Annexure 14a - Geo Report

63 Wessel Road Woodmead 2191 Telephone: +27 (0)11 803 5726
PO Box 2597 Rivonia 2128 South Africa Facsimile: +27 (0)11 803 5745 Web: www.gcs-sa.biz
PROPOSED 200/400/800 MW COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND ADDITIONAL BLACK START GENERATION FACILITY AT WALVIS BAY, NAMIBIA Site Selection Geology, hydrogeology, soil & hydrology
Version 5 17 November 2008 Ninham Shand Consulting Services 00085/000/000/08-198
GCS (Pty) ltd. Johannesburg Durban Kimberley SE Scawthon (Financial) AH Barbour (Non-exec) V Cresswell (Non-exec) Est. 1987 Directors: AC Johnstone (Managing) Reg No: 2004/000765/07
Ninham Shand Consulting Services
Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station
PROPOSED 200/400/800 MW COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND ADDITIONAL BLACK START GENERATION FACILITY AT WALVIS BAY, NAMIBIA
Site Selection: Geology, Hydrogeology, Soils and Hydrology Report Version 5 17 November 2008
00085/000/000/08-198
DOCUMENT ISSUE STATUS

Report Issue Reference Number Title Final 00085/000/000/08-198 Site Selection- Geology, hydrogeology, soil & hydrology Name Author Document Reviewer Document Authorisation Andrew Johnstone Ashleigh Mckenzie Andrew Johnstone Signature Date 14 October 2008 01 October 2008 18 November 2008
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 2
Executive Summary
GCS (Pty) Ltd were appointed as a sub-consultant by Ninham Shand to investigate the geological, soils, hydrogeological and hydrological aspects of the site selection process for a proposed coal-fired power station near Walvis Bay, Namibia. To meet the increasing power demands within Namibia, the Namibian Power Corporation (Pty) LTD (NamPower) intends to increase its power generating capacity in the Walvis Bay area by constructing a multipleunit coal fired power station. The purpose of this study is to provide environmental boundaries for the proposed sites, in response to the development proposal. No fieldwork was undertaken other than a site visit and conclusions of this report are based on a desk study and experience in similar projects.
The following power generation components are being considered for the Walvis Bay area, which would feed into the Namibian power grid: 200, 400 or 800 MW Coal-fired Power Plant; and 100 MW black start facility Coal stock yard Ash disposal facility Black start facility
Four candidate sites were initially considered for the location of the power station. Data used to assess the relevant criteria was namely from site visits and desktop analysis of available information. Relevant criteria were used to analyse each site in terms of its suitability for the proposed project (Refer to Section 3). Sites A, B and D were all identified within the Sossus soil category while Site C falls within the surficial deposits soil profile. Sites A, B and D show no distinct geological features and depth to bedrock at each of these sites is not known. Sites A, B and D are also underlain by a primary aquifer with shallow groundwater levels. Site C however, has an approximately 5m of sand above bedrock, secondary aquifer and deeper groundwater levels. Site C was the preferred site from geological, hydrogeological and soils perspective. Refer to Table i for a summary of the assessment of the alternative sites. The specific environmental and cumulative effects which the proposed power station may have at each tentative site have been assessed by considering existing information relevant to the area of investigation (i.e. geology, hydrogeology, soils and hydrology). The results were presented using a rating system of the issues. Within the matrix, each issue is rated numerically and scores added to give a percentage: the higher the percentage, the more
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 3
favourable the site. This matrix was used to numerically evaluate the four (4) proposed sites in terms of founding conditions, surface water and groundwater. The results of this rating indicate that Site C is the most suitable site for the proposed power station. The site selection process identified two sites for more detailed analysis to determine environmental boundaries for the proposed power station. The environmental boundaries are discussed in details in Chapter 6 together with recommendations for further investigation to quantify the boundaries.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 4
Proposed Nampower Coal-fired Power Station
Table i: Table of assessment of alternative sites

Soil Disturbed. Falls within the Sosuss Formation. Topography Flat but limited extent. 4 MAMSL Geology The area is predominated by the Damara sequence. Geology is unknown but depth to bedrock is >10m. Hydrogeology Hosts a primary aquifer with shallow water table. There is a greater risk of contamination from the coal stockpile areas. Water quality expects to be similar. Land Capability Zoned industrial Hydrology Out of the floodlines but additional data is required.
Site A Harbour
Site well falls in the Sosuss Formation. Site B Coastal Site
Relatively flat but costs involved with terrain preparation to flatten the areas for construction. 10-30 MAMSL
Unconsolidated deposits with an unknown depth to bedrock (>10m). The bedrock is the Damara sequence. Tsumas Paleochannel is potentially located below the site. The area is predominated by the Damara sequence. The depth to bedrock is approximately 5m.
Hosts a primary aquifer with a shallow water table. There is a risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas. Water from the Tumara paleo-channel River seems to drain westward and daylights in the area of Site B. Underlain by a secondary aquifer and risks of contamination are reduced. Water levels are expected to be 5-10m below surface. (Shallow groundwater is evident and requires further investigation)
Coastal dune with limited agricultural potential
Close proximity of the sea and high water mark.
This is a sandy area, characterized by surficial deposits and is underlain by granite. This site comprises shallow bedrock and is geotechnically stable. Disturbed soils.
High landscape character to the west but sufficient area to accommodate proposed power station, ash disposal facility and future extensions. 30-60 MAMSL Relatively flat with small undulation, 4 MAMSL
Superficial sands with no agricultural potential
Site C Airport
No hydrological problems are envisaged; however the occurrences of pans to the south-west of Site C need to be considered in terms of origin and possible impacts.
Site D Narraville
Unknown geology and the area is predominated by the Damara sequence.
Hosts a primary aquifer with a shallow water table. Water quality expected to be saline (>10 000mg/l)
Situated east of a residential area on saline soils
In historical flood plain of the Kuiseb River.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 5
CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 9 1.1. PROJECT OUTLINE .................................................................................... 9 1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................15 1.2.1. Project Applicant..........................................................................15 1.3. TERMS OF REFERENCE ...............................................................................16 1.3.1. Project Scope ..............................................................................16 1.3.1.1. Geological and Soils .................................................................16 1.3.1.2. Hydrogeological ......................................................................17 1.3.1.3. Founding conditions .................................................................17 1.3.1.4. Environmental Boundaries site B and C ..........................................18 1.4. REPORT STRUCTURE .................................................................................19 2. PROPOSED NAMPOWER COAL- FIRED POWER STATION ...................................... 20 2.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................20 2.2. COAL-FIRED POWER STATION OBJECTIVES ............................................................21 3. BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION...................................................... 22 3.1. GEOLOGY ...........................................................................................22 3.1.1. General Geology ...........................................................................22 3.1.1.1. Summary of development of Central Namib Tract .............................23 3.1.2. Structural Geology ........................................................................25 3.2. TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY ................................................................28 3.3. SOILS ................................................................................................33 3.3.1. Coastal flats ...............................................................................35 3.3.2. The Kuiseb River and Kuiseb Delta .....................................................35 3.3.3. Sand dunes.................................................................................35 3.3.4. The Desert and dunes areas around Kuiseb River ....................................36 3.3.5. Salt pan .....................................................................................36 3.3.6. Pelican Point ...............................................................................36 3.4. DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................37 3.5. WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................37 3.5.1. Surface Water..............................................................................37 3.5.2. Groundwater Resources ..................................................................38 3.5.3. Catchment area............................................................................40 3.6. GROUNDWATER......................................................................................40 3.6.1. Groundwater Compartments ............................................................40 3.6.2. Main aquifer types ........................................................................40 3.6.3. Groundwater levels and flow............................................................42 3.6.4. Groundwater quality......................................................................42 3.6.5. Groundwater use ..........................................................................42 4. SITE SELECTION PROCESS ......................................................................... 45 4.1. SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY .....................................................................45 4.1.1. Candidate Sites ............................................................................46 4.1.2. Identification of fatal flaws and fatal flaw analysis ................................46 4.1.3. Site Selection Criteria ....................................................................48 4.1.3.1. Founding Conditions .................................................................48 4.1.3.2. Geomorphology ......................................................................49 4.1.3.3. Hydrological Criteria ................................................................49 4.1.4. Comparative Assessment .................................................................50 4.2. POLLUTION SOURCES FROM POWER STATIONS.........................................................50 5. FATAL FLAW AND SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS ..................................... 50
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 6
5.1. MATRIX..............................................................................................56 5.1.1. Numerical Assessment of sites ..........................................................56 5.2. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................56 6. ENVIRONMENTAL BOUNDARIES FOR SITES B & C.............................................. 60 6.1. SITE B ..............................................................................................60 6.1.1. Soils..........................................................................................60 6.1.2. Topography .................................................................................60 6.1.3. Geology .....................................................................................60 6.1.4. Hydrogeology...............................................................................61 6.1.5. Land Capability ............................................................................61 6.2. SITE C ..............................................................................................61 6.2.1. Soils..........................................................................................61 6.2.2. Topography .................................................................................62 6.2.3. Geology .....................................................................................62 6.2.4. Hydrogeology...............................................................................62 6.2.5. Land Capability ............................................................................62 6.2.6. Hydrology ...................................................................................62 7. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 64 7.1. ENVIRONMENTAL BOUNDARIES SITES B AND C ........................................................64 8. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 65 9. APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 66
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1: MAP OF NAMIBIA ..................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 1-2: MAP OF WALVIS BAY, NAMIBIA ................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 1-3: LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED SITE ALTERNATIVES (GOOGLE, 2008) .............................. 13 FIGURE 1-4: PROPOSED SITES FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS (GOOGLE, 2008)..................................... 14 FIGURE 3-1: SKETCH MAP OF GEOLOGY OF WALVIS BAY AND SURROUNDINGS (WARD, 1989) ....... 26 FIGURE 3-2: GENERAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 27 FIGURE 3-3: LOCATION SITE A.................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 3-4: VIEW NORTH-WEST (SITE A) .................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 3-5: VIEW NORTH TO EAST (SITE A)................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 3-6: LOCATION SITE B .................................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 3-7: VIEW SOUTH (SITE B).............................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 3-8: VIEW NORTH (SITE B) ............................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 3-9: LOCATION SITE C ................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-10: VIEW EAST (SITE C).............................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 3-11: VIEW NORTH (SITE C) ........................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-12: GPS 5 (SITE C) .................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-13: LOCATION SITE D.................................................................................................. 32 FIGURE 3-14: VIEW WEST TO EAST (SITE D)................................................................................ 32 FIGURE 3-15: VIEW EAST (SITE D) ............................................................................................. 32 FIGURE 3-16: GPS 6 (SITE D) .................................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 3-17: SOILS OF NAMIBIA................................................................................................. 34 FIGURE 3-18: WALVIS BAY GROUNDWATER ABSTRACTION AREAS ................................................. 39 FIGURE 4-1: PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 45 FIGURE 6-1: FARM BOUNDARIES SITE B & C ............................................................................... 63
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 7
List of Tables
TABLE I: TABLE OF ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES ........................................................ 5 TABLE 4-1: POTENTIAL FATAL FLAWS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE SELECTION ..................................47 TABLE 5-1: SITE A...........................................................................................51 TABLE 5-2: SITE B ...........................................................................................52 TABLE 5-3: SITE C...........................................................................................54 TABLE 5-4: SITE D...........................................................................................55 TABLE 5-5: NUMERICAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES .................................................56 TABLE 5-6: TABLE OF ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES ....................................................57 TABLE 5-7: PROPOSED POWER STATION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...........................................58
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: GEOLOGICAL MAPS (2314 AND 2214) ..........................................................67 APPENDIX B: MATRIX .........................................................................................68
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project Outline
Namibia lies adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and in the southwest portion of Africa. The project area at Walvis Bay lies on the west coast of Namibia and may be divided into four main areas namely: the Walvis Bay Ramsar Site, the Kuiseb Delta, the Dune Belt Area and the Walvis Bay Coastline. The area is under the Municipality of Walvis Bays (WBM), jurisdiction is flanked the cold, rich South Atlantic Oceans coastline on its western, seaward side. To the north and east, the Namib Deserts dunes and plains surround the town. To the south are the Walvis Bay wetlands, listed as a Ramsar Convention wetland in 1995, and the adjoining Kuiseb River Delta. Refer to Figure 1-1.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 9
Figure 1-1: Map of Namibia
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 10
Figure 1-2: Map of Walvis Bay, Namibia
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 11
Walvis Bay (meaning 'Whale Bay') experiences a temperate year-round climate due to the cold Benguela current. Traditionally, the economy of Walvis Bay has been based on the fishing industry, which is still the biggest employer. The 3,500-hectare salt field to the south of Walvis Bay is one of the largest solar evaporation salt facilities in Africa. Walvis Bay is linked to Namibias rail, air and road network, making its port well-situated to service landlocked countries in southern Africa. The town is linked with the rest of Africa via the Trans-Kalahari and Trans-Caprivi Highways. The Walvis Bay harbour is sheltered from the ocean by the Walvis Bay peninsula, resulting in a safe and secure harbour serving the west coast of Africa. As a result of various industrial developments related to uranium exploration and mining, the West Coast of Namibia is experiencing significant economic growth. To meet the increasing power demands, the Namibian Power Corporation (Pty) LTD (NamPower) intends to increase its power generating capacity in the Walvis Bay area. NamPower currently owns three power stations namely: Ruacana Hydro Power Station (240 MW), Van Eck Coal-fired Power Station (120MW) located in Windhoek and Paratus Diesel Power Station (24MW) in Walvis Bay. The proposed coal-fired power facility and black start facility is to be developed by an independent power producer and will comprise multiple units. Four areas have been identified for the location of the proposed plant as illustrated in Figure 1-3. This study will identify the most suitable site for the power station in terms of geology, hydrogeology, soils and hydrology criteria.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 12
Figure 1-3: Locations of proposed site alternatives (Google, 2008)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 13
Figure 1-4: Proposed sites for detailed analysis (Google, 2008)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 14
1.2. Project description
Power generation at Walvis Bay will necessitate a combination of fuel types and generation technologies to ensure a stable power feed as there is unfortunately no natural fuel source available in the Walvis Bay area. The following components are being considered for the Walvis Bay power station, which would feed power to the Namibian power grid as a whole: 200, 400 or 800 MW Coal-fired Power Plant, Coal stock yard; Ash disposal facility; Black Start Heavy fuel generators The power generating unit is to be constructed on a site of approximately 20-40 hectares (subject to infrastructure support requirements). The four proposed site alternatives include: Site A: Site B: Site C: Site D: Located in Port area Harbour Site Located north of Walvis Bay on the coast (Farm 39) Coastal Site Located east of Dune 7 in industrial zone Airport Site Located east of Narraville, west of Dune 7 Narraville Site
Refer to Figure 1-3 for a Google image illustrating positions of the four sites. *(A decision was undertaken by the project team that all ash would be disposed of at Site C) 1.2.1. Project Applicant
NamPower currently owns three power plants, but intends constructing a local power plant as a base load source to generate national power. Van Eck in Windhoek is currently the only coal-fired plant in Namibia and is a major contributor to the Namibian grid. The plant however, is old, inefficient and the technology outdated. Ruacana power station is a hydroelectric plant capable of a maximum power output of 240MW, but the supply can be as little as 80MW and the supply of Ruacana is limited to run-of-river. Paratus Diesel Power Station is a 24 MW station owned by NamPower and is also located in the Walvis Bay area. Nampower has committed to undertake the site selection process prior to the project being awarded to an Independent Power Producer (IPP).
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 15
1.3. Terms of Reference
GCS (Pty) Ltd was tasked to provide a detailed assessment of the most suitable sites as a possible location for the proposed power station based on geology, hydrogeology, soils and hydrology. Necessary focus areas are as follows: Identify the feasibility of the alternatives proposed in terms of generic impacts associated with the proposed type of development, in the context of the site specific and local and regional characteristics; Set limits in terms of the impacts that are acceptable; Identify the constraints posed by the various alternatives in terms of surface water, groundwater, geology and soils and assess the significance of impacts on such resources to allow for an understanding of the implications; Identify the significance of impacts related to the proposed alternatives in terms of the visual, socio-economic and planning aspects, (as a concept, in light of the lack of design detail) to inform the detailed design in a later stage of the project; Two sites namely B and C were identified for more detailed analysis and to determine the environmental boundaries for the proposed power station. Mitigation measures are necessary to address negative impacts at alternative sites and/or to ensure that the power station responds to the environmental boundaries at Sites B and C (these measures will form the specifications for the design of the power station by the IPP).
1.3.1. Project Scope
1.3.1.1. Geological and Soils
GCS undertook a desktop geological site investigation of the proposed sites considered for the power station addressing the following: Description of the topography and geomorphology of the study area with respect to average elevation above sea level, topography; Description of the geology of the general Walvis Bay area and specifically of the selected sites. (This was based on available information and field observations). The output of this component was a geological map of the study area, together with a description of the lithology and stratigraphy;
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 16
Assessment of soil maps of the general Walvis Bay area and specifically of the areas where the project components (power station, ash dump) will be located. The purpose was to describe the physical and chemical characteristics of the various soil types, determine the potential impacts of the proposed project components on soils and to recommend mitigation measures; Analysis of land capability: From the soil map, the land capability of the soil types in terms of potential agricultural uses.
1.3.1.2. Hydrogeological
A desktop hydrogeological investigation of the groundwater conditions of the proposed alternative sites for this project. The activities involved in completing the hydrogeological study included: Collection of existing hydrogeological information pertaining to the groundwater characteristics of the proposed sites; Data capture, analysis, mapping interpretation and ESEIA recommendations; Elimination of the sites with associated fatal flaws; Ranking of the candidate sites; Identification of the most preferred site for the establishment of the coal-fired power station.
1.3.1.3. Founding conditions
The alternative sites for the new coal-fired power station were assessed based on the: Available surface area (an area of approximately 20ha is required for the power station and a coal stockyard to capacitate a 30 day supply of coal, approximately 70ha for fly ash disposal); Suitability of founding conditions (sites must be geotechnically stable and suitable for construction activities). The identified criteria were applied to the site selection process by considering existing information relevant to the area of investigation. The results have been presented using a rating system in the form of a matrix for the criteria. Within the matrix each criteria was rated numerically and the scores added to give a percentage: the higher the percentage, the more favourable the site.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 17
This investigation will inform part of the detailed Environmental and Socio- Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA) once the preferred sites undergo detailed environmental investigation.
1.3.1.4. Environmental Boundaries site B and C The site selection process identified two sites for more detailed analysis to determine environmental boundaries for the proposed power station. The project criteria are: 1. A wet cooled power station of 200, 400 and 800 MW at Site B and black start facility 2. A dry cooled power station of 200, 400 and 800 MW at Site C and black start facility 3. All ash disposal at Site C.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 18
1.4. Report Structure
The report has been compiled to provide environmental boundaries for the proposed sites, in response to the development proposal. The report is structures as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction; Chapter 1 provides a short introduction to the project, which includes the details of the project applicant and the scope of work which is covered in this report. Chapter 2 Overview of the Coal-fired power station; Chapter 2 provides a more in depth description of the proposed power station, as well as the objectives thereof, and a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages associated with it. Chapter 3 Baseline Description; Chapter 3 provides a desktop description of certain environmental conditions and a detailed description of criteria associated with the area in which the proposed project is situated (soils, geology, hydrogeology, hydrology). Chapter 4 Site Selection Process; Chapter 4 provides a description of the methodology used in the site selection process for the proposed power station. Chapter 5 Fatal flaw and site selection criteria analysis The site selection process identified two sites for more detailed analysis to determine environmental boundaries for the proposed power station. A ranking matrix is used to compare the ratings of the various sites. The outcomes of the site selection matrix and indicates the preferred candidate site for the location of the coal-fired power station. Chapter 6 Environmental boundaries for Sites B and C; The site selection process identified sites B and C for more detailed analysis to determine the environmental boundaries for the proposed power station. Chapter 7 Conclusion; Chapter 7 concludes the report by identifying the preferred site and providing recommendations. Chapter 8 References. Chapter 8 details all reference documents used in compiling this report.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 19
2. PROPOSED NAMPOWER COAL- FIRED POWER STATION

2.1. Project description
Walvis Bay (2259'S, 1431'E) is a large embayment on the central Namibian coastline. Nampower proposes to construct a 200MW, 400MW or 800MW coal-fired plus black start generating facility with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility and transport systems (to deliver coal and potentially seawater to and from the plant) at a site designated for the project. The plant will use multi-fuelled generator sets that will produce approximately 100MW of electricity for starting the power station in the black start facility. Storage facilities will be provided on site for diesel and fuel oil for the black start facility. This facility may also be used to boost emergency generation capacity, if required. Storage tanks will also be required on site for de-mineralized and neutralized water and for various chemicals. The number and volumes of tanks will be determined by technical requirements based on the preferred alternative technologies selected. The coal stockyard must be large enough to store coal for 30 days (approximately 100,000 tons for a 400MW capacity). Approximately 70 hectares is required for disposal of fly ash from the 400MW plant over about 40 years, if conventional dry stacking is undertaken. As rehabilitation of ash dumps in arid environments poses certain environmental constraints, alternatives in this regard will be investigated. Water for cooling of both the main cooling system and auxiliary cooling system (for removing heat from ancillary equipment such as air compressors, oil coolers and electrical) will be pumped via pipeline from the Atlantic Ocean. Cooling processes at Site B will be conducted using sea water, whereas cooling at Site C will be by means of radiators. Alternatives will be investigated for the preferred cooling system, and the provision of water (availability of supply, storage provision, treatment options). It will also be necessary to build a pipeline for both seawater and freshwater and an overhead power line to carry electricity from the power station. Conveyor routes may be required from the station to the ash disposal facility for transport of ash and from the coal stockyard to the power station. Determination of access to and from the site for all of the above will depend on the site and technology alternatives chosen. Ash disposal methods and location for the disposal facility are a major factor in terms of the potential impact on ground and surface water, air quality, transport routes, treatment required and visual impact.
00085/000/000/08-198
22 October 2008
Page 20 of 74
_____________________________________________________________________
Coal will be imported and stored in the coal stockyard. It is estimated that 1,2 million tones per annum (t/a) will be required initially for the 400MW station, increasing to 2,4 million t/a for the 800MW facility.
2.2. Coal-fired power station objectives
The project objectives have been provided by NamPower and may be summarized as follows: 1. Design and develop of plant and related infrastructure; 2. Construct a 200MW, 400MW or 800MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard and ash disposal facility; 3. Generation and transmission of power; 4. Comply with legal requirements; 5. Create an area which can be effectively managed in terms of operational procedures, monitoring and rehabilitation; 6. Minimise environmental impacts; 7. Zero discharge of surface process water to the environment; 8. Minimise seepage to the groundwater. GCS (Pty) LTD will take specific objectives into consideration for the scope of this report (i.e. numbers 4-8 of the coal-fired power station objectives).
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 21
_____________________________________________________________________
3. BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
This section supplies important environmental data, which will be used during the site selection process. The baseline information must be used to identify the environmental boundaries to inform the design of the power station by the IPP to ensure minimal negative impacts.The factors taken into consideration include geology, topography, soils and hydrogeology. Upon the elimination of three (3) of the candidate sites and the identification of the preferred site a detailed EIA and EMP will be undertaken.
3.1. Geology
3.1.1. General Geology
According to Dr. Martin Falkes report (Kuiseb Basin Water Resources Management Project, July 2008), the Namib Desert is underlain by Precambrian bedrock consisting of granites, gneisses and schists. These are separated from younger Tertiary & Quaternary deposits by the Namib unconformity surface formed during the Late Cretaceous erosional phase. Outcrops of Precambrian rocks are found all over the Central Namib Region. The oldest Tertiary deposits (50 20 Ma) pertain to the cross-bedded, aeolian Tsondab Sandstone Formation, which underlies most of the Central Namib Desert south of the Kuiseb River and was deposited under arid conditions. The Tsondab Sandstone Formation, a precursor of the present Namib Sand Sea, is generally 45 to 90 m thick, but reaches a thickness of over 200 m in the eastern part of the Namib Sand Sea.
In the area of the Kuiseb Valley the Tsondab Sandstone Formation is overlain unconformably by the well rounded quartzite and vein quartz gravels of the tertiary Karpfenkliff Conglomerate Formation (Ward 1984). These tertiary fluvial deposits are extensively calcified, as the Tsondab Sandstone shows with an up to 5 m thick pedogenic calcrete horizon on adjacent interfluves, representing a long period of landform stability in a semiarid climate. The geological sequence of the Namib Desert north of the Kuiseb river is overlain by alluvial sediments of the Namib Group (Early Miocene) indicating a wetter, more humid climate with sporadic high energy flow events. Extensive Calcrete formation occurred at the end of the Miocene. The Late Tertiary deposits of the Sossus Sand Formation indicate a return to arid conditions. The Pleistocene sediments show a mostly arid climate, which alternates sporadically with short slightly wetter periods.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 22
_____________________________________________________________________
Ephemeral rivers within the Kuiseb Delta have deposited recent sediments in the form of sand deposits and silty river alluvium during floods. The modern coastline with its headlands, lagoons, bays and sabkhas are a result of the interaction of aeolian, coastal and fluvial processes. The Kuiseb rises on the interior plateau of central Namibia at the Khomas Hochland, at an elevation of approximately 2000 m. The river has eroded a shallow, sinuous valley into Late Precambrian metasediments westwards from the headwaters. These are largely composed of schists and quartzites which provide a large proportion of sandy bed loads transported within the rivers lower reaches (WARD 1987). West of the escarpment separating the inland plateau from the coastal plains, the river has incised a deep canyon (>200 m) in similar rocks. The river is highly confined herein, often flowing over bedrock with no alluvial cover due to the comparatively steep gradient (0.003 0.004 m/m) and narrow channel (<100 m). The channel broadens 65 km from the coast (approx. 45 km above Gobabeb), freeing the river channel to expand onto an increasingly wide (ephemeral or dry) delta and floodplain, the Kuiseb Delta. Approximately 42 km below Gobabeb station the floodplain width increases to over 1 km. Within 20 km from the coast low crescentic dunes cross the river, resulting in poorly defined channels terminating on coastal flats in the vicinity of Walvis Bay. Gradients below the canyon average 0.001-0.002 m/m, increasing again to 0.004 m/m within 60 km from the coast, resulting in a slightly convex longitudinal profile in the lower river. The Kuiseb delineates the gravel plains of the Namib, underlain by massive granites and covered by thin soils in the north, from the dune fields of the Namib Sand Sea in the south. Refer to Figure 3-2 for the geology of Walvis Bay and surroundings. As illustrated in Figure 3-2, the Walvis Bay area (and the four proposed sites) falls within a lithological area of surficial deposits. These are unconsolidated-consolidated sand and gravel.
3.1.1.1. Summary of development of Central Namib Tract
Following the split of West Gondwana from the Cape northwards (approximately 130 million years ago), the South Atlantic (80 million years ago) and the Escarpment (about 127 million years ago) formed. Erosion was initially rapid and approximately 4km of sediments were deposited off the Orange River mouth and some 3km off Walvis Bay. Therefore, a welldeveloped erosional landscape with resistant inselbergs, such as Heinrichsberg, Tumas, Kamberg etc., were formed probably by about 60 65 million years ago.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 23
_____________________________________________________________________
Dunes accumulated on this early proto-Namib tract. In some areas, e.g., Diep Rivier, the dune sand accumulation was in the order of 200m thick. These proto-Namib dunes were deposited mainly by southerly to south-westerly winds, similar to the present wind regime. Broad depressions also existed at this time and were in- filled by sands derived from both the Escarpment and the early dunes. Pans were formed in the early dune field during wetter periods. These deposits have given rise to the suite of surficial sediments known as the Tsondab Sandstone Formation. The proto-Namib Desert phase was followed by a period (about 15 million years ago) when the climate was at least semi-arid with strong seasonal run-off. It was under these conditions that vast alluvial fans with braided streams were developed west of the Escarpment. These coarse deposits can be seen as high-lying, gravel and conglomeratic terraces flanking the Swakop, Khan, Kuiseb, Tsondab and Tsauchab Rivers. In the Kuiseb Valley, these deposits are called the Karpfenkliff Conglomerate Formation. Calcareous soils developed towards the end of this wetter phase. This indicates a period of landform stability for about 500 000 to 1 000 000 years when the annual rainfall was most likely some 350-450mm. These soils gave rise to the calcrete duricrusts, some 5 7 million years old. Following the calcrete formation, southern Africa experienced a general phase of upwarping with the axis roughly coinciding with the present Escarpment. This uplift caused the rivers to cut deeply through the calcretes, conglomerates and sandstones into the bedrock to give the spectacular canyons of the present westward-draining rivers. At about this time, dune sands of the present main Namib Sand Sea began to accumulate. The dune sands appear to be derived from sediment brought down by the Orange River and then washed northwards by the long shore drift (associated with the south-south easterly to south-south westerly winds). South of Lderitz the sands are funnelled onshore and then blown north into the main Namib Sand Sea. Today dunes encroach upon the Kuiseb River from the south. The large linear dunes
