Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures for Kuyasa Mining subsidiary KiPower’s proposed 600 MW power plant and associated infrastructure about 20 km south-east of Delmas, in Mpumalanga, were outlined in the project’s final environmental-impact report (EIR) published for public comment on Tuesday.

The coal-fired power plant, which would procure coal from the nearby Delmas coal mine, aimed to supply a portion of the 42.6 GW of electricity that would be required to service the country’s energy needs by 2030.

KiPower was targeting production by 2015 and expected the first of the plant’s three units to be operational by 2018.

According to the report, while an environmental management programme (EMPr) was included in the EIR to mitigate key concerns, dust, social and local visual impacts remained high concerns and management and mitigation measures would have to be properly executed during the construction and operational phases.

During the construction phase of the project, a specialist report had found that some daily dust exceedances might be experienced at the closest receptors; however, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce dust impacts, engineering and environmental consultancy Jones & Wagener said in the EIR, adding that during operations daily dust exceedances could potentially also be experienced in close proximity to the ash facility; however, mitigation measures for this would also be implemented.

“The ash generated by the power plant would be hydrated and conveyed to the ash disposal facility, and unloaded onto a concrete-lined, bunded platform from where it would be transported in haul trucks for placement and compaction within the ash disposal facility footprint. The ash facility will be developed in cells to facilitate the rehabilitation as sections are filled to capacity,” the EIR explained, adding that this method would reduce the exposed footprint of ash at any time, therefore, reducing dust and leachate production.

With regard to air-quality impacts, the report stated that emissions from each of the power plant’s four 150 MW units would be controlled by injecting limestone directly into each boiler’s combustion chamber, which would control sulphur dioxide emissions and regulate combustion temperature in the boilers by varying the amount of primary and secondary air supplied to the boiler, thus, controlling nitrogen oxide emissions.

A pulse jet fabric filter system would also be used to control particulate emissions from the boilers, while two reinforced concrete chimneys would be equipped with continuous emissions monitoring systems to monitor the plant’s flue-gas quality.

Further, the report stated that owing to the influx of people – especially in the construction period where up to 3 000 workers were expected during peak times – the area around the proposed project would experience social impacts.

However, mitigation measures for this, such as a detailed construction worker accommodation plan, were included in the EMPr.

Jones & Wagener pointed out that positive social and socioeconomic benefits were also expected to flow from the project.

Meanwhile, the EIR stated that the project would be visually intrusive as a result of the power plant and ash disposal facility infrastructure that would have to be built.

“Mitigation is included in the EMPr; however, the local visual intrusion will remain a significant impact,” the report stated.

Other environmental aspects also dealt with in the EIR included water treatment, ecological factors relating to wetland areas and the increased amounts of traffic that would occur as a result of plant construction and operation.

Interested and affected parties could comment on the EIR and EMPr until June 3.