary and secondary drinking water standards (in Ohio).
FGD material also has the potential to be used in construction of landfill caps with a greater richness of plant species but lower total plant productivity, compared to clay, reported by Wolfe et al. (2004).
11-169
June 2012
Page 35
Aurecon
The chemical composition of fly ash The environmental impact of fly ash has been investigated by many researchers with the use of laboratory leaching tests and field sampling. As a result, they were able to identify typical elements leaching from ash storage sites which could contaminate the surrounding ground and surface water environment.
Fly ash is considered to be a ferro-alumino silicate with the predominant elements, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, K, and Na in concentrations higher relative to those found in the parent coal. Chemical analyses reveal that most natural elements can be found in fly ash. Aluminium, calcium and iron concentrations occur in ranges typical of those found in soils. Sodium is present in concentrations generally exceeding those found in soil.
The pH of fly ash tends to vary between 4.5 and 12 depending on the sulphur content of the parent coal. South African ashes are, however, all alkaline. ash is leached or weathered. Fresh ash contains a high concentration of soluble salts. These high concentrations can be reduced over time when the
The most common minerals in fly ash are glass, quartz and mullite (3Al2O3 2SiO2). The Fe containing compounds include hematite (Fe2O3) and magnetite (Fe3O4); the Ca-compounds include anhydrite (CaSO4) and lime (CaO); periclase (MgO) and some unburned carbon. Hydration and carbonation play important roles in transforming the primary alkaline minerals (CaO and MgO) into less reactive mineralogical products, leading to chemical stabilization controlled by the rate of CO2 diffusion into the fly ash matrix. Trace elements (As, B, Pb, Ni, Se, Sr, V, and Zn) are found in higher concentrations in fly ash relative to coal and soil.
It is important to bear in mind when assessing the potential impact of ash on the environment that the mineralogy of fly ash is a factor of the parent coal type (Coaltech, 2004). While the best available quality coal will be used, quality is not assured for this plant. The precautionary principle for best environmental practice is that measures should be in place to mitigate the worst potential situation to ensure protection of groundwater resources. Typical leachate characteristics Research done by the University Western Cape in South Africa on the ash storage facilities of a range of ESKOMs power stations showed the following results:
11-169
June 2012
Page 36
Aurecon
Hydraulic conductivity of freshly deposited ash is significantly higher than that of one year old ash. The infiltration rates are therefore much higher and irrigated brine water can affect the underlying aquifers in a very short time. The older ash on the other hand has a lower hydraulic conductivity and would reduce the rate of water leaching salts from matrix.
Impact of leachate on groundwater resources Results from research done on South African power plants indicate that the following elements can be expected in groundwater due to leaching: Table 11: Major elements found in groundwater due to leaching from different ash disposal sites in South Africa (Adapted from M. Kolosa (2012)
Power Station Wet/ Dry Elements of concern from site monitoring Na, Cl, Ca and SO4 Salinity, SO4, Na, Mg, Al, B, As, Cr, Fe, Ni, Se and Zn SO4 Geology The site falls within the Carboniferous to early Jurassic aged Karoo Basin. Sediments here fall within the PermoTriassic aged Northern facies of the Ecca Series Karoo environment consisting of sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and shale. Karoo Supergroup, comprising of the Ecca Group and Dwyka Formation. Underlain by the Karoo Super sedimentary rocks of the Ecca and Beaufort groups Coal occurs in both Vryheid and Grootegeluk formation of the Karoo Supergroup Built on Ecca and Beaufort sedimentary formation of the Karoo Supergroup Part of the Highveld Coalfield falls within Carboniferous to early Jurassic aged Karoo Basin Karoo Supergroup (shale, mudstone and sandstone) Overlying the Transvaal Supergroup are the sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup, Dwyka Group, and the Ecca Group Site forms part of the Highveld Coalfield and falls within the Carboniferous to early Jurassic aged Karoo Basin Status
Tutuka
Dry
In use
Duvha Hedrina Kragbron (Taaibos and Highveld) Matimba Majuba
Wet Wet
In use In use 20 years old not in use In use In use Not used for 5 years, currently in use In use
Wet
SO4 Na, Ca, Mg, K, Cl, SO4, Fe, Mn and B. Na, SO4, F and B
Dry Wet
Komati Grootvlei
Wet
SO4, Mg, and Fe
Ngagane
Wet
Ca, Na, SO4, F, Fe, Mn and B Ca, Mg SO4, F, Fe and Mn
Wilge
Wet
In use
Kriel and Matla
Wet
Ca, Mg, Fe, SO4
In use
11-169
June 2012
Page 37
Aurecon
Even though available groundwater levels in the area indicate a relative deep water table, the potential for groundwater to be contaminated is inevitable. No matter what the type of coal used, there is a risk of potential contamination of the groundwater from the coal storage facilities and as a result it is recommended that the coal storage facility is impermeable and that the ash storage facilities is lined. The presence of unwanted constituents might only become evident in a few years time; therefore it is crucial that proper monitoring is in place to determine contamination and if standards are exceeded, that remedial measures are implemented.
Summary Drawing on research that has been done in South Africa on the impacts of ash from coal-fired power stations on specifically groundwater the conclusions detailed below can be made. Numerous mitigation measures, informed by environmental best practice, are available for implementation: Without lining of the facility, the salt load in the groundwater will increase, originating mainly from the process water waste streams co-disposed with the ash, together with evaporation processes to cool the power plant. The concentration of metals in the coal type determines the concentration of metals in the ash and therefore the leachate. Studies on South African sites show contamination of soils and groundwater directly under the ash storage facility, with limited plume development and movement at well selected sites. Shallower water tables will develop as a mound under the storage site, driving the groundwater flow in the direction of streams or other discharge points. Over the long term life of the ash storage facility, the pH tends to decrease to around 7 and the mobilization of metals becomes problematic from below pH 9. Poor quality leaching will take place from the coal stockpiles (if not mitigated), increasing the overall potential for groundwater contamination.
The recycled water that is earmarked to be used for dust suppression and to moisten ash storage will add to the salt load. This has implications for the potential re-use of the fly ash and the salt concentrations of the leachate.
11-169
June 2012
Page 38
Aurecon
Both wet and dry ash storage techniques have the tendency to release contaminants to the surrounding soils and groundwater. The dry ash storage facilities seem to have much higher salt concentration in the ash matrix while low salt concentrations were observed in the wet ash storage facilities. This does not imply less environmental impact, as the volume of water with the lower concentration salts are higher (Nel et al., 2009). The salts in both systems are available to leach if water manages to flow through the ash storage facility/dam. Proper measures such as lining at the bottom of the ash facility, stabilisation of the ash facility and covering of the completed facility with vegetation are required to minimise environmental damage.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The proposed Arandis East Coal Fired Power Station may impact on the following environmental aspects: Groundwater; Surface water; and Soils.
The possible sources of contamination identified in this study are as follows: Water storage and treatment facilities to store and treat process water, including raw water dams and dirty water dams and pollution control dams; Coal storage area to allow for a stockpile for continuous operation (can result in potential poor quality leachate generation); Potential leachate form the ash storage facility; Effluent from storage of solid and other waste; Runoff from plant area passing over pollution sources and generating poor quality water that can impact on surface water. Development of infrastructure on areas of unsuitable geology may result in stability concerns for the power station. A detailed description of possible impacts identified is discussed below.
11-169
June 2012
Page 39
Aurecon
Groundwater Impacts
Impact of coal stockpiles on groundwater There is a probability that the leachate from coal can impact on the groundwater if the stockpile area is not managed to ensure leachate does not enter the groundwater. Direct rainfall, rainfall runoff, and seepage from the coal stockyard can be a source of artificial recharge to the groundwater, and poor quality runoff could migrate off site. Poor quality leachate associated with the coal is also possible. The overall significance rating before mitigation measures are in place is medium negative, the impacts will be site specific, occur over a long term with the impact being probable. There are a number of uncertainties related to assessing the significance of this impact, which include data regarding the present groundwater quality, the potential leachable volumes that may be produced, and the hydrochemistry of the leachate and the volume of the stockpile. Mitigation measures are focused on ensuring no contamination of ground water from storage of coal to reduce the vertical migration into the underlying soil and groundwater. Such information must inform the final design and the coal stockpile must be designed to international best practice, to ensure no contamination of ground water. With the necessary mitigation measures in place, the significance of the impact is rated as low negative, with the probability being unlikely. The confidence level is sure (refer to Table 12). The impacts are reversible but costly, if groundwater contamination occurs. Impacts may be expected during the operational phase and post closure, therefore closure must allow for the removal of all coal stockpiles and associated infrastructure, unless identified for alternate use. Poor quality artificial recharge form the ash storage facility The major potential impacts of ash storage on groundwater resources are generally associated with changes in the pH of the water, the increase in salt content and the concentration of the potentially toxic trace elements. The most important factor in determining the resulting pollution impact of the ash is the way in which it is stored. During dry storage, the ash still has a moisture content as water is added to suppress the dust during transport and deposition.
11-169
June 2012
Page 40
Aurecon
At Arandis site, dry ash storage is the recommended method. This will minimise the amount of water present within the ash facilities and will reduce the chance of recharge to the groundwater environment. Fly ash mainly consists of small, glassy hollow particles and contains all the natural elements, and in comparison with the parent material is enriched in trace elements. Studies show that trace elements are usually concentrated in the smaller ash particles. The ash is usually enriched in arsenic, boron, calcium, molybdenum, sulphur, selenium and strontium. By understanding the chemistry of the ash, a better insight into its reactions with various other elements can be reached. The pH of the ash is normally elevated due to the abundance of calcium oxide. Calcium oxide usually constitutes about 8 % of the ash and is of great importance in the forming of the pozzolanic layer. Should the ash be wetted and dried cyclically, the ash will have time to react with the atmosphere. This will cause a reaction between calcium oxide and the carbon dioxide that will then lead to the crystallisation of calcium carbonate (limestone). Another reaction that occurs is that between calcium and sulphate that results in the crystallisation of gypsum. These two minerals (calcium carbonate and gypsum) form the so-called pozzolanic layer, which is a layer of very low permeability. The layer can be expected to occur in the upper 0.5 m of the ash storage infrastructure. It is thus evident that the formation of the pozzolanic layer is mostly confined where wetting and drying of ash occurs, during deposition in the wet process and near the surface on a dry ash pile. Leaching from these ash storage sites may occur. Leaching experiments show that the element composition of the leachate does not necessarily reflect that of the whole ash sample proportionally. This suggests that for some elements a correlation of leachate quality to whole ash properties cannot be made. This is because the rate at which these elements will leach from the ash is dependent on: The form in which the element is present within the ash; The location of the element within the ash matrix; and Whether the element has been absorbed onto the ash particle surface.
Parts of the ash spheres are chemically stable in the environment and are resistant to weathering due to the alumino silicate matrix. Any element present in this matrix will be less readily available for leaching. However, elements absorbed onto the surface of the ash spheres will be more readily leached. Un-combusted mineral material may account for the
11-169
June 2012
Page 41
Aurecon
presence of high concentrations of certain elements in the whole ash analysis. Leachate generated from these ashes may however, not reflect the high concentrations because the extraneous material associated with the ash are not in a form that is susceptible to leaching. Water contained in the ash material during deposition can leach constituents from the ash storage facility and transport it to the surrounding environment. Additional water that is recharged from rainfall will supplement the interstitial water and contribute to the leaching of elements. The water that migrates through the facility can either daylight along the edge of the ash storage facility and enter the surrounding environment as surface water, or migrate vertically to the bottom of the storage facility and enter the underlying soil from where it can recharge and contaminate the aquifers. The quality of the water seeping from the ash facility can be predicted by performing leach and element enrichment testing. This must include a distilled water leachate test and acidbase accounting tests to determine the acid-neutralising and acid-generating capacity of the ash from which the net neutralising potential is calculated. A representative sample must be provided in order to conduct these tests prior to commencement of the project. The results of the tests will show which elements can be expected to be present in elevated concentrations in the long term. The element concentration range can also be determined based on the results. The volume of water that will seep from the ash storage facility in the long term will be affected by the recharge from rainfall. . The magnitude of the impact is low negative based on the limited groundwater use in the area. The overall significance rating before mitigation measures are in place is medium negative (refer to Table 12). The impact is reversible if groundwater is contaminated, with treatment options including natural dilution, dispersion and attenuation. The final position of the ash storage facility will be determined after the site survey and the floodline delineation. Leachate volumes will also need to be calculated to determine if there will be vertical migration into the underlying soil and groundwater. With these mitigation measures implemented, the significance of the impact is rated as low negative, if the site is kept dry. Before mitigation measures are in place, the impacts are probable; however, once mitigation measures are implemented and the ash storage facility is lined, the probability is unlikely. Impacts may be expected during the operational phase.
11-169
June 2012
Page 42
Aurecon
Poor quality water recharging the groundwater from water facilities If poor quality water, impounded in the water storage and treatment facilities including the return water dams, sewage ponds, evaporation dams and recovery dams, enters the groundwater system the groundwater can be negatively impacted. The significance of the impact on the groundwater will depend on the quality of the recharge water and the volumes involved. The significance of the hazard being realised will be reduced due to the limited groundwater resources on site and low rainfall experienced in the area. The probability of poor quality water recharging the groundwater is moderate if the dirty water dams are not lined. The area does experience some recharge and therefore leachate generation is possible. Groundwater mounds (outward and upward expansion of the free water table caused by shallow re-injection) may form adjacent to the dams and pollution plumes are possible. Power station infrastructure, in the form of runoff dams, dirty water dams, coal stockpiles and ash storage facilities, provide areas of artificial recharge. Water level records of existing power stations indicate that the groundwater levels can rise markedly due to the seepage into the ground. Groundwater contamination can occur as a result of poor quality water recharging the underlying aquifers. The magnitude of the impact is medium with the overall significance rating before mitigation measures are in place being medium negative (refer to Table 12). Mitigation measures include lining of water storage and treatment facilities where leachate production is possible. A liner system will effectively prevent any vertical migration into the underlying soil and groundwater. The liner will prevent seepage of water from reaching the groundwater table. With the necessary mitigation measure in place, the significance of the impact is rated as low negative. The confidence level is described as sure. The impacts are reversible, if groundwater contamination occurs. Before mitigation measures are in place, the impacts are probable, however, once mitigation measures are implemented, the probability is unlikely. Impacts may be expected during the operational phase and post closure, therefore closure must allow for the removal of all infrastructure, as discussed in the terms of reference for decommissioning phase studies.
11-169
June 2012
Page 43
Aurecon
Poor quality leachate and runoff from solid waste storage site Poor quality leachate from the solid waste storage site could seep to the groundwater environment. This will be a localised hazard that can be limited by preventing ponding of rainwater on the waste site. According to the ESEIA, sludge from the wastewater treatment process would be desiccated and incinerated in the boiler or disposed of at the ash storage facility (Aurecon, 2012). Field and laboratory tests done as part of research by the University of the Western Cape have proven that nitrates (e.g. originating from wastewater treatment facility) are not absorbed by the ash and just continue to flow through the storage facility to reach the groundwater as part of the leachate. While the levels of leachate production are anticipated to be low, because of the low rainfall levels and the high evaporation levels, the potential for leachate production remains, especially during episodic high rainfall events. Should this occur, it may have detrimental impacts on other groundwater users in the area. Even though there are few groundwater users in the close vicinity of the proposed site, those users typically depend on groundwater as their sole source of water supply and therefore all possible precautions should be taken to avoid this. The magnitude of the impact is dependent on the volume of poor quality water generated within the solid waste storage area and whether this water can leave the site or recharge the groundwater. The overall significance rating before mitigation measures are in place is medium negative. Confidence levels at this stage are sure. The impact is reversible if contamination occurs and remedial actions may be required. Mitigation measures include the implementation of adequate storm water controls to ensure the management of any poor quality water generated at the solid waste storage site. In order to prevent clean water runoff from being contaminated by on-site dirty areas, clean and dirty runoff separation controls, comprising berms and furrows, must be installed on site, especially around the waste storage site(s). The runoff controls must allow clean water to drain around the site without becoming contaminated. These controls must be installed during the construction phase and maintenance of these controls must be implemented. The gradients of the controls and disturbed areas must be maintained to prevent ponding of water on site. This will reduce the risk of artificial recharge through leachate. Poor quality runoff from the waste storage area must be diverted into a lined evaporation or recovery dam. With the necessary mitigation measure in place, the significance of the impact is rated as low negative. Before mitigation measures are in place, the impacts are probable, once mitigation measures are implemented, the probability is unlikely.