migrate at rates from 0 2m per year whereas the coastal crescentic dunes, west of Rooibank, migrate northwards at 1 10m per year. The lack of consistent flooding in the Delta sector as well as the high energy coastal south-south westerly winds has enabled the dunes to build the narrow belt between Walvis Bay and the Swakop River. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the sketch map of Walvis Bay and surrounding areas, illustrating the dune positions and approximate movement.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 24
_____________________________________________________________________
3.1.2. Structural Geology
According to the Geological Survey Map of Namibia (2214 &2314), Sites A, B, and D fall under the Sossus Formation. There appears to be no visible or identified faulting or other relevant geological structures within the immediate vicinity of these sites. Site C is located in the area of surficial deposits and outcropping of Salem Granite syntectectonics, Homogenous Red Granite (post-tectonic) and dolerite dykes occur within the vicinity of the site. The geology of the area of investigation is dominated by the Damara Sequence.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 25
_____________________________________________________________________
Figure 3-1: Sketch Map of geology of Walvis Bay and surroundings (Ward, 1989)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 26
Figure 3-2: General geology
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 27
3.2. Topography and geomorphology
Walvis Bay is formed by the north-orientated sand pit known as Pelican Point (approximately 7km long). To the south of Pelican Point is a broad 2km wide sand flat which has many north-directed accretionary ridges that have developed west of a prominent beach ridge. Extensive tidal flats occur between the Lagoon and the older beach ridge. The Lagoon, tidal flats and Second Lagoon are predominantly underlain by quartoze sands. These sands contain magnetite, garnet and subordinate clayey and silty material. The fine fraction comprises mainly organically derived material and small amounts of biotite rich silts introduced by the Kuiseb River during large flood events. Walvis Bay Lagoon is oriented SSW-NNE which closely co-insides with the prevailing coastal wind direction. The west side of the Lagoon is demarcated by a straight margin. There is a 4km wide fan delta of the Kuiseb River in the Wortel Dorop area. The coarse-grained fan delta represents a depositional and not an erosional event and minor erosion is visible only on the NW side of the fan delta lobe. The well-developed flood tidal delta comprises five major, composite bars. The flood Delta has formed in the northern end of the Walvis Lagoon (Figure 3-1). Site A, B, C and D all lay on a fairly even topography as shown from the site views and GPS point images: Site A: Site B: Site C: Site D: Figure 3-3 to Figure 3-5; Figure 3-6 to Figure 3-8; Figure 3-9 to Figure 3-12; and Figure 3-13 to Figure 3-16.
Site A records an elevation of approximately 4 meters above mean sea level (masl), site B approximately 5 masl, site C approximately 63 masl and site D around 4 masl.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 28
_____________________________________________________________________ SITE A
Figure 3-3: Location Site A
Figure 3-4: View north-west (site A)
Figure 3-5: View north to east (site A)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 29
_____________________________________________________________________ SITE B
Figure 3-6: Location site B
Figure 3-7: View South (site B)
Figure 3-8: View North (site B)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 30
_____________________________________________________________________ SITE C
Figure 3-9: Location Site C
Figure 3-10: View East (site C)
Figure 3-11: View North (site C)
Figure 3-12: GPS 5 (site C)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 31
_____________________________________________________________________ SITE D
Figure 3-13: Location site D
Figure 3-14: View West to east (site D)
Figure 3-15: View East (site D)
View West (site D)
Figure 3-16: GPS 6 (site D)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 32
_____________________________________________________________________
3.3. Soils
Aeolian sedimentation processes are active in the Namib Desert where dunes and Hamadatype vegetation prevail. In the western Namib Desert, the breakdown of rock material is caused by salt contained in the coastal fog and derived from the marine environment. Tertiary and Quaternary deposits such as dunes and flat sand plains dominate the Namib Desert. According to the Figure 3-17 the Walvis Bay study area falls within the area characterized by Leptosols, Acrisols, Ferrasols and Vertisols. The characteristic features of these soils include: High sand stratum Low nutrient content Low organic content Alkaline PH conditions High salinity levels Walvis Bay is subject to drifting sand most of the year and soils are very saline due to their location near the sea. Wind is the single most important physical agent in the area affecting wave action, transport of sediments and the shape and movement of surrounding sand dunes. The winds are characterised by high velocity, high frequency south to south-westerly winds in summer and high velocity, low frequency east to north-westerly winds in winter. Scarce rainfall in the desert area makes the dilution of salt in the top-soil minimal. The prevailing wind direction in Walvis Bay is south-southwest, displacing sand in a northward direction. This could impact alternative sites considered for the proposed power station should any site be in the path of the displaced sand and/ or migrating dunes.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 33
Figure 3-17: Soils of Namibia
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 34
3.3.1. Coastal flats
The coastal flats are composed of lagoonal deposits and Kuiseb fan delta deposits. An example of this is the reddish sand at the interface between the 'delta' and the coastal flats. The coarse sand in the Wortel area south of Walvis Bay is a larger fan delta. The lowlying coastal flats harbour extensive reed beds and large sand hummocks formed by several species of perennial woody shrubs. Such vegetation is situated to the north, east and south of the town of Walvis Bay.
3.3.2. The Kuiseb River and Kuiseb Delta
There is considerable movement of sand over the entire area, especially in the western section, where large dunes migrate at 1-6 m per year. Wind erosion also causes extensive flaking of solidified silt plates in the Kuiseb pans. This may affect the alternative sites proposed for the power station. The prevailing wind direction and velocities need to therefore be evaluated in depth to determine the possible effects of this sand migration. The Kuiseb River is an ephemeral river flowing only after good rains in its headwater regions, and not annually. It is of importance to the Walvis Bay environment as it provides the water used by the town from its alluvial aquifers. When the river does flow it carries large amounts of sediments which are deposited as flow rates decrease or as it reaches the coastal flats. The Kuiseb River is also picks up sand blown into its bed from the south and as a result keeps the water course free of major sand deposits. The Kuiseb Delta is an area where the Kuiseb River flows down a steepened gradient onto the coastal flats. A series of channels and palaeo-channels form an intricate network of fine-grained fluvial deposits associated with numerous small aeolian dunes South-east of Walvis Bay. In recent floods since 1985, the Kuiseb flow has ended in the white transverse dunes on the western edge of the sand sea.
3.3.3. Sand dunes
The dunes surrounding Walvis Bay are mainly crescentic forms. This crescentic dune belt, predominantly less than 20 km wide, includes transverse, barchan, barchanoid ridge and some star dune types. The coastal crescentic dunes move northward at rates of up to 10
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 35
_____________________________________________________________________
m/yr. North of the diffuse lower Kuiseb course, high linear dunes extend northward to the Swakop River. The sand dunes surrounding Walvis Bay do not support extensive vegetation.
3.3.4. The Desert and dunes areas around Kuiseb River
The zone includes the sand dune and gravel plain areas north, east and south of the Kuiseb River and Kuiseb Delta. The dunes and gravel plains between Walvis Bay and the Kuiseb River, and south of the Kuiseb River include a variety of desert landscapes. Most outstanding are the various types of sand dunes which take on mainly crescent-shaped forms. The crescentic dunes move northward at a rate of 10-20 m a year. The gravel plains are less spectacular but constitute a natural part of the desert landscape around Walvis Bay as the windswept part of the desert. The gravel plains are rich in stones and minerals of a very high diversity. The gravel plains form an extremely sensitive desert pavement.
3.3.5. Salt pan
The extensive salt pans south of Walvis Bay have formed behind a beach ridge approximately 2 masl. This natural western barrier forms the southern part of the large sandpit known as Pelican Point. The eastern boundary is formed by parabolic and hummock dunes, the sand of which has been blown across the pan from the beach.
3.3.6. Pelican Point
This zone is dominated by a long, sandy beach, exposed to strong wind- and wave-action of the Benguela current. Sand is trapped by the peninsula and remobilized by wind into the harbor and lagoon. Wave action moves approximately 2 million meters of sand per annum. It is important to note the very narrow section of the peninsula at Donkey Bay where a breach could take place and the northern part of the Pelican Point peninsula from the mainland. The coast south of Donkeys Bay is growing westwards at a rate of 5-10m/yr.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 36
_____________________________________________________________________
3.4. Development
The urban sections of Walvis Bay and Swakopmund consume huge amounts of water and energy for residents, tourism, trade and industrial purposes. In addition, the port of Walvis Bay is the main port with respect to import/export, fishing industry and transport of ore from the hinterland mining activities both in Erongo and other Namibian regions. Licenses for the extraction of resources from the dune belt between Walvis Bay and Swakopmund have been awarded to several companies. The area is heavily utilized by Namibias second and third largest towns both for recreational and tourist activities. Increasing urbanization is envisaged in the area from Lovers Hill in Walvis Bay to Mile 4 north of Swakopmund and the Dune belt will serve as a recreational area for even more people. The salt works in Walvis Bay, Swakopmund and Cape Cross have long term concessions on salt extraction from seawater. The salt pans constitute a huge wetland area. The modern, deepwater port of Walvis Bay is the only port in the Erongo and Kunene regions with significant transshipment activity and a key cargo transport node in Namibia. It also hosts the countrys main fishing harbor and is operated by Namport.
3.5. Water Resources

