2015-06-10-thabametsi-appeal-response-part-2-f0ed1f6063c9ab7b.pdf

This document is a legal response submitted by NN Attorneys on behalf of Newshelf (the Second Respondent) on 10 June 2015, addressing an appeal against the Environmental Authorisation (EA) granted for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station project in South Africa. The response defends the project's compliance with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and other regulations, arguing that the project is essential for national base-load energy security and that its environmental and health impacts have been sufficiently assessed and mitigated.

• The Second Respondent argues that the Thabametsi Project is necessary to meet South Africa's urgent base-load power needs, as determined by the Department of Energy (DoE). They assert that renewable energy alternatives cannot provide a base-load solution for the country's energy requirements.
• Newshelf contends that it has complied with legal requirements regarding climate change assessments. It states that a detailed climate change study was not conducted because there was no legal obligation to do so and no request from the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) or interested and affected parties (I&APs), though greenhouse gas emissions were considered within the Air Quality impact assessment.
• An air quality and health risk specialist study conducted by uMoya-NILU and CSIR concluded that the risk of acute and chronic adverse health effects from exposure to SO2, NO2, and PM10 (from stacks, stockpiles, and ash dumps) is low for the communities of Lephalale, Onverwacht, and Marapong.
• The Second Respondent addresses concerns regarding heritage and paleontological impacts, stating that while the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) requested a paleontological study, this was not required to be completed before the EA was issued. They further argue that the specific heritage site of significance, Nelsonskop, is not at risk because the preferred power line alternative (Alternative 1) avoids the area.
• Regarding cumulative impacts, the Second Respondent claims these were assessed in Chapter 8 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). They admit that cumulative impacts on biodiversity and visual aspects exist, and that the risk of cumulative impacts on groundwater and air quality is 'potentially significant', although these could not be quantified due to a lack of data from other developments.
• The Second Respondent defends the public participation process, noting a 40-day review period from 12 March 2014 to 23 April 2014, which was later extended by 10 days. They also highlight a public open day held in Lephalale on 01 April 2014.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). 2015-06-10-thabametsi-appeal-response-part-2-f0ed1f6063c9ab7b.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2015-06-10-Thabametsi-Appeal-Response-Part-2.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. 2015-06-10-thabametsi-appeal-response-part-2-f0ed1f6063c9ab7b.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2015-06-10-Thabametsi-Appeal-Response-Part-2.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=2015-06-10-thabametsi-appeal-response-part-2-f0ed1f6063c9ab7b.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2015-06-10-Thabametsi-Appeal-Response-Part-2.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsnd20150610thabametsiappealresponsepart2f0ed1f6063c9ab7bpdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{2015-06-10-thabametsi-appeal-response-part-2-f0ed1f6063c9ab7b.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2015-06-10-Thabametsi-Appeal-Response-Part-2.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }