APPELLANT’S ANSWERING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF REGULATION 63(2) (b) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010 GN R543 IN GG 33306

This Answering Statement, filed by groundWork through the Centre for Environmental Rights, challenges the environmental authorisation granted to Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd for a 600 MW coal-fired power plant near Delmas, Mpumalanga. The Appellant argues that the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) lacked independence, the project's location in a Highveld Priority Area hotspot will exacerbate air pollution, and the environmental impact assessment failed to adequately address climate change and water scarcity.

• The Appellant raises a new ground of appeal asserting that the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd (JAWS), may have lacked independence and objectivity because the EAP prepared and signed the Responding Statement on behalf of the applicant, Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd.
• The Appellant disputes the claim that the project is not located in a hotspot, stating that the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) explicitly identifies Delmas as a hotspot where industrial emissions dominate source apportionment.
• The Appellant argues that the Second Respondent's characterisation of expected air quality exceedances as "nominal" is scientifically unsupported and based on outdated standards; specifically, the analysis used a PM2.5 daily standard of 65 µg/m3 which was replaced on 31 December 2015 by a stricter 40 µg/m3 standard.
• The Appellant contends that a Health Impact Assessment was necessary because there is no threshold below which exposure to particulate matter is without quantifiable health effects, contradicting the Second Respondent's claim that nominal exceedances would not change the health risk profile of nearby communities.
• The Appellant asserts that the project failed to comply with NEMA and EIA Regulations by not assessing climate change impacts, despite the project being a coal-fired power station that will emit significant greenhouse gases and exploit scarce water resources.
• The Appellant argues that the proposed use of subcritical steam conditions in the CFB boilers is inherently less efficient than supercritical or ultra-supercritical conditions, which can achieve 12-29% reductions in CO2 and other pollutant emissions per unit of energy.
• The Appellant claims the Second Respondent inappropriately relied on the general Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to justify the project's need and desirability, whereas the EIA process requires a site-specific assessment of social and environmental impacts.
• The Appellant argues that the Second Respondent is liable for existing environmental degradation caused by its subsidiaries, Delmas Coal and Ikhwezi Colliery, citing the Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd v Regional Director case to show that the duty of care is not territorially limited to the land where the activity occurred.
• The Appellant highlights risks to the Wilge River catchment, noting that the project spans the river in a province declared a drought disaster area in November 2015 and that the Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation intended to declare the catchment a Class 2 river system to protect resources.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2016). APPELLANT’S ANSWERING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF REGULATION 63(2) (b) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010 GN R543 IN GG 33306. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CER-KiPower-Answering-Statement_4-March-2016-_Final.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. APPELLANT’S ANSWERING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF REGULATION 63(2) (b) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010 GN R543 IN GG 33306. 2016. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CER-KiPower-Answering-Statement_4-March-2016-_Final.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=APPELLANT’S ANSWERING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF REGULATION 63(2) (b) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010 GN R543 IN GG 33306 |date=4 March 2016 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CER-KiPower-Answering-Statement_4-March-2016-_Final.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2016appellants, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{APPELLANT’S ANSWERING STATEMENT IN TERMS OF REGULATION 63(2) (b) OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010 GN R543 IN GG 33306}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2016}, month = mar, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CER-KiPower-Answering-Statement_4-March-2016-_Final.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }