"RECORDS OF MEETINGS HELD DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS"
RECORDS OF MEETINGS HELD DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS OF THE SCOPING PHASE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL- FIRED POWER STATION AT WALVIS BAY 4 JUNE 2008 – 15 JULY 2008 *Responses to questions that were not answered at the time of any of the meetings are provided in the Stakeholder Issue Sheets Record of a meeting held between Marie Hoadley and Brett Lawson (Ninham Shand) and R Visagie and T Eiman of Namport in Walvis Bay on 20 May 2008. NS There are two things we would like to talk to you about. The first is the coal-fired power station, nominally 400MW with a possible expansion to 80MW. We should emphasise that it is early days in process in that we do not have a comprehensive set of technical information because it is an Independent Power Producer (IPP) approach. NamPower needs to consider a range of bids. Ninham Shand has been appointed the lead consultant in the process to apply for permitting, and the company has sound experience in the energy sector. Marie Hoadley is running the public consultation process and also the social impact assessment. We have a strong component on marine ecology, wetlands, air quality and all the necessary disciplines for this kind of project. We this week ran the specialist scoping workshop where everyone the table and shared with them the information as we have it now. With reference to the IPPs, the iterations that have to be gone through mean that we are having difficulty getting a proper technical description. Our approach for the moment is to approach things from something of a generic standard, to compile a set of generic standards for the various aspects. We are working to an incredibly tight time line and hoping to complete the ESIA within six months. All are committed to the time scale. RV Raymond – The availability of land is a big hiccup. There is a tremendous need for land, and we have now put a moratorium on leasing land. NS A sub-component of this project is another process which has already progressed. This is the black start facility. What NamPower had in mind was looking at a priority project at Paratus, i.e. to supply emergency generation in a very short time. The thinking was not to go through an entire EIA process. We had a meeting with MET, and they will consider an exemption, but would require a scoping report. We had already agreed with NamPower to look at the two most critical impacts, i.e. air quality and noise. We think that a strong case can be made for not running a full EIA. (NS gave description of the site, it’s history of use, the fact that it is a brown fields site) The zoning is right, it is in an industrial precinct, and it would be appropriate usage. We do need to determine whether there will be cumulative impact. RV Are you looking at baseline conditions before proceeding? NS Yes. We are looking at 50MW multi-fuelled unit. The technology is so much better compared to the old Paratus, all designed to reach World Bank standards. We also use the World Bank Pollution Prevention Guideline for Energy Projects. This would ultimately serve as a black start for the big power station. These projects must be seen against the significant projected growth for this area. RV What is the standpoint of the municipality? NS They are fine with it and have some questions about public health. RV At the moment Namport will need 6 MW for extension, but probably more. NS What is happening with Ruacana? RV That might take a back seat now with the power station. NS The information is that there is a need for base load, not just regionally but nationally. With the 50MW, they are also looking at peaking, so they are looking at another 100MW. It is not sure where this would be situated. There is also a development looking at slop oil. RV If you look at the quantity of slop, you need to query whether there is sufficient oil to generate a significant amount of energy. This project has been proposed before, and abandoned when the number crunching started, because it did not appear economically feasible. NS We know that there are developments with regard to energy production out there, moving towards some sort of feasibility, not just from the point of view of energy supply and demand but also from a spatial planning aspect. Rössing is looking at co-generating and possibly Langer Heinrich as well. RV We are well aware of these issues. We have had a number of meetings with NamPower and the municipality. There is uncertainty about where NamPower is going. Given the national need for power, it is felt that they are going too slowly. NS To move onto the next issue - we need alternatives. We are looking at various technical alternatives, such as pulverized coal and its alternatives, but the big issue is the site. We had three sites to start off with. We understand there is to be a new bulk terminal at Site B; the municipality has indicated a preference for Site C. However, three did not present a wide enough spectrum – there was no compromise site, no trade-off. NamPower agreed to the identification of another site, so we looked at the site behind Namcor. RV The Namcor project has not started yet. The whole zoning of the northern area of Walvis Bay will change, Site B needs to be rezoned, heavy industries is moving in and the entrance to Walvis Bay will probably have to be shifted. Site D is notional. We looked at all the sites yesterday. If we look for a compromise Site D notional – looked at all the site yesterday. If we look for a compromise, it should not be close by; it needs to move out away from Narraville, and also so as to ensure that the prevailing winds are not a problem. One of the IPPs has an attachment to Site A. We now have agreement that we will run the four sites through the screening process. In the longer term it might be cheaper to use site C. Often power stations are developed in uninhabited area, then 15 years later they are surrounded by residential area. If there is a spatial planning imperative for Walvis Bay, then we don’t want a power station close to the town, we want to move it away. The four sites will be put through a vigorous methodology, and will include all parameters. Does the array of alternatives make sense to you? Are we missing something? RV Site A will affect the growth of the port. Site B – you need to look at the growth of Langstrand, and with Site D you should bear in mind the long-term development of the town. In MY opinion site C is the best one. The two coastal sites would be environmentally unacceptable. We are having second thoughts about the bulk handling facility, thinking about the long-term strategy of bulk at one particular point. Another idea is to reclaim. . NS Ash disposal is a critical element. There will be large volumes. The worst case scenario is about a 70 hectares site. Sites A, B and D could not accommodate this, site C could. Site C could probably accommodate an ash dump within the proximity of the power station if conventional dry stacking is used. We need to look at alternative uses for ash. We believe there is a cement factory in the harbour. RV Packaging and grinding is done within the port, but processing is done at Otavi. What about Site D for ash? NS Possibly, but the colour of the ash means that it would have to be covered and revegetation is difficult in an arid environment. RV You should speak to Andre Neethling at Ohorongo Cement. They are based at Otavi. His phone number is 0811 22 3739 NS Who would the correct person be to contact with regard to the Walvis Bay Corridor Group, and can you give us a brief rundown on their activities. RV You should speak to Johnny Smith – 0811294168. Basically it is the umbrella body which facilitates the growth of Walvis Bay. Because 50% of imports and exports in and out of Namibia pass through Walvis Bay, we have started the Corridor Group to find safe corridors. Its focus is mainly on rail and road. There are a few other things you should look at. Look at the extraction of seawater, the impact of emissions on vegetation and high voltage lines across residential areas. END MEETING Record of a meeting held in Swakopmund on 20 May 2008 between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and Frikkie Holzhausen, Town Engineer, Swakopmund Municipality. MH Explained the purpose of the meeting, and its limitations in view of the early engagement and the need for further information on the second project before substantive engagement can occur. The Paratus project was discussed, particularly from the point of view of justification to apply for a waiver. FH I would be concerned about air quality and the potential impact on Swakopmund. Possible water pollution is also a problem. Given the direction of the winds, and the off-short currents, Swakopmund is directly in the line of fire. A discussion of the four potential sites ensued. FH There is some infrastructure in the vicinity for the supply of potable water. I am not sure where the airport is getting water from. Last year, in November, I noticed a pipeline being laid next to the tar road to the airport. I’m not sure what the purpose is, but I do know that the airport wants a more dedicated supply. So fresh water could be available. A discussion of the infrastructure led to consideration of traffic and the road behind the dunes. MH It has been suggested that NamPower should force heavy traffic to use the road behind the dunes rather than the coast road, which brings them through Swakopmund. GH We spoke to Uli Trumper of the Roads Authority about this issue last year, but he indicated that you cannot force people to use an untarred road. END MEETING 65 York Street, George, 6529 Tel: +27 44 874 2165 P O Box 509, George, 6530 Fax: +27 44 873 5843 South Africa Website: www.shands.co.za 4 June 2008 Our ref: 402633/8.1078 Permanent Secretary Ministry of Mines and Energy 1 Aviation Road Windhoek NAMIBIA For attention: Mr K Kavetuna, Acting Deputy Director: Energy (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) Dear Mr Kavetuna ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN WALVIS BAY Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated. As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following elements: 1. A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and from the plant; 2. A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and 3. A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site. We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008. We will be providing your Directorate with copies of these documents at those times, to enable you to submit comments as appropriate. With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we have been informed by MET that our original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted to MET and a copy provided to your Directorate by 7 July 2008. A Background Information Document dealing with this proposal has been provided to you. We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification to your Directorate of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary. We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully NINHAM SHAND Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA [Cert] Associate Environmental Practitioner Cc: Mr J Iita, Permanent Secretary, MME (email: email@example.com) Mr D Andreas, MME (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) Mr N Hipangelwa, MME (email: email@example.com) 65 York Street, George, 6529 Tel: +27 44 874 2165 P O Box 509, George, 6530 Fax: +27 44 873 5843 South Africa Website: www.shands.co.za 4 June 2008 Our ref: 402633/8.1077 Head: Environmental Impact Assessment Unit Directorate: Environmental Affairs Ministry of Environment and Tourism Private Bag 13346 Windhoek NAMIBIA For attention: Mr T Nghitila (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) Dear Mr Nghitila ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN WALVIS BAY Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated. As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following elements: 1. A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and from the plant; 2. A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and 3. A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site. We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to your Directorate by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008. Although the Environmental Management Act (No. 7 of 2007) has been gazetted, we understand that enabling legislation has yet to follow and we will thus undertake the ESEIA according to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Policy of 1994. However, the standards and procedures applied by us will comply with global best practice, as well as NamPower’s own internal standards, and will thus result in a robust product of international standard. With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we understood from you at the meeting on 27 May 2008 that our original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted to your Directorate by 7 July 2008 and we appreciate the guidance you have provided on this matter. We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification and registration to your Directorate of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary. We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully NINHAM SHAND Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA [Cert] Associate Environmental Practitioner Cc: Dr F Sikabongo, MET: DEA (email: email@example.com) 65 York Street, George, 6529 Tel: +27 44 874 2165 P O Box 509, George, 6530 Fax: +27 44 873 5843 South Africa Website: www.shands.co.za 4 June 2008 Our ref: 402633/8.107 Senior Manager: Planning and Investigations NamWater Private Bag 13389 Windhoek NAMIBIA For attention: Mr M Harris (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) Dear Mr Harris ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN WALVIS BAY Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated. As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following elements: 1. A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and from the plant; 2. A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and 3. A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site. We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008. We will be providing NamWater with copies of these documents at those times, to enable you to submit comments as appropriate. With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we have been informed by MET that our original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted to MET and a copy provided to NamWater by 7 July 2008. A Background Information Document dealing with this proposal has been provided to you. We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification to NamWater of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary. The issues you raised in the meeting, namely that you would require information on water demand and that pollution and resource integration should be properly dealt with, have been noted and will be addressed as the process unfolds. We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully NINHAM