APPENDIX 4.8: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT CATERING … · Kindly receive the attached CV"s for Vacancies (ref: 720.19124.00001). The project is still in the impact assessment phase

Proposed Maize Wet Mill Plant, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province January 2019

i

APPENDIX 4.8: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT CATERING FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY REVIEW OF THE BAR (NOVEMBER – DECEMBER

2018)

Twelve submissions were received following the review period of the BAR. These included comments from authorities, organs of state, private individuals and industry. . Provided below, is a list of those who submitted comments, their project interest and in which Table the comments are recorded and responded.

Commenting party Interest in the project Reference to where responses

are provided

ELM: Water and Sanitation Services, Salome Strydom (Metsi a Lekoa)

Commenting authority Table 1

Transnet, Suzan Aidelomo Commenting Organs of State Table 1

GDED, Phindile Mbanjwa Provincial environmental department?? Table 1

Tshidi Ntuka Mokako Private individual Table 1

Edward Khululekile Von Bodenstein Private individual – Interest in BEE investment

Table 1

Raingold Equity Fund (NEWCO), name Private individual – Interest in BEE investment

Table 1

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, name of person??


DRT, Vena Unathi Commenting authority Table 1

Department of Water and Sanitation, Ledile Jeanet Nyama name


Emfuleni Local Municipality Environmental Management Section, name


Sedibeng District Municipality Air Quality Management, name


Weber Wentzel on behalf of Tongaat Hullet Starch (THS), Garyn Rapson

Competitor with four South African milling facilities, located in Gauteng (Kliprivier, Germiston and Meyerton) and in the Western Cape (Bellville)

Table 2


ii

TABLE 1: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT - COMMENTS ON BAR DISTRIBUTED FOR I&AP REVIEW

Interested and Affected Parties

Date and method

Comments made EAP’s response to comments (unless otherwise stated)

Consultation status

Salome Strydom (Metsi a Lekoa)

21 November 2018 by Email

Basic Assessment report received 8 November 2018 refers.

I would hereby like to inform you that the Emfuleni Local Municipality Water and Sanitation section has no objection to the application. Prior consultation has taken place and all concerns have been addressed to satisfaction of the Manager Planning and projects, Metsi-a-Lekoa (Water and Sanitation).

Noted.

Suzan Aidelomo (Transnet)


Kindly indicate if the proposed project will affect the Railway line. The project will not cross over any railway lines. The raw water supply pipeline for the proposed plant would run parallel on the southern side of the railway line and under the bridge, north of the proposed project site. The plan would be to place the pipeline outside of the rail reserve, where possible.

16 January 2019 by Email

This is to confirm that Transnet has no objection, as the proposed development will not affect the railway line

Noted.

Phindile Mbanjwa (GDED)


Kindly be advised that I am no longer on this email address. Any queries relating to GDED must be forwarded to Mr Makhukhu Mampuru.

In response to the email, the SLR email was forwarded to Mr Mampuru on 09 November 2018.

Tshidi Ntuka Mokako


Kindly receive the attached CV"s for Vacancies (ref: 720.19124.00001). The project is still in the impact assessment phase and a decision from the GDARD has not yet been made. Therefore the process for receipt of CVs has not yet been initiated by the applicant.

Any procedures related to recruitment and procurement of services would be communicated to stakeholders at the required time.

Edward Khululekile Von Bodenstein

05 December 2018 by Email

The Proposed maize wet mill plant, Vereeniging- has reference.

Pursuant to our telecon, l indicated my interest in participating in the above proposed project on the basis of BEE. Further to this in mind, l am making a humble request of putting me in touch with the responsible persons. The intention is to try and create a broad spectrum of participants within the community to the exclusion of usual beneficiaries. I trust that you will be of assistance.

The Applicant has indicated numerous BEE investors have shown interest in the project. However, it is not possible to identify and confirm partners until such time as the quantum and status of the investment is known.


iii


Date and method


Consultation status

Raingold Equity Fund (NEWCO)


Raingold Equity Fund (NEWCO) is a Black- Founded Organization to be incorporated as a legal public company in terms of the companies Act (1973) as amended. The Company (NEWCO) intends to leverage funding/finance from both local and direct foreign investments to finance acquisition of majority Black-owned shares equity on both projects, i.e. maize wet mill plant project and glass bottle manufacturing plant project as initiated by SAB-INBEV. As a black-owned entity, we have both credentials of a true Black Economic Empowerment vehicle to drive economic transformation in a true reflection of it, and the black industrialist programme here in Sedibeng region and South Africa at large. if nominated as a preferred bidder on these projects for majority shares, Raingold Equity Fund intends to establish both Employees Share Trust, to benefit employees of both plants/businesses (i.e. maize wet mill plant and glass bottle manufacturing plant) by offering them meaningful participation in the mainstream economy of our country. As a visionary organization, we will establish a Community Trust to benefit both local communities, especially co-operatives and organizations that are involved in both glass bottle recycling businesses and agro businesses. Food security will always remain our primary focus in order to push back further the frontiers of poverty in our communities. This, we planned to do it by encouraging and funding hydroponic projects as part of CSI.


DAFF 15 November 2018 by Email

This serves as a notice of receipt and confirms that your application has been captured in our electronic AgriLand tracking and management system. It is strongly recommended that you use the on-line AgriLand application facility in future.

Noted. However, an AgriLand application is not applicable to this project.

Vena Unathi (DRT)


I kindly request that you to direct to all correspondence to Mr. Freeman Masuku who is the Chief Director for DRT- Planning and his section deals with the kind of matter email.

Following the email, SLR confirmed that the BAR had been handed over to Mr Masuku.


iv


Date and method


Consultation status

Ledile Jeanet Nyama (Department of Water and Sanitation)


The Department has evaluated possible impacts of the proposed development on the water resource and does not have any objection provided that the following conditions are complied with:

Noted.

Please note that no activity must take place within the 1:100 year flood line or the delineated riparian habitat, whichever is the greatest, or within 500m radius from the boundary of any wetland. Should the proposed activity be constructed within the restricted/regulated area then such an activity is considered as a water use and a water use authorisation for Section 21(c ) and (i) water uses of National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) must be obtained in consultation with the Department.

Noted. No infrastructure would be established within these regulated zones.

The Department must be provided with the relevant letters of agreement that the developer agreed upon to safely and legally dispose of all the different types of waste at the appropriate, licensed waste disposal sites during all phases of the project.

Prior to construction, the requested information would be provided to the Department.

Portable toilets would be serviced by external service providers. Please note that if chemical toilets will be used during construction, the disposal method for the toilets must be indicated, and that the proposed treatment plant has sufficient capacity to treat additional load. The records of waste disposal must be kept to ensure that waste is being disposed in authorised and responsible manner.

Prior to construction, the requested information would be provided to the Department.

As per the EMP, records of waste disposal will be kept (see Section 8 of the BAR).

The combined quantity of wastewater treated is estimated to be 5654.2m3

per day. The treated effluent would be reused in the processes, however it is not clear how much of the water will be discharged as to determine the type of a water use authorisation required. Furthermore, please note that this activity is considered as a water use in terms of Section 21(f) of National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) and a water use authorisation must be obtained in consultation with the Department.

Further design considerations related to the treatment of industrial effluent on site and optimisation of the design has confirmed that the industrial effluent can be treated to meet potable water standards. The related cost is not material to the feasibility of the project. As a result, the treated industrial effluent will be re-used in the maize wet milling process; thus there would be no need to discharge any treated industrial effluent to the environment. (Applicant)

Limited treated effluent from the domestic sewer package plant would be used to irrigate landscaped areas on site in line with a General Authorisation. The irrigation volume would be approximately 2,5m

3 per

day.


v


Date and method


Consultation status

Water would be sourced from Rand Water via Emfuleni Local Municipality. The Department must be provided with a proof of service agreement with the service provider prior to commencement of this project.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, that the bulk water service providers (Rand Water and ELM) confirmed that bulk capacity is readily available for the project. If and when the project is approved engineering services agreements would be concluded in accordance with the formal technical comments provided prior to town planning approval.

The stormwater management plans and structures must be designed such that there is no discharge of contaminated runoff water directly into the open environment and to the satisfaction of the responsible local authority.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, that the approval conditions of the Stormwater Management Plan include specific clauses to regulate the discharge of stormwater runoff.

Mitigation measures must be implemented on site to prevent any pollution of the water resource including the groundwater component from occurring, recurring or continuing to occur as per requirements of Section 19 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998).

Noted, mitigation measures are included in the EMP to ensure potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Off and on-loading of hazardous substances must be done on an appropriately lined and properly managed surface to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater.

Noted, design measures are included in the EMP to ensure potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Please note that these comments do not constitute authorisation for the proposed activity. Should you engage in any water use activity, you will be contravening the Act and may be liable for prosecution.

Noted.

Emfuleni Local Municipality Environmental Management Section


The Receiving Environment- Location: The site is surrounded by a fresh produce market, industrial and residential developments, major roads and open spaces.

-

The site has been impacted upon by human induced activity with little environmental sensitivity.

-

The site lies within the urban edge and forms part of a built-up area. -

Environmental Features Indigenous vegetation found on site.

-


vi


Date and method


Consultation status

Infrastructure and Services Potable Water Comments from the Metsi a Lekoa must be obtained to confirm the supply of water to the proposed development.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes that Metsi a Lekoa has no objections to the development.

The conditions of approval of the Water & Sanitation Outline Scheme report which accompanied the town planning applications included specific clauses to regulate water supply and on-site sewage treatment.

Sewage Comments from the Metsi a Lekoa must be obtained regarding the use of an onsite sewage treatment plant.

Storm Water The proposed development will result in a large impervious area. As such storm water management is of great importance. Therefore, the storm water management plan must be correctly implemented.

The BAR includes a stormwater management plan developed by civil engineers in support of the town planning applications. Commitments related to the implementation of the plan are included in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Solid Waste Management Construction phase Adequate waste skips to be provided around the construction camp and site.

The EMP deals with waste management to ensure potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed during construction and operation. These statements were included as commitments in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Waste is to be removed regularly and disposed of at a licensed municipal landfill site.

Builder’s rubble must be disposed of at a licensed municipal landfill site.

No illegal burning of waste should take place on site.

Hazardous waste must be separated from general waste and disposed of at a designated hazardous landfill site.

Operational phase Waste must be handled in the correct manner following the principles enshrined within the ‘Cradle to Grave’ concept.

It is recommended that waste be separated and sorted on site and disposed of correctly at a licensed municipal landfill site.

All contaminated/hazardous forms of waste such as oil cans, rags, etc. must be correctly stored and disposed of not making its way to the general landfill sites.

The EMP deals with waste management to ensure potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed. These statements were included as commitments in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).


vii


Date and method


Consultation status

Air Quality Emfuleni Local Municipality falls within the Vaal-Triangle Airshed Priority Area. It is declared as such due to the very poor quality of ambient air in the region.

-

The construction and operation of such a development will impact on the air quality of the area.

Hence the necessary air quality assessment was undertaken to address this issue.

The Sedibeng District Municipality must be engaged to clarify requirements relating to Section 23 activities.

The Sedibeng District Municipality has been consulted and the recommendations from this consultation have been included in the air quality specialist study and BAR. Comments received from the District have been included in this Comments and Response Report and Appendix 4 of the BAR.

Since excavation involves removal of soil cover and leaving bare soil, it is recommended that dust suppression be conducted at all times to reduce particulate matter (PM10).

The EMP deals with air quality management to ensure potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed. These statements were included as commitments in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

All vehicles and machinery used on the project must be well serviced so as not to emit abnormal diesel emissions.

No burning of waste or other materials is permitted on site.

Other Recommendations It must be ensured that all dangerous goods such as fuels and chemicals are correctly stored.

The EMP deals with storage of dangerous goods in order to ensure that potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed. This was included as a commitment in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Caution must be exercised when cleaning the treatment plants in order to prevent groundwater contamination.

Noted.

Compliance with the National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (GN R. 926 of 2013).

These statements were included as commitments in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Conformance to the conditions of the WULA (should it be granted).

Comments and consent must be obtained from the Metsi a Lekoa regarding the discharge of industrial effluent.

The discharge of treated effluent is no longer part of the project scope. Refer to responses to DWS comments above.


viii


Date and method


Consultation status

Only indigenous plant species should be used for landscaping. As far as possible, plants naturally growing on the development site that would otherwise be destroyed during construction should be incorporated into landscaped areas.

This was included as a commitment in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

Energy efficiency and green building techniques are recommended so as to reduce the carbon footprint.

The applicant has indicated that these would form part of the final design of the new plant.

All recommendations made in the specialist reports and mitigation measures attached to the EMPr must be adhered to.

Noted.

Environmental Management Inspectors are to be given full cooperation as they will regularly conduct site inspections to monitor and enforce compliance with legislative requirements.

Noted. The applicant would support and provide access for such site investigations. t

On the basis of the above key factors, Environmental Management does not object to the proposed development provided that the above factors are carefully considered, addressed and stringently implemented. Furthermore, this is dependent on the Environmental Authorisation being obtained from the GDARD.

Noted.

Sedibeng District Municipality Air Quality Management

15 January 2019 by Email

The soil erosion to be managed as per the proposed plan and avoid contamination.

Noted.

Dust to be controlled amicable. Noted.

Waste management to be handled as per the outlined Norms and Standard. Noted.

Environmental Management Plan to be implemented as outlined. Noted.

The project is supported provided that the mitigation measures are adhered to respectively.

Noted.


ix

TABLE 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT - THS COMMENTS ON BAR DISTRIBUTED FOR I&AP REVIEW


Date and method


Consultation status

Webber Wentzel Attorneys on behalf of Tongaat Hulett Starch (Pty) Ltd


1 Executive summary

1.1 We act for Tongaat Hulett Starch (Pty) Ltd ("THS"), an interested and affected party ("I&AP") in respect of the EA Application submitted to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development ("GDARD") by Project Jordan Holding Company (Pty) Ltd ("Jordan") for a proposed maize wet mill plant in Vereeniging.

Noted, Webber Wentzel has been added to the I&AP database.

1.2 THS's concerns with the proposed project and the basic assessment report ("BAR") prepared in support of the EA Application are, in summary, as follows:

-

1.2.1 Infrastructure / Access to services: The BAR provides that the proposed maize wet mill plant will have the capacity to process between 1 200 and 2 000 tons of maize per day. This broad-ranging capacity is insufficient to assess the municipal service capacities that will be required to service the proposed project, which has the result that a host of cumulative impacts have not been identified or assessed for the purposes of mitigation.

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Items 4.3 below.

1.2.1.1 Water: The need for expensive municipal water supply is unsustainable for a water-intensive agricultural industry being developed in a region earmarked for urban development and which is already water scarce. THS itself is currently experiencing low water pressure at its neighbouring milling plant, and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed project's water usage will not adversely impact competing operations and community needs;

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Items 4.1.35 and 4.3.5 below.


x


Date and method


Consultation status

1.2.1.2 Sewerage: The domestic sewerage treatment plant is indicated as required to be installed due to the municipality's inability to treat the capacities intended to be generated. Municipalities are, however, known to be averse to such installations, given maintenance concerns. Beyond recognising the need to install such a treatment plant on-site, in addition to a waste water / effluent treatment plant, incomprehensive assessments have been undertaken for their capacities, construction elements, disaster / spillage mitigations or salt loading implications;

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Item 4.3.7 below.

1.2.1.3 Electricity: Power supply is equally problematic, in that it has not been adequately assessed whether Eskom has sufficient capacity to supply the needs of the new plant, nor can same be provided in absence of a set determination of the plant's intended capacity. If Eskom is able to meet this additional demand, will this be at the expense of other domestic and industrial customers who will bear the brunt of extended load shedding or outages?

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Item 4.3.6.

1.2.1.4 Roads: Existing road networks are equally foreseen to bear the burden of extensive wear and tear, which the local and/or district municipalities are not in a financial position to maintain or repair. In addition, no mention is made of whether adequate rail provision exists and will be able to be utilised to assist the transport activities of the project.

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Item 4.3.8.

1.2.2 Environmental impacts: The adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project have not been fully identified and/or have been downplayed:

-


xi


Date and method


Consultation status

1.2.2.1 Air quality: The proposed projects is intended to be developed in the Vaal Triangle Air-shed Priority Area, declared under the air quality legislation to be a National Air Quality Priority Area requiring specific air quality management measures to be implemented in order to rectify the situation where national ambient air quality standards are significantly exceeded in the area. New large-scale agri-industrial operations to be undertaken within this priority area should be heavily scrutinised, given that the purpose of the Vaal Triangle Air-Shed Air Quality Management Plan is to regulate the submission, implementation and enforcement of emission reduction strategies, in order to ensure that the ambient air in the priority area is brought into compliance with the air quality objectives of the priority area. The BAR indicates that no AEL will be required for the proposed project, given that the small boilers to be utilised during operations are below the triggered capacity thresholds. This is despite the municipality's Air Quality Officer recommending that an AEL nevertheless be obtained and the fact that the operation is expected to handle and store vast amounts of coal on-site, which activity should be fully assessed to determine whether an AEL is required;

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Items 4.1.34, 4.2.12 to 4.2.16 and 4.3.9 to 4.3.16.

1.2.2.2 Effluent discharge: The BAR indicates that a domestic sewerage treatment plant and a waste water / effluent treatment plant will be installed and operated on-site under the ambit of legally declared general authorisations. An inadequate legal assessment has failed to record, however, that these activities in actual fact require a WUL or integrated WUL, with the further consequences that impacts resulting from these activities have not been comprehensively assessed. For example, at no point has salt loading as a consequence of the total dissolved salts in the treated waste water being discharged into the environment and/or sprayed into the ground via irrigation methods been addressed, nor has the consequences of concrete wall ruptures been sought to be mitigated against. These impacts are likely to have consequences for the receiving environment;

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Items 4.1.35 and 4.2.5 to 4.2.11.


xii


Date and method


Consultation status

1.2.2.3 NEMA activities: It further appears that Jordan / the EAP has, as a result of a superficial due diligence of the legislative frameworks informing the proposed project, failed to identify the correct environmental impact assessment process to be followed. The listed activities identified as triggering the need to obtain an environmental authorisation have been identified only from Listing Notice 1 of the EIA Regulations, where, however, various Listing Notice 2 activities are likely to be triggered, which require a full Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting process to be undertaken. The S&EI process is much more comprehensive, time-consuming and costly, and THS submits that it Jordan is required to have undergone this process given the magnitude of impacts likely to be effected by and the full extent of activities / process sought to be undertaken under the proposed project.

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Items 4.1.7 to 4.1.17 and 4.2.1 to 4.2.4.

1.2.3 Need and Desirability: Jordan / the EAP have placed an over-emphasised focus on the developmental policy and spatial planning frameworks at the national, regional and local levels. In doing so, they have undertaken an idealistic, conceptual and foundational assessment of the need and desirability for the proposed maize wet mill plant, and have ignored the practical, feasible and market implications of the proposed project. Whether the project is principally aligned with authoritative guidelines and social, economic and spatial development cannot be undermined by the factual, regional, market and activity-specific context in which the project is to be developed. Jordan has failed to consider that THS not only operates three milling plants in the region in which the proposed project is to be developed, but that THS currently meets the national demand for the maize plant's products. Demand for additional processing in South Africa by a new maize wet mill plant in this region cannot be economically justified or substantiated in terms of need and demand, and THS submits that a market for these new products will only be obtained by the displacement of the current domestic production capability. The development of a new maize wet mill plant in this region will thus have significant and adverse consequences for local production, with knock-on effects throughout industry and the domestic market; and essentially, the proposed project will result in a

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below, therefore refer to responses to Items 4.1.18 to 4.1.30.


xiii


Date and method


Consultation status

less than zero-sum gain, i.e. no net real benefit from a job creation or economic perspective, potential populace / social displacement and a net negative impact on the environment. It has thus not been adequately proven that the proposed project will be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.

1.2.4 Procedural flaws: Public participation has not ensured that municipal role players have been sufficiently engaged, nor have enquiring community members and I&APs had their concerns allayed in respect of the as-yet unidentified BEE partner which is intended to have majority ownership of the proposed plant. The ultimate BEE partner will have a bearing on whether Jordan will have sufficient technical and financial resources to comply with the conditions of any EA that is granted. The significance of the failure to identify the BEE partner should not be underplayed. The BAR further records that the proposed project will also contribute toward meeting the conditions imposed on Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV in its merger with SABMiller, however, it is insufficient to refer to merger conditions without detail as to what the conditions are that Jordan is seeking to meet by implementing the proposed project. The interrelationship between these large industry players in this industry has also not been contextualised for the benefit of I&APs participating in the public consultation process.

This is a summary of the related detailed comments below therefore refer to responses to Items 4.1.41 to 4.1.48.

1.3 On the strength of the various procedural, substantive and technical failings addressed in these comments, THS submits that the BAR and the EA Application are materially flawed, and subject either to the refusal by the competent authority, or to the direction from the competent authority that the flawed environmental impact assessment process followed / undertaken be rectified and re-assessed appropriately.

-

2 Introduction [Summary sourced from information in the BAR therefore not repeated in this table (see Appendix 4 of the BAR for a copy of the full comments)]

No response required.


xiv


Date and method


Consultation status

3 THS's interest in the EA Application

3.1 THS is a major producer of starch, glucose and related products in South Africa, produced using maize as the raw material. THS's products are manufactured at four South African milling facilities, located in Gauteng (Kliprivier, Germiston and Meyerton) and in the Western Cape (Bellville).

The Applicant notes that THS is a direct competitor to the project and the monopoly supplier to the local market.

These comments appear to the Applicant to be anti-competitive and out of kilter with the requirements of competition which the Competition Act, 1998 requires of parties in the South African market. The statements regarding the current monopoly position of THS in the market appears to indicate that this is the type of project that the Competition authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry would support to ensure competition in the local market and to support export activities.

The project sponsors include players with an interest in both the local and international markets. The proposed project does not limit itself to the local market. (Applicant)

The economic study undertaken as part of the EIA process adequately and comprehensively analysed the impact on relevant sectors, supply chains, GDP and employment. The findings of the assessment were positive for net economic growth, job creation and transformation.

3.2 Across the four milling facilities, THS has sufficient capacity to meet the domestic demand for starch and glucose products, and Jordan will thus be entering the domestic market as a competitor to THS.

3.3 Despite the executive summary of the BAR providing that: "[a]ll identified impacts are considered in a cumulative manner such that the impacts of the current baseline conditions on and surrounding the site and those potentially associated with the project are discussed and assessed together", the BAR fails, to assess the market- dynamic, forces and demands likely to be impacted by the new entry of a large-scale industrial/agricultural installation, as well as the proximity of the proposed plant to three of THS's existing milling facilities. These cumulative impacts will have significant and potentially destructive impacts on the domestic industry and local production capabilities, which have not been addressed or assessed in the BAR.

3.4 For these reasons, and for the reasons set out in THS's comments on the BAR set out below, THS is of the view that the EA Application has been underpinned by an insufficient assessment of the need and desirability for the proposed project and only a cursory review of the full extent of environmental impacts and technical complexities thereof, which cannot suffice to guide the competent authority's evaluation of the EA Application. THS believes that a more thorough and comprehensive assessment is required.

Refer to related responses in table below.


xv


Date and method


Consultation status

4 THS's comments on the BAR

4.1 Procedural and substantive flaws in the application process

Incoherent application timelines and processes

4.1.1 The only dates recorded in the BAR are those relating to the publication of the BID (distributed for a 30-day registration and comment period from 26 June 2018 to 26 July 2018) and the publication of the BAR (distributed for a 30-day public comment period from 9 November 2018 to 10 December 2018).

The EA application was submitted to GDARD on 28 September 2018. The 90-day period, taking into account the exclusion period of 15 December to 5 January concludes on 18 January 2019. The Basic Assessment Report (BAR) inclusive of I&AP comments will be submitted to GDARD on 18 January 2019. The Basic Assessment (BA) process is therefore compliant with the EIA Regulations timeframe.

4.1.2 The date on which the EA Application itself was submitted to GDARD has nowhere been confirmed. No other submission dates are highlighted by the EAP. This is problematic in that it is not possible for I&APs to verify whether Jordan is in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 ("EIA Regulations") and the timelines prescribing the EIA process

4.1.3 Regulation 19(1)(a) of the EIA Regulations provides that where basic assessment must be applied to an application, the applicant must, within 90 days of receipt of the application by the competent authority, submit to the competent authority a BAR, inclusive of specialist reports, an environmental management programme ("EMPr") and, where applicable, a closure plan, which have been subjected to a public participation process of at least 30 days and which reflects the incorporation of comments received, including any comments of the competent authority.

4.1.4 SLR has identified this 90-day period in the BID, however, nowhere in the BID, executive summary of the BAR or BAR itself has the date on which the EA Application was submitted to GDARD been recorded. Without knowing when the EA Application was submitted, it is impossible to confirm that by submitting the final BAR to GDARD on or after 10 December 2018, SLR and Jordan would have complied with the prescribed submission timelines.


xvi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.5 Given that the passage of time from publication of the BID to final submission of the BAR to GDARD will amount to some four and a half months, it is unlikely that SLR and Jordan will have complied with regulation 19(1)(a) of the EIA Regulations, which will render the BAR procedurally flawed and subject to refusal by or a direction for rectification from the competent authority.

Refer to response to Item 4.1.1 above.

4.1.6 The BID indicates that the proposed maize wet mill plant will comprise a start to- finish processing plant, which will have a capacity to process between 1 200 and 2 000 tons of maize per day. At the outset, THS submits that the proposed project cannot be ascertained or motivated on the basis of such a broad-ranging capacity, as it does not permit or reflect a comprehensive and accurate assessment of aspects such as: (i) access to services (e.g. water, electricity, effluent disposal, road networks) and the capacities available for a project of a specified size; and (ii) the need and desirability of the project in the region and domestic market, contextualised by the specified capabilities of the plant.

The assessment and specialist studies have been based on a processing capacity of 2000tpd which is considered prudent when assessing thresholds under environmental legislation, requirements for access to services and the need and desirability of the project. This is further justified by the responses below. (Applicant)


xvii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.7 The proposed plant will encompass the following processes / activities:

This information has been sourced from the BAR (see Section 4.2.2 of the BAR). No response required.