3.5.1. Surface Water Meeting with: Position: Address: Room: Tel: Guido von Hagenhove Head of Surface hydrology Private Bag 13193 Windhoek Namibia 209 + 264 61 208 7257
The flood protection berm was constructed after the 1963 floods when the Kuiseb River run through Walvis Bay. The flood protection berms was designed for 10 000m3/sec. Return period of flood is not known. Only 0.5-1m of the berm is visible but this is due to the buildup of sand against the berm. The berm has altered the Kuiseb River profile and the Protected areas are new being covered with sand. The village of Narraville is in or just above the 1:100 year flood line.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 37
_____________________________________________________________________
3.5.2. Groundwater Resources
The Kuiseb River supplies water via abstraction areas, to Walvis Bay and surrounding areas (Refer to Figure 3-18). As seen in the illustration below, Walvis Bay is supplied with water from the Kuiseb River via existing pipelines from Dorop South and Rooibank B, Rooibank A and Swartbank abstraction areas.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 38
Figure 3-18: Walvis Bay groundwater abstraction areas
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 39
3.5.3. Catchment area
Walvis Bay lies between the Swakop River in the north and the Namib Deserts sand dunes and gravel plains to the east with its boundary extending to the Namib Naukluft Park. To the south are the 12 600 hectare Walvis Bay wetlands (listed as a Ramsar Site) and the adjoining delta of the ephemeral Kuiseb River in the south. Walvis Bay falls within the Omaruru/ Swakop water basin management areas. The Kuiseb River flows into the delta one or more times a decade with an average annual volume of 4.3 million m. The river has reached the sea only 15 times in the past 160 years. The southern arm of the Kuiseb River channel is currently blocked by a large barrier dune which could break open onto the salt flats or salt works.
3.6. Groundwater
3.6.1. Groundwater Compartments
Namibias groundwater occurs in a wide range of rock types making groundwater management a complex process. It provides a buffer against drought in many regions of the country, but is vulnerable to over-abstraction and pollution. According to the aquifer formation map of Namibia, Walvis Bay is defined by unconsolidated deposits in terms of its hydrogeological rock type and falls within the aquitard/ aquiclude aquifer types. Further indepth hydrological information is required at the proposed sites (A, B, C and D). Generally the Sites A, B, C and D (Refer to Figure 1-3 for site locations) are underlain by aquifers with little domestic quality groundwater potential. The Damara Sequence (Site C) hosts aquifers with very low permeabilities. There appears to the Tsumas paleochannel drains westward into the intertidal zone and day- lighting in the Site B area. Sites A and D are underlain by a primary aquifer above the Damara Sequence which contains poor quality groundwater.
3.6.2. Main aquifer types
According to KUELLS & HEIDBUECHEL (2006) the main aquifer types in the area are the following:
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 40
_____________________________________________________________________
Alluvium: Hydraulic Conductivity 2.0 x 10-3 m/s / Porosity 30 % / Layer Thickness 30 m/ Storativity S=0.133 (at Rooibank) or S=0.06 to 0.08 (at Swartbank) Palaeochannels: Hydraulic Conductivity 1.0 x 10-6 m/s [BGR 1998/Vol 7: 3.1 x 10-6 m/s] Porosity 25 % / Layer S=0.046 or 4.6 % Sandstone: Basement: Hydraulic Conductivity 3.0 x 10-6 m/s / Porosity 7 % / Layer Thickness variable Hydraulic Conductivity 1.55 x 10-8 m/s / Porosity 0.1 % / Layer Thickness >200m BGR (1998/Vol 7) identifies the transmissivities, saturated thicknesses & hydraulic conductivities (including a mean overall porosity of n=0.15) as follows: Kuiseb River Sediments: Conductivity: Tsondab Sandstone: Basement: 150 1600 m2/d / saturated thickness 15 m/ Hydraulic 10-4 - 10-3 m/s 4 m2/d 0.03 m2/d Thickness variable/ Storativity
Palaeochannel Sediments: 6 m2/d
According to AIN (1999) there are 2 alluvial aquifers (on top of each other) with differing water qualities in the Kuiseb at Gobabeb. A freshwater aquifer is underlain by a denser and more saline aquifer. In certain places the interface between the upper and lower groundwater is sharp but in other places a zone of mixing is occurs. The thickness of the fresh-water layer varies between 3 and 15 m and the water quality is also not constant. According to AIN (1999), the average alluvial width is 150 m, the porosity 35 % and the saturated thickness 10 m whereas BATE & WALKER (1991) give an average alluvial width of 307 m and a thickness of 10 m. According to BGR (1995/Vol D-I) the amount of water available in the palaeochannel aquifer is estimated to be about 340 Mm3 of which about 100 Mm3 are brackish. A further 160 Mm3 is in the Tsondab Sandstone. This estimate of a total of 500 Mm3 is based on assumed and measured thicknesses of saturated sediments of 15 30 m and an effective pore volume of 0.04 0.05 (BGR 1995/Vol D-I).
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 41
_____________________________________________________________________
3.6.3. Groundwater levels and flow
According to findings of transmission loss measurements by KUELLS & HEIDBUECHEL (2006), low water tables appear in the upper part and very high water tables in the lower part of the Lower Kuiseb Dune Area. In the Kuiseb South Sub-area the mean groundwater-table in the dune valleys lies in excess of 40 m below surface and approximately 100 m below surface under the dunes. In the Coastal sub-area (mainly at the lowlands near sea level), the groundwater-table is relatively shallow over larger areas (1 to 3 m below the surface). In addition to sea water intrusion, the evaporation effect is also supposed to be pertinent in increasing the overall salinity. The Kuiseb River delineates the gravel plains of the Namib and is underlain by massive granites and covered by thin soils in the north. The Kuiseb Alluvial Aquifer is not continuous as basement rocks out-crop at several locations on either side of the river channel restricting the lateral extent of the alluvium. Such outcrops exist upstream of Gobabeb and approximately 5 km downstream near Soetrivier. In the vicinity of Soetrivier, geophysical surveying suggested that the depth to fresh bedrock is very limited. These lateral and vertical restrictions to the alluvial channel constitute possible barriers to ground waterflow. The average alluvial width is 150 m, the porosity 35 % and the saturated thickness 10 m according to AIN (1999) while BATE & WALKER (1991) give an average alluvial width of 307 m and a thickness of 10 m.
3.6.4. Groundwater quality
Resources in the upper part of the Kuiseb Basin are of lower quality in the northern part than in the southern part. The yield is also higher as quartzite represents a better fractured aquifer. Groundwater quality and yield decrease towards the west, downstream of the Kuiseb River due to the reduction of rainfall & recharge. The alluvium however represents an exception as groundwater quality is generally better in the alluvial bodies (~600 uS/cm compared to ~1500-2500 uS/cm in the rock).
3.6.5. Groundwater use
Kuiseb River groundwater resources support the water demand of Walvis Bay, whilst water derived from the alluvium of the Omaruru River is pumped from Henties Bay to a central pump station at Swakopmund for distribution to Swakopmund, Arandis, and the Rossing
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 42
_____________________________________________________________________
Uranium Mine. Approximately half of the Erongo Region is covered by the Namib Desert and is therefore largely arid. Communal and commercial farming are conducted in the region and are supported by groundwater developed from discrete borehole sources. Walvis Bay obtains fresh water from the Central Namib Water Supply Scheme based at Swakopmund. This scheme is run by NamWater and draws groundwater from well fields in the Omaruru and Kuiseb Rivers. Namibias national water supplier (NamWater) is extracting large quantities of groundwater, mainly from the Kuiseb aquifers. A network of pipelines, reservoirs and roads run through the Delta. The balance between water extraction and recharge is being closely monitored by the Kuiseb Basin Management Committee (KBMC) in terms of the Water Resources Management Act 24 of 2004. The alluvial aquifer in the lower part of the Kuiseb River at Rooibank has been used since 1923 to supply water to Walvis Bay. The alluvium is 15-20m thick and its relatively high permeability allows high pumping rates and quick recharge which is related to river flow. According to DRFN (1994) water consumption from the Kuiseb River is as follows: 0.6 Mm3 /a on 109 farms (ground dams & boreholes, for livestock (90 %) and domestic purposes (10 %); 0.006 Mm3/a by 400 Topnaar communal farmers in 10 villages for livestock (58 %) and domestic purposes (42 %); 0.007 Mm3 /a by the Namib Research Institute at Gobabeb (for domestic purposes, 86 % for gardening); 4.3 Mm3 /a for water supply of Walvis Bay (from Rooibank Aquifer/ 72 % for domestic purposes, industrial use 28 %; 36 % of the towns entire water consumption were used for gardening); 2.9Mm3 /a for water supply of Swakopmund (from Swartbank Aquifer/ 96 % for domestic purposes, light industrial use 4 %); 3.0 Mm3 /a for Rssing Uranium Mine and the town of Arandis (from a reservoir in Swakopmund, supplied by Kuiseb & Omaruru aquifers). The amount of water available in the palaeochannel aquifer (the only existing aquifer) is estimated to be about 340 mm3 [VAN ZIJL & HUYSSEN 1967]), of which about 100 Mm3 are brackish. A further 160 mm3 is in the Tsondab Sandstone. This estimate of a total of 500 Mm3 is based on assumed and measured thicknesses of saturated sediments of 15 30 m and an effective pore volume of 0.04 0.05 (BGR 1995/Vol D-I). The palaeo-channels are 20 to 65 km in length and <0.5 to 5 km in width and are covered by an average of 35 m of dune sand below the inter-dune valleys. They predominantly contain 40 to 90 m (average 55 m) thick calcareous silty fine sand and locally medium to coarse-
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 43
_____________________________________________________________________
grained sand. The palaeo-channel has a saturated thickness of between 20 40 m which is maintained by indirect recharge from the Kuiseb River, which totals 0.42 Mm3 per annum (BGR 1998/Vol D-II).
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 44
_____________________________________________________________________
4. SITE SELECTION PROCESS
This process is a fundamental step in the planning of the coal-fired power station. This step has far reaching economic, environmental and public acceptance implications. Using primarily environmental and economic criteria associated with a screening process, all candidate sites must be identified to ensure the due consideration of alternatives. All the candidate sites identified must be evaluated to determine most acceptable and best suited sites for the proposed project. Each identified site was rated using a ranking matrix. This matrix was used to determine the most and least favourable sites, from an environmental perspective.
4.1. Site Selection Methodology
Early considerations in site selection were to identify the size and general locations of the alternative sites. GCS (Pty) LTD was not involved in selecting the candidate sites. Consecutive phases involved in the approach to selection of the preferred sites are illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Process and Methodology
Identification of Candidate Sites Identification of Fatal Flaws Fatal Flaw Analysis Site Selection Criteria Comparative Assessment (Matrix) Select Favourable Site
Detailed analysis and environmental boundaries Site B and C
A, B, C & D
Site selection process
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 45
_____________________________________________________________________
Candidate sites were identified by an independent company and GCS then undertook the consecutive steps as illustrated in figure 4.1. Geology, soils, hydrology and hydrogeology for the four sites were taken into consideration. Specific criteria were assigned a comparative numerical value depending on the favourability of the site in terms of the environmental favourability. The anticipated environmental and cumulative impacts have been assessed, by considering existing information relevant to the area of investigation. The results have been presented using a rating system in the form of a ranking matrix. The criteria described were founding conditions, surface water and geohydrology. Within the matrix each the criteria were numerically rated and finally the scores were added to give a percentage: the higher the percentage, the more favourable the site would be. GCS (Pty) LTD provided a ranking matrix together with a description of factors taken into consideration when rating the site (Appendix B). The final matrix provided by Ninham Shand Consulting Services, was a compilation of ratings from the various specialists (including GCS) involved in the site selection processes. The results of this investigation indicated suitable sites upon which a more detailed investigation will be conducted. The detailed site investigation should involve conceptual designs and specialised environmental studies.
4.1.1. Candidate Sites
Four (4) sites were considered for the coal-fired power station (Refer to Figure 1-3); Site A: Site B: Site C: Site D: Located in Port area Located north of Walvis Bay on the coast (Farm 39) Located east of Dune 7 in industrial zone Located east of Narraville, west of Dune 7
4.1.2. Identification of fatal flaws and fatal flaw analysis
It is a requirement that no residue disposal site be developed in an area with an inherent fatal flaw. The following situations may represent fatal flaws in that they may prohibit the development of an environmentally or publicly acceptable ash disposal facility, except at excessive cost (Table 4-1).
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 46
Table 4-1: Potential fatal flaws associated with the site selection
Main Environmental criteria These could include fault zones, seismic zones Unstable areas and dolomitic areas where sinkholes and subsidence are likely. The occurrence of shallow bedrock will cause Geology Shallow bedrock difficulties with earthworks and will develop poor quality seepage and leakage. Areas with proper gravel/soils will be more appropriate for development. Dykes and faults The occurrence of dykes and faults could serve as preferred pathways for groundwater seepage and movement. Topography and drainage Areas characterized by steep It is essential that the area chosen will augment the stability of the new coal-fired power station. by shallow These may provide good founding conditions but potentially seepage issues. The establishment of the coal-fired power station should not increase the environmental Land Capability Areas of prime agricultural land impacts of the legacy sites in the area and therefore should not impact on potential agricultural land. Where prime agricultural land is present, these areas should be avoided. Areas in close proximity to land uses Land use which are incompatible with residue disposal Land uses which are incompatible with residue disposal would attract community resistance and would include residential areas, nature reserves and cemeteries. This eliminates wetlands, vleis, pans and flood Areas below the 1:50 year flood line plains, where water pollution would result from ash disposal. Areas Surface Water in close proximity to These would include water courses or dams. Although all sites ultimately fall within a Catchment areas for important water resources catchment area, the size and sensitivity of the catchment may represent a fatal flaw, especially if it feeds a water resource Potential Fatal Flaw Description
gradients, where stability of slopes could be problematic Areas bedrock characterized
Soils
significant surface water bodies
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 47
_____________________________________________________________________
Main Environmental criteria Areas characterized shallow or by flat These include vleis, pans and springs, where a sufficient possible. Areas of recharge on account of topography Areas of groundwater recharge and/or avoided. Areas overlying or adjacent to Areas of recharge on account of topography and/or highly permeable soils into important aquifers should be avoided. highly permeable soils should be unsaturated zone separating the residue and the groundwater would not be Potential Fatal Flaw Description
gradients,
emergent
ground water
Groundwater
important or potentially important aquifers
4.1.3. Site Selection Criteria
The four alternative sites were evaluated in terms of geology, hydrogeology, soils and hydrology before the preferred site was identified. Sufficient candidate sites were These criteria identified to ensure the due consideration of potential alternatives. In identifying candidate sites, numerous economic and environmental criteria were considered. optimal in terms of environmental and/or public acceptance characteristics. The following criteria were used by GCS to assess the individual sites: Founding Conditions; Surface water; Hydrogeology criteria; Hydrology. interrelate, as there are always economic implications when candidate sites are sub-
4.1.3.1. Founding Conditions
From an economic perspective, the developer wishes to minimise costs of obtaining, developing and operating a site. Based on soils and geology, this may be achieved by applying the following site selection criteria:
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 48
_____________________________________________________________________
Flattest possible topography-has a large effect on initial earthworks volumes. Best quality on-site soil. Low permeability clayey soils on site will reduce the cost of containment liners and leachate control systems; Founding conditions for the power station must be stable; Stable geological foundations. (Unstable geological foundations could result in subsidence, seepage and associated failure, a stable geological foundation is therefore preferred).
4.1.3.2. Geomorphology
From an environmental perspective, the risks of impacts on the biotic and abiotic environment must be minimized. This may be achieved by applying the following criteria to choice of soils from a geology and hydrogeology perspective. Least interference with geomorphological processes. This facet is very important to ensure that the coal-fired power station would not significantly alter geomorphological processes, especially the dune migration; Lowest permeability soils and lowest erosion capability. (Low permeability soils reduce pollutant migration and are therefore favoured. sedimentary runoff and is therefore preferred); Least impact on land with prime agricultural or residential land use. (It is preferred to utilise areas that are to a degree already disturbed and not establish the coal-fired power station on prime agricultural land or in areas where there is a potential for expansion of towns and/or settlements); Least disturbance to pristine or undisturbed soils. (The sensitivity of the receiving environment. The development of a site in a disturbed environment would be preferable to a development in a pristine environment). Low erosion capability reduces
4.1.3.3. Hydrological Criteria
From a hydrogeological perspective, the risk of pollution of surface and groundwater resources must be minimized. This can be achieved by application of the following criteria to the selection of the site: Least negative influence on valuable ground and surface water resources used for abstraction;
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 49
_____________________________________________________________________
Furthest distance from any ground or surface water resources. The greater this
distance, the more suitable the site is in terms of a lower potential for water pollution. Examples of the pollution risks that power stations pose to groundwater are provided in Section 4.3.
4.1.4. Comparative Assessment
A comparative assessment was conducted based on the site selection criteria. The sites were evaluated in terms of geology, soils, hydrology and hydrogeology. The ranking matrix re-iterated the outcome of the comparative assessment in terms of identifying the preferred site base on the specific criteria.
4.2. Pollution sources from power stations
The possible sources of contamination from power station infrastructure, which may impact on the groundwater, include: The coal stockpiles: The raw water dams: The sewage plant and dams: Recovery (dirty water) dams: Bunker fuel oil: Ash dump: Solid waste site: potential acid generation area source of artificial recharge to the groundwater irrigation of effluent may impact on groundwater overflow and irrigation may impact on groundwater oil enters water and requires treatment source of poor quality artificial recharge source of leachate or poor quality water
Treated (de-ionized) water system: brine added to fly ash for deposition on ash dump
5. FATAL FLAW AND SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS

The following tables summarize the possible advantages and disadvantages associated with the alternative sites. An indication on potential fatal flaws is also provided.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 50
Ninham Shand Consulting Services Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-1: Site A

Environmental Aspect Geology Potential advantages Poor founding conditions potential for piles to achieve required foundation strengths. Site flat, but small. Area already significantly disturbed. Possible disadvantages The bedrock profile on the site is unknown at this stage and this may have a negative effect on the construction costs. No significant topographical disadvantages. This site comprises unconsolidated deposits and depth to bedrock is unknown at this stage. Falls within the Sossus Formation. The land cover of the site comprises mostly of unconsolidated deposits. None Site A hosts a primary aquifer with poor quality water, has high groundwater levels 4m below surface. Migrating dunes positioned to the south-west of the site. Due to the site location (port area), the ash would be transported off site for disposal. Potential Fatal Flaws Potential cost of foundations.
Topography Soils
Insufficient size for coal stockpile and ash disposal. May prove poor founding conditions.
Land Cover and Use Surface Water Groundwater
The site is bounded by port activities and residential areas. No significant advantages out of Kuiseb flood plain. Aquifer is not development. suitable for domestic
Site is too small to accommodate ash dump facility and rules out the possibility of future expansion of the plant. Possibility of contamination of Lagoon and harbor. Due to the aquifer type and shallow water table, there is an increased risk of groundwater contamination. Activities at the site may be affected by the migrating dunes. This requires further investigation. The ash disposal facility may not be accommodated at the site due to size of the site and its proximity to the sea, and there may therefore be additional costs associated and impacts.
Geomorphologic processes
No significant advantages.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 51
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-2: Site B
Environmental Aspect Geology Possible advantages No significant advantages. Possible disadvantages The bedrock profile on the site is unknown at this stage and this may have a negative effect on the construction costs. The area is potentially underlain by Tsumas Paleochannel. Area will have to be flattened to accommodate infrastructure. This site comprises unconsolidated deposits and depth to bedrock is unknown at this stage. Falls within the Sossus Formation. The land cover of the site comprises mostly unconsolidated deposits and the site is in close proximity to the sea. Potential Fatal Flaws Founding conditions.
Topography Soils
No significant topographical advantages. No significant advantages.
None Soils highly permeable. facilities must be lined. All disposal and stockpile
Land Cover and Use
Land has no potential for cultivation.
The ash dump cannot be situated in close proximity to the sea.
No significant advantages. Surface Water Sufficient area is available for pollution control infrastructure. The site is close proximity to the sea. Occurrence of pans needs to be investigated further. Wetlands occur in area to the east of the road. Impacts on marine ecology are a definite risk.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 52
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Groundwater
No significant advantages.
Site B hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas. Groundwater is close to surface. The site overlays groundwater movement towards the coast, either from the Tumas River underflow or other sources. The movement of freshwater into the intertidal zone has implications for marine organisms
Due to the aquifer type and shallow water table, there is an increased risk of groundwater contamination from processes and infrastructure associated with the proposed power station.
Sufficient surface area is available for pollution control infrastructure Geomorphologic Processes. None
Impact on marine ecology is a definite risk due to the propinquity of the sea to Site B. Migrating dunes are positioned to the south-west of the site. These shifting sands are exposed to high velocity, high frequency south to southwesterly winds in summer and high velocity, low frequency east to north-westerly winds in winter. Due to the site location, the ash would be transported off site for disposal. Activities at the site may be affected by the migrating dunes. This requires further investigation. Barriers to prevent sand migration onto the site.
The ash disposal facility may not be accommodated at the site due to its proximity to the sea, and there may therefore be additional costs associated and impacts.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 53
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-3: Site C
Environmental Aspect Geology Possible advantages This site appears to be geotechnicaly stable and the depth to bedrock is approximately 5m. Site is flat This site comprises unconsolidated deposits and depth to bedrock is approximately 5m at this stage. Site is characterized by surficial deposits. Site is located adjacent to an airport and heavy industrial zone. Site is a sufficient size to host ash disposal facility at the plant area. Area was previously used for, and disturbed by, military training operations conducted in the area. Surface Water Area is out of only floodline. Site C falls outside the mist belt. Groundwater Hosts a secondary aquifer and risks of contamination are reduced due to the deeper groundwater levels. Aquifer potential is low in terms of development and water quality. Geomorphologic Processes Site C is a relatively safe distance from the moving sand dunes. No significant disadvantages. No significant disadvantages. None None Possible disadvantages The occurrence of dykes in the vicinity of the proposed sites; no other structural information is available. This would require additional investigations. No significant disadvantages. No significant disadvantages. None None Potential Fatal Flaws
Topography Soils
Land Cover and Use
No significant disadvantages.
None
No significant disadvantages. Occurrence of pans to the south requires further evaluation
None None None None
in terms of origin and possible impacts.

