STORAGE (OPEN OR WAREHOUSE OR CONTAINER YARD

SECTION G: DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

STORAGE (OPEN OR WAREHOUSE OR CONTAINER YARD

• STORAGE AREA "1" :7872.129m²

• STORAGE AREA "2" :39494.858m²

REMAINING YARD AREA (HARD SURFACE):35300.00m² EXISTING BULK STORAGE :2100.00m²

Existing access of existing gravel road will be used, entrance gate, weighbridge and two stormwater of 10m wide x 50m in length = 1000m² will be constructed.

Provide a description of any other activity alternatives investigated.

No other activity alternatives were assessed as no feasible or reasonable activity exists. There is a need for the expansion on the properties and no other alternative activities was assessed as they are not feasible or reasonable.

Provide a motivation for the preferred activity alternative.

The preferred alternative is to expand the existing facility on farms 188 portion 3 and 4. Approximately 3.3 ha on portion 3 and 9000 square meters on portion 4 vegetation was already authorized and cleared. Ore less than 100 000 tons per property is already stored on each property. This application is to clear the rest of the vegetation, hardened the surfaces and construct infrastructure as well as to apply for an Atmospheric Emissions License to expand the storage of the ore on site. Existing access roads will be used.

Provide a detailed motivation if no activity alternatives exist.

List the positive and negative impacts that the activity alternatives will have on the environment.

The erven layout was designed and placed to link to existing infrastructure, uses existing access roads and avoid sensitive terrestrial ecological areas.

1.3. Design or layout alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts

Provide a description of the preferred design or layout alternative.

Saldanha Dry Bulk Terminal CC proposes to store 300 000 tonnes of ore on Portion 3 and Portion 4 of the farm Langeberg 188 respectively, which entails a combined storage of 600 000 tonnes. Portion 3 of the farm Langeberg 188 has an existing ore stockpile with a footprint of 9800 m² and an existing storage warehouse with a footprint of (70m x 30m x 11 m) 2250 m². Saldanha Dry Bulk Terminal CC currently stores 100 000 tonnes of ore on the stockpile and in the storage warehouse on Portion 3 and proposes to increase the storage of ore on the property to 300 000 tonnes.

Similarly, Saldanha Dry Bulk Terminal CC proposes to store 300 000 tonnes of ore on Portion 4. The product, currently Garnet and Ilmenite, will be stored outside but covered with tarpaulin while other minerals will be stored in the warehouse.

The proposed expansion of the current development will consists of the clearing of additional vegetation of approximately 4.81ha to construct infrastructure as well as hardening the surfaces to store manganese ore, iron ore, lead, copper and zink concentrate, heavy mineral sands (e.g. garnet and ilmenite), coal, phosphate, agricultural lime and other ores on portions 3 (4.5107ha) and 4 (4.5022ha) of Farm Langeberg no. 188, Vredenburg. The expanded facility on the two properties will be able to store approximately 400 000 tons of ore and material outside and 200 000 tons of ore and material inside buildings. The storage of the ores and material requires an Atmospheric Emissions License. Buildings is proposed and will be constructed over time on the hardened surface were the ore is stored outside. This may result in the storage of more ore inside the buildings and less in the open on hardened surfaces in future, depending on the demand. Approximately 3.3 ha on portion 3 and 9000 square meters on portion 4 vegetation was already authorized and cleared. Ore less than 100 000 tons per property is already stored on each property. This application is to clear the rest of the vegetation, hardened the surfaces and construct infrastructure as well as to apply for an Atmospheric Emissions License to expand the storage of the ore on site. The development will consist of:

STORAGE (OPEN OR WAREHOUSE OR CONTAINER YARD

• STORAGE AREA "1" :7872.129m²

• STORAGE AREA "2" :39494.858m²

REMAINING YARD AREA (HARD SURFACE):35300.00m² EXISTING BULK STORAGE :2100.00m²

Existing access of existing gravel road will be used, entrance gate, weighbridge and two stormwater of 10m wide x 50m in length = 1000m² will be constructed.