4.1.7.1 Maize in-take and preparation: Raw non-GMO maize would be delivered to site by truck where it would be stored temporarily in silos. Prior to processing, the maize would be mechanically cleaned to remove dust and materials such as cobs, husks stones, etc. In order to soften the kernels and separate the hull, germ and fibre from each other, the cleaned maize would then be steeped (soaked in 50 degrees Celsius water which contains sodium metabisulfite) for 32-36 hours. The water for steeping would be heated by means of coal-fired boilers. Natural gas is also being considered as an alternative fuel source for the boilers;

4.1.7.2 Milling: The steeped water would then be drained off and the maize coarsely ground in de-germ mills to free the germ from the grain. The germ would then be separated, dried and maize oil extracted as a by-product. The maize would then be ground in attrition mills, with germ meal remaining as a by-product. Following germ separation, the slurry would be washed, ground and screened to separate the starch and gluten from fibrous material. The fibre would then be extracted as a by-product. The starch and gluten would then report for centrifugation where gluten would be removed and dried as a by-product;

4.1.7.3 Refinery: Finally, the starch would be processed in the refinery where starch conversion would take place through the addition of enzymes and activated carbon to produce final products (glucose and starch); and

4.1.7.4 Final product and by-product transportation: The final products (glucose and starch) would then be loaded and trucked to the respective customer for use in the beverage and food manufacturing process. The by-products (fibre, gluten, and germ) would typically be sold as animal feed or for use in the paper and textile industries.


xviii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.8 On this basis, Jordan and SLR have identified that the following activities under Listing Notice 1 of the EIA Regulations trigger the need to obtain an EA for the proposed project:


4.1.8.1 Listed Activity 2, related to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity from a non-renewable resource where: (i) the electricity output is more than 10 megawatts but less than 20 megawatts. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the project's provision for back-up power generation using diesel. The design of the electricity generation plant has a 15MW electrical load;

4.1.8.2 Listed Activity 8, relating to the development and related operation of hatcheries or agri-industrial facilities outside industrial complexes where the development footprint covers an area of 2 000 square metres or more. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the proposed project being an agri-industrial operation outside an industrial complex covering an area of more than 2 000 m

2;

4.1.8.3 Listed Activity 14, relating to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or for the storage and handling, of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 80 cubic metres or more but not exceeding 500 cubic metres. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the proposed plant intending to store a number of chemicals considered to be dangerous goods, as well as diesel for backup power generation, the storage of which will be below 500m

3;

4.1.8.4 Listed Activity 25, relating to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage with a daily throughput capacity of more than 2 000 cubic metres but less than 15 000 cubic metres. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the proposed project requiring wastewater (plant effluent) and domestic sewer treatment plants, whose combined daily throughput capacity would be 5654,5m

3 per day;


xix


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.8.5 Listed Activity 27, relating to the clearance of an area of 1 hectares or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the development of the proposed plant requiring clearance of approximately 16.2 hectares of indigenous vegetation; and


4.1.8.6 Listed Activity 28, relating to residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional developments where such land was used for agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or afforestation on or after 1 April 1998 and where such development: (i) will occur inside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger than 5 hectares. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the fact that the development of the proposed plant, located inside the urban area, will result in more than 5 hectares of land previously used for agriculture being developed as an industrial site.

4.1.9 Listing Notice 1 and Listing Notice 3 trigger activities which require a basic assessment process under the EIA Regulations. The basic assessment process is a less stringent, rigorous and less time-consuming process which is reserved for activities which impose fewer and/or less destructive impacts on the environment. The BAR has been prepared on this basis.

The listed activities identified for the project fall under Listing Notice 1 and therefore a Basic Assessment is the process to be followed. This is further justified by the responses below.

4.1.10 Regulation 15 of the EIA Regulations requires the EAP to identify whether a basic assessment or a full scoping and environmental impact ("S&EI") assessment must be conducted in support of an application. THS submits, on the basis of the investigation set out hereunder, that the S&EI process ought to have been followed.

4.1.11 Jordan and SLR rely on their pre-application meeting with GDARD on 15 June 2018, at which it was agreed with GDARD that the basic assessment process would be used to inform the EIA process and that the BAR would be compiled in line with the NEMA requirements and GDARD's BAR template (see page 1- 1 of the BAR).

Responses below provide justification for the application of the BA process to the proposed project.

4.1.12 THS wishes to note, however, that the above identification of listed activities triggered by the proposed project is not sufficiently motivated or properly assessed, and certain activities likely to be triggered are left out of the assessment completely:

Responses below provide justification for the application of the BA process to the proposed project.


xx


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.12.1 Listed Activity 2 of Listing Notice 1 is identified as triggered by the diesel electricity generation plant. However, the BAR also mentions a switching station and underground cables from the Leeuwkuil substation. No assessment or motivation has been reflected in terms of whether these intended activities will trigger any listed activities under NEMA;

A substation or switching station and 11kV underground cables do not trigger listed activities as the switching station is not a generator of electricity, it merely transforms it and the 11kV underground

cables are below the Listing Notice 1 threshold.

4.1.12.2 Listed Activity 14 of Listing Notice 1, relating to the storage of dangerous goods: Given that coal is a flammable solid comprised of carbon, and is thus also classified as a dangerous good, it must be assessed whether less than 500m

3 of combined storage capacity can

be contemplated for the proposed project. Given the amount of combined dangerous goods to be stored and handled on-site, a Listing Notice 2 activity may be triggered; and

The maximum volume of coal that could be stored on site is approximately 49 000 tons, although the likely volume to be stored at any one time would be 15 000 tons. This is well below the trigger threshold of 100 000 tons set for storage of coal as an activity requiring an AEL and so a full scoping and EIR under Listed Activity 6 of Listing Notice 2.

No basis is given to support the statement that storage of coal is also intended to be regulated under Listed Activity 14 of Listing Notice 1 and so included in the total dangerous goods storage calculation. Coal is not a regulated dangerous good under this Listed Activity under normal storage conditions.

The EMP deals with storage of coal and requires coal to be stored in an enclosed area, equipped with containment measures which will ensure all potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed.

4.1.12.3 Mention is made in the BAR that treated water will be transported to the Municipal Treatment Works, but no indication is provided as to whether a pipeline will need to be constructed and authorised under Listed Activities 9 or 10 of Listing Notice 1 or the National Water Act, 1998 ("NWA").

This was one design consideration, further work by the Applicant has confirmed that treated effluent will not be transported to the Leeuwkuil Watercare Works and therefore a pipeline for treated water is not required.


xxi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.13 THS is of the view that the full scope and extent of facilities to be constructed and operated and the activities to be undertaken requires a more detailed assessment. Jordan / SLR have, by conducting a basic assessment process, incorrectly characterised and/or failed to identify the full extent of environmental impacts to be occasioned and authorisations to be obtained by the maize wet milling operations encompassed in the EA Application.

SLR disagrees with these statements. This response is justified by the responses included in this table.

4.1.14 THS accordingly submits that the S&EI assessment process ought to have been followed by the EAP, given that various pollutant / environmentally harmful activities are intended to be undertaken and that various Listing Notice 2 activities are likely to be triggered.

4.1.15 This is because the following Listing Notice 2 activities are likely to be triggered by the proposed project:

4.1.15.1 Listed Activity 4 of Listing Notice 2, relating to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of more than 500 cubic metres;

The volume of coal to be stored on site is approximately 1 000 m

3 or 15 000 tons. This is well

below the trigger threshold of 100 000 tons set for storage of coal as an activity requiring an AEL and so a full scoping and EIR under Listed Activity 6 of Listing Notice 2.

No basis is given to support the statement that storage of coal is also intended to be regulated under Listed Activity 14 of Listing Notice 1 and so included in the total dangerous goods storage calculation. Coal is not a regulated dangerous good under this Listed Activity under normal storage conditions.

The EMP deals with storage of coal and requires coal to be stored in an enclosed area, equipped with containment measures which will ensure all potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed.


xxii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.15.2 Listed Activity 6 of Listing Notice 2, relating to the development of facilities or infrastructure for any process or activity which requires a permit or licence or an amended permit or licence in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the generation or release of emissions, pollution or effluent [Note: THS submits, as set out below, that a water use licence in terms of section 21(g) of the NWA is required for the waste water treatment plant.]; and

Further design considerations related to the treatment of industrial effluent on site and optimisation of the design has confirmed that the industrial effluent can be treated to meet potable water standards. The related cost is not material to the feasibility of the project. As a result, the treated industrial effluent will be reused in the maize wet milling process; thus there would be no need to discharge any treated industrial effluent to the environment. (Applicant)

Limited treated effluent from the domestic sewer package plant will be used to irrigate landscaped areas on site in line with a General Authorisation.

A water use license is not required for the waste water treatment plant; the plant is governed under the NEMA. Refer to Item 4.1.33.2 for a response to the water use comment.

4.1.15.3 Listed Activity 27 of Listing Notice 2, relating to the development of a road: (i) with a reserve wider than 30 metres; or (ii) catering for more than one lane of traffic in both directions.

No roads would be developed with a reserve wider than 30 m or catering for more than one lane of traffic in both directions.

4.1.16 The assessment of these listed activities is addressed in more detail below.

-

4.1.17 The oversight by the EAP to identify the correct assessment and reporting process to have been conducted renders the BAR and the EA Application materially defective.

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included above.

Need and desirability

4.1.18 Appendix 4(1)(f) to the EIA Regulations requires that a motivation for the need and desirability for the proposed project be provided.

-


xxiii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.19 The Department of Environmental Affairs ("DEA") published its Guideline on Need and Desirability in 2014 ("Need and Desirability Guideline"). Despite having identified the Need and Desirability Guideline in the legislative and policy context of the Draft BAR, what will be evidenced below is that the EAP has not fully engaged with the Need and Desirability Guideline in seeking to motivate the proposed project.

Refer to the response to Item 4.1.20 below.

4.1.20 Jordan / SLR have placed an over-emphasised focus on the developmental policy and spatial planning frameworks at the national, regional and local levels. In doing so, they have undertaken an idealistic, conceptual and foundational assessment of the need and desirability for the proposed maize wet mill plant, and have ignored the practical, feasible and market implications of the proposed project.

In addition to the alignment with spatial and planning frameworks, the Applicant has indicated that the need of the project is to establish alternative suppliers in the market to create competitive price tension, increase black ownership and minimise security of supply risks.

AB InBev as a project sponsor is looking to honour its public interest commitments associated with the merger conditions imposed by the competition authorities to (i) create sustainable new and convert existing industrialised suppliers to Black Ownership, (ii) stimulate new and existing suppliers. The competition processes are themselves public proceedings.

A detailed feasibility assessment falls outside of the scope of an EIA process. A feasibility assessment is an analysis used in measuring the ability and likelihood to complete a project successfully including all relevant factors and importantly the detailed economic prospects of the project. This is information which cannot be shared with a competitor. (Applicant)

4.1.21 At pages 5-1 to 5-4 of the BAR, the EAP has provided an extensive description of the government policies (national, provincial and local), guidelines, frameworks, developmental plans, etc. which are or will be impacted by the proposed project at the preferred location, further addressing the consistency of the proposed project with the context of such policies. However, this does not and cannot constitute all of the issues that would typically be considered in an assessment of the need and desirability of a maize wet mill plant. Thus far, the EAP has only engaged in a discussion on whether the nature of the project is principally aligned with authoritative guidelines and social, economic and spatial development. THS is of the view that this section in the BAR must be reconsidered , as it does not truly reflect an activity-specific feasibility assessment of need and desirability.

The EIA process need and desirability guideline is not intended to guide the assessment of the detailed feasibility of a project but instead to consider the development of the project in relation to ecological sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. The DEA guideline further notes


xxiv


Date and method


Consultation status

that at a project level (as part of a BA process), the need and desirability of the project should take into consideration the content of regional and local plans, frameworks and strategies. These aspects have been addressed in the BAR (see Section 5 of the BAR).

The Applicant notes that THS is a direct competitor to the project and the monopoly supplier to the local market. Information that relates to a developer’s competitive strategy is confidential information and therefore not for the public consumption and also may not be shared with a competitor in the regulated competition context. (Applicant)

4.1.22 In addition, in seeking to align the proposed project with the principles of NEMA, Jordan / SLR have made unsupported, intangible statements, such as: • "Industry and agriculture has been identified as a key driver of economic growth and job creation and as such the proposed maize wet mill plant is anticipated to serve the developmental interests of people." • "Government has set development goals aimed at reducing poverty, unemployment and inequality. The contribution of the industry and agricultural sectors in this regard is promoted in the national, regional and local policy and planning frameworks, thus the proposed development is deemed acceptable in principle." (emphases added)

These statements are supported by district and municipal planning documents as indicated in the BAR.

The economic study undertaken as part of the EIA process adequately and comprehensively analysed the impact on relevant sectors, supply chains, GDP and employment. The findings of the assessment were positive for net economic growth, job creation and transformation.

The Applicant and project sponsors appointed an independent expert adviser to assess the net economic costs and benefits of the proposed plant. This detailed feasibility information is confidential and from a competition regulation perspective this cannot be disclosed to a competitor such as THS.

4.1.23 These statements are not grounded in supporting facts and statistics contextualising Jordan's market entry via the proposed project, and THS submits that they are factually incorrect and unrelated to the development mandates of the government. Motivations such as these are required to evidence tangible economic, social and general benefits.


xxv


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.24 In motivating the need and desirability of a proposed project, it must be ensured and evidenced that the project will be sustainable from an economic, social and environmental perspective. THS is of the view that the BAR does not motivate or evidence sustainable development, because its assessment does not address the achievement of the triple bottom line in terms of the demand for this very specific project. There has been no information provided which considers how the development may affect or promote justifiable economic and social development, within the context of the relevant spatial plans and ecological integrity.

Refer to response to Item 4.1.22 and 4.1.23 above.

