CHIEF DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES · terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of ... Republic of South Africa Tel: +27 ... processing plant on

WE BELONG WE CARE WE SERVE

(For official use only)

Provincial Reference Number:

NEAS Ref Number:

Date Received: Basic assessment report in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014, promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended.

Kindly note that:

1. This basic assessment report is a standard report that may be required by a competent authority in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 and is meant to streamline applications.

2. This report format is current as of December 2014. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the competent authority

3. The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each space is filled with typing.

4. Where applicable tick the boxes that are applicable in the report.

5. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection. An incomplete report or that does not meet the requirements in terms of Regulation 19 of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014, will be rejected to be revised and be resubmitted.

6. The report must be handed in at offices of the relevant competent authority as determined by each authority.

7. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted.

8. The signature of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) on the report must be an original.

9. The report must be compiled by an independent EAP.

10. Unless protected by law, all information in the report will become public information on receipt by the competent authority. Any interested and affected party should be provided with the information contained in this report on request, during any stage of the application process.

11. A competent authority may require that for specified types of activities in defined situations only parts of this report need to be completed.

12. Should a specialist report or report on a specialised process be submitted at any stage for any part of this application, the terms of reference for such report must also be submitted.

13. Two (2) colour hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the report must be submitted to the competent authority.

14. Shape files (.shp) for maps must be included on the electronic copy of the report submitted to the competent authority.

CHIEF DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

AgriCentre Building

Cnr. Dr. James Moroka and Stadium Rd Private Bag X2039,

Mmabatho 2735 Republic of South Africa Tel: +27 (18) 389 5156 Fax: +27(18) 384 0104

E-mail:[email protected]

Basic Assessment Report Department of Rural, Environment Page 2 EIA Regulations, 2014 and Agricultural Development

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

a) Describe the project in association with the listed activities applied for

Introduction

The development proposal is for a waste-to-value plant for the purposes of energy generation from waste input. The plant will generate biogas from effluent and manure, through a process of anaerobic digestion. The waste-to-value plant will be situated within the existing RCL Foods chicken processing plant and adjacent Epol feed processing plant on Erven 7164, 2260 and 2259, Cobalt and Brons Streets, Rustenburg. The plant will utilise as raw material the nutrient-rich effluent from the chicken processing plant and chicken by-products rendering plant at the site. In addition, manure from nearby RCL Foods poultry farms and other farms will also be transported to the site for use as raw material. Currently, the effluent generated from production activities at the RCL Foods chicken processing plant is treated at an on-site WWTW. And the manure from the poultry farms is composted and used as fertilizer. The proposed waste-to-value Biodigester plant will replace the current WWTW, providing a cost-effective means of treating the effluent to a much higher quality (i.e. a reduced chemical oxygen demand of some 90%) prior to discharge to municipal sewer. The plant will also provide an efficient means of energy recovery from the effluent, as well as from the manure. The biogas generated in the Biodigester will be utilised to fuel a Combined Heat and Power (CHP)-type gas engine. The design of the waste-to-value plant, including CHP engine, will allow for up to 10MW of electricity to be generated, which is expected to power a large majority of the RCL Foods processing facility, including the waste-to-value plant itself. Waste heat from the CHP engine will also be used to generate steam and hot water for integration back into the processing plant. Anaerobic digestion process The effluent digestion process will take place in a specialised Biodigester, with a design that allows for maximum retention time of any solids and Fat Oil Grease in the effluent, until these have been digested. The digester is a mixed tank with a moderate hydraulic retention time which increases the stability of the system. A solids separation stage ensures the solids retention time exceeds the hydraulic retention time. The digestion of manure takes place in a set of dedicated digestion tanks designed to maximise the conversion of the organic matter in the waste to energy rich biogas for conversion into useful energy. The effluent Biodigester will have the capacity to treat up to 15 000kl of effluent per day, of which about 0.125% is comprised of total suspended solids. These solids comprise animal matter, feed (from the intestines and stomach of the processed chickens), and inorganic matter such as sand. The manure digesters will have the capacity to convert up to 100 ton per day of feedstock. The waste-to-value plant will provide a high level of effluent polishing prior to discharge of a portion of the effluent via the current route, which is to municipal sewer: The reduction in Chemical Oxygen Demand pre-to post-treatment is a minimum of 85% with a high degree of confidence that a 90% reduction can be achieved. The remaining treated effluent portion will be further treated via a water recovery process for on-site re-use. A digestate will be produced as a product of the manure digestion process. This digestate is suitable for use as