11-169
June 2012
Page 44
Aurecon
Impacts may be expected during the operational phase and post closure, therefore closure must allow for the removal of all infrastructure associated with solid waste storage. If the top of the ash storage facility is engineered properly, limited runoff is expected from the storage facility. Even if a wet management system is applied, any water added to the facility will infiltrate and eventually move downwards towards the groundwater. With the predicted climate change impacts and subsequent rainfall variability, a dry storage facility will allow for infiltration of rainwater and entrainment of water in the ash storage facility without exceeding saturation levels. This will minimise the formation of leachate. Contamination of groundwater from wastewater treatment facility A wastewater treatment facility will be required to treat effluents generated such as sewage, blow-down water, by-products from the demineralisation process and possibly the flue gas desulphurisation. Demineralisation of water is required to ensure that water is of a standard to be used as process water in the boilers. Treatment of the effluent will be required before being released or recycled. The predicted impacts are related to spillages, overflows or seepage of poor quality water from the wastewater treatment facilities which can contaminate the groundwater. This impact will occur during operational phase. The decommissioning phase must allow for the removal of the wastewater related infrastructure. Groundwater monitoring must continue once all infrastructures have been removed after the decommissioning phase. The magnitude of the impact is medium if the facilities are designed and managed correctly. The overall significance rating before mitigation measures are in place is medium negative (refer to Table 12). Utilising a correctly designed, sized and constructed facility will reduce the magnitude and probability of this threat to the groundwater. Groundwater monitoring boreholes are required up-gradient and down-gradient from the wastewater treatment infrastructure. Groundwater quality should be monitored on a quarterly basis. Groundwater monitoring should begin six months before the wastewater treatment plant becomes operational. With the necessary mitigation measure in place, the significance of the impact is rated as low negative, with the probability being unlikely. The impact is reversible if contamination occurs. Impacts may be expected during the operational phase and post closure, therefore closure must allow for the removal of all infrastructure associated with wastewater treatment works.
11-169
June 2012
Page 45
Aurecon
Surface Water
Reduction in runoff from catchment No contaminated water may spill from the dirty water system more than once in 50 years on average. This study thus recommends that a stormwater management plan be developed and implemented to ensure that contaminated runoff from dirty areas be collected, contained and reused as far as possible. This containment of rainfall that falls on the natural catchment invariably means that the runoff from this catchment is reduced. This reduction of runoff is seen as a negative impact and will impact on the watercourse locally. This impact will be experienced for as long as stormwater measures are in place.
It is calculated that this impact will be very low negative (refer to Table 13). Even though the study area will take up a significant portion of the total catchment, the watercourse only very rarely flows under normal circumstances and the catchment itself is relatively small.
No mitigation for this risk is proposed since the proposed stormwater management plan itself is risk mitigation for potentially serious contamination of the regional surface water resources.
Contamination of surface water resources as a result of operations The risk of contamination as a result of operations can be from various sources, some of which are mentioned below: Hydrocarbons from machines; Stockpiles, especially coal stockpiles; Ash storage site; Roads; and Other.
This negative risk could have an impact on the regional surface water resources as contamination may be carried far downstream. The risk of contamination remains as long as the power plant is in operation.
11-169
June 2012
Page 46
Aurecon
The only reliable way to mitigate this risk is to ensure that a stormwater management plan is developed for the study area. The stormwater management plan should be in place before construction activities are commenced and should remain in place after decommissioning of the power plant, or until there is no further risk of surface water contamination. Stormwater management must ensure containment of all contaminated runoff from the study area in a lined pollution control cam (PCD) from where it should be reused as a first priority source of water. The PCD should be designed to allow for only one spill on average, in 50 years. Appropriate operations philosophies for the stormwater management system should be developed and followed, and maintenance on the infrastructure should be carried out regularly. Management strategies can only be developed for a specific stormwater management system and specifically designed infrastructure.
The stormwater management plan should mitigate the risk of contamination of surface water resources from high to very low negative (see Table 13).
Potential Stream Diversion It may be necessary to divert some watercourses in such a way to allow for the construction of infrastructure. The current layout indicates that the ash storage site is located over a watercourse which may need to be diverted if no other location for the site can be found. It is expected that a stream diversion will have a very low negative risk (see Table 13) on surface water resources. A stream diversion could, however, be costly and should only be considered if no other options are available. risk. It is recommended, at this stage, that alternative locations for the ash storage site must be investigated, which will mitigate the
Construction within floodlines Construction within floodlines is a very real risk, not only for damage to infrastructure, but also to the degradation of surface water resources. In dry areas such as the study area, magnitude of potential flooding may be underestimated. This area is known for experiencing flash floods during high rainfall events and it is extremely important to map relevant floodlines and not construct infrastructure within these floodlines as far as is possible. The flash flood response of the catchment may be even more pronounced due to shallow bedrock in the area and other factors.
By mapping the relevant floodlines for every watercourse and by not developing any infrastructure in these floodlines, the risk of contamination of watercourses are sufficiently
11-169
June 2012
Page 47
Aurecon
mitigated. Should this not be possible, design must accommodate the potential for flash floods. The final position of the ash storage facility will be determined after the site survey and the floodline delineation. Lack of and / or incorrect implementation of a Stormwater Management System Not implementing a stormwater management system, or the incorrect operation of the required stormwater management system, would raise the probability of serious pollution of surface water resources to High (refer to Table 13).
This is especially true for the operation of PCD. PCDs should always be operated in an empty in order to be able to accept flood runoff should they occur, up the capacity of the dam, which should be sized to spill only once, on average, in 50 years.
To mitigate this risk, it is important to develop a stormwater management plan and design the respective infrastructure components according to relevant best practice guidelines and legislation. Operational philosophies used in the design must also be documented, such as the proposed dam levels in the PCDs, and Priority of Use guidelines for different water sources.
Soils
During the site visit, it was evident that thick alluvial deposits were present in the drainage channels. The East of Arandis site falls within the area characterized by petric gypsisols, with substantial secondary accumulation of gypsum. This soil is developed in unconsolidated alluvial, colluvial and aeolian deposits of base-rich weathering material and found in arid regions (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001). The preliminary indications are that the founding conditions are favourable for the power station.
Loss of topsoil
Although the topsoil in the area is limited, negative impacts will be experienced due to the removal of soil from construction areas. It is recommended that all available soil is stored for use in rehabilitation post construction. The extent of loss of soil is site specific, will be prevalent over a long duration and is irreversible. The significance of the impact is rated as medium negative (refer to Table 14), with the magnitude rated as medium and the duration being long term. There are no mitigation measures which can be implemented to minimize the impact.
11-169 June 2012 Page 48
Aurecon
Table 12: Groundwater Impact Table Description