4.1.25 While the importance of job creation and economic growth for South Africa cannot be denied, it is a fundamental component of the required assessment that economic development must be justifiable. Socio-economic motivations must, therefore, focus on the maize industry and on impacts of new development on local production capabilities. The BAR has indicated that the proposed site / land is well-suited to some (in fact any) form of economic activity, as this complies with the whole range of spatial planning tools and policies. The development of a new maize wet mill plant in this region will, however, have significant and adverse consequences for local production, with knock-on effects throughout industry and the domestic market. The Economic Assessment contained in the BAR cannot be cast as a true business plan / feasibility assessment ascertaining the medium- and long-term viability of the proposed project. In light of this, can it really be said that the proposed project will be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable?

The economic specialist study completed for an EIA is not meant to be a business plan / feasibility assessment of the project outlining the viability of the proposed development. An economic impact assessment examines the effect of the development on the economy in a specified area.


xxvi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.26 Specifically from a market- and feasibility perspective, THS wishes to note that it has three Reef-based milling plants at Kliprivier, Meyerton and Germiston. These three wet mill facilities, together with the Bellville operation in the Western Cape, have sufficient capacity to meet the domestic demand for starch and glucose products. THS has a significant asset base with more than 15% of the upstream wet milling capacity available for growth to support domestic demand. Over and above this, THS exports some 76 000 tons of starch and glucose to various markets, with the corresponding revenue generated in excess of R500 million. THS has, in addition, invested in excess of R800 million in CAPEX over the last decade to improve its capacity of glucose and to replace imported starches and glucose with locally manufactured equivalents for the food market.


These comments appear to the Applicant to be out of kilter with the requirements of competition which the Competition Act, 1998 requires of parties in the South African market. The statements regarding the current monopoly position of THS in the market appears to indicate that this is the type of project that the Competition authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry would support to ensure competition in the local market and to support export activities.


4.1.27 Jordan has not taken into account that the three existing wet mills are in close proximity to the proposed site (by road) located on Leeuwkuil Ext 5, erf 188 and a portion of portion 237 and of the farm Leeuwkuil 596 IQ:



The project sponsors include players with an interest

4.1.27.1 THS Germiston Mill, 68 km away;

4.1.27.2 THS Kliprivier, 39 km away; and

4.1.27.3 THS Meyerton Mill, 20 km away.

4.1.28 Demand for additional processing in South Africa by a new maize wet mill plant in this region cannot be economically justified or substantiated in terms of need and demand, and THS submits that a market for these new products will only be obtained by the displacement of the current domestic production capability.


xxvii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.29 This displacement will have significant financial and socio-economic consequences as a result of current market restructuring, such as job losses (downsizing will affect over 400 people, with an estimated multiplier effect on over 1 600 people, and which may translate to more jobs lost than created); curtailed training and development of artisans and graduate engineers; severed distribution chains (in transport alone, over 7 700 deliveries per annum of in- and outbound deliveries could be lost to the transport industry); and administrative burdens on the government. This de-industrialisation could affect:

in both the local and international markets. The proposed project does not limit itself to the local market. (Applicant)

As indicated by the Applicant, the need of the project is to establish alternative suppliers in the market to create competitive price tension, increase black ownership and minimise security of supply risks.

In addition, AB InBev as a project sponsor is looking to honour its public interest commitments associated with the merger conditions imposed by the competition authorities to (i) create sustainable new and convert existing industrialised suppliers to Black Ownership, (ii) stimulate new and existing suppliers. The competition processes are themselves public proceedings.

4.1.29.1 Domestic Manufacturing - all of the products supplied from these facilities will have to be imported, stored and sold, leading to price fluctuation resulting from changes to the exchange rate, shipping costs, and FOB costs of the equivalent products. A further impact will be on inflation linked to customers having to change to alternative and substitute products due to higher input costs; and

4.1.29.2 Municipalities and Coal Suppliers - the effect on municipalities of such closures will be over R120 million per annum through the loss of revenue from the supply of electricity, effluent, waste and refuse costs.

4.1.30 Essentially, the proposed project will result in a less than zero-sum gain, i.e. no net real benefit from a job creation or economic perspective, potential populace / social displacement and a net negative impact on the environment.

Description of the policy and legislative context

4.1.31 Regulation 19(3), read with Appendix 1(2)(a) and (3)(1)(e) of the EIA Regulations requires the BAR to contain a description of the policy and legislative context within which the development is proposed, including an identification of all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks and instruments that are applicable to the proposed activity and how the proposed activity complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context, plans, guidelines, tools frameworks and instruments.



xxviii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.32 THS submits that the EAP has failed to identify the full spectrum of applicable policy and legislative requirements informing the EA process and that, by inference, it can only be assumed that Jordan has not fully assessed the feasibility of the proposed maize wet mill plant and has not completed a due diligence of the legal obligations that it will need to comply with in order to implement the proposed maize wet mill plant lawfully. Accordingly, a full, comprehensive assessment is still required.

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included below.

4.1.33 Waste management

4.1.33.1 A red flag which ought to be raised is the EAP's failure to address the host of obligations informing waste management activities beyond merely categorising which activities are listed for the purposes of obtaining a waste management licence ("WML") or not.

The legal obligations related to the generation and handling of waste have been captured in the EMP which is a legally binding component of the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

For ease of reference the applicable waste regulations have been listed in the Policy and Legislative section of the BAR (see Section 2.1.2 of the BAR).

4.1.33.2 At page 2-4 of the BAR, it is recorded that the proposed maize wet mill plant would require the storage of coal ash, which is a Category C activity requiring compliance with the National Norms and Standards for Waste Storage. Category C(2) relates to the storage of hazardous waste at a facility that has the capacity to store in excess of 80m

3 of

hazardous waste at any one time, excluding the storage of hazardous waste in lagoons or temporary storage of such waste. In relation to the proposed project, the EAP provides that the proposed plant would temporarily store approximately 210m

3 of coal ash for removal

from site at any given time [Note: THS submits that this activity may also require a WUL in terms of section 21(g) of the NWA, as set out below]. Beyond this, not much more is said.

A Section 21(g) water use is for the disposal of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource. Coal ash would be temporarily stored on site in silos or covered bunkers within a closed building and then removed for off-site disposal at an appropriately licensed facility. Coal ash will not be disposed of on-site and therefore this water use is not applicable.

The EMP deals with waste management to ensure all potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed (see Section 8 of the BAR).


xxix


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.33.3 THS notes that there is a long list of solid waste products which will be generated from the proposed project, and only broad and generic proposals are tabulated in the EMPr that address the management of solid waste. Considering the types and volumes of waste expected to be generated, it is considered that this has been superficially addressed from an impact assessment and mitigation perspective, and long-term outcomes could produce disastrous results, especially if municipal services are depended upon in this urban area. Additional negative impacts can be expected on the road network, neighbouring properties and communities adjoining the site during the daily removal of large quantities of waste, most likely 24 hours per day. This has implications on noise, nuisance, condition of roads, air quality status, wind-blown solid waste, etc., highlighting a significant impact on general pollution into this urban area.

The EMP deals with waste management to ensure all potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed (see Section 8 of the BAR). Wastes would be dealt with in a responsible manner in line with national legislation.

4.1.33.4 Given that the above identified Category C activity includes hazardous waste management, it is also noteworthy that the EAP has failed to consider the legislative and policy context informing the management, treatment, storage and disposal of such wastes. The BAR merely identifies the generation of coal ash hazardous waste and other hazardous waste (chemicals / chemical contaminated containers and material, used oil and lubricants, medical waste, spent activated carbon, sludge) as an impact, but fails to assess these impacts and apply the regulatory framework to the mitigation thereof. Crucially, in respect of the hazardous wastes:

The legal obligations related to the generation and handling of waste have been captured in the EMP which is a legally binding component of the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

For ease of reference the applicable waste regulations have been listed in the Policy and Legislative section of the BAR (see Section 2.1.2 of the BAR).

4.1.33.4.1 the Waste Classification and Management Regulations, 2013 have not been identified or considered; and

4.1.33.4.2 the National Waste Information Regulations, 2012 have not been identified or considered, given that the BAR records quantities in the region of 210m³ of coal ash and 35m

3 of other hazardous

waste being generated per day by the proposed project, which translates to well beyond 20kg of hazardous waste per day.


xxx


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.33.5 Insofar as general waste is concerned, which is contemplated to be generated at page 4-11 of the BAR, the BAR fails to identify as applicable the National Norms and Standards for the Sorting, Shredding, Grinding, Crushing, Screening or Baling of General Waste, 2017.

On site separation of wastes will be undertaken in line with best practise and national legislation (see Section 8 of the BAR).

If sorting, shredding, grinding, crushing or bailing of waste takes place on site then the Norms and Standards would be applied. However this is not envisaged at this stage.

4.1.33.6 Contaminated soils are also contemplated to result from the proposed milling operations (see page 4-11 of the BAR), yet the BAR fails to identify the legislative prescriptions of the National Norms and Standards for the Remediation of Contaminated Land and Soil Quality in the Republic of South Africa as being applicable to the treatment of any such resulting contaminated soils.

The project has been planned to avoid contamination of soil resources. Related design and mitigation measures are included in the EMP (see Section 8 of the BAR).

The potential for contamination of soil resources due to accidental spills is handled as an emergency situation with related mitigation included in the EMP (see Section 8.7 of the BAR).

The referenced Norms and Standards are not considered applicable to the project.

4.1.33.7 Given the proposed lifespan of the proposed project, the EAP ought also to have assessed and considered compliance with the draft ELM Solid Waste Management By-Laws, notwithstanding them still being in draft form.

These by-laws are currently not in effect. If and when the draft by-laws come into effect, these will be applied as necessary. The by-laws align with the requirements of national legislation. The BAR has been compiled in line with national legislation and therefore would address relevant aspects of the by-laws.

For ease of reference these by-laws have been listed in the Policy and Legislative section of the BAR (see Section 2.1.2 of the BAR).

4.1.33.8 The failure to identify and consider these legislative frameworks is a fatal flaw of the BAR.

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included above.


xxxi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.34 Air quality

4.1.34.1 The BAR provides, at page 2-4 thereof, that: "Based on estimated coal use per boiler, the proposed boilers will have a design capacity greater than 10 MW but less than 50 MW net heat input (15.75 MW per boiler) and therefore fall within the category of controlled emitters [per section 23(1) of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 ("NEMAQA")]. In 2013, the Minister of Environmental Affairs published a declaration of small boilers as controlled emitters (the Small Boiler Declaration) (GN 831 of November 2013). Activities declared as controlled emitters do not require an air emission license but are subject to the provisions of the Declaration and would therefore require registration with the local authority as a controlled emitter. Minimum emission standards for small boilers are presented in the Air Quality specialist study […]."


4.1.34.2 Notwithstanding the boiler units to be installed at the proposed maize wet mill plant, THS submits that the EAP has, perhaps by oversight, failed to identify the NEMAQA activities relating to the handling and storage of coal to be used as an input to the coal-fired boilers.

As indicated by the air quality specialist, the project does not trigger the Subcategory 5.1 Listed Activity as the storage of coal would be below the NEM:AQA threshold of 100 000 tons.

For ease of reference the Legal section in the specialist report has been updated to record this more clearly.

4.1.34.3 Subcategory 5.1 of the NEMAQA Listed Activities lists the storage and handling of ore and coal not situated on the premises of a mine or works as defined in the Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 as an activity which requires an atmospheric emission licence ("AEL"). Applications requiring the AEL for this activity are locations designed to hold more than 100 000 tons. THS submits that the proposed maize wet mill plant will likely meet these capacities and will thus require an AEL for its coal storage activities (see paragraphs 4.2.12 to 4.2.16 below), and Jordan has not indicated otherwise.


xxxii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.34.4 Furthermore, despite not triggering a listed activity under NEMA, the SDM Air Quality Officer, Mr. Nemangaya, provided at a meeting with Jordan and SLR on 30 August 2018 (see Appendix 4.5 to the BAR) that where there are five small boilers operating at the same time, although the law does not consider these in a cumulative manner, the cumulative capacity would be 75MW, which is "higher than some of the power stations in South Africa". He emphasised the project’s location within the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area, where baseline ambient concentrations, specifically for PM2.5 and PM10, already exceed South African national limits. He explained that these are two key factors that SDM would take into account when considering the proposed project in relation to its contribution to ambient air quality. He further indicated that the best way to regulate a plant from SDM’s perspective, when considering the above factors, is to apply for an AEL even though the proposed project does not trigger an AEL.

The current regulatory framework does not require an AEL for the project and therefore applying for an AEL would not be legally possible.

Notwithstanding this, the air quality specialist study and in turn the BAR assesses the plant in terms of AEL requirements with respect to design controls as well as monitoring requirements. The plant would be designed and implemented to meet compliance with Section 21 Category 1 of NEM:AQA.

Comments on the BAR have been received from Sedibeng District Municipality: Air Quality Management (see Table 1 above). These comments do not reference an AEL and are supportive of the project.

4.1.34.5 The BAR, at page 2-5 thereof, provides that although the section 21 NEMAQA listed activity requirements do not apply to the proposed project (in terms of the small boilers), "the project is located within an airshed priority area where elevated ambient concentrations exist and therefore the proposed plant is being designed to comply with the Section 21 emission standards".