No significant disadvantages. None
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 54
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-4: Site D

Environmental Aspect Geology Potential advantages No significant advantages. Possible disadvantages The bedrock profile on the site is unknown at this stage and this may have a negative effect on the construction costs. No significant disadvantages. This site comprises unconsolidated deposits and depth to bedrock is unknown at this stage. Falls within the Sossus Formation. None Potential Fatal Flaws Founding conditions
Topography Soils
Area is relatively flat No significant advantages.
None May prove to be poor founding conditions.
Land Cover and Use
The area is situated east of Narraville and no significant activities may be affected in this area. Village of Narraville is in/ or just above the 1:100 year flood line. Site D hosts a primary aquifer categorised with poor quality water. This implies low groundwater potential. No significant advantages.
Site D cannot host ash disposal facility in close proximity to the plant. Increased risk of contamination with high floods.
Surface Water Groundwater
None None
Geomorphologic Processes
Migrating dunes positioned to the north east of the site.
Activities at the site may be affected by the migrating dunes. This requires further investigations.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 55
5.1. Matrix
Each of the 4 sites was assessed using a ranking matrix. The criteria were appropriately weighted in order to reflect their relative importance. Scores were assigned to each criterion based on a qualitative assessment and a total for each site was then calculated. A maximum score for a particular aspect means that the site is suitable as far as that aspect is concerned. Refer to Appendix B for criteria used in the matrix calculations.
5.1.1. Numerical Assessment of sites
The outcome of the ranking matrices is as summarized in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Numerical Assessment of Alternative Sites

Site Founding conditions Percentage A B C D 12.5 12.5 62.5 12.5 Ranked 2 2 1 2 Surface water Percentage 15.9 14.0 54.2 15.9 Ranked 2 3 1 2 Groundwater Percentage 12.5 12.5 62.5 12.5 Ranked 2 2 1 2
From the above site C is the preferred site for the establishment of a coal-fired power station as this site ranks first in each of the defined criteria.
5.2. Comparative assessment
Based on the site selection in terms of the specific criteria, fatal flaw analysis and ranking matrix, the two favourable sites are Site B and Site C. Site A and Site D have potential fatal flaws and associated disadvantages rendering them unsuitable as a location for the proposed power station. The preferred site however, is Site C as it is more favourable than Site B in terms of the selection criteria. From the summary of the ranking matrix in Section 5.1.1., it can be noted that Site C has the highest percentage in terms of all three criteria (founding conditions, surface water and groundwater).
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 56
Table 5-6: Table of assessment of alternative sites

Soil Disturbed. Falls under the Sosuss Formation. Topography Flat but limited extent. Geology Geology is unknown but depth to bedrock is approximately 10m. Hydrogeology Hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas. Water quality similar to that of the harbor. Hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas. Water from the Tsumas Paleochannel seems to drain westward and daylight in the area of Site B. Hosts a secondary aquifer and risks of contamination are reduced due to deeper groundwater levels. Land Capability No land capability. Hydrology Out of the floodlines but additional data is required.
Site A
Falls under the Sosuss Formation. Site B
Relatively flat but costs involved with terrain preparation.
Unconsolidated deposits with an unknown depth to bedrock.
None
Close proximity of the sea to Site B may increase the risk of contamination, but ssufficient surface area is available for pollution control infrastructure.
Disturbed soils. This is a sandy area, characterized by surficial deposits and is underlain by granite. This site comprises shallow bedrock and is geotechnically stable. Disturbed soils.
High landscape character but sufficient area to accommodate proposed power station, ash disposal facility and future extensions.
The depth to bedrock is approximately 5m. The occurrences of pans to the south-west of Site C need to be considered in terms of origin and possible impacts.
None
No initial hydrological problems are envisaged.
Site C
Relatively flat.
00085/000/000/08-198
Site D
Unknown geology and depth to bedrock.
Hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile.
None
Area has historically been flooded prior to construction of Kuiseb River barrier berm.
Page 57
Table 5-7: Proposed power station alternatives considered

Site Capacity Stack Height 50m 200 MW 100m 150m 50m B 400 MW 100m 150m 50m 800 MW 100m 150m 50m 200 MW 100m 150m 50m C 400 MW 100m 150m 50m 800 MW 100m 150m
00085/000/000/08-198
Coal
Coal transport
Cooling
Ash Heap
Transport of Ash
On site layout
new terminal port expansion
conveyor from new terminal short distance
direct cooling with sea water
ash heap site C
From Site B to Site C by conveyor?
25 - 30 ha
ash heap site C
25 - 30 ha
ash heap site C
25 - 30 ha
existing terminal in Walvis Bay port
conveyor, rail or road use existing routes; long distance
dry cooling
ash heap site C
by conveyor to ash heap on Site C
25 - 30 ha + 70 ha
dry cooling
ash heap site C
25 - 30 ha + 70 ha
dry cooling
ash heap site C
25 - 30 ha + 70 ha
Page 58
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-8: Assessment of suitability of the proposed alternatives Soil 200 Site B 400 800 Topography Requires flattening, dune migration Requires flattening, dune migration Requires flattening, dune migration Geology Depth to bedrock requires piling Depth to bedrock requires piling Depth to bedrock requires piling Hydrogeology Shallow water levels. Tsumas Paleochannel Shallow water levels. Tsumas Paleochannel Shallow water levels. Tsumas Paleochannel Land Capability Hydrology
200 Site C 400 800
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 59
6. ENVIRONMENTAL BOUNDARIES FOR SITES B & C

On completion of the site selection process of sites A, B and C, GCS were requested to determine the environmental boundaries for sites B and C only. The site selection process identified site B and C for more detailed analysis to determine the environmental boundaries for the proposed power station. The baseline information is used to identify the environmental boundaries to inform the design of the power station by the IPP to ensure minimal negative impacts.
6.1. Site B
It is proposed that a 200MW, 400MW or 800MW and a 100 MW black start facility be constructed on the site. Ash will be disposed of at site C The power station will be wet cooled using sea water
6.1.1. Soils
A detail soil investigation needs to be undertaken to classify the soils and to determine soil chemical characteristics to determine impact on infrastructure (concrete and steel foundations). In some areas the soils show signs of wetness. This will have to be investigated and the site may have to be raised above this elevation.
6.1.2. Topography The site is undulating and will have to be flattened to a level site. Decisions will have to be determined at what height above mean sea level the plant will be constructed.
6.1.3. Geology Depth to bedrock is not known. Geotechnical investigations will have to be performed to determine subsoil conditions and foundation requirements for the proposed infrastructure.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 60
The Tsumas Paleochannel will have to be desiccated and the plant located in such a manner to take in cognizance of the paleochannel (ie structure requiring different founding conditions will have to be strategically placed).
6.1.4. Hydrogeology The site hydrogeology is not know. Detailed hydrogeological investigation of the site will be required to develop a conceptual hydrogeological model in order to evaluate impacts. They hydrogeology of the Tsumas Paleochannel will require investigation and
quantification. Aquifer parameter for both the primary aquifer (sand above bedrock) and the Tsumas Paleochannel will require quantification (storage, transmissivity, water quality and groundwater gradients). Coal stockpile are may have to be lined depending on the potential environmental impacts.
6.1.5. Land Capability Land capabilities can be classified as wilderness and potential for agriculture is negligible. No clear surface water channels are evident on the site. High water mark and level at which the power plant will be constructed needs to be determined.
6.2. Site C
It is proposed that a 200MW, 400MW or 800MW and a 100 MW black start facility be constructed on the site. Ash will be disposed of near the site Power station will be air cooled
6.2.1. Soils Detailed soils investigation needs to be undertaken for the power plant and ash dump sites. Soils need to be classified and chemical characteristics need to be determined.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 61
Soil permeability tests need to be completed to determine if lining will be required below sources of potential contamination (ash dump and coal stockpile).
6.2.2. Topography Site is relatively flat. demarcated. Site drainage needs to be investigated and drainage lines
6.2.3. Geology Site geology and founding conditions are not known. Detail geotechnical investigation will be required to determine founding conditions. Potential location of Tsumas Paleochannel needs to be confirmed.
6.2.4. Hydrogeology Hydrogeological investigation is required for both the plant and ash dump. Factors such as depth to water level, water quality, permeability of primary and secondary aquifer and groundwater gradients have to be identified. Only once these factors have been determined and details regarding the contamination threat be determined can recommendations regarding liners be made.
6.2.5. Land Capability Detailed investigation of soils will determine soil status and potential land capability.
6.2.6. Hydrology Drainage channels and potential flood lines need to be determined.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 62
Figure 6-1: Farm Boundaries Site B & C
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 63
7. CONCLUSION
A site selection process was followed in order to identify the most suitable site for the new coal-fired power station. Four (4) candidate sites were identified based on available area and economical, environmental and social considerations. The outcomes of the site selection were that Site C is the preferred option based on, but not limited to, the following: Site C has proved to be the top-ranking site for the proposed coal-fired power station area. This document considered the geological, hydrogeological and hydrological aspects; Stability risks associated with Site C are low in comparison to the other sites; Site C allows for potential future expansion of the coal-fired power station; In terms of the hydrogeology site C is the most favourable. The results of this investigation determined the most suitable site upon which a more detailed investigation will be conducted. The detailed site investigation will involve conceptual designs and specialised environmental studies.
7.1. Environmental boundaries Sites B and C