ID Impact description Type Extent Magnitude Duration Probability Confidence Reversibility Significance Type Extent Magnitude Duration Probability Confidence Reversibility Significance
Water - Impact on groundwater of coal stockpiles Water - Poor quality artificial recharge from the ash storage facility Water - Poor quality water recharging the groundwater from water treatment facilities Water - Poor quality leachate and runoff from solid waste storage site Water Contamination of groundwater from wastewater treatment facility
Negative
Site specific
Medium
Long term
Probable
Sure
Reversible
Medium (-)
Negative
Site specific
Low
Long term
Unlikely
Unsure
Reversible
Low (-)
Negative
Site specific
Medium
Long term
Probable
Sure
Reversible
Medium (-)
Negative
Site specific
Low
Long term
Unlikely
Sure
Reversible
Low (-)
Negative
Site specific
Medium
Long term
Probable
Sure
Reversible
Medium (-)
Negative
Site specific
Low
Long term
Unlikely
Sure
Reversible
Low (-)
Negative
Site specific
Medium
Long term
Probable
Sure
Reversible
Medium (-)
Negative
Site specific
Low
Long term
Unlikely
Sure
Reversible
Low (-)
Negative
Site specific
Medium
Long term
Probable
Sure
Reversible
Medium (-)
Negative
Site specific
Low
Long term
Unlikely
Sure
Reversible
Low (-)
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 49
Aurecon
Table 13: Surface Water Impact Table Description

Unmitigated
ID Impact description Surface Water: Reduction in runoff from catchment Surface Water: Contamination of surface water resources as a result of operations Surface Water: Potential diversion of stream Surface Water: Construction within floodlines Surface Water: Construction and Operation of a Stormwater Management System Type Extent Magnitude Duration Long term Probability Confidence Reversibility Significance
Mitigated Type Extent Magnitude Duration Probability Confidence Reversibility Significance

No mitigation measures
Negative
Local
Very low
Probable
Sure
Reversible
Very low (-)
Negative
Regional
High
Long term
Definite
Sure
Reversible
High (-)
Negative
Regional
Very low
Long term
Unlikely
Sure
Reversible
Very low (-)
Negative
Site specific Site specific
Very low
Long term Medium term
Unlikely
Unsure
Reversible
Very low (-)
Negative Negative
Site specific Site specific
Very low Very low
Long term Short term Long term
Unlikely Probable
Unsure Unsure
Reversible Irreversible
Very low (-) Very low (-)
Negative
High
Probable
Unsure
Reversible
Medium (-)
Negative
Regional
Medium
Long term
Probable
Sure
Reversible
High (-)
Negative
Regional
Very low
Unlikely
Sure
Reversible
Very low (-)
Table 14: Soils Impact Table Description