4.1.34.6 The legislative and policy context of the proposed project in the BAR identifies the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Vaal Triangle Air- Shed Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan, 2009; National Dust Control Regulations, 2013; and the legislative framework governing climate change and atmospheric emission / greenhouse gas reporting.



xxxiii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.34.7 In respect of the Vaal Triangle Air-Shed Priority Area, the EAP indicates that:"The proposed maize wet mill falls within the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area. New developments which are associated with atmospheric emissions, and hence the potential for contributing to air pollutant concentrations, are subject to focused scrutiny by national air pollution control officers. Emphasis is being placed on ensuring that best practice control measures are being proposed for implementation and that the development will not substantially add to the existing air pollution burden in the region. The design of the plant has taken this into consideration." (emphases added)


4.1.34.8 It is unclear, however, how Jordan can be seen to implement best practice measures and legislative parameters, and align with the emission reduction objective of the Vaal Triangle Air-Shed Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan, 2009, if it is seeking to: (i) develop a new large-scale milling plant in a heavily polluted area; and (ii) undertake its proposed operations without an AEL and thus without any formal monitoring, reporting and/or accountability framework in place. This is especially concerning given recommendations for the use of a cyclone or electrostatics precipitators (ESP) instead of a baghouse for the control of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, as these require a sulphur-burning plant, thus releasing even more SOx into the atmosphere (over and above the SO2 emissions expected from the maize cleaning and steeping processes). How the ESP is intended to be operated, and how fly ash is intended to be conditioned, are thus vital considerations which should have been and must still be elaborated on in the BAR.

The current regulatory framework does not require an AEL for the project and therefore applying for an AEL would not be legally possible.

Notwithstanding this, the air quality specialist study and in turn the BAR assesses the plant in terms of AEL requirements with respect to design controls as well as monitoring requirements. The plant would be designed and implemented to meet compliance with Section 21 Category 1 of NEM:AQA.

The air quality specialist report and the EMP states that the final design of the plant must be done to ensure compliance with Section 21 Minimum Emission Standards and lists potential options for air abatement which include measures to deal with particulates and SO2 (see Section 8 of the BAR).


xxxiv


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.34.9 No assessment is contemplated of whether air quality offsets may be required to be implemented on the basis of the principles and prescriptions published in the Air Quality Offsets Guideline.

As noted by the air quality specialist the Air Quality Offsets Guideline (Government Gazette, No 39833, No. 333; 2016) provides guidance for the use of offsets as an air quality protection or improvement tool within the licensing process. The inclusion of offset plans into the licensing process is for the consideration of the licensing authorities.

An AEL is not required for the project. The BAR however was made available to the District authority for comment. The District authority has indicated its support for the project provided that the mitigation measures are adhered to (see Appendix 4 of the BAR).

4.1.34.10 Given the proposed lifespan of the proposed project, the EAP ought also to have assessed and considered compliance with the draft ELM Air Quality Management By-Laws, notwithstanding them still being in draft form.

The municipal by-laws currently in effect were considered as part of the air quality specialist study (see Section 4.7 of the air quality specialist study in Appendix 9 of the BAR).

If and when the draft by-laws come into effect, these will be applied as necessary. The by-laws align with the requirements of national legislation. The BAR has been compiled in line with national legislation and therefore would address relevant aspects of the by-laws.

For ease of reference the draft by-laws have been summarised and included in the legal section of the specialist report as well as the Policy and Legal section of the BAR (see Section 2.2 of the BAR).

4.1.34.11 The BAR identifies as a potential impact the increase in malodourous compounds from the waste water treatment plant, which impact is rated as very low both without and with mitigation measures in place. THS submits that odours will not result only from the waste water treatment plant, however, as has been assessed at page 7-13 of the BAR, but also from the atmospheric processes of the milling plant, including the ESP.

The BAR indicates that odour could come from maize wet milling and refining processes and industrial effluent waste water treatment plant (see Section 7.1.9 of the BAR).

Mitigation measures specifically dealing with odour for the processing plant and treatment plant are included in EMP (see Section 8 of the BAR).


xxxv


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.35 Water use and management

4.1.35.1 The BAR records, at page ii thereof, that the proposed project also requires authorisation from the Department of Water and Sanitation ("DWS") for specific water uses under section 21 of the NWA. At page 2-7 of the BAR, it is recorded that a General Authorisation ("GA")) replaces the need for a water user to apply for a water use licence ("WUL") in terms of the NWA, and that the intended water uses will be covered by existing GAs. This section of the BAR provides that "all project infrastructure has been located outside the 1:100 year flood line of any watercourse and therefore Section 21(c) and (i) water uses are not triggered by the project development".


4.1.35.2 Despite the fact that this assessment is based on an insufficient capacity determination and is contrary to the minimal technical specifications provided in the BAR, as will be elaborated on under the substantive legal comments below, these water use and management issues have not been adequately contextualised within the appropriate legislative frameworks.

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included in this table.

Municipal services and capacities outlined in the BAR have been assessed based on the maximum capacity of 2000 tons per day and therefore provide for the maximum demand on municipal services. (Urban Dynamics, Town Planner)


xxxvi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.35.3 THS submits at the outset that Jordan does, in fact, require a WUL for the proposed maize wet mill plant operations, in that it seeks to develop / construct a domestic sewer package plant and a waste water treatment plant (see paragraphs 4.2.5 to 4.2.11 below). Notwithstanding the above, Jordan and SLR's elementary and premature assessment of the proposed project's water uses has resulted in a failure to align the EIA process with the objectives of integrated environmental management.

The domestic sewer package plant and industrial effluent waste water treatment plant are not considered water uses and therefore do not require authorisation under the National Water Act. These treatment plants are governed by the NEMA and the related listed activity has been applied for (see Section 2.1.1 of the BAR).


Limited treated effluent from the domestic sewer package plant will be used to irrigate landscaped areas on site in line with a General Authorisation.

4.1.35.4 The impacts on water resources are of crucial importance to the EIA process undertaken in support of the EA Application, and ought to be comprehensively assessed at this stage of the propose project, not later, so as to give I&APs an opportunity to understand and comment on the full scope and extent of impacts to be occasioned by the proposed project. Any failure to permit meaningful engagement during the BAR process is also prejudicial to I&APs who will need to participate in numerous public participation processes and incur substantive human capital and financial resource expenses.

4.1.35.5 Whilst the management and authorisation of water rights and uses may not be the mandate of GDARD, and the disposal of effluent does form part of a separate process and application through DWS, the implications of large volumes of contaminated water to be: (i) treated onsite and (ii) discharged into the environment, has significant implications on the environmental sustainability and impact of the proposed project into the adjoining / downstream environment and watercourses, which fall within the Upper Vaal River Water Management Area. There are also significant implications for the health, welfare and amenity of communities living and working in the area affected by this water discharge or spraying for irrigation purposes. This has not been adequately addressed in the BAR and, therefore, information related to the expected long-term impacts is lacking. This includes the absent assessment of the safety risks attaching to the water treatment plants in the event of any concrete walls rupturing, which would cause significant and catastrophic spills into the environment of contaminated water. The BAR fails to assess this impact and provide mitigation measures therefor.


xxxvii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.35.6 To grant the EA Application for the development and operation of waste water treatment plants while significant unknown, unproved outcomes and water uses exist goes against the fundamental tenets of the integrated environmental management system promoted under the One Environmental System.

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included above and below.

4.1.35.7 In addition, at various points throughout the BAR and during stakeholder engagement, Jordan and SLR indicate that waste water may be used for irrigation purposes at the proposed plant. However, the legislative and policy context fails crucially to identify and assess the Regulations Requiring that the Taking of Water for Irrigation Purposes be Measured, Recorded and Reported. The BAR also fails to identify and asses the impacts of increased salt contents ("Total Dissolved Salts" or "TDS") being sprayed during irrigation processes (see discussion further below).

The referenced regulations talk to taking of water from a water resource for the purpose of irrigation. The project does not include this. The project would be using treated domestic waste water produced by the operations for irrigation purpose.

Further design considerations related to the treatment of industrial effluent on site and optimisation of the design has confirmed that the industrial effluent can be treated to meet potable water standards. The related cost is not material to the feasibility of the project. As a result, treated industrial wastewater would not be used for irrigation purposes. (Applicant)

4.1.35.8 The EAP ought also to have assessed and considered compliance with the ELM Water Services By-Laws, 2004.

These by-laws are regulated at a municipal level and were considered as part of the town planning applications.

As part of the town planning applications and the BAR process comments were received from the Water and Sanitation services section of the ELM. The comments received were used to inform the project plan as presented in Section 4 of the BAR.

For ease of reference the by-laws have been listed in the Policy and Legislative section of the BAR (see Section 2.2 of the BAR).


xxxviii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.36 Dangerous goods storage

4.1.36.1 The plant will store a number of chemicals considered to be dangerous goods, as well as diesel for backup power generation. The storage of such dangerous goods within a small radius of adjoining businesses, as well as residential areas, must be considered potentially highly dangerous. Risks of fire, spillage and other mishaps can easily occur and a nearby community (working and residing) are at high risk.

The EMP deals with the storage and handling of dangerous goods to ensure all potential impacts and risks are appropriately managed (see Section 8 of the BAR).

4.1.36.2 Despite being directed by GDARD to involve and engage with the ELM and SDM, Jordan and the EAP have sought to engage the municipalities only on air quality control and spatial planning considerations.

Comments on the BAR have been received by ELM, Environmental Management (see Appendix 4 of the BAR). Their opportunity to comment has not been restricted to only that of air quality and spatial planning.

4.1.36.3 The BAR fails completely to identify local and district municipal by-laws which shall inform the operations of the proposed plant, specifically those relating to fire protection, water services and emergency services.

The National Building Regulations and Building Standards are regulated at a municipal level. These fall outside of the scope of an EIA process but are peripherally relevant to the town planning applications made and referenced previously and will become relevant to the building planning approval process which will follow. It is the intention of the Applicant to comply with all local and district laws as relevant.

The draft by-laws are currently not in effect. If and when the draft by-laws come into effect, these will be applied as necessary.

For ease of reference these by-laws have been listed in the Policy and Legislative section of the BAR (see Section 2.2 of the BAR).

4.1.36.4 To this end, and given the proposed lifespan of the proposed project, the BAR is fatally flawed for failing to identify, assess and require compliance with:

4.1.36.4.1 the National Buildings Regulations and Building Standards Act, 1977;

4.1.36.4.2 the draft ELM Electricity Supply By-Laws, 2018 (notwithstanding that they are currently in draft form); and

4.1.36.4.3 the draft Fire Safety By-Laws; 2018 (notwithstanding that they are currently in draft form).


xxxix


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.37 Hazardous substance management and control

4.1.37.1 The BAR recognises that safety measures are required for the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances on site, yet fails to acknowledge that the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973 ("HSA") prescribes a licensing regime in respect of such hazardous substances. To the extent that the BAR fails to assess and apply the requirements for obtaining a licence under the HSA for the use, storage and/or disposal of hazardous substances, the BAR is materially deficient.

The licensing requirement under the HAS is not applicable to this project as the project will not sell or distribute any Group I hazardous substances nor will it undertake a regulated activity requiring a licence in respect of any other listed hazardous substance.

4.1.37.2 The BAR further fails to identify the National Road Traffic Act, 1996 within the policy and legislative context of transporting dangerous goods and substances and the prescriptions contained therein which shall apply to the maize wet mill plant operations, as well as a host of SANS / SABS codes which may be applicable to the operations and the transport of hazardous substances.

The project will not have a transport fleet of vehicles for the transport hazardous substances. Transport would be undertaken by a reputable supplier that would have to comply with the necessary standards for the transport of such goods. r.

4.1.38 Spatial planning and land use management

4.1.38.1 Although the minutes of the meeting held between GDARD, Jordan and SLR (see Appendix 4.5) note that the Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework Standard ("GPEMF Standard") does not apply, as the proposed site falls within Zone 1 - Urban Development and as the proposed project triggers listed activities which are not included in the GPEMF Standard, it is not to say that the GPEMF itself does not and need not inform the proposed project. As set out in more detail below, the GPEMF ought to have been substantively assessed in the BAR.

Refer to response below to Items 4.1.38.3 to 4.1.40.

4.1.38.2 The GPEMF was prepared and published by GDARD under the specific guiding principles to:


4.1.38.2.1 facilitate the optimal use of current industrial, mining land and other suitable derelict land for the development of non-polluting industrial and large commercial developments;

4.1.38.2.2 protect Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs, as defined in C-Plan 3.3) within urban and rural environments;


xl


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.38.2.3 ensure the proper integration Ecological Support Areas (ESAs, as defined in C-Plan 3.3) into rural land use change and development;


4.1.38.2.4 use ESAs as defined in municipal bioregional plans in spatial planning of urban open space corridors and links within urban areas; and

4.1.38.2.5 focus on the sustainability of development through the implementation of initiatives such as: Energy efficiency programmes, plans and designs; Waste minimisation, reuse and recycling; Green infrastructure in urban areas; and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

4.1.38.3 The GPEMF contains Environmental Management Zones. These represent the foundation for determining the likely nature of the future use of land in Gauteng as currently foreseen by government (at least at a provincial level). In the desired state process, the various spatial plans have been simplified to reflect spatial priorities for conservation, agriculture development, urban development and rural development. Given the different mandates and goals of each of the policies, there are obviously significant areas where the different land use options are not aligned. For the purpose of the desired state phase, these areas are described as pressure points.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the GPEMF identifies the site as Zone 1, where urban and infill development is promoted, which is what the proposed development will promote. It is important to note that the site is not located in Zone 2 or 3 where conservation of the land is promoted due to sensitivity. The location of the proposed development is in an existing industrial area given the current activities in the area. While at a national level the Environmental Framework promotes infill and urban development in the project site, the Emfuleni SDF specifically designates urban development of these sites for industrial use. The proposed development therefore complies and is aligned with the necessary spatial planning policies. The implementation of the proposed development will however need to comply with the GPEMF requirements in terms of bulk infrastructure which has been assessed and dealt with in the town planning applications.


xli


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.38.4 According to the GPEMF, the proposed site is located in a Zone 1 area. The intention of any development within Zone 1 is to streamline urban development activities and to promote development infill, densification and concentration of urban development within the urban development zones (as defined in the Gauteng Spatial Development Framework), in order to establish a more effective and efficient city region which will minimise urban sprawl into rural areas.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the GPEMF does locate the site with the Zone 1 area, where urban development activities are promoted. The specific activities that are excluded from this zone do not explicitly include industrial activities. However there are conditions related to bulk infrastructure that may apply to the specific land use. The proposed development can therefore be regarded as an activity that can be part of the zone, taking into consideration the specific conditions. Furthermore, the Emfuleni SDF demarcates the site for industrial activities, which facilitates spatial policy alignment at a local level.