Provide a description of any other design or layout alternatives investigated.

None were investigated

Provide a motivation for the preferred design or layout alternative.

The erven layout was designed and placed to link to existing infrastructure, uses existing access roads and avoid sensitive terrestrial ecological areas.

Provide a detailed motivation if no design or layout alternatives exist.

The erven layout was designed and placed to link to existing infrastructure, uses existing access roads and avoid sensitive terrestrial ecological areas.

List the positive and negative impacts that the design alternatives will have on the environment.

The erven layout was designed and placed to link to existing services, falls inside the urban edge approved, planning for the municipality and town and avoid the water course and sensitive terrestrial ecological areas as was assessed and incorporated into the approval of the urban edge process. The proposed development has access form existing roads.

1.4. Technology alternatives (e.g., to reduce resource demand and increase resource use efficiency) to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts.

Provide a description of the preferred technology alternative:

The only technological alternatives assessed and considered, were the use of electricity and water conservation.

Electricity:

• Use of energy efficient equipment;

• CFL's must be used to save energy cost where possible;

• Fluorescent lighting must be used in communal spaces where possible.

The only technological alternatives assessed and considered, were the use of water conservation:

• Ensure that toilet systems are duel flush and 6 litre water holding capacity.

Provide a description of any other technology alternatives investigated.

No other technological alternatives were considered.

Provide a motivation for the preferred technology alternative.

The technological alternatives will ensure that the development is more energy and water efficient.

Provide a detailed motivation if no alternatives exist.

Technological alternatives were assessed and included in the preferred layout.

List the positive and negative impacts that the technology alternatives will have on the environment.

Both electricity and water availability and supply are under constraint. The technological alternatives will ensure that the development is more energy and water efficient.

1.5. Operational alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts.

Provide a description of the preferred operational alternative.

Operational alternatives were not assessed as they are not feasible or reasonable. The only operational activity applicable to the development relates to maintenance.

Provide a description of any other operational alternatives investigated.

Operational alternatives were not assessed as they are not feasible or reasonable. The only operational activity applicable to the development relates to maintenance.

Provide a motivation for the preferred operational alternative.

Operational alternatives were not assessed as they are not feasible or reasonable. The only operational activity applicable to the development relates to maintenance.

Provide a detailed motivation if no alternatives exist.

Operational alternatives were not assessed as they are not feasible or reasonable. The only operational activity applicable to the development relates to maintenance.

List the positive and negative impacts that the operational alternatives will have on the environment.

Not applicable.

1.6. The option of not implementing the activity (the ‘No-Go’ Option).

Provide an explanation as to why the ‘No-Go’ Option is not preferred.

The No-Go option will result in the site remaining as is. Portion 3 of the farm Langeberg 188 has an existing ore stockpile with a footprint of 9800 m² and an existing storage warehouse with a footprint of (70m x 30m x 11 m) 2250 m². 9000 square meters of vegetation on portion 4 was already cleared and ore less than 100 000 tons will be stored on portion 4.

1.7. Provide and explanation as to whether any other alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist.

1.8. Provide a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternatives, including the preferred location of the activity.

(4.5022ha) of Farm Langeberg no. 188, Vredenburg. The expanded facility on the two properties will be able to store approximately 400 000 tons of ore and material outside and 200 000 tons of ore and material inside buildings. The storage of the ores and material requires an Atmospheric Emissions License. Buildings is proposed and will be constructed over time on the hardened surface were the ore is stored outside. This may result in the storage of more ore inside the buildings and less in the open on hardened surfaces in future, depending on the demand. Approximately 3.3 ha on portion 3 and 9000 square meters on portion 4 vegetation was already authorized and cleared. Ore less than 100 000 tons per property is already stored on each property. This application is to clear the rest of the vegetation, hardened the surfaces and construct infrastructure as well as to apply for an Atmospheric Emissions License to expand the storage of the ore on site. The development will consist of:

STORAGE (OPEN OR WAREHOUSE OR CONTAINER YARD

• STORAGE AREA "1" :7872.129m²

• STORAGE AREA "2" :39494.858m²

REMAINING YARD AREA (HARD SURFACE):35300.00m² EXISTING BULK STORAGE :2100.00m²

Existing access of existing gravel road will be used, entrance gate, weighbridge and two stormwater of 10m wide x 50m in length = 1000m² will be constructed.

2. “No-Go” areas

Explain what “no-go” area(s) have been identified during identification of the alternatives and provide the co-ordinates of the

“no-go” area(s).

No no-go areas have been identified in the proposed development area.

3. Methodology to determine the significance ratings of the potential environmental impacts and risks associated with the alternatives.

Describe the methodology to be used in determining and ranking the nature, significance, consequences, extent, duration of the potential environmental impacts and risks associated with the proposed activity or development and alternatives, the degree to which the impact or risk can be reversed and the degree to which the impact and risk may cause irreplaceable loss of resources.

The assessment criteria were developed based on the Department of Environmental Affair’s Integrated Environmental Management Series guideline documents.

Criteria Description

Nature a description of what causes the effect, what will be affected, and how it will be affected.

Type Score Description

Extent (E)

None (No) 1 Footprint

Site (S) 2 On site or within 100 m of the site

Local (L) 3 Within a 20 km radius of the centre of the site Regional (R) 4 Beyond a 20 km radius of the site

National (Na) 5 Crossing provincial boundaries or on a national / land wide scale

Duration (D)

Short term (S) 1 0 – 1 years Short to

medium (S-M) 2 2 – 5 years Medium term

(M) 3 5 – 15 years

Long term (L) 4 > 15 years Permanent(P) 5 Will not cease

Magnitude (M)

Small (S) 0 will have no effect on the environment Minor (Mi) 2 will not result in an impact on processes Low (L) 4 will cause a slight impact on processes Moderate

(Mo) 6 processes continuing but in a modified way

High (H) 8 processes are altered to the extent that they

Improbable (I) 2 some possibility, but low likelihood Probable (P) 3 distinct possibility

Highly

probable (HP) 4 most likely

Definite (D) 5 impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures

Significance (S) Determined through a synthesis of the characteristics described above:

S = (E+D+M) x P

Significance can be assessed as low, medium or high

Low: < 30 points: The impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to develop in the area

Medium: 30 – 60 points:

The impact could influence the decision to develop in the area unless it is effectively mitigated

High: ˃ 60 points: The impact must have an influence on the decision process to develop in the area

No significance When no impact will occur or the impact will not affect the environment

Status Positive (+) Negative (-)

The impact can be mostly to completely reversed with the implementation of the correct mitigation and rehabilitation measures.

Partly

reversible (PR) 6-89%

The impact can be partly reversed providing that mitigation measures as stipulated in the EMP are implemented and rehabilitation measures are undertaken

Irreversible (IR) 0-5% The impact cannot be reversed, regardless of the mitigation or rehabilitation measures taking place

The degree to

The resource will not be lost or destroyed provided that mitigation and rehabilitation measures as stipulated in the EMP are implemented

Resource may be partly destroyed (PR) 2

Partial loss or destruction of the resources will occur even though all management and mitigation measures as stipulated in the EMP are implemented Resource

cannot be replaced (IR) 3

The resource cannot be replaced no matter which management or mitigation measures are

The impact can be completely mitigated providing that all management and mitigation measures as stipulated in the EMP are implemented

Partly mitigatable

(PM) 2

The impact cannot be completely mitigated even though all management and mitigation measures as stipulated in the EMP are implemented.

Implementation of these measures will provide a measure of mitigatibility

Un-mitigatable

(UM) 3 The impact cannot be mitigated no matter which management or mitigation measures are

implemented.

4. Assessment of each impact and risk identified for each alternative

Note: The following table serves as a guide for summarising each alternative. The table should be repeated for each alternative to ensure a comparative assessment. The EAP may decide to include this section as Appendix J to this BAR.

Refer to Appendix J attached.

In document BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT (Page 40-45)