SHAND Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA [Cert] Associate Environmental Practitioner Cc: Mr N du Plessis, Environmental Manager, NamWater (email: email@example.com) ) 65 York Street, George, 6529 Tel: +27 44 874 2165 P O Box 509, George, 6530 Fax: +27 44 873 5843 South Africa Website: www.shands.co.za 4 June 2008 Our ref: 402633/8.1080 Department of Water Affairs Ministry of Agriculture, Water Affairs and Forestry Luther Street Windhoek NAMIBIA For attention: Ms Grazy Tshipo (email : firstname.lastname@example.org) Dear Ms Tshipo ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN WALVIS BAY Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated. As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following elements: 1. A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and from the plant; 2. A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and 3. A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site. We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008. We will be providing the Department of Water Affairs with copies of the documents at those times, to enable you to submit comments as appropriate. With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we have been informed by MET that our original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted to MET and a copy provided to the Department of Water Affairs by 7 July 2008. A Background Information Document dealing with this proposal has been provided to you. We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification to the Department of Water Affairs of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary. The issues you raised in the meeting, namely the permitting requirements for seawater abstraction and disposal, and the implications for water resources of disposing of ash, have been noted and will be addressed as the process unfolds. We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully NINHAM SHAND Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA[Cert] Associate Environmental Practitioner Cc: Dr S de Wet, MAWF (email : email@example.com) Ms L Namene, MAWF (firstname.lastname@example.org) Mr C Munikasu, MAWF (email : email@example.com) Mr G Christelis, MAWF (email : firstname.lastname@example.org) Record of a meeting held between Brett Lawson and Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand) and Merylin Leippert of Coastal Tourist Association of Namibia on 23 May 2008 in Walvis Bay. NS Introduced the project and functions of the team members. At this stage the consulting team was making early contact, as not sufficient detail is available yet for more in-depth discussion. NamPower is the proponent, and the role that the consulting team plays is independent of the proponent. With regard to the Paratus project, This is not a high-profile project, but it is a priority one and the exercise that we have gone through in considering an exemption is a defensible on. We are looking in particular at air quality and noise, which means that we will have hard scientific facts to work on, which is a bit more than is normal in an exemption application. For the priority project, Paratus has been there for a long time, there was a power station on the site and the infrastructure is all there. We are not looking at undisturbed land. ML CTAN is not in favour of the waiver. People who do not live here don’t know enough – They don’t know the winds and the changing climate we are experiencing. NS Experts work on the modelling, and they do it scientifically, based on long-term weather information. This information is obtained from such sources as the municipality and the airport, and long-term averages are used. ML We will never agree to an exemption, we want an EIA. We will not agree to a waiver. Why must it be a coal-fired power station? NS Maybe some clarification is needed. We are not looking at an exemption for the new coal-fired power station. That will be subject to the full ESIA process. We are looking at an exemption for the upgrading of the Paratus facility. ML In that case, I am talking about the wrong thing, but I must point out that your information document does not make this clear. It will cause confusion. You should also remember that most people don’t read technical documents like this, they want to read something they understand immediately. NS That is a good point, and taken. (Discussion of the possible sites for the coal- fired power station). ML Are you aware of the fact that the new industrial area will be behind Dune 7? Why not put it there? NS Yes, we are aware of that. What about tourism and the use of the area for recreation? ML There is enough space to give people an alternative. There are three dunes that can be used. NS How long has that area been used for recreation? ML About 25 years, and it will be easy to relocate the recreation area. ML For the option in the harbour, do you know that a waterfront is planned, and putting up a big power station will interfere with this development? The first site is exactly where they waterfront is supposed to be. Ms Asino at the municipality will know about it. NS No, this is information we did not have, and we will follow up at a meeting with the Town Council. ML Why are we not getting the extra power from Ruacana and Ipupa? It is not correct to say that there is no water. In the last three years we have seen a major change in rainfall, and we now have water coming into the Kunene. The problem is that Namwater does not do the maintenance, it does not service the infrastructure. It makes more sense to service what you have and use it. Will the upgrade at Paratus definitely be diesel? NS Multi-fuel, no coal. They can use a variety of fuels, all cleaner than coal, and don’t forget that this is new technology, very different from the old power station. A whole variety of types of technology is now available for use. The appropriate technology to reduce the emissions to accepted international standards will be used. There are also efficient ways of controlling noise. ML Noise was not ever really a problem. Air quality was. If we have wet weather we have inversion. What is your honest opinion about this? It is comparable to uranium mining? Will this not open a can of worms for the people who don’t have enough money to do a full EIA, and give them an opportunity to also apply for an exemption? NS The fact that NamPower has asked to do this on a previously used area and make sure of air quality and noise justifies the exemption process. The new uranium mines will not be commencing in the same environment, with the same story to tell. They will not be in a position to apply for an exemption. NamPower consulted with Peter Tarr about this, and from a procedural point of view the exemption application is justified. ML You must talk to Keith Wearne of CETN and Rod Braby of NACOMA NS We are seeing them next week. We think it is necessary to convene a focus group meeting of the people involved in tourism. Will you be able to assist with this, and also with some baseline information on tourism, such as the number of tourists that visit the area and the contribution to the local economy? ML Yes, I can help with all that. To help co-ordinate the meeting, you should speak to NACOMA, who have a lot of experience in this regard. I can help with a venue here at Langstrand. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Brett Lawson and Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand) and D Dreyer, D Uushona, K Asino, Olavi and Indileni Lungameni held on 23 May 2008 At Walvis Bay NS Expressed the thanks of the NS team for the time taken to have the meeting. A brief discussion of Paratus, and the justification for the application for exemption ensued. The issue of water does need a bit more attention, but this is more a technical issue. Paratus has a long history. NamPower is looking at coal-fired power station. The size depends on the capacity of the actual units, possibly ultimately 800 MW. The choice by NamPower to go for coal-fired should be seen against the need for base load in Namibia, i.e. the electricity that is needed 24 hours a day. This is without going into the regional energy imperatives. Gas fired power stations and the Paratus, priority project are used more for peak periods. Coal is still very appealing for base load generation. China is building the equivalent of the entire capacity of Eskom every year, and 90% of it is coal. Coal is problematic because it does have local air quality issues, and it is a contributor to global warming. We must recognise that, but we are appointed to look at a project. We need to look at a whole range of things... the proximity of the port for importing coal, cooling by seawater, strategic issues such as those. Seawater can be used for primary cooling, but we still need fresh water for the boilers. The process that we are embarking on will include a wide variety of specialist inputs, noise, air, archaeology, ecology, marine ecology, visual, etc. This is a good point to talk about the site alternatives. An ESIA always has to have alternatives, whether site or technologies. One of the first things that we have to do is screen the sites. In the port, adjacent to the coal terminal, a bit on the small side, but it can do. There are a number of issues: proximity to residential areas, ash to be disposed of, there is no space in the harbour. The advantages are the proximity to the harbour and the sea. We have heard that there are plans for a waterfront development, and that this site would affect that development. TCWB The Council and Namport are in a joint venture to develop the marina, located between the yacht club and the Pelican Bay Hotel. Ms Asino will send a pdf of the waterfront. If this site is chosen, it would interfere with the waterfront development. NS North - a bit beyond and adjacent to Independence Beach. The advantages are that it is close to the harbour and to the shore line. On the other hand, this is a recreation area for people of Walvis Bay, particular for those from Kuisebmond. TCWB There are plans to reinstate the old Walvis Bay road. The existing road will not be decommissioned; it is envisaged as a tourist road. We will then have three entry points to Walvis Bay. A tourist road is envisaged, hence the power station will have a critical visual impact into the town from the north (Swakopmund). At the moment town planning is concentrating on development on the western side, but we do not have enough space, so we may move towards the dunes. NS If the road is emphasised as a tourist road, there might be a visual impact. In the heavy industrial zone behind Dune 7 – from an engineering point of view the fact that NamPower would have to transport coal and water and then return the seawater would make it quite an expensive site, but we need to think long-term and consider the longer term benefits for sustainable development. A strong case could be made for it. TCWB Site 3 (behind Dune 7) is already earmarked for heavy Industrial activities such as power stations. DU Another site was required as the first three were somewhat limited. There appears to be development by Namcor behind the weighbridge, the area that is being considered for light industrial. A power station is not light industrial, but the site does have something going for it, although Narraville is a constraint. With the prevailing southerly winds, the firm base of the construction could limit sand movement, and this could be to the benefit of the community. No 4 has no sensitive environmental issues. TCWB Looking at No. 4 from a technical and town planning point of view, we don’t want heavy industrial development there. With regard to numbers 1 and 2, there are land-use conflicts. No 3 is economically difficult for any developer to think of, but we do need to think long-term. The study must establish economic viability, the airport, the railway, etc. We need to start encouraging developers to go to Site 3. We want wood carvers, welders, etc. We do not want to bring in heavy industries. NS With regard to costs, engineering costs are one thing, human costs another. We need to include the human element as a cost. Eskom doesn’t include the impact on society of burning dirty coal, so they can claim that they produce very cheaply. We have a couple of techniques we can use for screening during the site selection. TCWB Namport is there for business, and it is complaining about not having enough space, yet it selling property in the port, and applying for leases in other areas where people live. The local authority is at an advanced stage with the planning of the marina, but you should look at cumulative impacts. Narraville will be affected by the activities going on. Site 1 in not an industrial area but zoned as Railway and Harbour, i.e., the issue of loading/off loading of goods, storing of goods etc. are within the activities of a harbour, but when it comes to processing, it is not a processing/industrial area. NS All we are saying is that, from a good practice point of view, we felt that an additional site should be looked at. If there are any other sites you can suggest, we would be happy to consider them. The issue of assessing alternative sites is normal. TCWB If we have to identify another site in the place of your 4, would it work? NS It would have to be done very quickly. We have to consider equity in the views of other stakeholders. We have to take substantive issues on board, and to say we are not taking some issues on board because they are not going to help to process. We can’t pre-empt anything, and we have to rely on our ability to remain independent. As the municipality, you have a statutory obligation. If you have other plans for any of the sites, strategic and in place beforehand, that would be very important input. TCWB From our professional judgement, we would not recommend anything but 3 from the environmental and town planning perspective. We will fully support 3. Look at the size of the site, there is plenty of room. The developers need to be flexible on the economics, and we should be very strict, right from the beginning. NS In the end, we must be able to justify our choice of site. Opinions on the best site will differ, but we must look at the feasibility of each site. It does not make sense to look at sites that are not feasible. The reality is that it is us sitting around this table, and will have opposing views. We have to acknowledge that, and the degree of feasibility in each. We need to be able to justify the end decision. GENERAL DISCUSSION AROUND ALTERNATIVE SITES AND CURRENT AND PLANNED LAND-USE. NS This has been a preliminary discussion, to set the scene. Once we are further into the project, and have more substantive information, we will need to meet with you again. It is important that we are in a position that we know what the Walvis Bay Town Council is planning, what its development plans are. Would it be possible for us to access all relevant and accessible documents? TCWB Yes, Gert Kruger will be able to give you these documents. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and Rod Braby and Timo Mufeti of NACOMA on 27 May 2008 in Swakopmund MH Explained the purpose of the meeting. Discussed the Paratus upgrade with regard to the application for exemption. RB Namibian people need to know what is going on. We have received emails trying to raise concern. It would be a bad precedent to set, especially so shortly after the Environmental Management Act has been passed. Although what you say with regard to the need for more energy and the brown fields nature of the development has some truth in it, I think that the people deserve to get an EIA TM We deserve to know what is going on, we don’t want to be surprised. There is a need for more basic and detailed information. RB How on earth can Namibia go for coal-fired power station? The public is confused on that one? TM If I was a municipality, I would need all the facts before I would say okay. A discussion of the sites for the coal-fired power station ensued. RB I tend to think of A and C. A is already an industrialized area and C has a lot going for it as it is out of town and not near a community. A discussion took place about tourism, the role players and the need to bring them on board actively in the process. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager, and Hon. SS Nuuyoma, Governor of the Erongo Regional Council on 27 May 2008 in Swakopmund. MH Explained the purpose of the visit: the Paratus Project and the waiver process that was under way. It was early days to talk in depth about the proposed coal- fired power station, but the sites that were being considered were available for discussion and questions that could not be answered immediately would be responded to at a later period. This was really a courtesy call to explain what the consulting team was going to be embarking on. SSN I am concerned about the process of a waiver. What if people come to us afterwards and ask us why we didn’t look after them, why we allowed this to go through? What if the uranium mines say they have no money to do an EIA, and then they also get a waiver? MH Explained the justification for the waiver. As one of the bases for applying for a waiver is the fact that it is a brown fields development, it is not possible that a uranium mine will have the same grounds for applying for a waiver. Also, the two main concerns of stakeholders, air quality and noise, were being addressed by specialist researchers. SSN With regard to Site A, you must remember that there is a piece of land in the harbour which has been allocated to Botswana. MH Yes, we are aware of that. SSN Apart from that I cannot make any comment at the moment. You need to make arrangements to do a presentation at a meeting of the ERC Management Committee when everyone will be there and we can discuss the matter fully. MH Yes, I have set the arrangements for that in motion. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and G Shitaleni, Mayor, Swakopmund Municipality, E Demasius, CEO Swakopmund Municipality and J Ngolombe, member of the Management Board, Swakopmund Municipality held on 27 May 2008 in Swakopmund MH Introduced the purpose of the meeting, which was to introduce the two projects and get an early idea of I&AP concerns. JN I have a problem with the idea of a waiver. We need a full EIA. GS I agree. Does it not warrant a full EIA? MH Explained the basis for a waiver application: a brown field site that had previously been used for power generation, the immediate need for additional power generation, the existence of infrastructure and the identification of two critical issues of noise and smell, which goes somewhat further than a waiver usually does. ED Swakopmund is also affected, we hear Paratus running, and we can smell the fishmeal factory, so we share the concerns that you have identified. But there is another concern – Paratus is a very old power plant. The extension, i.e. the new facility will be of the latest technology. But what about the old one? How is that going to be fixed, how will the noise and emissions be addressed? The old one must be upgraded. Somehow we must force additionally generated traffic to go behind the dunes. The traffic impact on Swakopmund will be huge. The road along the coast is already the most dangerous stretch of road in Namibia. MH Our brief is to assess the impacts of the new facility. If there were cumulative impacts from the new and the old facility, then it becomes something that we would address. Your comments about the traffic have been noted, and we will respond. ED With the wind direction, Site B puts Swakopmund directly in line for air pollution. At site D, you need to be careful, those dunes are mobile. Site C is the best in terms of wind regime, traffic will bypass the town, it is out of town and the east wind may affect Walvis Bay slightly. The north and south-west winds will have no effect. MH There are engineering costs associated with water and coal transport at Site C which will be significant. ED They will operate 24 hours a day, and they can use a conveyer system to pump coal, as well as water, up during the down times, such as at night. JN We would need you to do a presentation to the Management Board, where everyone can be present to give their input, and by which time you will also have more information. MH We would be very pleased to have such an opportunity. I will set the preparations in motion. ED Rössing is also talking of having a sulphur storage facility behind the dunes. They are toying with the idea of a stand-by electricity plant, possible diesel run. You can confirm this with the Chamber of Mines. This will be an even bigger argument for choosing site C. After a further discussion about other developments in the region, the meeting ended. Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and Dr Wotan Swiegers, Chamber of Mines of Namibia, held on 27 May 2008 in Swakopmund MH Explained the purpose of the meeting, and its limitations in view of the early engagement and the need for further information on the second project before substantive engagement can occur. The Paratus project was discussed, particularly from the point of view of justification to apply for a waiver. WS I am not at all in favour of a waiver, the principle is wrong, and it will set a precedent. Circumstances are evolving which will make it quite possible that others will apply for waivers and they will have a precedent to call on. The mining sector has decided to do the right thing, that all companies must do a sound EIA. MH You are not the first I&AP to raise this issue. The grounds for applying for a waiver are defensible, given that it is a brown fields project and that it is aimed at relieving to some extent the energy needs in Namibia, and in the short term. We have also gone somewhat further than the normal application for waiver in identifying the issues of concern – these are noise and air quality – and appointing specialists to investigate these issues. The reports will be to the standard required by a full EIA. Nevertheless, your concern is noted. WS Secondly, the upgrade, is it cleaner technology? MH Yes, it certainly is, both with regard to noise and air quality. The facility will be a multi-fuel one, and a number of fuels, cleaner than oil, can be used. The same applies to noise reduction – there are a variety of technologies available. WS Everyone recognises the need for power and this might turn the tide in your favour with regard to applying for a waiver. Still, an extra 50 MW falls far short of what we need. MH The Paratus upgrade is not intended to be a permanent or final solution, but a boost for energy supply which can be achieved quickly and without significant impacts. A discussion of the various sites for the coal-fired power station ensued. Constraints and opportunities were discussed. WS There is definitely room on Site A, but not for an 800 MW station. Site B is situated on prime land. The one thing that could affect Swakopmund is the air quality standards. We have commissioned a report looking at a regional air dispersal model. Airshed is doing it, they are also assisting Valencia. Your specialists should link up with them, especially as you are also using Airshed. MH We have heard talk of the mines getting together and putting up their own power station. Can you tell me more about this? WS There is no truth in this story. The mines would consider an on-site backup facility, and we also have companies like Rössing looking at co-generation from the acid plants. There are further dimensions to the whole resource cycle – without water, some mines won’t come on line, but if we don’t have power, we have no water. We need desalination. If we keep on exploiting our aquifers as we are currently doing, we could be faced with the ingress of seawater into the reservoirs. MH What is the best way to approach the mining companies about the new power station? Would it be a good idea to organise a focus group meeting? WS The best way to go about it would be to arrange a meeting with Mike Leech. He is Chairman of the Chamber’s power committee, and can speak for all the mining companies. It would also be a good idea to arrange an invitation for him to attend the presentation you will be giving to the ERC. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Brett Lawson and Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand) and Keith Wearne, Coastal and Environmental Trust of Namibia in Walvis Bay on 28 May 2008. NS Explained the purpose of the meeting and described the power station project. The project is an Independent Power Producers project. NamPower won’t build it and possibly they won’t run it. Part of the rationale behind choosing Walvis Bay as a site for the power station is because coal can be imported relatively cheaply. Pulverized fuel would be used, so there would be a mill. The coal is fed into a pressurised combustion chamber. Seawater cooling would probably be used, but would have to be demineralised. There are a variety of alternative technologies in terms of cooling – wet cooling has high water demand, these days dry cooling is pretty much the norm. Essentially it is a closed system. Cooling and water requirements are obviously issues. As far as pollutants are concerned, SOx, NOx and particulates from the fly ash are the three most important. With regard to particulates, when the coal is combusted heavy ash falls through the bottom of the boiler, and that is easy to manage from a human health point of view. Fly ash is a different thing, but there are different technologies, such as bag filters, to deal with it. The big one is sulphur but there is technology available – flue gas desulphurization is expensive but pretty much the norm. NOx are not as much of a problem, this can be controlled by low-NOx burners. . With these very pollutants, our specialists do detailed modelling of the plume and work to World Bank standards. There are issues around the disposal of ash, and we will need to look at re-use. There is a proposal for a cement plant in Karibib, we can look at that. We have a wide array of specialists who will do in-depth studies of aspects such as air quality, groundwater, wetlands, socio-economic and so forth. A wide variety of appropriate disciplines will be covered. Namibia’s peak demand exceeded 400MW last week. Let us discuss alternate sites before strategic issues. When NamPower put the tender for the EIA out, they were looking at three sites. One is the site in the harbour, behind the present coal-handling terminal. It is small but could probably accommodate a plant. Obviously there are some serious environmental constraints there, but from an engineering cost point of view it has benefits: proximity to the harbour as far as coal is concerned and also for seawater abstraction. The second site is north of Independence Beach beyond the naval base. The Municipality has a draft structure plan and there could land use issues, but possible advantages from a proposed bulk cargo handling facility, Also, in view of proximity to the coast, from an aesthetic point of view there will be visual impact. The third site is in a heavy industrial zone behind Dune 7. KW That site has a lot going for it. There is water, a railway, a road, and the smoke stack will not interfere with the town residents. Also, there is recycled water available. NS In terms of human health, the site has a lot going for it, and if it is far enough removed from the dune recreation site, any impacts can be mitigated. We would need to look at water volumes and consider whether it makes sense to use seawater, and this will be done in considerable detail. KW I have been told by an expert that disposal of water into the sea will raise the sea temperature by 10 degrees. NS Our marine studies are being done by experts, and this aspect will certainly receive serious attention. From an engineering cost point of view, site C will be expensive. KW The public can’t understand why we are going to have a coal-fired power station. We have plenty of sun and also wind power. What about carbon emissions? NS What NamPower is looking at is base load; the technology is such at the moment that the renewable energy sources cannot provide base load. The legislation that covers EIA is aimed at project level, but this touches on larger national/regional issues, so to find a defensible point of departure, we need NamPower to explain why coal. Note that coal is cheap to bring in and the Kudu Gas project is on hold. KW What about uranium? NS There are economies of scale involved. As independent practitioners we are not able to influence that kind of decision making. I would like to discuss the issue of the waiver. Any power station requires electricity to run. If it is off, it requires electricity for start-up. So it has to have a black start facility, and this is also a necessity for situations where an entire network might be out and need to start from cold. NamPower is looking at a small 50MW black start facility but because of the demand there is a short-term and more immediate need for more electricity. We have been asked to look at a black start facility, and the thought is to put in a 50MW multi-fuelled plant at Paratus. Years ago a small gas turbine was there, and was removed. Now the intention is to put the priority project on the same site, which was a generating facility in the past, and this can tie into the whole industrial zone. KW What about emissions? There should be some sort of EIA. NS We are looking at the critical issues – air quality and noise were identified as such - and we are doing specialist studies on those two. KW What the specialists should do should be the subject of a public meeting, and the people need to be told what the noise and emission levels will be. NS The technology is off the shelf kind of stuff, these units have all been designed to operate within World Health Organisation standards. We had a meeting with MET /DEA yesterday and Mr Ngithila stated that for them to issue a waiver there should be a Scoping Report. We will need to go back to NamPower which comes back to what I was saying, that NamPower can’t just have it signed off and not have it demonstrated scientifically that the impacts don’t exceed human health parameters. We have done what is expected of environmental practitioners. If this becomes a scoping issue, we will communicate with all the people that we have communicated with up to now. KW Why did you hold the meeting in Kuisebmond? People don’t want to go there, and the community is not really interested. NS It is precisely because Paratus is situated so close to the Kuisebmond community that we chose a venue there. Can we get back to a discussion of the sites for the big power station? We need to have a place to dispose of the ash. Typically ash dumps are placed on prepared surfaces, the ash is dry stacked and revegetated. This poses a challenge in an arid environment – the issue is on the table. Besides the biophysical implications, there are engineering implications in that the ash dump may need to be some distance from the site. KW With regard to the site on the docks, they have a variety of industries, where are they going to find space? And another thing, it is right on top of a residential area and the lagoon is right next to it. At Independence Beach there is no railway line and the north wind blows straight into Kuisebmond. Behind the dunes is the ideal site. NS We were uncomfortable with just those three alternatives and we recommended to NamPower that they allow us to look at an additional site alternative. The problem was that we needed something in between the two coastal sites and one inland site, and we identified a site behind the weighbridge. KW That is in town, I am not in favour of that. Also, it is next to Narraville. NS It is a compromise site, but we need to have it on the table so that we have a robust outcome in the final selection. With regard to other sources of energy, beside the renewable ones, has anyone come up with anything else? KW None of us are specialists, we are looking at people’s health, and we can’t really get into technical stuff. We are worried about the waste from using uranium. NS At one of our meetings, somebody mentioned a wind power pilot project. What has happened to that? KW It was installed, but about three weeks later some of the equipment was stolen, and nothing further has happened. NS Discussed the proposal for a focus group meeting of concerned environmentalists and tourist sector representatives. KW You should contact Mike Lloyd. He is secretary of the Marine Tourist Association, and an employee of Mola Mola. His email address is M.email@example.com END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and L Garoeb, Erongo Regional Council on 16 June 2008 in Swakopmund. MH Introduced the project briefly, and explained the purpose of the visit which was to gather baseline information on the state of the region and to get an early indication of issues and potential impacts. Has NDP3 been finalised, and has the RDP been drawn up? Does the ERC have a regional strategy plan? LG In terms of technical issues, NDP3 has been drafted. The regional councils have made their inputs, but the Plan still has to be launched. It is an issue of funding. We have a regional strategy plan, and have already held a stakeholder’s conference. Our strategic plan has not been operationalized. It is currently with the office of the Prime Minister. MH How do you view the development of the power station in view of the development in the region? LG It is welcome with regard to sustainable development, income generation and employment creation. While a power station is welcome, the question of what kind of power station is a different issue. We need to look at the various pros and cons. Where is the coal going to come from? Are we sure of a continuous and sustainable supply of good quality coal. We need a reliable supply of electricity, but we need it to be affordable. If you import coal at a high price, what will the eventual impact on the consumer be in terms of price? Other possibilities are being looked at, wind and wave and solar. Wind and sun are free, accessible and sustainable. Is coal the appropriate technology for a power station? MH NamPower is looking for a source of coal that is accessible, affordable and reliable. South Africa, Botswana and Indonesia are being looked at, but the source of the coal is not really part of the ESIA, so I don’t have much information on that. Do you think that if a new power station is erected, underdeveloped communities such as the Spitzkoppe and the Topnaars will be electricity? LG The question is one of affordability. Of late that community has been looking at solar energy projects. Many communities can get electricity under rural electrification, but the issue is affordability which means accessibility. MH MY impression is that the Spitzkoppe community is a poor one and would probably struggle to pay for power. LG In depends on what you mean by poor, how you define it. In Namibia, if people spend more than 60% of their household income on consumables, they are defined as poor. We have projects going on there, such as the small-scale mining project. The Electricity Control Board will be in charge and many people are concerned about affordability. We can put up as many power stations as we want, if people can’t afford it, it is no good. If we target the rural poor, we need to look at affordability. For Walvis Bay it would be very good in terms of job creation and revenue to the local authority. MH What about inward migration and all its attendant problems? There are a number of large-scale developments which will attract job-seekers. LG As RC we are aware of all the developments. Unfortunately many of these developments have a major impact on towns, and as RC we can only assist the towns with advice. This is a local authority issue. It does put a strain on municipalities. MH Do you know what the current population of Erongo is? LG According to the Census in 2001 it was107 000, but it must have increased much by now. If we could get every job-seeker who comes in to register, we would have a much better idea. MH Do you know what the current rate of urbanisation is? LG No, for that you can go to the local office of the NPC. Also for current unemployment figures and literacy rates. MH Do you have a sufficient statistical database for development planning? LG Planning is difficult with the fluidity and mobility of the population in the region. We do not have an adequate statistical database. MH The ERC is bidding for additional resources directly from donors such as the European Union to augment its resource base and thereby expand investment in social development activities of the region. The Council is eager to forge public/private partnerships in this regard. Have you been successful in getting outside funding? LG Yes, we were successful. We got funding for assistance to the small scale miners and the oyster projects. MH Can you comment on the following, which have been mentioned as constraints on the ability of the ERC to carry out its functions? It has to carry out these functions in the face of some severe constraints, which include: Limited water supply LG In the region we concentrate very much on rural areas, that is our direct responsibility and the situation changes, depending on whether we have a drought or not. MH The limited institutional capacity of the Erongo Regional Council and small local authorities in the region due to a lack of funds, skills, infrastructure and co- ordination: this places a serious constraint on the Regional Development Plan and the effective decentralisation of powers and responsibilities by central government. LG These are problems experienced by every regional council in the country, they are not problems n Erongo only. MH Limited capacity of vocational training centres and a negative perception of vocational training? LG No, we are not short of vocational training centres. We have NIMT and some training in the fishing industry. MH What are the constraints on the ERC? LG Funds. We can buy expertise, if it was not that money goes out of the region instead of to local communities. We are regarded as one of the best regions, a “blue chip” region, but building houses and infrastructure, that is where it counts if you don’t have the money. All revenue goes to central government, and what we get depends on the Ministry of Finance. We put in our budget, the Ministry finally decides. We have equity funds, if you don’t get sufficient funds and you have an extra developmental issue, you can apply for extra funds. MH Does the RC still get 5% from local authorities? LG Yes, of the local authority’s received rates and taxes. This is where the power station could benefit the ERC, because our revenue increases as a result of more houses being built for workers and more people having to pay rates and taxes. MH If we look at the ERC as a major role player in the development of Erongo, would you describe the following as such? Walvis Bay Corridor Group? LG – yes, it will benefit the region if it generates income for the region. Namport? LG Major. Minerals sector? Yes, they provide employment and also contribute to health and education. NIMT? Yes, for the education sector. Our schooling is in a critical state. We have no room in the schools, classrooms keep getting added, but they can’t cope. END MEETING Record Of A Focus Group Meeting Between the Management Committee of the Town Council Of Walvis Bay and Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) Walvis Bay, 17 June 2007 17 JUNE 2007 PARTICIPANT/ QUESTIONS ANSWERS COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS FOCUS GROUP WALVIS BAY Please elaborate Ash disposal is still Clinker ash is currently used MUNICIPALITY on Ash Disposal, under consideration to stabilize the dunes – hence (WBM) where is it and factors that we this is a possible use for such disposed of, and will consider are inter ash (WBM). how is it alia the effect on disposed? fauna, flora, groundwater tables etc. However there are two types of ash: Fly & Clinker, the former requires stabilization, whereas the latter is inherently more stable. NamPower also investigating possible uses of ash in local industry such as bricks etc or if there is insufficient demand then will also look at how such ash may be utilised in rehabilitation of landscapes etc. Why is a coal- Coal as the source of fired power energy is favourable station being for Namibian considered? conditions in contextual relation to other sources. Solar and Wind are currently expensive and inadequate. Gas requires technology and infrastructure that is currently lacking in Namibia. Nuclear requires complete regulatory framework and no local-knowledge or capacity, and it is very expensive. Cost to the end The power station consumer: Why needs to be in Walvis in Walvis Bay, Bay to ensure Grid and will power stability. Though the price increase costs to end- significantly, and consumer are still how will price be being investigated mitigated? through the use of carbon credits etc to mitigate costs. Environmental factors will determine the type of plant ultimately built, as these factors will influence the combustion techniques and desulphurisation methods considered. Was the Walvis NamPower has been Bay in discussions with Municipality’s the relevant Structure Plan Municipality considered? personnel; however Site D was a last minute addition to sites under consideration. Has NamPower NamWater’s met NamWater Desalination plant at to discuss Wlotzskas is not an combination of option due to its desalination with location, but power generation NamPower will at consult NamWater Wlotzkabaken? over possible synergies on planned power stations. What about CIC has approached The IPP process is for utilizing the Coal NamPower in this attracting foreign direct exports of CIC of regard, and we have investment into Namibia. Botswana and requested coal (NP) how good is its analysis reports. Suggested contact persons coal quality? at NamWater: Arno Du Plessis: GM for Water Supply/ Martin Harris: Plant Manager. (WBM) What about Wind NamPower is in Farms? discussions with 2 companies; only 2 locations suitable as wind is not always available, and availability doesn’t coincide with peak- demand periods. Wind Power cannot be more than 10% of the country’s power supply, and carbon credits may not necessarily make the price of such power more affordable. Impact of Coal NamPower insists on Recently oil was dumped as fuel source? Public Participation illegally into the dunes, and Will there be and to the highest then burnt as method of sufficient supply standards; cleaning it up. However WB for the Kuisebmond has a unique temperature foreseeable Community was dispersion, thus the black tar future? What Is solely targeted started covering the lichen the impact of because they were fields – therefore please Van Eck on community mostly investigate the impact of the Windhoek? Will affected by Paratus power station on the lichen there be extension – though fields in the moon valley etc. sufficient public WBM did help participation disseminate meetings? Such information about the meetings should Paratus Public be widely Participation meeting. advertised – not Coal supply and like the recent security is a key Paratus Public element of the Participation feasibility study for meetings that this proposed power were not station. Van Eck was sufficiently built in the early advertised. 1970s, thus it was prior to environmental legislation and regulations. New Plant will be better technologically and less harmful. Van Eck will not be refurbished nor utilized once other generating plants are available. What are the Construction Although this is only the employee companies often scoping phase, NamPower requirements for bring their own skilled should continue to keep the the construction? labour, though usual WBM informed of requirement for low- developments and progress. skilled workers. (Acting CEO – Haingura) However, there will be a policy of skills transfer. Secondary industries will service the main power station construction and operation – hence there will be employment creation RECORD OF A KEY INFORMANT MEETING HELD BETWEEN NINHAM SHAND CONSULTING AND WESSELS FERRIS OF NAMPORT IN WALVIS BAY ON 17 JUNE 2008 Comment/question/issue Response Further NAMPORT comments/information Why does the Power NamPower needs to NamPort welcomes the Station have to be generate power in WB to power station as it will Walvis Bay? counter inertia on the focus on growth in the Transmission Grid, as Erongo region and this well as Port will bring business for requirements. NamPort. (NamPort) Where is the limestone NamPower will import NamPort will have a few required for the Power the limestone to be used, projects for land station coming from? but these logistics still reclamation, but these need to be determined in ideas will be detail. communicated to Marie Hoadley – and such projects may utilize or require the use of the waste ash. (NamPort) How big will the site be Site will be approximately NamPort has not for Ash disposal? 