4.1.38.5 The types of activities supported in the guidelines for Zone 1 in the GPEMF should be non-polluting, and all existing bulk infrastructure must be available and present in the area. Despite merely mentioning that a re-zoning application has been made, the BAR nowhere else addresses these vital concerns and whether or not they have been addressed in any re-zoning application.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the proposed development is located in an area where there has been historic investment in bulk sewer, bulk water, electrical infrastructure, existing road and public transport infrastructure. During the town planning application processes, engineering services outline scheme reports were prepared and were positively commented on by all bulk services providers.

4.1.38.6 The types of land uses considered to be compatible or non-compatible within each of the Zones have also been developed and form an integral element of the GPEMF. THS notes that the element tabulated as “agricultural infrastructure”, which would include the proposed project, is not supported in a Zone 1 area and, as such, it is not considered an “urban” compatible land use or activity.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the GPEMF does locate the site with the Zone 1 area, where urban development activities are promoted. The specific activities that are excluded from this zone do not explicitly include industrial activities.

The rezoning application has been approved under "Industrial 1" use zone.


xlii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.38.7 The GPEMF guideline policy is a significantly important, environmentally-driven spatial development framework, and it is a crucial fatal flaw that this framework has not been identified or assessed in the BAR.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the GPEMF was taken into consideration in the town planning applications. The outcomes of the town planning applications were used to inform the project plan as presented in Section 4 of the BAR.

For ease of reference the GPEMF guideline policy has been listed in the Policy and Legislative section of the BAR (see Section 2.2 of the BAR).

4.1.38.8 Given the proposed lifespan of the proposed project, the EAP ought also to have assessed and considered compliance with the draft ELM Draft Spatial Planning and Land Use Management By-Laws, 2016, notwithstanding them still being in draft form.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the draft by-laws sets out the procedure to be followed for town planning applications and land use management. Given that the applications were submitted in terms of Section 55 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance 15 Of 1986) and Section 88(1) of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance 15 Of 1986), the requirements in terms of the legislature was met. In the absence of approved Planning By-Laws in ELM, the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 makes provision for the continued use of the Planning Ordinance provided that the prescriptions of SPLUMA are adhered to.

4.1.39 It cannot be sufficient for Jordan / SLR to target the bare minimum requirements and threshold ranges for authorisation of the project, without undertaking an adequately comprehensive due diligence of the legal frameworks informing same.

The town planning memorandums motivated the proposed development in terms of the national, provincial and local policies; GSDF (2011), Emfuleni SDF (2016/2017), NDP, SPLUMA (2013), Town Planning and Townships Ordinance (1986) as well as the requirements of all services providers, not only environmental matters.


xliii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.40 In conclusion, THS submits that the BAR fails to substantively achieve compliance with the requirements of Regulation 19 read with Appendix 1 of the EIA Regulations, and that an inadequate, cursory assessment of the applicable legal framework informing the justification and authorisation for the proposed project has been undertaken.

SLR and Urban Dynamics disagree with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included above.

Public participation process followed

4.1.41 Despite even GDARD's direction, neither ELM nor SDM seem to have been engaged during the pre-application process and the EIA process. The pre-application authority consultation section of the BAR, at page 3-4 thereof, indeed confirms this.

Information sharing and consultation with the ELM about the proposed project has occurred both through the BA process and a town planning process. Consultation with the SDM has taken place through the BA process.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, alignment and planning for future uses were dealt with through review of the provincial, district and municipal strategies and planning policies. Then, comprehensive town planning applications were prepared. The town planning department of the ELM regulates planning for the future needs of the municipality.

Consultation on a project is not restricted to the BAR process. The town planning applications each included publication in two national newspapers, twice in consecutive weeks as well as publication in the provincial gazette. The town planning applications were made available for public comment at the ELM offices. The process was initiated prior to EA application.

Other than the statutory town planning public

4.1.42 At its meeting with GDARD on 15 June 2018, Jordan and SLR were reminded of the need to have involvement from the municipality so that there is alignment on planning and future needs of the area, taking into account the proposed development. Jordan and SLR superficially indicated to GDARD that this has already been initiated in the re-zoning applications submitted. No evidence is provided either in the BAR or its Appendices of adequate and meaningful engagement with ELM or SDM; and SLR have merely indicated, in the summary of the public participation process at page 3-6, that both municipalities were notified and afforded the opportunity to participate. This is insufficient.

4.1.43 THS finds it inappropriate that Jordan and SLR never scheduled a meeting with either ELM or SDM, as it did with a host of government stakeholders (as is evident from the meeting minute pack included in Appendix 4.5 to the BAR and the summary at page 3-4). It is not enough to engage the municipalities at the re-zoning application level, without meeting and engaging with them to discuss the import of the proposed project on the ELM and SDM municipal mandates.


xliv


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.44 THS maintains that this failure to properly engage ELM and SDM renders the BAR flawed, in that the failures to properly address the spatial planning frameworks and the socio-economic impacts of the proposed project are partially a result of the failure to properly engage the municipal stakeholders of the proposed project.

participation, the municipality also circulated the town planning applications (and accompanying specialist studies on bulk services which informed the project plan as presented in Section 4 of the BAR) to the Ward Councillor and Ward Committee.

During the town planning application processes, engineering services outline scheme reports were prepared and were positively commented on by all bulk services providers.

In addition, comments on the BAR have been received from the ELM Environmental Management section and SDM Air Quality Management section, proving their involvement in the public participation process (see Appendix 4 of the BAR).

4.1.45 In addition, regulation 41(2)(d) of the EIA Regulations requires publishing notice of the proposed project and public participation process by placing an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the metropolitan or district municipality in which it is or will be undertaken. THS emphasises the gravity of the atmospheric impacts to be occasioned by the proposed maize wet mill plant within the Vaal Triangle Air-shed Priority Area where emissions are already exceeding national standards. The demarcation of the declared Vaal Triangle Air-shed Priority Area extends beyond the boundaries of SDM to include the district municipality of Fezile Dabi District Municipality and the metropolitan municipality of City of Johannesburg. By failing to advertise the EA Application and proposed project in additional provincial or national newspapers, Jordan has disregarded the true impacts of its proposed project and has failed to comply with the full extent of public participation mandated under regulation 41 of the EIA Regulations.

The newspapers used for the project cover a distribution area of approximately 10km around the project site. Although the project is located in an airshed priority area, potential air quality impacts are not predicted to extend beyond the local municipal boundary (see Section 7.1.8 of the BAR). Therefore advertisement in a national newspaper was not deemed necessary.


xlv


Date and method


Consultation status

4.1.46 Regulation 41(6)(a) of the EIA Regulations further requires that a person conducting the public participation process must ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application or proposed application is made available to potential I&APs. I&APs have not been given much information on the structure or holding of Jordan as the entity which will own the proposed plant, despite requests for more information. Various I&APs posed questions to Jordan / SLR regarding the identity and procurement of the BEE partner, yet I&APs are consistently informed that the BEE partner is still in the process of being identified.


4.1.47 In addition, in seeking to motivate the need and desirability of the proposed project, the statement is made at page 5-4 of the BAR that "[t]he project will also contribute toward meeting the conditions imposed on Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV in its merger with SABMiller." THS submits that it is insufficient to refer to merger conditions without detail as to what the conditions are that Jordan is seeking to meet by implementing the proposed project. The interrelationship between these large industry players in this industry has also not been contextualised for the benefit of I&APs participating in the public consultation process.

AB InBev as a project sponsor is looking to honour its public interest commitments associated with the merger conditions to (i) create sustainable new and convert existing industrialised suppliers to Black Ownership; (ii) Stimulate new and existing suppliers in its supply chain.

4.1.48 At a procedural level, deficiencies were also identified in compliance with the Public Participation Guideline. Section 4.3(b) of the Public Participation Guideline requires the EAP to submit, along with a site map showing where the site notice was displayed, a dated photograph showing the notice displayed on site and a copy of the text contained in the notice. It is noted that although a site map and photographs are included in Appendix 4.1 to the BAR, these photographs have not been dated. It is also unclear whether the site notices were published in any language other than English, which is prejudicial to local community members not speaking English if this is the case.

Site notice photographs were taken on 13 June 2018 as specifically documented in Section 3.4.3 of the BAR.

The project is located in an urban area and therefore English was deemed an appropriate language. Communication with key stakeholder groups was conducted in English, Afrikaans and seSotho where required.


xlvi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2 Substantive legal comments

NEMA Listed Activities triggered

4.2.1 As set out in the procedural analysis above, the EAP has followed the incorrect assessment process by virtue of the EAP and Jordan having incorrectly identified the listed activities triggered by the proposed maize wet mill plant operations and/or incorrectly characterised the full extent of the proposed operations and their environmental impacts.

SLR disagrees with this statement. Refer to Items 4.1.11 to 4.1.16 above for responses on the applicability of listed activities.

4.2.2 THS notes that in addition to the processes / activities described earlier herein and informing the identification of the listed activities triggered, the BAR identifies the following facilities and key activities associated with the proposed maize wet mill plant:

This information has been sourced from the BAR (see Section 4.2 of the BAR). No response required.

4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.15

Main facilities Corn off-loading, cleaning and storage silos; By-product load out area; Chemical intake and storage tanks; Boiler house (including coal storage and dosing); Internal roads; Treatment plant (for water supply); Offices and administration block (including canteen and parking areas); Utilities (water tanks, air compressors, cooling tower, transformers, fire control room, quality control room including laboratories); Steeping, milling and drying area; Refinery plant, tank farm and load out area; Warehouses and spent carbon storage area; Access, weigh-bridges and guard houses; Workshops and truck wash; Waste water (industrial effluent) treatment plant; and Service infrastructure (including switching station and underground cables from the Leeuwkuil substation, water supply pipeline, domestic sewer package plant and storm water facilities).



xlvii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.2.16 to 4.2.2.25

Key activities Site establishment, including storm water controls; Clearing of vegetation in accordance with the vegetation management procedures; Stripping and stockpiling of soil resources and earthworks in accordance with soil plan; Foundations, structures and roads; Equipment, pipework and utilities installations; Transportation of construction phase materials and staff (via existing roads); Collection, storage and removal of construction related waste; Landscaping; Delivery of raw materials and other supplies by truck and removal of waste by truck; and Storage of incoming materials.


4.2.3 As discussed, various listed activities in Listing Notice 2 of the EIA Regulations may, in THS's view, be triggered by the maize wet milling activities, which has the result that the EAP ought to have followed the S&EI process and compiled a full S&EI Report for review, such as:

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included below.

4.2.3.1 Listed Activity 4 of Listing Notice 2, relating to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of more than 500 cubic metres. This is by virtue of the fact that vast amounts of coal (also classified as a dangerous good) are expected to be stored and handled on-site in excess of 500m

3;

Refer to response to Item 4.1.12.2.

4.2.3.2 Listed Activity 6 of Listing Notice 2, relating to the development of facilities or infrastructure for any process or activity which requires a permit or licence or an amended permit or licence in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the generation or release of emissions, pollution or effluent. This is by virtue of the fact that an AEL will likely be required for the coal storage capabilities at the plant and that a WUL will be required for the domestic sewer package plant and/or the waste water treatment plant; and

Refer to Items 4.1.34.2 and 4.1.34.3 for response on AEL.

Refer to Item 4.1.35.3 for response on WUL.


xlviii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.3.3 Listed Activity 27 of Listing Notice 2, relating to the development of a road: (i) with a reserve wider than 30 metres; or (ii) catering for more than one lane of traffic in both directions. This is by virtue of the strained road network in the area, the fact that only one access road is currently available at and to / from the proposed site and the intention by Jordan to develop internal road networks.


4.2.4 The basic assessment process sought to be followed by Jordan / SLR thus ought to be scrutinised.

-

NWA authorisations

4.2.5 The BAR records, at page ii thereof, that the proposed project also requires authorisation from the DWS for specific water uses under section 21 of the NWA. At page 2-7 of the BAR, it is recorded that a GA replaces the need for a water user to apply for a WUL in terms of the NWA, and that the intended water uses will be covered by existing GAs. This section of the BAR provides that "all project infrastructure has been located outside the 1:100 year flood line of any watercourse and therefore Section 21(c) and (i) water uses are not triggered by the project development".


4.2.6 This assessment is based on insufficient capacity determinations and is contrary to the minimal technical specifications provided in the BAR.

4.2.7 At the outset, THS submits that the following section 21 NWA water uses are directly applicable to Jordan's intention to construct and operate a domestic sewer package plant, a waste water / effluent treatment plant and a water pipeline to convey treated waste water to the ELM Waste Water Treatment Works, which water uses are not covered under an existing and applicable GA:

A Section 21(b) water use applies to the storage of water not containing waste (from a natural resource), which is not applicable to the activities referenced in the comment.