Unmitigated
ID Impact description Soils loss of topsoil Type Extent Magnitude Duration Probability Confidence Reversibility Significance Type Extent Magnitude Duration
Mitigated
Probability Confidence Reversibility Significance
Negative
Site specific
High
Long term
Definite
Sure
Irreversible
Medium (-)
No mitigation measures
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 50
Aurecon
No-Go Option
In terms of environmental impact assessment best practice, assessment of potential impacts from a proposed activity must include the assessment of alternatives. Alternatives may Site and include site, technology and other alternatives, but must always include the option of not implementing the activity, known as the no-go alternative (Aurecon, 2012). technology options were screened in the Scoping process and the most viable options for site and technology selection were used as the preferred option for detailed assessment. As such, detailed assessment of these alternatives was not in the brief for this specialist report. However, the no-go option has been considered.
In terms of the groundwater, surface water and soil, only negative impacts were identified, although the impacts are manageable with the relevant mitigation measures in place. Therefore the no-go option is preferred as no negative impacts in terms of groundwater, surface water and soils will be associated with this option.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

This section identifies the management actions to be implemented during the construction and operational phases.
Groundwater
Groundwater Management Plan
As part of the EMP, a Groundwater Management Plan is required to ensure that the power station and its associated infrastructure do not impact negatively on groundwater levels and quality to unacceptable levels. Many of the mitigation measures identified above are proposed to ensure that groundwater contamination from leachate from the plant is prevented. To ensure that the measures are having the required results (i.e. groundwater is protected), monitoring of water quality and levels is required on an on-going basis. The recommended monitoring includes groundwater level and groundwater quality monitoring as well as the visual inspection of the borehole field, as outlined below.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 51
Aurecon
Monitoring boreholes should be located at positions up- and down-gradient from all possible contamination sources within the footprint of the power station. The boreholes should be sited using geophysical methods. Monitoring boreholes of 20 m depth should be installed at these appropriate positions before the operation commences. The positions of the boreholes can only be identified once the final layout design has been finalized.
All boreholes located within the power station and ancillary infrastructure footprint must be backfilled using cement bentonite slurry so as to prevent direct migration of potentially poor quality water into the aquifers.
Groundwater Level Monitoring Groundwater levels are normally measured prior to the establishment of a power station to investigate the pre-operational conditions against which the operational groundwater levels can be compared to detect possible impacts. Examination of the rise in groundwater levels and the hydraulic response of the aquifer in areas away from the artificial recharge points, known as the equalisation reaction, provide an indication of the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer. The groundwater level data typically indicates interconnectivity between the power station water infrastructure and the aquifers over a relatively small area. Groundwater level monitoring generally indicates that deeper water levels are recorded away from power stations and infrastructure. Hydrochemistry Long-term groundwater monitoring at similar power stations has indicated varying degrees of groundwater quality deterioration. The groundwater quality can be variable, not only due to persistent contaminant sources on site, but also due to the naturally occurring salt within the sedimentary rocks. Typically groundwater monitored within boreholes adjacent to power stations and ancillary infrastructure indicates a rise in the salt content of the groundwater due to seepage from surface sources and also because of the dissolution of salt from the previously unsaturated zones. The increase in salinity is, therefore, a combination of artificial recharge from poor quality (saline) surface water sources and the mobilisation of salts in the exposed zones in the boreholes.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 52
Aurecon
Groundwater quality is normally monitored prior to the establishment of a power station to investigate the pre-operational conditions against which the operational groundwater levels can be compared to detect possible impacts. This data is not available at present as no intrusive data collection has been undertaken. This must thus be collected prior to commencement of construction on site to act as the baseline against which to monitor the effect of operations. The following parameters must be recorded: PRE-CONSTRUCTION: pH, EC, Na, Ca, Mg, K, NH4-N, Cl, SO4, F, NO3-N, PO4, Total Dissolved Solids and Total Alkalinity; DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL PHASE: Any trace elements associated with the various power generation activitie, specifically Aluminium, Iron and Manganese; Hydrocarbon analyses (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) in the vicinity of sites where oil spillages/seepage may impact on the groundwater; and Bacterial analyses (E. coli, total coliforms, total plate count) at the sewage treatment facility.
The recognised protocol during groundwater sampling is to perform stratified sampling in order to collect samples that are representative of the impact being monitored. Monitoring at coal stockpiles can indicate groundwater quality of low pH and elevated sulphate concentrations as a result of the oxygenation of the sulphides associated with the coal. The groundwater monitoring should be implemented by the Safety, Health, Environment and Wellness Management (SHEW) department. This data would allow for pollution plume mapping and predictions regarding impacts on surrounding groundwater users and resources, if contamination is evident. Groundwater levels are expected to have a flat gradient, resulting in very slow-flow conditions. Any potential contamination is therefore expected only in the close vicinity of the site. However, due to a level of geological and groundwater level information currently available, the possibility of contaminant movement via the secondary porosity must also be monitored.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 53
Aurecon
The rate of salts leaching into the subsurface depends on the ash storage facility (wet versus dry), liners, soil /geology and depth to water level. Typically very slow migration of salts and metals are expected if the site is well selected and managed. Under these conditions 3 monthly sampling of water quality will be sufficient. Water levels are in general expected to rise due to the availability of water on the site and increase in recharge from both the clean water and dirty water systems. This will cause a flow gradient away from the site, even in slight upgradient direction of groundwater flow. Electrical resistivity surveys on a bi-annual basis proved to be beneficial to the special mapping of preferential flow paths and integrity of the ash dump itself. Useful results in terms of subsurface preferential pathways and ash moisture content can be obtained on ash storage sites. Monitoring should begin some six months prior to operation of the Power Station.
If the monitoring data indicates the need for corrective action, the magnitude of the impact must be assessed by an appropriately qualified and experienced specialist and the necessary measures put forward based on the magnitude of the impact.
Surface Water
Monitoring of Surface Water Systems The purpose of a stormwater management plan is to, as far as possible, contain all possible pollution generated within a dirty footprint area of the proposed development and prevent pollution of surface and underground water resources in surrounding areas. An important part of this plan is planned monitoring of water quality around the development. For this site, surface water is rare and occurs only temporarily after significant rainfall events. The proposed monitoring plan would include sampling runoff as it occurs and groundwater in the vicinity of streams both downstream of the planned development and in the stream to the north of the site (for comparative analysis). This can be correlated against rainfall data to monitor relationship between rainfall and runoff. Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan The following conceptual Stormwater Management measures are proposed, but may need to be adjusted during detailed design of components, based on the final design. The major principles of any Stormwater Management Plan (during construction and operation) are to separate clean and dirty water systems, prevent the mixing of clean and dirty water and contain possible pollution within a defined dirty water footprint area.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 54
Aurecon
The dirty footprint area of the proposed power plant is defined as catchment A as shown on the site layout diagram. All activities that could potentially produce pollutants should, as far as possible be restricted to fall within this defined footprint area. An important part of the storm-water management plan will also be to optimise recycling of water and re-use of polluted water. This is especially important for this proposed power plant in an arid environment. Water resources in the Erongo region are stressed and on-site water treatment will be required to reduce water requirements from an external source. There will be on-site storage of water. The value/cost of water will likely indicate the need for construction of a domed (to prevent evaporative losses) reservoir on the site. Purifying water will allow that water to be re-used. The purification process will, however, generate waste products that need to be disposed of. Brines from a reverse osmosis water treatment plant or wastewater from a conventional plant could be allowed to flow into the proposed pollution control dam.
All dirty water runoff should be directed to a pollution control dam on the downstream border or catchment A. The storage capacity of this dam should be at least 59 200 m3. The detailed design of this structure should include an analysis of potential seepage into the foundation material and possible pollution of downstream water resources. A range of options to reduce or prevent seepage should be included. These options will include natural and artificial (sodium bentonite etc.) clay blankets and lining the dam with concrete or HDPE sheeting.
Water from a clean water catchment to the east of the proposed plant should be diverted to flow into the catchment of a downstream watercourse. This waterway should have a flow capacity of at least 22.76 m3/sec. The proposed waterway should be approximately 2, 400m long and constructed with a slope of 1% (north to south).
Assuming a concrete lined canal with a floated finish that allows a Mannings n factor of 0.0 2 and a shape as indicated in Figure 11, a channel with a design flow depth (d) of 1.7m will be required. This will result in peak flow velocities of 4.49m/sec and would indicate that the concrete lining should contain 35 MPa concrete which is nominally reinforced to cater for stresses related to expansion and contraction due to temperature variations.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 55
Aurecon
The entire structure would require in the order on 3120 m 3 reinforced concrete. A wider grassed waterway, with roots of grass anchored in a layer of filter fabric that is anchored into the soil base would be considerably cheaper to construct, but maintenance will include irrigation of the grassed waterway and regular repair (which will not only require additional high value water, but may prove more costly in the longer term) and may not work in the arid environment on site.
Figure 12: Recommended Design for Concrete Channel
Smaller drains may be required within the plant area to remove rain and other water to drain towards the proposed pollution control dam. The design of these smaller drains is considered to be part of the detailed design of the plant. Other areas that need to be considered in detailed design include the rail loop and offloading procedures, as indicated in Figure 7.
A rail line does not, of its own, constitute a dirty area. The unloading of coal and other products is, however, likely to cause local pollution. The ideal rail loop (indicated as a black line in Figure 7) would include a branch line that offloads within the defined footprint area. Offloading within the clean water catchment would create a secondary dirty water area, and potential runoff would need to be contained and passed across the diversion works (by means of super-passages or other structures) to drain into the dirty catchment.
Other detailed designs will be required for any additional element of the proposed plant that is not entirely located within the defined dirty footprint area.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 56
Aurecon
INPUT INTO TOR FOR DECOMMISSIONING ESEIA