70 hectares, and it will be included Coal handling 30m in height and have a in immediate plans, but life span of 40 years. will fast-track such facility if required. (NamPort) How much power The envisaged capacity The Zimbabwe site generation capacity will will be between 200MW within the Port area has the power station have? and 450MW, therefore not been defined, though And the required land the land required will the Botswana site is out size? have to be suitably large of the Port area and it is enough to cater for a specific site. construction lay-down. (NamPort) Once the preferred site has been identified NamPort has requested through the scoping 100 hectares from WBM report, then the ESEIA for the revised site will be commissioned on allocation on farm 39. such site. (NamPort) The current coal- handling facilities will need to be upgraded as the existing facility will not be able to handle the required coal volumes. (NamPort) Coal vessel requirements are 10.6 draft at the current site, though the plan is to extend to a 13m draft – although some ships require even more draft. NamPort is planning an off-shore terminal for the new coal-facility. (NamPort) Any new development within the Port area that is not a warehouse or a container terminal, then an EIA will be required together with approval from NamPort. (NamPort) Zambia, Zimbabwe and DRC all want sites within the Port area, and currently none have been promised a specific site, hence all applying for same piece of land. (NamPort) The Walvis Bay Corridor Group (WBCG) is part of NamPort, it is the marketing arm to entice business from land- locked countries, and is an NGO involving all key stakeholders. END MEETING Record of a focus group meeting held between the Ministry Of Fisheries And Marine Resources (MFMR) and Ninham Shand Consulting on 18 June 2008 in Swakopmund. It was decided, before the meeting commenced, that minutes would be taken jointly be MFMR and Ninham Shand. These notes would be forwarded to Marie Hoadley, who would align the two sets of minutes and reconcile any conflicts to form a joint record of the meeting. It was agreed that Dr B van Zyl of MFMR would chair the meeting. Presentation on the proposed coal-fired power station – Ninham Shand. Discussion: COMMENT QUESTION/COMMENT RESPONSE BY MFMR Is the site B selection a fait accompli? No this is just the scoping phase; there is a different forum for the site allocation discussions. MFMR The specialist studies will be The specialist will examine all sites to performed on all sites or after a site is certain degree of detail, thereafter once selected on that chosen site? the optimal site has been identified, that site will be examined in more detail. MFMR Are these the only sites? And only in These are the only sites in Walvis Bay, Walvis Bay? Is the time-frame and it has to be in WB due to grid realistic? stability reasons. The timeframe is achievable. MFMR Will the conflicting use of land be Local specialists are familiar with and examined? Eg. against the can advise site usage, as well as co- requirements for aquaculture? existence with other ventures such as aqua-culture. MFMR Who made the decision on sites to be The Integrated Resource Plan indicates used? site requirements, and there was input from the line ministries. MFMR Supposing the ESEIA opposes the One doesn’t want to pre-empt the sites selected, will the project then discussions, but NamPower will proceed anyway? examine the scientific data and reasons and thereafter Government will ultimately make the decision. However, the process is transparent, and specialist reports will be open for examination. There are so many variables that need to be thoroughly examined. Aquaculture has been specifically considered for co-existence. MFMR NamPower has completely derailed NamPower hasn’t been the sole entity the aquaculture industry due to causing the delay in site usage, as inclusion of site B. NamPort and the WBM are also unsure of their requirements. Ninham Shand has been briefed to provide their advice within 6-8 months as to whether Farm 39 is suitable or not. NamPower is facilitating discussions to ensure progress. . By the end of August, one should have a good idea of which sites are suitable or which not. MFMR Have the sites already been No guaranteed? Has air-cooling been considered for Water cooling is exorbitant in cost, efficiency and costs? hence alternatives need to be considered as well. MFMR What is the area of land required? The area required must cover a possible 800MW site together with lay- down area for construction, though one may consider a separate ash-dump from power station site. MFMR How much water is required for There are 2 water cycles: Cooling water cooling? from the sea, and make-up water which is potable water required for the steam turbines. MFMR Is there no better solution than coal- A substantiated and considered fired power generation? response will be provided in the formal report. However the brief answer is that Namibia has no fuel-source security. Coal as a fuel source has been considered viable, accessible and secure. Kudu gas has been investigated for the past 30-odd years. Nuclear legislation and regulation imply long time period and high cost, as well being an expensive fuel source considering Namibia’s small population. Wind requires a thermal power station as back-up during unavailability of the wind. Sun is also prohibitively expensive. And the current power stations are not reliable back-up options for wind generation. PRESENTATION BY JOE’S OYSTER COMPANY OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MFMR The presentation by Joe’s Oyster Co Inlet system requires water ponds, sand JOC doesn’t convince us that land by the dunes will form natural valleys for ocean-front is required, nor that land settlement ponds, 2m depth required near the dunes is unsuitable, thus why for settlement ponds – ponds lined with is Farm 39 site important? rubber lining, water treatment, and distances between oyster platforms offshore and relocated site near dunes is just too far, and this will add extra costs. (Philip Steenkamp – JOC) Food is scarce globally, thus food production projects are important. (Joe Gross – JOC) Land access is critical to the industry, and it is a very young industry. (Larry Oellerman – Consultant MFMR) MFMR The bigger picture is that there are 40 applicants for mariculture activities and unavailability of Farm 39 land is discouraging investors. Also along the coastline, we need an area with still water. (Larry Oellerman - Consultant) MFMR has been negotiating for coastal land since 1996, and the Walvis Bay Municipality’s Strategic Environmental Plan included an aqua- culture park. The Minister may declare such land an aqua-culture park, and we may recommend him to do so. He must do so in conjunction with NAMPAB – thus if the MME blocks such a declaration, then MFMR will reciprocate when MME wants to declare the use of such land for its purposes. (Bronwyn Curry) MFMR Emissions from the power station could affect the oysters as they are just below the water level and as they filter water, the emissions may affect the oysters. NAMPOWER NamPower is interested in the timeline, and to see where there are ‘no-go’ areas and synergies for attention. Therefore please get your specialist to talk to our specialists during the scoping phase, and address us on the water requirements, land requirements etc. and one can negotiate with IPP’s for co-existence. We would also like to talk to your EIA consultants when the study is executed. Regarding power supply, you will have to apply to either Erongo RED or NamPower. NamPower realizes that whilst electricity is a major economic driver, other factors are also important, hence NamPower wants to accord importance to aquaculture and therefore find synergies to co-exist to mutual satisfaction. Ninham What is the number of jobs created? For every 2 tons of Abalone, one and a Shand half jobs are created. (Philip Steenkamp – JOC) MFMR What about the Power Station The baseline study is to assess the impacting on residential property? current environment and various attendant criteria levels, thereafter one will assess how the power station will affect same. (MvdM) MFMR What about the aesthetics of the The visual impact specialist will assess Power Station? such impact on the current environment. MFMR Will the specialist studies be open for Yes they will be made available for comment? comments. MFMR Guano platform is a bird platform, so This is to be assessed in the baseline how will the power station noise levels study. affect the birds? MFMR How will further questions from this By email, then we will have a further meeting be facilitated? meeting if required. MFMR Have the timeline milestones been We will forward you the proposed minuted? timelines. MFMR Have the International Protocols been Yes taken into consideration e.g. Kyoto? MFMR How does one decide on the final The Multi Criteria Decision Making tool site/optimal site? assists us in making such determination. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting and the Mayor, CEO and Councillors of the Arandis Town Council in Arandis on 18 June 2008 The discussion was preceded by a presentation of the proposed coal-fired power station. COMMENT BY RESPONSE FURTHER COMMENT ARANDIS TOWN COUNCIL What impact does Fly Its hazardous waste, but it If anyone is interested in the ash, ash have on the can be neutralized & they can register as I&AP and environment? utilized in brick-making, then make a proposal on the use cement etc. of such fly ash. Once the specific coal supplier and source is identified, one can then determine the type of ash, and the quality of coal. Diesel and Fuel costs Prices will increase, though SADC region is experiencing are increasing, NamPower will smooth out power shortages, thus addressing therefore will power the price-curve, so that the the power shortages may also prices also escalate? consumer isn’t exposed to promote further mining and this sharp escalations. will provide employment to our residents. (Mayor) Chinese investors have approached us about building a building materials factory. Apart from the local Health clinics, regional authorities who else is authorities, Ministry of being included in the Fisheries, line ministries, public participation Mineral sector and various focus group? levels of government. Why Walvis Bay? As NamPower is grateful to be When projects occur, one only mines will require welcomed to Arandis; looks at the commercial aspects – electricity, especially however certain factors however it may be advisable to Rossing, Areva- such as costs of pumping involve the communities and this Uramin, Valencia etc water for cooling etc. gives more balance to the which are near to require us to be close to the developer’s perspective. (Florida Arandis, Why not coast. Otherwise one has to Husselmann) consider Arandis for the use air-cooled condensers Power will be expensive, therefore power station site? which in turn will consume it may be advisable for NamPower power from the power to ensure that there is sufficient station, and thus less power marketing of the issues involved to produced in generation. the general public about the Also the coal transport anticipated price increases. (FH) costs are exorbitant, and There should also be a discussion the power station would forum for local authorities to get need to be near the coast together and discuss such matters and at sea-level for better and investigate the possible efficiency. synergies available to the Councils. (FH) Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting and the Mayor, CEO and Councillors of the Management Board of the Town Council of Swakopmund on 18 June 2008 The discussion was preceded by a presentation of the proposed coal-fired power station project. Is importing coal the only solution? Aranos coal is below the Aquifer, so coal cannot be accessed. Botswana coal for export via Walvis Bay, thus this may be a viable supply. However, we are only interested in high grade coal which is very expensive and yet it is more environmentally friendly. The potable water that will be used, although a Approximately 1 litre/second required for a part of it is being recycled, where is the 400MW power station – though this will all be additional water required supplied from? part of the factors being considered. Uranium Industry is using a lot of potable water, thus in solving the power crisis, are we not creating additional problems such as water usage and scarcity? Huge water requirements will put further pressure on already strained water-supply sources. We already operate on the limit of water resources Is the coal going to come from South Africa? South Africa is being considered, however Botswana and Indonesia are also being considered. However high quality coal is required, and only a few collieries can supply such coal worldwide, and this coal is also more environmentally friendly. Are the sites under consideration only for the The sites are for both, however the 100MW can coal-fired power station coal or for the black- be added to existing Paratus station. Though start as well? the preference is for the site with the least social and environmental impact. In order to have a fruitful discussion, would it We can really only look at ash dump sites once not have been better to have already identified the optimal site for the power station has been the potential ash dump sites? identified What about the Traffic Issue? Once traffic volume has been identified as a Secondary traffic issues are what concerns the serious impact a local specialist will be STC. We want NamPower to put pressure on appointed to deal with a traffic impact study. Government to enforce the use of the By-Pass However, during construction the Environmental road as we don’t get subsidies for road Management Plan should address additional maintenance for traffic through Swakopmund traffic volume. en route to Walvis Bay. What about the wind regimes and the effect A noise specialist will be appointed to deal with thereof on conveying noise and other pollution the IPP information, both specific to noise levels onto Swakopmund, and how will this be and generic information pertaining to various mitigated? We already hear the noise of other emissions. The Emissions will be Paratus power station, and also receive the measured and considered against the fish factory smell. meteorological data for the coastal area. Air- cooled condensers will have significant noise levels, hence alternatives and cost implications will be considered. It appears most aspects of the ESEIA have They have been identified to take part in the been identified, but has the Mining sector been stakeholder’s meetings. We have already had consulted as part of the stakeholder’s a focus group meeting with mining companies meetings? through the Chamber of Mines Will the extra influx of workers to the area due Your points here have been noted, and we shall to mining sector employment and their ensure that the cumulative impacts will be attendant health risks be studied in respect of studied. impact on Swakopmund and Walvis Bay? Should the mines not bear responsibility for the attendant health risks? What impact will there be on the groundwater? NamPower intends to ensure that there is no impact on the groundwater tables in any way. Why is NamPower moving away from Kudu The desktop study shows that grid stability is Gas? And why is there is sudden rush towards required in Walvis Bay, hence a power station coal-fired power? must be built here. There are also no gas fields close by to Walvis Bay, therefore one has to transport the gas