Further design considerations related to the treatment of industrial effluent on site and optimisation of the design has confirmed that the industrial effluent can be treated to meet potable water standards. The related cost is not material to the feasibility of the project. As a result, the treated industrial effluent can

4.2.7.1 section 21(b): storing water;

4.2.7.2 section 21(f): discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer, sea outfall or other conduit;


xlix


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.7.3 section 21(g): disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource; and

be re-used in the maize wet milling process; thus there would be no need to discharge the treated industrial effluent to the environment as a Section 21(f) water use. (Applicant)

A Section 21(g) water use does not apply to the project as the referenced activities do not entail the disposal of waste.

A Section 21(h) water use does not apply to the project as the referenced activities do not entail the disposal of water which contains waste or heated water, the discharge of treated effluent although no longer applicable falls under 21(f).

4.2.7.4 section 21(h): disposing in any manner of water which contains waste from, or which has been heated in, any industrial or power generation process.

4.2.8 While the section 21(e) NWA water use, namely the declared controlled activity of irrigation of any land with waste or water containing waste generated through any industrial activity or by a waterwork, is covered under the GA published under GN R1191 in GG 20526 of 8 October 1999 (as submitted at page 2-7 of the BAR), this is not the only water use contemplated to be undertaken in the proposed project. Notwithstanding the above, several issues prevail with this contemplated water use and its authorisation:

-


l


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.8.1 The GA relied on in the BAR is no longer in force. Under GN 399 in GG 26187 of 26 March 2004, the above GA was revised and replaced. Under GN 665 in GG 36820 of 6 SeAELptember 2013, the 2004 GA was further revised and replaced. The 2013 GA provides that the GA in respect of the section 21(e) water use is valid for a period of five years, unless extended or replaced. As at December 2018, the 2013 GA is expired and has not been extended or replaced. No GA is thus in force in respect of section 21(e) water uses.

As presently conceived treated effluent will be treated to potable standards and reused and so there is no need for the project to rely on the GA for discharge of this treated effluent.

The irrigation activity would rely on the existing GA which is generally understood to reflect the regulatory scheme that is in place for water uses. It is common practise for the replacement of a GA to take some time. Numerous discussions have been held with the Department of Water and Sanitation and there has been no indication that the GA would not be replaced.

To the extent that the GA is required for irrigation but this not in place when the project is initiated, the Applicant has committed to not commence with the irrigation activity until such time as a license or replacement GA is in place. At that time the necessary EA application would be undertaken if required.

4.2.8.2 The GA authorising this water use does not apply to a person who is not the lawful occupier of the land on which the wastewater irrigation takes place. Jordan, as the applicant in the EA Application, is currently still a shelf company whose structure has not yet been finalised. The proposed plant site is owned by The South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd ("SAB") (see page 6-13 of the BAR). The BAR nowhere records what the relationship between Jordan and SAB is, and whether negotiations or engagements with SAB for its consent to grant Jordan occupation of the land has been addressed. An unresolved land claim is also in existence over the Farm Leeuwkuil 596 IQ.

Section 1.2 of the BAR notes that the property would be transferred to the new owner (Jordan) prior to construction. For the purposes of any NWA application or registration process, should this transfer not yet have taken place, the landowner (SAB) would give its consent for the NWA application as it has done for the EA application.

The Applicant is aware of the land claim and all relevant legal requirements to the extent applicable will be complied with at the appropriate time regarding this land claim.


li


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.8.3 Practically, the use of the effluent for irrigation is only briefly mentioned twice in the BAR, and there are no specific details given of the location at which or the manner in which irrigation will take place; what quantities will be irrigated; or how the quality of irrigated water will be measured and monitored. This is unacceptable, given that the GA relied on (or even the GA last in force) authorised waste water irrigation for only up to 2 000 cubic metres of domestic and biodegradable industrial waste water, within certain variable chemical / component limits. The BAR at no point seeks to qualify its intended irrigation activities to ensure application of and compliance with the GA for this water use. In addition, the impacts of TDS dissolved in the water of the treatment plants being dispersed and accumulated at ground level following spraying by irrigation have not been identified or assessed for the purposes of authorising a compliant irrigation method.


Limited treated effluent from the domestic sewer package plant will be used to irrigate landscaped areas on site in line with a General Authorisation. The irrigation volume would be approximately 2,5m

3 per

day, which is the treatment capacity of the plant (see Section 4.2.3f of the BAR).

Irrigation would be applied to landscaped areas within the plant. The EMP and monitoring plan includes commitments regarding the monitoring of treated effluent from both plants (see Section 8 of the BAR).

4.2.9 Jordan / SLR similarly rely on the section 21(f) NWA water use being covered under the GA published under GN R399 in GG 26187 of 26 March 2004. However, at page 2-7 of the BAR, this water use is incorrectly identified as also permitting the irrigation of any land with waste or water containing waste generated through any industrial activity or by a waterworks, provided that the irrigation is within the limits and conditions set out in the authorisation. This has seemingly been swapped with the listed section 21(e) water use at page 2-7, which refers to the permitted discharge of waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer or other conduit provided that the discharge is within the limits and conditions set out in the authorisation. Again, several issues prevail with this contemplated water use and its authorisation:

The swap of the letters has been corrected in the BAR, this was a typographical error.


lii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.9.1 The GA relied on in the BAR is no longer in force. Under GN 665 in GG 36820 of 6 September 2013, the 2004 GA (covering both section 21(f) and 21(h) water uses, was further revised and replaced. The 2013 GA provides that the GA in respect of the section 21(f) water use is valid for a period of five years, unless extended or replaced. As at December 2018, the 2013 GA is expired and has not been extended or replaced. No GA is thus in force in respect of section 21(f) and 21(h) water uses.

Refer to response to Item 4.2.8.1 above.

4.2.9.2 The BAR, at page 2-7, indicates that under this GA, excess treated effluent from the domestic sewer package plant and/or the wastewater treatment plant would be discharged into the existing storm water channel which feeds into a tributary of the Vaal Dam, Vereeniging. The 2013 GA provides that the authorisation does not apply to a person who discharges wastewater into any other groundwater resource, or directly into an off channel dam. The intended discharges mentioned in the BAR are thus excluded from the GA.


The capacity of the waste water treatment plants is included in Section 4.2.3 of the BAR.

4.2.9.3 Practically, the BAR fails to mention how much of the effluent produced on-site will be discharged into the environment. No mention is made regarding the capacity of the water treatment plant either, which is a critical consideration given the fact that the PWV region is a water deficient area, compounded further by the state of disrepair of the Emfuleni and Leeukuil Water Works. The GA specifies that only up to 2 000m

3 of waste water may be discharged on any

given day. The BAR indicates, however, that a total of 168 000m3 of

effluent will be produced per month, which equates to approximately 5600m

3 of effluent per day. Despite the BAR's failure to qualify its

intended irrigation activities to ensure application of and compliance with the GA for this water use, if it is assumed that only 2 000m

3 of

wastewater will be discharged, and 2 000m3 will be irrigated, the

plant will still produce excess effluent which the BAR also fails to address in terms of how the excess will be dealt with. The BAR provides little to no information on / assessment of the realistic quality of the effluent likely to be discharged "into the environment" and how or if this is to be monitored, especially as it will ultimately


liii


Date and method


Consultation status

enter the downstream drainage channels, including Leeuwkuil Dam near Sharpeville and Powerville, and eventually into the Vaal River.

4.2.10 The development and operation of wastewater treatment plants and sewage treatment plants, together with the slurry / sludge stored therein are inherently categorised as section 21(g) water uses relating to waste management facilities. It is inexplicable that Jordan can attempt to circumvent the requirement to obtain a WUL for its two intended wastewater plants. In addition, the coal ash storage facility contemplated by Jordan (as discussed under the waste management activities above), is a further potential section 21(g) water use requiring a WUL.

Only the disposal of slurry or sludge or coal ash to land would be considered a Section 21(g) water use; these activities would not take place on site, therefore 21(g) is not applicable - refer to response to Item 4.1.33.2.

4.2.11 On the basis of the above, it is undeniable that the various contemplated water uses in the proposed project require a WUL or integrated WUL to be obtained. To issue the EA Application in absence of the comprehensive assessments required for these significant and extremely prevalent water impacts occasioned by the proposed maize wet mill plant is be a severe injustice to the environment and the surrounding communities / land owners.

SLR disagrees with this statement. Confirmation of applicable water uses is provided in the responses above.

NEMAQA authorisations

4.2.12 Jordan / SLR indicate that the proposed project will not require and AEL, as small controlled boilers below the capacity prescribed in the NEMAQA Listed Activities will be used. These boilers are to be governed by the Declaration of a Small Boiler as a Controlled Emitter and Establishment of Emission Standards, 2013.

-

4.2.13 THS submits, however, that an AEL is likely required for the operations' coal handling and storage capabilities.


4.2.14 Subcategory 5.1 of the NEMAQA Listed Activities lists the storage and handling of ore and coal not situated on the premises of a mine or works as defined in the Mines Health and Safety Act, 1996 as an activity which requires an AEL. Applications requiring the AEL for this activity are locations designed to hold more than 100 000 tons.


liv


Date and method


Consultation status

4.2.15 The BAR nowhere indicates the capacity of the coal storage facility, and how much coal will be stored therein at any given time. Quantities have been indicated at 63 tons of coal per day per boiler, of which five boilers are operational at any one time (24 hours per day). This translates into a vast tonnage of coal, which may well see the proposed plant holding almost the annual requirement of coal on-site. This needs to be properly confirmed by Jordan / SLR.


4.2.16 This is exacerbated by comments from the SDM Air Quality Officer that Jordan's activities and emitting capacities will be in the region of those generated by most power stations in South Africa, which is of huge concern where Jordan intends to operate without an AEL.


Specialist assessments

4.2.17 In light of the impacts and legislative frameworks identified (albeit inadequately identified), the BAR fails crucially to include:

4.2.17.1 a Geochemical Assessment / Study (for the purposes of land contamination potential from chemical pollutants and hazardous substances / wastes); and

Chemicals and hazardous substances associated with the proposed project are well known and therefore a geochemical assessment that would provide the same information to that contained in a Material Safety Data Sheet is not deemed necessary.

4.2.17.2 a Climate Change Assessment / Study (on the basis of the severity of existing emissions in the priority air-shed area and the greenhouse gas reporting obligations Jordan will have). The Court recently stressed the importance of a climate change assessment being conducted in support of an application for EA, given the national imperative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in line with international commitments.

Climate change is a global and national issue. Without national emissions reduction targets and timetables it cannot sensibly be assessed at a granular project level for a relatively small project of this nature.

The context of the greenhouse gases arising from the project referenced in the court case in question cannot be compared to those from the proposed project. There is no threshold for undertaking a greenhouse gas assessment and the simple fact that the project may have reporting obligations is not itself a sufficient trigger. From discussions with the DEA the guideline documents that DEA is proposing regarding climate change assessment in the EA process do not contemplate requiring assessment of projects with this level of greenhouse gas emissions. The project


lv


Date and method


Consultation status

will comply with all regulatory requirements regarding greenhouse gas emissions. (Applicant)

4.2.18 The conduct of specialist assessments and the inclusion of specialist reports in the BAR is a prescribed requirement of the EIA Regulations, read with Appendix 6 thereto, and ought not to be so lightly overlooked. The failure to assess and include all technical environmental impacts of significant prominence and likelihood to the proposed project is a material defect of the EIA process conducted for the proposed project.

The specialist assessments required to inform impacts associated with the proposed project have been completed and attached to the BAR. The absence of the above studies are not considered by SLR to be a material defect of the EIA process for the reasons provided above.

4.3 Substantive technical comments

Inappropriate location and land use

4.3.1 Although the municipal spatial development framework, the GPEMF and other guidelines and frameworks, have earmarked both the site and surrounding areas for urban development, this should not be seen to extend to agri-industrial operations. It should be noted that there are a large number of people living and working in close proximity to the site, including a pre-school, a correctional services facility, a number of informal settlements and the residential suburbs of Leeuhof.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, at a municipal level the project is located in an area earmarked for industrial and commercial use and not for urban development. Existing industrial and commercial activities take place with this area. Surrounding land uses and users are a key consideration in the assessment. As noted in the BAR, the pre-school would be relocated prior to construction and mitigation measures included in relation to specific receptor groups (see Section 8 of the BAR).

4.3.2 The nature of the proposed activity, with its associated emissions and odours (which include air emissions, sewerage / effluent treatment plant, coal ash dust, etc.), will have implications on the living and working environmental amenities of the surrounding area, which have not been sufficiently or adequately taken into consideration or assessed.

Responses in relation to service provisions and capacities are included below - refer to Items 4.3.4 to 4.3.8.


lvi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.3.3 Impacts of noise and nuisance from the plant itself, both during the construction and operational periods, air emissions and odours, and traffic will have negative impacts on surrounding land uses and adverse effects on people living and working in the region, all of which will persist 24 hours a day.

This comment relates to the unmitigated scenario. With mitigation, the severity, spatial scale, duration and probability of impacts would be reduced. The conclusion and executive summary of the BAR provide an overview of these potential impacts and the outcome of the assessment process.

Infrastructure services and resources

4.3.4 Integral to the inappropriate choice of site for the maize wet mill plant, is the provision of services and infrastructure. As noted earlier, the current spatial planning context requires that all existing bulk infrastructure must be available and present in the area. Placing this agricultural industry in an urban area, where there will be extensive demands made on the existing infrastructural services and resources, such as water, roads, sewerage, etc., cannot be supported without proper assessment.

Municipal services and capacities outlined in the BAR have been assessed based on the maximum potential capacity of 2000 tons per day. Where services are not available at a municipal level the project is establishing its own facilities, with approval from the ELM as part of the town planning applications. Further detail on each of the services is provided below.