The potential remains for groundwater contamination from the ash facility and the coal storage area if these are not properly managed at the time of closure. of the storm water management system. decommissioning study. During the decommissioning phase, the ash storage facility will require rehabilitation. This includes shaping the ash dump to be permanently stable and laying a cover. The recommendation in the Biodiversity Report is that rehabilitation potential within the desert environment is investigated to inform options in this regard in the future. Groundwater monitoring should be continued after the power station has been decommissioned. It is recommended that groundwater monitoring continues on a bi-annual basis for a minimum of 4 years, where the groundwater quality and groundwater levels are monitored. There is also the potential for surface water contamination of infrastructure remains without implementation Such aspects must be considered during the
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following impacts are identified and mitigation measures were identified during ESEIA. The impacts identified based on the available data are as follows: Potential seepage of poor quality water into the groundwater system from process water storage and treatment facilities, including raw water and dirty water dams; Potential poor quality leachate generation from coal storage area seeping into groundwater system; Potential seepage of poor water quality into groundwater system from storage areas; Spillages, overflows or seepage of poor quality water from wastewater treatment facility; Poor quality water impacting on surface water; Reduction in runoff from catchment; Contamination of surface water resources as a result of operations; Potential diversion of stream based on the current position of the ash storage facility; Construction within flood-lines; and Stripping of soil.
Based on the impacts identified, the following recommendations have been made:
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 57
Aurecon
Water storage and treatment facilities where leachate production is possible should be lined to effectively prevent any vertical migration into the underlying soil and groundwater as a liner system will effectively prevent any vertical migration into the underlying soil and groundwater from the coal stockpile.
Leach tests on coal samples should also be conducted in order to determine the quality of the water seeping from the coal stockpile.
Leach tests should be conducted on ash samples before storage of ash starts on site in order to determine the quality of the water seeping from the ash storage facility to determine if the facility will require a liner system.
The wastewater treatment facility must be correctly sized, designed, and managed to ensure that the possible impact on the groundwater is reduced.
Groundwater monitoring boreholes will be required in close proximity to the sewage infrastructure. Groundwater quality should be monitored on a quarterly basis, for the following: pH, EC, TDS, Na, Ca, Mg, K, NH4-N, Cl, SO4, F, NO3-N, PO4 and Total Alkalinity; any trace elements associated with the various power generation activities; hydrocarbon analyses (BTEX, TPH) in the vicinity of sites where oil spillages/seepage may impact on the groundwater; and bacterial analyses (E.coli, total coliforms, total plate count) at the sewage treatment facility.
Groundwater monitoring should begin six months before construction commences. The development and implementation of a stormwater management plan be to ensure that contaminated runoff from dirty areas be collected, contained and reused as far as possible.
It is extremely important to map the relevant floodlines and ensure that no construction of infrastructure occurs within the floodlines.
It is recommended, at this stage, that alternative locations for the ash storage site must be investigated. Alternatively, stream diversions will be required.
The respective infrastructure components should be planned, designed and operated according to relevant best practice guidelines and legislation.
Surface water controls to ensure the proper management of any poor quality surface water must be in place, including the separation of dirty water and clean water and the implementation of storm water controls.
Given that the area has very limited water resources available, it is recommended that the re-use of as much water from the power plant as possible takes place on site.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 58
Aurecon
Given that the area has very limited water resources available, it is recommended that the re-use of as much water from the power plant as possible takes place on site. A water management plan must be developed and implemented both during construction and operation.
It will be beneficial to manage the ash storage facility with as little water as possible to minimise impacts caused by potential contaminant leachate from the facility.
Detailed below are the recommended design criteria for stormwater management and pollution control dams o The pollution control dams should contain runoff generated by a 1:50 year flood event. Increased runoff from roofs, the ash storage unit and paved areas could, however add to runoff from this catchment. The required dam capacity is estimated by the volume of runoff from an undeveloped catchment plus 4.4 mm of added runoff (over the whole catchment area). This dam should have at least 0.8m freeboard and should be provided with a spillway that can safely pass a 1:100 year flood. o The concrete channel that contains and diverts clean runoff around the dirty catchment is normally designed for a 1:50 year flood. Considering the uncertainties related to climate change and future climates, it is recommended that the channel be designed to cater for the 1:100 year flood.
It is recommended that the surface gravel be temporarily stockpiled separately from the soil during construction. The gravel and smaller rock content can then be used to cap the soil stockpile in order to prevent erosion of the sandy soil by wind. Constructing low, flat stockpiles will also prevent erosion by wind. During rehabilitation the soil and gravel should be mixed and returned to the surface in a shallow layer, similar to that of the surrounding environment.
In addition, the following data is required to inform detailed design: Groundwater levels associated with the site and surrounding areas as well as groundwater chemistry to be obtained before the operation phase, to act as baseline information in the groundwater monitoring plan; Characterisation of aquifer parameters of the underlying aquifers including, transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, etc., to be obtained during a detailed groundwater study; Identification of groundwater recharge values; Determination of soil cover thickness;
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 59
Aurecon
Identification of founding conditions, including the presence of dykes and dolomitic lithologies; Quality of leachate from ash storage and coal stockpiles; and Volume and type of solid waste to be stored on-site.
Groundwater levels and aquifer parameters are required so that area of impact can be calculated and monitored; this will assist in managing the plant effectively, in the prevention of sinkhole formation and to be pro-active in mitigation measures if necessary.
A storm-water management plan must also be implemented, to contain all possible pollution generated within a dirty footprint area of the proposed development and prevent pollution of surface and underground water resources in surrounding areas. An important part of this plan is planned monitoring of water quality around the development. For this site, surface water is rare and occurs only temporarily after significant rainfall events. The proposed monitoring plan would include sampling runoff as it occurs and groundwater in the vicinity of streams both downstream of the planned development and in the stream to the north of the site (for comparative analysis). There are no cumulative impacts based on the groundwater impacts as the groundwater in the area is not currently utilised, and the potential for water pollution is predicted to be low, and if it should occur, limited to the immediate area.
Should the mitigation measures recommended in this report be implemented, including the groundwater monitoring and management plan, and the required data is obtained to inform final and detailed design, it is concluded that negative impacts of the proposed coal-fired power plant on water resources is within acceptable limits.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 60
Aurecon
REFERENCES
Aurecon: (2011): Background Information Document: Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for proposed coal-fired power station in the Erongo Region. For NamPower. Aurecon: (2012): Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for a Coal-Fired Power Station in the Erongo Region of Namibia, Final Scoping Report. Report Number: 107483/5723. For NamPower. Aurecon, (2012): Khanyisa Coal Fired Power Station Final EIR, 2012. For Anglo-American. Chamber of Mines of South Africa, (1981). Guidelines for the rehabilitation of land disturbed by surface coal mining in South Africa. Johannesburg. Christalis, G. & Struckmeier, W. (2001): Groundwater in Namibia- an explanation to the Hydrogeological Map. COALTECH 2004, Project numbers: SUBTASK 6.1.4: Simultaneous water recovery and utilization of two harmful effluents; fly ash leachate and acid mine drainage, for the production of high capacity inorganic ion exchange material useful for water beneficiation Author: L. Petrik , University of the Western Cape). Digby Wells & Associates (2008): Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Valencia Uranium Project. Falke, M. (2008): Kuiseb Basin Water Resources Management Project- Development of a water resources plan for the Kuiseb Basin and development of a planning procedure for use by other basins- Hydrogeology. GCS (2008): Proposed 200/400/800 Mw Coal-Fired Power Station and Additional Black Start Generation Facility at Walvis Bay, Namibia - Site Selection Geology, Hydrogeology, Soil & Hydrology (08-198). GCS (2011): NamPower Coal-Fired Power Station Baseline Report Hydrogeological, Geotechnical, Soils & Water Supply. Report number 11-169. Geological Survey of Namibia, 2006: http://www.mme.gov.na/gsn/geophysicsdiv.htm. Kolosa, M. (2012) Investigation of salt leach potential of Tutuka dry ash dump. MSc in progress. University of the Western Cape. Bellville MME, (2010). Strategic Environmental Assessment for the central Namib Uranium Rush. Ministry of Mines and Energy, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia. National Water Act (South Africa), Regulation 77: Government Gazette No. 32935, 12 February 2010. Nel, J.M., et al, (2009). Comparison between the Geohydrological properties of wet and dry ash disposal sites, WOCA International Conference. Nel, J.S. Dustay, I. Mucingami, A. October, L. Dlamini (UWC), (2010). Towards the Development of Sustainable Salt Sinks: Fundamental Studies on the Co-Disposal of Brines within Inland Ash Dams and Dumps Phase II. Schulze R.E. (Editor) (2005). Climate Change and Water Resources in Southern Africa: Studies on Scenarios, Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation. WRC report 1430/1/05. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 61
Aurecon
Turpie J, Midgley G, Brown C, Barnes J, Tarr J, Tarr P, Pallett J and Desmet P (2010). Climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessment for Namibias biodi versity and protected areas system. Compiled by SAIEA, Anchor Consulting and NNF, for Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Soil Classification Working Group, (1991). Soil classification. A taxonomic system for South Africa. Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria. Wolfe WE, Butalia TS, Walker H and Mitsch W (2004). Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology ByProducts in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners Phase II Report. The Ohio State University.
The data sources included the following: 1:500 000 Hydrogeological Map of Namibia; Atlas of Namibia Project (2002) Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Geological Survey Map of Namibia (2214 & 2314); Geohydrology Division of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry as well as from other sources (GROWAS).
11-169
26 April 2012
Page 62