from the Kudu gas field by LNG or CNG ships to WB – this would escalate electricity costs greatly. Nuclear power is still in infancy stages, as we do not have the capacity, and local legislation needs to be enacted as well as observing international regulations – therefore longer timeframe and the exorbitant production cost do not justify the relatively minimal power demand. Thus Coal is the more viable power source at this stage. Old coal technology will not be used in the new power station. Wind data shows that there are 2hrs in Luderitz and 2hrs in WB where the wind speeds are sufficient to generate power, however this time period does not overlap with the peak- demand times. In any event when a wind farm is not generating power, a back-up thermal power station is required to generate required power, thus it must idle when the wind farm is running in order to ensure that it can immediately pick up the slack when required. To idle a coal-fired power station is very inefficient and costly. Solar power is not yet cost effective on the scale required to generate megawatts nor on a large scale basis, though it does on the small scale such as solar-powered geysers etc. If we have a power station will we still depend Addition of new power station will ensure that on South Africa, or will it only be sufficient for Namibia is self-sufficient in power generation. the West Coast area? Record of a Focus Group Meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and representatives of the environmental and tourist sectors: Langstrand, 19 July 2008. The discussion was preceded by a presentation of the project. COMMENT COMMENTATOR Response Was there a baseline study performed Participant Such a study is beyond the scope of the for the entire coastline of Namibia, and current project. not just the Walvis Bay-Swakopmund area? Have you spoken to John Ward for Participant This name will be forwarded to the air quality wind research data? specialist. Where is the coal coming from? Participant NamPower is looking at various sources, such as Indonesia, South Africa and Botswana. In the field of specialist studies, why is Participant Noted there no study on the alternatives to coal-fired power? We would like to know the alternatives to coal as a fuel source. We would also like to see the Terms of Reference for the study amended to include a study on alternative power generation sources, the preference of coal as opposed to other power generation sources, and the combination of renewable and non-renewable power generation options. Namibia is importing electricity, and Participant The constraints on nuclear power are: now we are going to import coal also? • Namibia still has to develop the Why not use Uranium seeing as it is a necessary legislation, natural resource? • complicated international regulations have to be met. For those, capacity has to be built in the country, • economies of scale to build a nuclear power station are not there, • a back-up/black start facility will still be required to prevent cooling shutdowns, • it takes a long time to develop • it is very expensive. What is NamPower’s preferred site? Participant None, at this stage, all factors are being considered and put through the MCDM tool till the optimal site(s) is identified. Ash Disposal will be at a different site? Participant The effects of wind on fly ash handling will have to be considered in the site selection, and the identification of the preferred site for the power station will also have to be done before a site for ash can be identified. Why is WB in the Erongo region being Participant NamPower needs to generate power in WB considered? to counter inertia on the transmission grid. Most of the development in Namibia, and the greatest demand for energy, in the next few years will be on the West Coast, and there is no large power producer there. Walvis Bay also has a harbour if one is needed for import of coal. What are the minimal emissions Participant We will advise you of these. standards? Why didn’t NamPower foresee the Participant energy crisis? What about the aquaculture industry? Participant We had a meeting with the MFMR Aquaculture is big industry, and it yesterday, and have solicited their cannot be scrapped to make way for questions/concerns and shall make available the power station. to them the specialist studies etc. and ensure that opportunities for co-existence are explored and promoted if viable. Why is the coal-fired power appearing Participant It is not. As the title of the ESEIA study to be a foregone conclusion? indicates, it is being examined for its viability. The mines have taken the initiative to Solar power is not yet cost effective on the install solar power at the employees’ scale required to generate megawatts nor on housing. Namibia could be a pioneer in a large scale basis, though it is viable on the solar power if NamPower commissions small scale such as solar-powered geysers. solar power stations, and thus we should lead the way the abundance of year-round solar exposure. How long will the coal power station Participant The project is still in its feasibility stage and take to come online? reply to this question is only available once the studies are done. We would also like the cost per KW/h Participant Noted for gas and nuclear power as indicated on the presentation for coal-fired power? What about the Dams upstream on the Participant Kunene river? Can’t they be rehabilitated to ensure that Ruacana has year-round water supply to generate at full capacity? How much water is used in cooling a Participant 400MW power station? We would like to lodge an objection Frank Löhnert against the use of site B due to the visual impact of the power station as seen from the road and from the residential developments to north of site B (Afrodite Beach, Eco-village and Long Beach), and the road is an iconic tourism route so one cannot spoil the view with a power station. Site B is also upwind from the above residential developments, in the context of the prevailing southerly winds, meaning there are high pollution impacts of smoke and the threat of windblown ash and other residues from waste dumps on site. Nobody wants to live just downwind from a coal power station. Property values and construction activity would be severely affected. An objection is also lodged against the M Koopman Noted use of Sites C & D because these sites can potentially affect the Narraville Community. In the REECAP Study: Electricity Keith Wearne, We will study the document and give a Supply & Demand Scenario, Option 8 CETN considered response states the best scenario – though no mention is made of the use of coal as power source? The focus group is clearly concerned Frank Löhnert with the apparent lack of sufficient consideration of alternative and more sustainable methods of power generation, such as solar and wind power, at the very least as complementary means to the core energy source. While arguments against renewable energy have been heard, such as lack of synchronisation between peak generation and peak consumption times and higher cost, surely international experience has shown that there are profitable avenues of integrating alternative energy sources, esp. here at the Namibian coast, where we have so much sun and wind. Some of the higher cost may be offset by international subsidies, preferential finance and carbon credits. The focus group of environmental and tourism representatives urge for the mandate of the ESEIA process to be expanded, and for Nampower to introduce complementary elements of renewable energy sources into the overall planning of power generation for the immediate and longer term future, so that future generation capacity is made up of a mix of energy sources, which over time and technological development would rely increasingly on renewable components. In conclusion, the coal fired plant should not be built in isolation but should from its inception be integrated with a significant complementary component of renewable energy generation, which can be expanded over time. Rekord van ‘n vergardering tussen Ninham Shand Consulting en die Burgermeester en Raadslede van die Munisipaliteit Van Hentiesbaai. Gehou te hentiesbaai op 19 Junie 2008 Verwelkoming: • Mev Kramer verwelkom die span van NamPower en stel al die raadslede aan die besoekers voor. • Marie Hoadley stel die NamPower span voor en verduidelik die formaat van die voorlegging: ‘n skyfievertoning wat die verskillende aspekte van die projek verduidelik. Skyfievertoning: • Ninham Shand is deur NamPower aangestel om die impakstudie te lei. • Die aard en doel van die studie word verduidelik met behulp van die skyfies wat ook agtergrondinligting ivm die projek weergee. • Die strategie is om sover moontlik alle negatiewe impakte te probeer vermy, maar indien nie moontlik om dit te beperk in omvang en intensiteit. Positiewe impakte word sover moontlik gemaksimiseer. • Die motivering vir die projek spruit uit NamPower se dryf om basislading te verhoog, aangesien die huidige piekaanvraag van 550MW (gemeet in 2007) die Namibiese opwekkingskapasiteit van ongeveer 380MW oorskry en Namibie dus van ander lande afhanklik is. • Grootskaalse ontwikkelings, veral in die mynboubedryf in Erongo, is een van die hoofredes vir die spronge in aanvraag wat geprojekteer word (network ladingspronge) vir die volgende paar jaar. • Daarteenoor is natuurlike groei meer gelykmatig, soos meer gebruikers gekonnekteer word en soos die bestaande gebruikers meer energie benodig. • Die projek sal deur ‘n Onafhanklike Elektrisiteitsverskaffer (IPP) gerealiseer word en NamPower sal die elektrisiteit dan van hierdie party aankoop. Vrae en Antwoorde: • Hoekom spesifiek Walvisbaai en hoekom steenkool, en het NamPower alternatiewe ondersoek? Walvisbaai is gekies om die toevoer van elektrisiteit te anker waar die groei die hoogste is. Alternatiewe projekte in Walvisbaai sluit SLOP olie en steenkool in, maar van hierdie opsies is die steenkool die enigste wat as basiskapasiteit kan dien. Ander vorme van energie-opwekking vorm deel van NamPower se strategiese plan, maar kan nie noodwendig die basisladingsrol vervul nie. • Wat sal die rol van die REDs wees? NamPower sal die elektrisiteit by die IPP aankoop (wat deur ‘n “tenderproses” verkies gaan word maar nog onbekend is), wat dit dan weer op sy beurt aan die Erongo RED sal verkoop vir verspreiding. • Wat behels ‘n “black start”? Dit is wanneer die totale netwerk faal en daar ‘n algehele nasionale kragonderbreking is. Hierdie fasiliteit (die “black start” fasiliteit) word dan eerste aangeskakel om die res van die kragstasies weer op lyn te kry – ‘n proses wat begin met die aanskakel van alle verkoelings en sirkulasiestelsels van die groter fasiliteite. • Waar gaan die proseswater verkry word want ons het ‘n watertekort? Dit sal nog bepaal word, maar gesuiwerde water moet gebruik word. NamPower is bewus dat bestaande watervoorraad onder druk is, maar dat die voorgestelde ontsoutingsaanleg onder konstruksie is. • Waar kan die afval gestrort word en kan daar niks anders mee gedoen word nie? Die voorstel sluit die verstiging van ‘n strortterrein vir die as in (70Ha), maar moontlikhede bestaan om daarvan in ander prosesse te gebruik. Dit word tans ondersoek. • Met hoeveel sal die temperatuur styg en wat sal die invloed daarvan wees op die vislewe? Die projek word ontwerp om aan hoe internasionale standaarde te voldoen en ons spesialiste wat op die span is vir hierdie doel gaan studies doe nom hierdie impak te kwantifiseer. • Hoekom kan dit nie eerder suid van die dorp geplaas word nie? Suid van Walvisbaai word die RAMSAR vleilande aangetref wat nie deur hierdie tipe projek versteur moet word nie. Water word gesien as die grootste potensiele struikelblok en die span word deur die munisipaliteit versoek om hierdie kwessie deeglik te ondersoek. Record of a meeting between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and the Hon S Nuuyoma, Governor of the Erongo Regional Council, and Councillors. Swakopmund, 20 June 2008 As the participants at the meeting had all read the Background Information Document, and had a busy schedule, they requested that only the most important points on the presentation be shown, and that they would then ask questions. ERC This initiative is good for the region. However, we see that a meeting about Paratus was supposed to have been held on 22 May 2008. Was this meeting held, and was it advertised? MH Yes, the meeting was held in Kuisebmond on 22 May 2008. It was advertised in the media and invitations were sent out on the stakeholder database. ERC The amount that is currently being produced at Paratus, could that supply Erongo? What is the current consumption in Erongo? MH No, it would not be enough to supply Erongo. I do not have the consumption figures at hand, but Paratus production would not be adequate for Erongo. ERC And for Walvis Bay? MH Yes, probably, but the power from Paratus feeds into the national grid, it is not dedicated power for either Erongo or Walvis Bay. ERC Please explain the term black out to us. MH If there is a massive power outage, power stations need electricity to start again, but if they are not producing, they have to have another source to start up the systems. This is usually a smaller power plant, which is driven by gas, diesel or some other fuel, and is not reliant on electricity to start. ERC Why are we using coal? Is there not something else that can be used, something that will encourage people, and give them a chance, to participate? MH Explained the constraints on using gas, wind, solar and nuclear energy. The needs are to go for a fuel that is affordable, accessible and reliable, and can be secured on long-term contracts. ERC If coal is the cheapest, why is van Eck running at a loss? MH Van Eck is old technology, and very inefficient. The more inefficient a plant is, the more expensive it is. ERC How and where are we going to get cheaper coal if NamPower is losing on van Eck? Apart from looking outside, why are we not looking inside Namibia? You have to look at how we get coal here – by truck, sea or rail. It becomes expensive. MH A whole range of options is being considered, among them South Africa, Botswana and Indonesia. NamPower needs high-quality coal, as to import poor quality coal is expensive. Given the amount of coal that such a power station would use, it is unlikely that road transport would be considered. ERC Why are we building a power station when we have a supply of power from outside the country? For example, Zimbabwe. MH The current initiatives for power generation, which include the coal-fired power station, have as one of their objectives the need to make Namibia independent as far as power production is concerned. ERC Somebody came to see us the other day, I can’t remember their name, but they also want to put up a big power station in Walvis Bay. Do you know about this? MH NamPower is aware that there are a number of initiatives currently being considered for energy generation. ERC With regard to the site, it would be a mistake to put it behind Dune 7. They should not even declare that a heavy industrial zone. It would affect tourism as it would have a big visual impact. They should move towards the south