4.3.5 Water

4.3.5.1 Although a new pipeline for water is required, there will be a significant additional demand on municipal water supplies. Figures provided in the BAR indicate 10 140m³ per day, which is likely to have implications on water availability in the region and for the community requirements. Obtaining water from Rand Water has been stated as a given and no indication of whether Rand Water can produce the required volumes has been indicated (nor can it be indicated with certainty, given that Jordan / SLR have not defined the set capacity of the intended milling plant). Whether the necessary infrastructure is in place is also not clearly ascertained. The need for expensive municipal water is unsustainable for a water-intensive agricultural industry.

Urban Dynamics (project town planners) have indicated in the town planning processes, the bulk water service providers (Rand Water and ELM) confirmed that bulk capacity is readily available for the project.

Notwithstanding the above, further design considerations related to the treatment of industrial effluent on site and optimisation of the design has confirmed that the industrial effluent can be treated to meet potable water standards. The related cost is not material to the feasibility of the project. This would reduce the project’s demand on Rand Water and ELM water supply. (Applicant)

4.3.5.2 Moreover, THS is currently experiencing low pressure at its Kliprivier milling plant. Jordan would thus need to demonstrate that THS will not be affected (due to its own water usage) should the proposed project go ahead. Low water pressure has a significant negative effect on the plant process and on earnings, which has the further, significant potential to affect THS's business as a competitor of Jordan.


lvii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.3.5.3 Alternative uses of ground water also cannot be considered in this area, due to the underlying dolomitic conditions.

The use of groundwater as an alternative supply has been considered in the BAR however, due to the presence of dolomites on site extracting groundwater from them could present a potentially significant risk to the overall plant stability (see Section 4.3 of the BAR).

4.3.6 Electricity

4.3.6.1 Electricity is intended to be supplied by ELM, placing considerable demand on ELM's resources and the communities. Generators to be provided as back-up power will add to the noise in the area, as well as the ambient air quality from exhaust fumes.

The BAR assessed the maximum capacity of the plant of 2000tpd. Power to the plant would be supplied by the upgraded substation which will be covered by Jordan. This will be sufficient for project.

Urban Dynamics has indicated that Eskom confirmed that capability to meet the demand is available with specific sub-station upgrades.

4.3.6.2 As with the water supply concerns addressed above, no indication has been made as to whether Eskom has sufficient capacity to supply the needs of the new plant, nor can same be provided in absence of a set determination of the plant's intended capacity. If Eskom is able to meet this additional demand, will this be at the expense of other domestic and industrial customers who will bear the brunt of extended load shedding or outages?

4.3.7 Sewerage

4.3.7.1 It is understood that a sewerage / effluent treatment plant must be installed on-site, because the municipal system is unable to manage and treat the capacities for this use. THS notes that it is widely known that municipalities are averse such treatment plants in their municipal urban areas, due to maintenance and responsibility issues.

The DWS supports the development of an on-site plant due to municipal constraints. As part of the town planning applications the Municipality agreed to this proposal. No objections were raised by municipality regarding this. Given that the plants are within the boundaries of the site, Jordan would be responsible for maintenance. Establishing on-site plants that can be controlled by the applicant is a positive consideration for this project and places less burden on the municipality.


lviii


Date and method


Consultation status

4.3.7.2 The implications for discharging TDS dissolved in the effluent treatment plants is of further concern to THS, as Jordan has not even identified the consequences of discharging / spraying by irrigation TDS into the environment. Salt loading processes and impacts have not been identified and assessed, nor mitigation measures put in place to treat or remove TDS from the waste water. Leaving this unmitigated will have severe adverse consequences for the receiving environment.

Further design considerations related to the treatment of industrial effluent on site and optimisation of the design has confirmed that the industrial effluent can be treated to meet potable water standards. The related cost is not material to the feasibility of the project. As a result, the treated industrial effluent can be re-used in the maize wet milling process; thus there would be no need to discharge the treated industrial effluent to the environment. Salts would be removed from the treated effluent via filtration and reverse osmosis (Applicant)

4.3.8 Traffic and road infrastructure

4.3.8.1 The nature of the traffic (heavy cargo vehicles, trucks with raw materials, coal trucks, etc.) will entirely destroy the roads within the municipal area, for which ELM is responsible. As ELM does not have the budget or financial resources to upgrade road network services, the deterioration of roads by traffic to the plant is unlikely to be repaired and maintained. The condition of roads in the long term is an impact not fully assessed.

A traffic impact assessment was done to inform the necessary upgrades to roads. The plant would be located close to the R59 highway to allow for easy access to main transport network.

4.3.8.2 In addition, no mention is made of whether adequate rail provision exists and will be able to be utilised to assist the transport activities of the project. The BAR merely records that a Transnet rail siding an yard are located in close proximity to the proposed site, but no indication is given as to whether this rail is in operation and capable of use.

No plan to use rail at this stage. There is however a Transnet railway siding nearby. Should rail be considered in the future, Jordan would need to apply to Transnet for use of the siding.


lix


Date and method


Consultation status

Air quality

4.3.9 The air quality survey conducted in support of the BAR and EA Application relied on data collected by the CSIR from monitoring stations in the area from 2013 to 2015. The stations measured the outdoor concentrations of air pollutants, specifically nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, on a real-time basis. It is unclear why more recent data was not used to inform this study.

It is not correct that the air quality survey relied only on CSIR data from 2013 to 2015.

Data was sourced from the nearest Air Quality Monitoring Station and considered to be representative of ambient air quality at the site. The data used was from the DEA data. Although long-term (2007 to 2017) data is available the assessment focussed on the period 2014 to 2016, in order to align with the period simulated in the dispersion modelling.

Three years of meteorological data (2014 - 2016) was used in the dispersion modelling within the timeframe recommended by the Regulations Regarding Dispersion Modelling.

4.3.10 The measured ambient pollutant concentrations showed that the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter exceeded the standards in some areas, in particular in the Zamdela area (over 23 parts per billion), Diepkloof (over 37 parts per billion) and Kliprivier (over 21 parts per billion). Annual average particulate matter levels in Kliprivier, Sebokeng, Three Rivers, Sharpeville (which is adjoining the proposed site) and Zamdela were all above 45 micrograms per cubic metre. Sulphur dioxide did not exceed the South African annual standards, but any use by the proposed project of ESPs will add more sulphur dioxide to the atmosphere. It is known that exposure to nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter may lead to an increase in all-cause mortality, a decline in lung function, an increase in susceptibility to respiratory illnesses, stroke and heart conditions.

-

4.3.11 The history of air quality in the area, which is further confirmed in the specialist air quality impact report, indicates that certain elements of ambient air quality exceed the regulated standards and thresholds over specified periods of time. The area is, therefore, already compromised in terms of air quality and certain elements already exceed compliance levels.

-


lx


Date and method


Consultation status

4.3.12 The construction, and particularly the operation, of the proposed maize wet mill plant will generate its own emissions, which on its own modelled calculations show exceedances of certain elements above regulated levels, thus exposing the proposed project to non-compliance with the regulatory framework from the get-go.

Although short-term exceedances of particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS were simulated, the extent is still localised to within 140 m of the boundary and not at the nearest residential receptors.

4.3.13 The air specialist report itself confirms that whilst mitigation and remedial measures are suggested, this does not adequately address the cumulative impact of air quality in the area, and the facility will contribute to the noncompliant conditions in the already compromised area. This will have further significantly negative impacts on the health, welfare and amenity of workers and residents in the area.

An air quality assessment has been completed for the project and included a cumulative assessment. The air quality specialist concluded that if recommended mitigation and management measures are implemented, it is not likely that the facility will substantively contribute to further deterioration in air quality. The decision to allow development, with additional management measures, rests with the relevant authorities. (Airshed Planning Professionals)

4.3.14 The above concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the EA Application area falls within the Vaal Triangle Air-shed Priority Area, declared under the NEMAQA to be a National Air Quality Priority Area requiring specific air quality management measures to be implemented in order to rectify the situation where national ambient air quality standards are significantly exceeded in the area. New large-scale agri-industrial operations to be undertaken within this priority area should be heavily scrutinised, given that the purpose of the Vaal Triangle Air-Shed Air Quality Management Plan is to regulate the submission and review of emission reduction strategies, implementation, review and enforcement thereof, in order to ensure that the ambient air in the priority area is brought into compliance with the air quality objectives of the priority area by:

As indicated by the air quality specialist the review of the project in the context of the priority area is the responsibility of the SDM Air Quality Officer.

Although the project does not require an AEL, the air quality specialist study assesses the plant in terms of AEL requirements with respect to design controls as well as monitoring requirements (i.e. the specialist study recommendation is that the project target compliance with Section 21 Category 1). Additional plant specific air quality management, mitigation and monitoring requirements was recommended as part of the air quality specialist study (Airshed Planning Professionals).

This information was in turn been included in the BAR (see Section 8 of the BAR).

4.3.14.1 identifying and developing appropriate and feasible emission reduction interventions that aim to minimise or prevent emissions;


lxi


Date and method


Consultation status

4.3.14.2 providing timeframes for the review and submission of such interventions to the Minister; and

The timeframes for review and submission of interventions for the VTAPA is part of the development of the AQMP for the priority area and therefore outside of the AQIA scope. The necessity that a new facility address issues that already exist in the airshed, save as to not have a significant incremental detrimental impact, should be at the discretion and advice of the relevant authority. (Airshed Planning Professionals)

4.3.14.3 providing timeframes for the implementation of such interventions (emphases added).

The air quality specialist study noted mitigation required in the planning and final design phase to be implemented prior to commissioning (Airshed Planning Professionals).


4.3.15 The BAR in any event fails to provide for any such strategies to be implemented at the proposed maize wet mill plant operations as a motivation to permitting new operations to be carried out in this priority area.

Additional plant specific air quality management, mitigation and monitoring requirements have been recommended as part of the air quality specialist study (Airshed Planning Professionals).


4.3.16 The intent to establish a pollution generating agricultural industry in this urban area is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Vaal Triangle Air-shed Priority Area proclamation and should, therefore, not be supported without sufficient, comprehensive assessment.

An air quality assessment has been completed for the project. The air quality specialist concluded that if recommended mitigation and management measures are implemented, it is not likely that the facility will substantively contribute to further deterioration in air quality. The decision to allow development, with additional management measures, rests with the relevant authorities. (Airshed Planning Professionals)


lxii


Date and method


Consultation status

5 Conclusion

5.1 Against these submissions, it is very clear that the BAR has failed to adhere to Chapter 2 of NEMA, and regulations 19 and 41 of the EIA Regulations read with Appendices 1 and 6 thereto. The proposed project not only affects the employees in the current market and downstream users, but seeks to establish a new agri-industrial development where there is inadequate market-demand in an unsupported spatial development zone.

SLR disagrees with this statement. This response is justified by the responses included above in this table.

5.2 Not only have Jordan / SLR failed to meaningfully engage the affected municipalities and their inhabitants, but they have failed to motivate for a feasible, socio-economical and environmentally sustainable development.

The local municipality was extensively engaged during the town planning applications which then informed the project plan as presented in the BAR. In addition comments on the BAR were received from relevant sections with the ELM providing proof of their involvement in the process.

The Sedibeng Air Quality directive was specifically engaged due to the project’s location in an airshed priority area.

This consultation has informed the outcomes of the BA process and is deemed adequate for the purpose of informing a decision on the project.

5.3 In addition, the failure to undertake a comprehensive due diligence of the legal and policy framework informing the EA Application has resulted in Jordan / the EAP underplaying the full extent of activities / process to be undertaken and wastes to be generated, with the further, crucial consequence that various necessary authorisations / approvals have not been identified or sought to be obtained. This incomprehensive assessment process has resulted in the EAP conducting a basic assessment process instead of the full S&EI process, which is a fatal flaw of the BAR.

SLR disagrees with this statement. Application of the Basic Assessment process to the project is justified as outlined in the responses included above.


lxiii


Date and method


Consultation status

5.4 No less concerning are the technical, resource-specific and infrastructural concerns governing access to services in the region, which Jordan has failed to adequately investigate (and which it is unable to investigate if it does not determine a capacity threshold for its proposed project).

Access to services has been comprehensively dealt with as part of the town planning applications. During these application processes, engineering services outline scheme reports were prepared and were positively commented on by all bulk services providers. The comments received were used to inform the project plan as presented in Section 4 of the BAR.

5.5 Overall, THS submits that the proposed project has attempted to motivate for a less than zero-sum gain, in that it will produce no net real benefit from a job creation or economic perspective; potential populace / social displacement; and a net negative impact on the environment.




The Applicant and project sponsors appointed an independent expert adviser to assess the net economic costs and benefits of the proposed plant. This detailed feasibility information is confidential and from a competition regulation perspective this cannot be disclosed to a competitor such as THS.

Proceeding with the project attracts potentially significant economic benefits and potential negative environmental and social impacts of high to low significance (if unmitigated). Not proceeding with the project retains the status quo, but with a loss in


lxiv


Date and method


Consultation status

employment and transformation opportunities, revenue generation and related social benefits, which could potentially be generated by the development.

5.6 This and various procedural non-compliances, as well as the substantive fatal flaws inherent in the EA Application, render the BAR materially deficient and subject to refusal by or a direction for rectification / further assessment from the competent authority.

SLR does not agree that substantive fatal flaws are associated with the EA application. Where these have been raised in the comments, a justified response has been provided.


65

Documents

APPENDIX 4.8: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT CATERING … · Kindly receive the attached CV"s for Vacancies (ref: 720.19124.00001). The project is still in the impact assessment phase