It is recommended that detailed investigations be undertaken on the selected site. These investigations should be: Detailed hydrogeological investigation Pedological investigation Details site survey Geotechnical investigation Hydrology (site C)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 64
8. REFERENCES
Brown, B. (1994): Dune Stabilisation: The way forward. Geological Survey of Namibia. Ward, J.D. (1987): Modern analogues for aeolian and fluvial deposits in the Cenezoic succession of the Central Namib Desert: Field excursion organised by the South West African Branch and Sedimentology division of the Geological Society of South Africa, 2831 May 1987. Geological Survey of Namibia. Ward, J.D. (1989): Aspects of the geomorphology of Sandwich Harbour, Walvis Lagoon and related coast: Field excursion Sandwich Harbour and Walvis Lagoon 16-18 June 1989.Geological Survey of Namibia. Falke, M. (2008): Kuiseb Basin Water Resources Management Project- Development of a water resources plan for the Kuiseb Basin and development of a planning procedure for use by other basins- Hydrogeology. Christelis, G. & Struckmeier, W. (2001): Groundwater in Namibia- an explanation to the Hydrogeological Map. Visual Resources Management Africa cc. (2008): proposed Nampower Walvis Bay Power Station, Namibia. Photographic Survey. Wearne, K. & Underhill, L. G. (2005): Walvis Bay Namibia: A key wetland for waders and other coastal birds in Southern Africa. Wader Study Group Bull. 107: 2430. Uushona, D. (2008): Biodiversity Report for the Municipality of Walvis Bay. Report No. Draft 1. Dominguezllosa, R. & Kooitjie, S. The Topnaar and environmental resources in the low valley and delta of river Kuiseb- Namibia. Bastos Foundation. Skov, H., Lauridsen, F. S., Hansen, I. S., Uushona, D. (2007): Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the coastal areas of the Erongo and Kunene Regions. DHI Water, Environment, Health.
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 65
9. APPENDICES
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 66
Appendix A: Geological maps (2314 and 2214)
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 67
Appendix B: Matrix
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 68
NAMPOWER WALVIS BAY

T5. FOUNDING CONDITIONS
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
EIGEN VECTOR 0.67 0.67 3.34 0.67 5.35 Emax CI CR
PRIORITY
Site A Site B Site C Site D
1 1 5 1
1 1 5 1
1/5 1/5 1 1/5
1 1 5 1
12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 12.5%
4.00 0.00 0.00%
8.00
8.00
1.60
8.00
NAMPOWER WALVIS BAY

E3. SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
PRIORITY
1 1 3 1
1 1 5 1
1/3 1/5 1 1/3
1 1 3 1
15.9% 14.0% 54.2% 15.9%
4.04 0.01 1.46%
6.00
8.00
1.87
6.00
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 69
NAMPOWER WALVIS BAY

E4. SUB-SURFACE WATER QUALITY & HYDROGEOLOGY
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
PRIORITY
1 1 5 1
1 1 5 1
1/5 1/5 1 1/5
1 1 5 1
12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 12.5%
4.00 0.00 0.00%
8.00
8.00
1.60
8.00
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 70
Scale of Relative Preference for Pair wise Comparisons
Rating
Definition
Explanation
Equal preference
Two options rate equally
Weak preference
Experience and judgment slightly favour an option
Essential or strong preference
Experience and judgment strongly favour an option
Demonstrated preference
Strongly favoured and dominance demonstrated in practice
Absolute preference
Evidence favouring an option is of the highest possible order
2, 4, 6, 8
Intermediate values
Reciprocals of the above
If K has one of the above ratings assigned to it when compared with L, then L has the reciprocal value when compared with K
00085/000/000/08-198
Page 71
Suite 11 Hillcrest Office Park 2 Old Main Road Hillcrest 3610 PO Box 819 Gillitts 3603 South Africa Telephone: +27 (0)31 765 2088 Facsimile: +27 (0)31 765 8201 Web: www.gcs-sa.biz
Our Reference: Your Reference
0085/000/000/08-198
Date: 18 July 2008 GCS (Pty) LTD conducted a numerical assessment of the four proposed sites of the Walvis Bay coal-fired power station project. Factors taken into consideration during the relative preference rating of pair wise comparisons include founding conditions, surface water and groundwater. Scores were assigned for each criterion based on a qualitative assessment, and were then added together to provide a total for each site. A maximum score for a particular aspect means that the site is ideal as far as that aspect is concerned. Site A Founding Conditions Site A is situated in a port area and has an extent of only 17ha which is unfortunately too small and rules out the possibility of expansion. The ash dump associated with the coalfired power plant cannot be located in close proximity to the port. Possible dune migration may also affect activities at the proposed Site A. With regard to the existing site conditions, the area comprises unconsolidated deposits and the depth to bedrock is unknown at this stage. This may have negative implications for earthworks and construction activities. Surface Water Due to the close proximity of the Lagoon and residential areas, surface water contamination may occur. Contamination of the harbour is also possible. Groundwater Site A hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas.
GCS (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg Durban Kimberley
Directors: AC Johnstone (Managing) SE Scawthon (Financial) AH Barbour (Non-exec)* V Cresswell (Non-exec)* Reg No: 2004/000765/07 Est. 1987
Site B Founding Conditions Site B which is located north of Walvis Bay on the coast (Farm 39), comprises unconsolidated deposits with an unknown depth to bedrock. Construction activities may be negatively affected by this. The ash dump associated with the power station cannot be accommodated in close proximity to the sea. Site B may be affected by possible dune migration. Surface water Impact on marine ecology is a definite risk due to the propinquity of the sea to Site B. Pans occur in the northern vicinity of the site and the possible impacts require further evaluation should definite groundwater users be identified in the area. Groundwater Site B hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas. Site C Founding Conditions Site C is located east of Dune 7 in the proposed heavy industrial zone adjacent to the airport. The placement of cooling towers and smoke stacks close to an airport are a risk which needs to be further evaluated. This site comprises shallow bedrock with the depth to bedrock approximating 5m and is geotechnical stable. This site may accommodate the ash dump near the plant and is relatively distant from the moving dune areas. Surface water No initial hydrological problems are envisaged however, the occurrences of pans to the south-west of site c need to be considered in terms of its origin and possible impacts.
Groundwater This site hosts a secondary aquifer and the risks of contamination are reduced due to the deeper groundwater levels. Site D Founding Conditions Site D which is east of Narraville and West of Dune 7, hosts unconsolidated deposits and the depth to bedrock is unknown. This may have negatively impact construction activities. Site D cannot accommodate the ash dump in close proximity to the plant. Possible dune migration may affect Site D. Surface water Surface water contamination is a possibility and the flooding potential in the Kuiseb Delta may be increased. The village of Narraville is in or just above the 1:100 year flood line. Groundwater Site A hosts a primary aquifer and due to the shallow water table, there is a greater risk of contamination via the ash disposal facilities and the coal stockpile areas.

Annexure 14a - Geo Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annexure 14a - Geo Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

63 Wessel Road Woodmead 2191 Telephone: +27 (0)11 803 5726

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

DOCUMENT ISSUE STATUS

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed Nampower Coal-fired Power Station

Table i: Table of assessment of alternative sites

Site well falls in the Sosuss Formation. Site B Coastal Site

Coastal dune with limited agricultural potential

Close proximity of the sea and high water mark.

Superficial sands with no agricultural potential

Unknown geology and the area is predominated by the Damara sequence.

Situated east of a residential area on saline soils

In historical flood plain of the Kuiseb River.

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Figure 1-1: Map of Namibia

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Figure 1-2: Map of Walvis Bay, Namibia

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Figure 1-3: Locations of proposed site alternatives (Google, 2008)

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Figure 1-4: Proposed sites for detailed analysis (Google, 2008)

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

1.2. Project description

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

1.3. Terms of Reference

1.3.1. Project Scope

1.3.1.1. Geological and Soils

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

1.3.1.3. Founding conditions

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

1.4. Report Structure

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

2. PROPOSED NAMPOWER COAL- FIRED POWER STATION

Ninham Shand Consulting Services

Proposed NamPower Coal-fired Power Station

2.2. Coal-fired power station objectives