of the town. MH The preferred site has not yet been identified, but issues such as you have just mentioned will be taken into account in the identification of the preferred site. END MEETING 65 York Street, George, 6529 Tel: +27 44 874 2165 P O Box 509, George, 6530 Fax: +27 44 873 5843 South Africa Website: www.shands.co.za 15 July 2008 Our ref: 402633/8.141 Permanent Secretary By email Ministry of Regional & Local Government and Housing NAMIBIA firstname.lastname@example.org For attention: Mr E Negonga Dear Mr Negonga ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN WALVIS BAY Thank you for meeting with the Public Participation Manager and Socio-Economic Impact Specialist for above mentioned project, Marie Hoadley, on Monday 7 July 2008, to discuss the Environmental and Socio- Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA) Ninham Shand is undertaking for NamPower. Your attention to the matter is appreciated. As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following elements: 1. A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and from the plant; 2. A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the coal-fired power station site; and 3. A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site. We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008. We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully NINHAM SHAND Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA[Cert] Associate Environmental Practitioner Record of a meeting held between Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand Consulting) and Ms U Hiveluah (Permanent Secretary and A Smit (Deputy Director), Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, held in Windhoek on 8 July 2008. Ms Hiveluah explained that the document had been shared with the relevant members of her staff. NamPower was to be congratulated on bringing the Ministry in early in the project, as it is difficult to make comments and recommendations once a project is well under way. The Ministry is delighted to work with NamPower on this project. Future meetings with the Ministry should be arranged directly with Mr. Smit. U Hiveluah and A Smit: There are certain issues that need to be posted right from the beginning. The Factory Registration procedure covers power stations. The Ministry is mandated to see that the regulations in terms of the Labour Act are adhered to. For this purpose the Ministry had prepared a copy of the regulations (handed to M Hoadley) and a briefing note dealing with matters such as prior notice of commencement of construction and registration applications. For construction, we will need to see the site plans, have inspectors on site to monitor, we will look at machinery safety. In respect of the company that is going to erect the power station, it must consult with the Ministry and get approval to go ahead and assemble and install. As soon as the superintendent of the power station is appointed, the letter of appointment and CV must be forwarded to the Ministry. When we scrutinise plans we will look very closely at emergency points and procedures, and the control of occupational diseases. Regulation 2 states that, before commissioning, safety committees, safety policies, risk analysis, and health and safety programmes and policies to the satisfaction of the Ministry must be in place. M Hoadley thanked the Ministry for the documents, and explained that adherence to legislation and regulations would form part of the management plan for the project. She undertook to ensure that the documents were delivered to the appropriate people. A discussion ensued about the proposed coal-fired power station project. A Smit: Why a coal-fired power station? M Hoadley Explained the constraints currently operative on the use of other and renewable sources of energy. The development of these needed to be seen against the background of the anticipated growth in demand over the next few years, the current power generation capacity in Namibia and the surge in development along the west coast. A Smit: The power station will take a long time to develop. M Hoadley Our information is that commissioning is anticipated for 2014. In the meantime, a project is going ahead to upgrade Paratus power station by the installation of a 50MW unit for emergency generation. A Smit Sea water is highly corrosive. Maintenance will be difficult. M Hoadley This is a technical issue, and will be dealt with as such once the site has been selected and the technology can be considered. U Hiveluah We have a major concern with pollution. For instance, here in Katatura, people say that pollution affects poor people the most, that the power utility does not care about the population of Katatura. We need to get rid of this myth. We need energy for development, but the pollution aspect must be sorted out; the power station must be clean. Tourism is growing, becoming one of our biggest economic sectors, and that coast line is particularly important for tourism. M Hoadley It happens often that poorer communities are situated close to industrial development. However, the positioning of the power station in relation to residential settlements will be taken into account. Further, WHO and World Bank standards will be used to determine the operating standards of the power station. NamPower would like the facility to be of such a standards that it can apply for carbon credits. M Hoadley thanked U Hiveluah and A Smit for the time they had taken to attend the meeting, and undertook to keep the up to date with progress on the ESIA process. END MEETING Record of a meeting held in Windhoek on 8 July between Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand Consulting) and Mr S Motenga, Director, Industrial Development, Ministry of Trade and Industry. MH Explained the purpose of the meeting which was part of the Authority Scoping for the project, to introduce the project and to record comments, queries and issues of concern. A presentation of the ESIA process and the project was given. SM The Bank of Namibia has confirmed the predicted growth rate of 4% for Namibia. To achieve this, industry will need extra energy, and a local solution is something that Trade and Industry will support. This Ministry is also responsible for the ozone layer over Namibia. Six years ago Namibia signed an agreement with UNEP to reduce its contribution to ozone depletion. Within the Ministry there is an office which deals with Namibia’s programme to reduce the use of ozone-depleting substances. Good progress has been made over the last three years. Still, the country needs to ensure that it does not now start importing substances that would counteract the progress it has made. From both angles, that of development in Namibia and the Ministry’s environmental obligations, the Ministry is interested in the project. Its primary concern, however, is to promote industry and manufacture, and in view of that, the building of additional facilities that would achieve this has the Ministry’s support. NDP3 is not yet available to the public, but there is a lot about energy in it. For years efforts have been made to get Kudu Gas going, and industry is waiting for a solution. It is important though, that from the perspective of encouraging trade, and particularly tourism – in particular ecotourism, which means wildlife conservation – we would like to see the environment taken care of. Tourism has become a very important economic sector. SM Can the power station not be built away from Walvis Bay? MH Explained the rationale for choosing Walvis Bay, in terms of the harbour, the infrastructure and the expected growth in energy consumption along the west coast. SM What about building additional hydro capacity? An additional dam could be built on the Kunene, there would then be sufficient flow to operate the turbines. What happened to the idea of the Inga dam in the DRC? MH A response to this question was not to hand, and would be supplied in the Issues Trail. MH Thanked Mr Mutenga for the time taken for the meeting, and undertook to keep the Ministry up-to-date with progress. END MEETING Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and the Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing: Pieter Genis, Town and Regional Planner, Daleen Brand, Town and Regional Planner and Johan de Kock, Chief Town and Regional Planner. Windhoek, 8 July 2008. The participants were all familiar with the contents of the Background Information Document for the project, so a general discussion of the project was not necessary. A brief discussion ensured about the use of coal as a fuel source. The meeting moved to issues around the site selection, and was preceded by a brief explanation of the choice of Walvis Bay for locating the power station and a more detailed introduction to the four identified potential sites. Comment Commentator Response Is there any possibility of looking at a J de Kock Various other sites have been site outside Walvis Bay? mentioned by stakeholders, such as Henties Bay, where the transport of coal would be a constraint, and Arandis, where water would be an issue, in addition to the transport of coal. NamPower will need to keep in mind the cost to the consumer in the end. Although it is inevitable that the price of electricity will increase, this needs to be curtailed as much as possible. With regard to option C, there is a rail J de Kock Noted link from the harbour to the heavy industrial zone, so coal can be loaded straight from the shop on to the rail trucks. The infrastructure for coal transport is feasible. It is quite obvious that site A is not J de Kock Noted feasible. We don’t even have to discuss that. You can’t have a power station in the middle of a town. If Farm 39 is chosen, there is going to J de Kock Noted be a tremendous amount of resistance, not only locally, but globally, as happened with Ipupa Falls. There will be a significant impact on the attraction of the area for tourists. The lagoon and the wetland site - D Brand We have specialists on the what impact will the return of water project who will be looking have on that, on aspects like water specifically at those issues. The temperature water will probably have to be cooled before it is returned. All aspects will be investigated. We have also been in discussion with MFMR around these issues, and there is the possibility of synergies. A part of the public participation process is to identify synergies between the proposed power station and other development projects. At our last meeting with them, the P Genis MFMR indicated that discussions around synergies had taken place We are happy with the site in the J de Kock I don’t have any idea what the heavy industrial zone. The cost – cost would be, but it would surely the cost of two pipelines would probably be expensive. not be that excessive. In all the areas except site C there J de Kock would be competing land use. The cost of the land – the coastal land P Genis will be very expensive. D is the easiest way of getting land and the cheapest. D is state land, and apparently the M Hoadley The state can give permission for processes involved in changing its the use of the land while the status are very lengthy. process is going on (J de Kock). NamPower would also have water J de Kock Yes, we are aware that there problems on site D could be such problems. Behind the dunes will cost quite a lot, P Genis Noted but a fair price can be negotiated because it is a project of national interest. At the coast the competition will drive the cost up. Mitigation measures at the coast will also be very high. The coastal land will be very much more expensive than any of the others. It seems that some aspects have P Genis It is not a matter of evasion, but a been evaded in the background case of a lack of information at information document, such as this stage. No firm statements emissions and the disposal of fly ash. can be made about ash disposal, clinker or fly, until the site has been identified. Once the technology has been decided on, firm statements can be made about aspects such as emissions. However, what we do know at this stage is that NamPower’s requirements of the technology are that it must meet WHO standards, and the power station must operate in such a way that carbon credits can be applied for. This is also one of the reasons why high quality coal is being sought, as it is much more environmentally friendly. We are acting as the secretariat for National P Planning Advisory Board, a policy body deciding Genis on development issues throughout the country, and for the Townships Board, a more technical body dealing with town establishment and layout planning. We have to advise and recommend. We try to be in line with other developments, like the Walvis Bay structure plan, which includes the town and regional development issues along the coast as well as development in other sectors such as tourism and fisheries. It is with this attempt at alignment that conflicts of interests arise. Basically the vision of the Walvis Bay local authority is shaped by the fact that they have very little room for the expansion of the town. The will have to do compacting and infill of their land, and their most extreme extension will be Langstrand. Along that coastal spine tourism coming in from Swakopmund will need to be accommodated, and that is why industrial development behind the dunes is planned. The road link along the coast is envisaged for change so that Kuisebmond can get more benefits from tourism. The Ministry tries to optimise these benefits. Farms 39 and 40 which belong to the Walvis Bay municipality, have already been identified for that type of developments. When the Walvis Bay Structure Plan was drawn up, all stakeholders were invited to submit their requirements. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources stated their requirements early in the process, and already have big investors for their proposed developments. Their requirements were incorporated into the structure plan. A power station was mentioned in the structure plan, but not in detail. For us it is not simply choosing one development plan, and leaving out others or, for that matter, ignoring the integrated development of Walvis Bay itself. These are issues that need to be balanced, and also have to take the country’s priorities into account. Stakeholders were asked to make their requirements clear. Would it be correct to say then, that a M Hoadley That is correct (P Genis) major constraint for your Ministry in making recommendations is the lack of clarity on the part of a number of sectors - residential developers, the energy sector, environmentalists, tourism, NamPort – as to what their requirements are? We need to remember that the P Genis Noted seminal document from which all considerations must flow, is the Walvis Bay Structure Plan. This plan is currently being revised, and we can’t give you any indication of what the revisions entail. END MEETING Record of a meeting between Mr J Smith, CEO, Walvis Bay Corridor Group, and Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) held in Windhoek on 9 July 2008. MH Explained the purpose of the meeting which was to introduce the project and the ESIA process to the WBCG who is a key role player in economic development. What is the extent of the WBCG’s involvement in economic growth, particularly in the Walvis Bay area? JS Briefly, we facilitate business development, cross-border facilitation and infrastructure provision for cargo movement in the SADC region. We have strong private-public partnerships which put us in a good position to fast-track developments. MH Could you describe the structure of the WBGC? JS We are a non-profit organisation, and we get our funding from our members. The Walvis Bay Corridor consists of three corridors – the trans-Karoo to Gauteng, the trans-Caprivi to southern Angola and the trans-Kunene to Zambia and the DRC. MH Does NamPort play a role in the management? JS The WBCG manages the corridors, NamPower champions the Corridor Group. In essence, the Group is a promotion agency for the use of the transport corridors and the Namibian Harbours. MH There is much discussion about the road between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay – whether the coastal road will continue to be used for heavy traffic and widened, or whether it will become a scenic/commuter road with heavy traffic diverted to the road behind the dunes, thus by-passing Swakopmund. JS Road change is dependent on growth. The Roads Authority has to develop roads to facilitate transportation. The authorising Ministry is the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication. The road has to happen, whether it is at the back of the dunes or turning the coastal road into a double lane, but in terms of long term development, he one at the back would be preferable because then you provide a dedicated route for trucks, taken them off the scenic route. It still remains an alternative route for tourists. And you will probably find that, if the coastal road is turned into a double lane, before long a four-lane highway will be needed. About the project, where is the power station going to be situated? MH Gave explanation of the four sites and the benefits and constraints of each. JS MY preference would be for C. It will be more expensive, but we need to take a long-term view of the investment into the project. You also need to look at the Walvis Bay development plans. That puts D out of the question. With the port development and the development of the complete transport and logistics sector that we are developing, there will be supporting developments. All of these mean more people. Where are the people going to live? MH The inward migration of people is one of the cumulative impacts we will have to look at. I have heard that the Government has initiatives to lure people back to the north, or to keep them there. Do you know of these initiatives? JS The government has spent a lot of money in terms of developing the northern areas so that people can remain there but to a large extent government can only do so much. The private sector plays a vital role in terms of developing any economy, so if something happens in Walvis Bay which generates employment faster, people will go there. Development in the north is a planned approach, over a period of time. To a large extent they are also limited to a few industries; there is no anchor industry in the north that will explode the market for employment. The economy is developing fast down along the west coast, and naturally people will move to where there is potential to get employment quickly. MH In terms of the mandate of your group, and your experience of developments, what are your views on NamPower’s power station project? JS The power station is a requirement for the long-term development of the country. In terms of port development alone, the electricity requirements are huge, especially in the next three years. The cranes that we are going to install will basically use more electricity than the town of Walvis Bay. It should be viewed as a national priority. Namibia may be small, but our task is to develop the regional market, creating capacity in terms of infrastructure to facilitate more imports and exports through Walvis Bay than Namibia has got – we can handle cargo to fulfill the requirements of a regional population of 220 million. MH What sea routes are available to people wishing to use Walvis Bay at the moment? JS We have routes to Europe, the Americas, the South African ports and a direct route to the Far East. END MEETING Record of a meeting between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and Michelle Yates and Dr Wotan Swiegers, Chamber of Mines of Namibia, held in Swakopmund on 15 July 2008. MH Explained the purpose of the meeting which was to record the comments, issues and concerns of the mineral sector, and to request some baseline information. WS With regard to the Paratus project, we are happy with the process as proposed, i.e. a scoping report without a full EIA. In terms of the new Act and Regulation, then the approach recommended to NamPower is appropriate. If the Environmental Management Act is implemented, there is the potential for environmental aspects to swamp action. It should be used carefully, and cases where the same process as the Paratus project can be followed should be identified. MY Is the current Paratus operation being managed under an EMP? Does NamPower have in MY impression is not. I would like to see the new generator come into operation with an EMP which is broad enough to manage the current operation. WS There has been considerable discussion about the location of the coal-fired power station, and the feeling is that it is best placed behind Dune 7, which is already earmarked for a heavy industrial zone. Most of the people are positive about the power station, and recognise the need for it. One or two want a nuclear power station. MY The Chamber members have had an opportunity to see the various scenarios with regard to alternative energy sources, so they understand the decision to use coal. However, most of the Namibian public does not know, and there is a need to go into the public, via the media, with the different scenarios. People need to see up front that there is strategic thinking around renewable energy sources. The ESIA must run its course, and practitioners can only do so much. The proponent now needs to undertake a media campaign. If the site behind Dune 7 is chosen, and the cost is much higher than at the other sites, the consumer will then have to pay for their choice. How is this going to be managed? There is a need to educate the public about the real cost of water and energy in Namibia, so that they understand the increases that will happen. MY How will NamPower, as a parastatal, fulfill is social obligations? MH There are some recommendations that form part of almost every SMP, such as training of the workforce, proper housing, health programmes. In this project, the site which is eventually selected will also dictate some of the measures that will go into an SMP. The SMP will be no different in approach from that applied to a private sector project. MY We would like to see you bring into your final report the inclusion of energy in the Strategic Environmental Assessment that is currently being considered. MH Your recommendation will go into the issues trail and addressed by the ESIA team. MH Provided details of some of the baseline information on the minerals sector that she would like to include in the final baseline study for the ESIA. END MEETING. Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA) for A Proposed Coal- Fired Power Station at Walvis Bay. Record of a meeting held in Walvis Bay between Marie Hoadley and a group of community women. 27 September 2008. Introduction: It should be noted that the responses to questions, and the concerns raised, were in essence a group discussion. There was nothing of any consequence that the participants disagreed on. The participants at the meeting were largely uninformed about the possibility of a coal-fired power station, so the meeting was conducted to inform them about the power station, the two sites and the potential impacts. In turn there was knowledge transfer from the women about their background and their assessment of the impacts. MH Introduced herself and asked some questions about the background and environment of the participants. • Of the seventeen participants, four were in formal employment. The rest were self-employed or unemployed, the latter all wanting to work. Those who are self-employed earn very little, and are looking for other work or ways in which to expand their businesses. • A number of the women live in backyard shacks. The average rental paid for these shacks is R200-350 per month, sometimes including electricity and water, sometimes not. In a number of cases toilet facilities are not provided when the landlord is not at home, and the lessees use the dunes. • People who can just afford to buy a house, usually a small one, do so, and pay for it by renting out space to backyard shack dwellers. • Unemployment in Kuisebmond is very high. • Narraville is somewhat better off. There are no backyard shacks, although people squat in garages and back rooms. To make a comparison, Kuisebmond is like Kututura, Narraville is like Khomasdal. • Although all the participants were literate, the educational levels of a large number were very low. • MH Gave a description of the process, and an illustrated discussion of the two potential sites. The response to the question “How many of you use Kuisebmond Beach?” yielded the information that the three or four young participants used it, but all agreed that it was well-used by the community, particularly those who did not have transport to go elsewhere. What impact do you think it would have if Site B was the one chosen to put the power station on? Participant Not much. The people could easily move to another section of the beach. MH The power station would not be on the beach, but further inland. Participant How far? Metres? Kilometres? MH Definitely not so close that we would calculate it in metres, though the exact site has not been chosen yet. Participant Then it is not a problem MH Would it affect the enjoyment of the beach by people if they could see a power station? Participants No. (unanimous) MH What impacts do you expect from a power station? Good and bad. Participants We welcome the power station, because we need the work. It will lead to development in Kuisebmond community. MH What kind of development do you anticipate? Participants For a start, if people have money they can buy houses, then we would see less shacks. We would also get electricity, and it would be cheaper. Why are there only women at this meeting? MH There are a few reasons. Firstly, at public meetings, women very seldom have the confidence to speak in front of large groups, especially if there are men present. Secondly, this process requires that we talk to marginalised groups, and one of those groups is women. They are marginalised because their needs, views and hopes are not often heard. Why did you come to the meeting? Electricity would not be cheaper. That does not happen anywhere in the world. However, you would no longer have shut-downs of electricity because there is not sufficient. Participants We wanted to hear new ideas and get information. MH Then ask me the questions you want to ask. For instance, you say you welcome the power station. Is there anything about it that would worry you? Participants Yes, for us a big concern would be health. We have to live with bad smells and smoke in the air from all the factories and industries around us. This is something which will affect the town but it could also affect the enjoyment of the beach. We already suffer from the effects of the bad air here. MH What kind of effects? Illnesses? Participants Yes MH What are the major illnesses that people suffer from in this part of town? Participants TB, asthma, a lot of flu, sinus and AIDS. Children suffer a lot from bronchitis, pneumonia and TB. Will there be work for those who are illiterate and unqualified? MH Yes, but usually a company requires less unskilled and semi-skilled and skilled employees. It is like this Centre here – it needs four or five skilled/qualified people, but probably only one unskilled person. Participants Will training be done by the company? MH Explained the Social Management Plan. We always recommend that the company trains its employees so that, for example, if you get work during construction, you don’t start unskilled and leave again after two years, still unskilled. How many of you are currently doing training? Participants None. To get training, you need money to pay, and we don’t have money. Can you do anything to help us? MH Not on this process. (Explained that it was possible to include something like support for training institutions in the SMP, but at the moment this is only a possibility.) Spoke at some length about the necessity for training and finishing schooling, and referred some of the women to SMECompete. Lucia Nambundunga undertook to facilitate this. Participants Can you take the names and numbers of the women here and keep the list in a safe place and let us know when there are jobs? MH Yes, I can do something so that you know when jobs become available. I know Lucia will help with this. Does the noise from all the factors and industries disturb the people of Kuisebmond? There could be noise from a power station as well. Participants The only noise that disturbs us is that from the shebeens. You get used to noise. Has the municipality been spoken to about the power station, and how do they feel about it? MH The municipality would have been one of the first organisations that was talked to. Walvis Bay municipality encourages development in the town, but it also their job to ensure that there are no problems about people wanting to use the same land, and also that nobody suffers any harm from development. While they are building the power station, there could be quite a bit more traffic, especially heavy trucks taking equipment through. Is this a worry for you? Participants No, as long as they build a decent road and we don’t get more dust. Will there be another meeting? MH Explained about the meetings at the Multi-Purpose Centre and the Public Participation meetings in November. Will you come to the meeting in November? Where would be the best place to hold it? Participants You should hold two meetings, one of them here in the Kuisebmond Community Hall. MH Thanked the participants for attending the meeting, Lucia Nambundunga and Michale Muttonho for co-ordinating and Helena Asino for translating for those participants who did not speak English or Afrikaans. PARTICIPANTS Asino, Helena Ministry of Education De Klerk, Sylvia Teacher Diamases, Ginja Seamstress Gabriel, Justina Self-employed Haimbodi, Rauna Self-employed Haping, Menette Levy-Abrahams Women Group Hoadley, Marie Consultant Lucia Manbundunga Kuisebmond Community Centre Lwandibi Helena Self-employed Muttonho, Michael Kuisebmond Community Centre Nangombe, Christophina Self-employed NdaKomani Rosa Unemployed Neliwa, Christine Hafeni Ndemula Women’s Club Russia, Noa Women’s Club Shaanika, Lea Onyika Tailor Shop Shekuza, Frieda Megameno Tailor Shifeta, Frodina Onyika Tailor Shop Shilongo Lydia Onyika Yepumba