Nam Power

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nam Power

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

63 Wessel Road Rivonia 2128 PO Box 2597 Rivonia 2128 South Africa Telephone: +27 (0)11 803 5726

Facsimile: +27 (0)11 803 5745 Web: www.gcs-sa.biz

Version FINAL June 2012 Aurecon GCS Project Number: 11-169

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

Soils 1 Removal of soil Medium (-) No mitigation measures applicable

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

BASELINE INFORMATION FOR EAST OF ARANDIS SITE

The site area slopes in a south westerly direction.

The area is largely undisturbed and there is no active agriculture occurring.

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

Figure 2: Tectonostratigraphic Map of Namibia (source: Geological Survey of Namibia)

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

Climate change and variability in Namibia

More specific implications for this project include:

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

Groundwater Data for the Area

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

Figure 3: Existing Boreholes Locality Map (G. Christalis, 2012)

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

Table 3: Groundwater Chemistry (G. Christalis, 2012)

Calcium Magnesium Sodium

2096 405 2040

1661 295 1844

2419 761 3350

Potassium Silicate Sulphate Nitrate as N Fluoride Total alkalinity

132 49 1305 134 2.3 110

120 53 1136 126 2.4 155

1305 134 2.3 -

1112 115 2.3 -

116 44 1112 115 2.3 140

185 17 2060 178 2 145

180 25 1820 165 2 160

110 17 2200 114 1.7 227

1655 114 2.3 -

295 36 1655 114 2.3 142

1200 13 5800 461 3 90

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

Consider the following site layout:

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

available to calibrate calculations methods. A description is provided below of the methods

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

NamPower Coal Fired-Power Station Groundwater Specialist Study

100 0.639 48.9