an agricultural fertilizer. Biogas combustion process The Biodigester will have the capacity to produce approximately 2000m3/hour of biogas1, comprising 50-75% methane; 25-50% carbon dioxide; 0-10% nitrogen; 0-1% hydrogen; 0-3% hydrogen sulphide; and 0-2% oxygen. The CHP gas engine has the capacity to combust all of the biogas produced by the digester, and to generate up to 10MW of electricity. The biogas will be burnt in a combined heat and power engine (CHP). The electricity produced is expected to be sufficient to power the entire RCL plant. The waste heat produced will supplement some of the coal energy supply currently used at the coal fired boilers on the site. The plant is anticipated at this stage to include five CHP engines. Water recovery process A portion of the treated water produced by the anaerobic digester will be used to feed the water recovery plant. This plant will treat the water using a specialised Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane system designed for high fouling applications. The feed will be separated into a high quality permeate stream and high strength brine stream which will be blended back into final effluent not treated by the water recovery plant. The RO plant will consist of the following pre-treatment steps: gravity settling, sand filtration, cartridge filtration. Post treatment steps will include flash aeration to remove volatiles and disinfection. Settling, filtration and aeration will take place in a series of bulk tanks. Recovered water produced will be returned to the factory to reuse at suitable points and applications. Infrastructure Infrastructure required will be as follows: 1) Effluent equalisation tanks to ensure steady pressure flows of effluent from the RCL plant to the

Biodigester tanks 2) Digestion tanks for the anaerobic digestion of the effluent and manure to produce biogas 3) Biogas storage tanks with a total volume of less than 500 m3. 4) A digestate (waste) storage tank 5) A structure with appropriate odour and pest control for the storage of the manure feedstock for up to three

days. This may include chemical or biological filtration at the ventilation points as appropriate 6) At least five Combined Heat and Power (CHP) engines 7) A series of tanks for water recovery – for gravity settling, filtration, RO and flash aeration. 8) Pipelines for the conveyance of effluent; manure; hot water; processed water; biogas and steam 9) Distribution lines for electricity There will be no need for additional connections to the municipal water or electricity supply network; or to the municipal sewerage or stormwater systems. Location and Footprint

The waste-to-value plant will be situated on a transformed but undeveloped area of the RCL Foods and Epol plants, which are situated on Erven 7164, 2259 and 2260, off Cobalt and Brons Streets,

1 The biogas is continuously piped to the CHP engine so that at any one time, only up to 500m

3 of storage

capacity for the biogas is required.


Rustenburg industria. Part of the area is currently used as a sports field, whilst the other part has been cleared and levelled in the past, but is disused. This area is approximately 3ha in extent. The waste-to-value plant is approximately 1ha in extent and is to be appropriately located on the earmarked 3ha area according to the operational requirements of RCL Foods and the applicant, Trigen.

Pipelines and electricity distribution lines will fall anywhere across Erven 7164, 2259 and 2260. This

will allow Trigen and RCL Foods to locate the pipelines according to their operational requirements. Access Erf 7164 (the RCL Foods site) takes access off Cobalt Street and Mangaan Street. Erven 2259 and 2260 (the Epol site) takes access off Brons Street. Access to the waste-to-value plant will be from all of these three existing access points. The traffic generated by the plant (receipt of manure and delivery of digestate fertilizer) is expected to be up to 5 trucks per day, i.e. a negligible increase in traffic given activities taking place in the surrounding industrial area. Waste The biodigestion process will produce approximately 80 tonnes per day of digestate as a waste product, which will be dried and pelletized on site. The digestate is appropriate for agricultural fertilizer applications and so will be returned to the RCL poultry farms and other agricultural users for this purpose. Digestate drying will take place by means of a conveyer belt dryer either fuelled by biogas, or using waste heat from the CHP engines. Please refer to Appendix D for process flow diagrams.

b) Provide a detailed description of the listed activities associated with the project as applied for

Listed activity as described in GN R.983, 984 and 985 Description of project activity

GN R.983 December 2014 Listing Notice1, Activity 14: The development 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 proposed effluent-to-biogas digester plant will include the storage of up to 500 cubic metres of biogas at any one time, which is considered to be a dangerous good.

GN R.983 December 2014 Listing Notice 1, Activity 25: 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 2000 cubic metres but less than 15000 cubic metres.

The proposed Biodigester plant will treat up to 15000 kL of effluent per day.

GN,R,983, 4 December 2014 (as amended April 2017) Listing Notice 1, Activity 27: The clearance of an area of 1 hectare or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation, …

The footprint of the waste-to-value plant is about 1ha in extent; and the area where the footprint is proposed to be situated on Erf 7164, 2259 and 2260 is some 3ha in extent. However, the entire RCL Foods site was completely transformed for industrial use in the past. This includes that any undeveloped areas were cleared and levelled in the past. No indigenous vegetation remains. It is


therefore unlikely that this activity is triggered.

GN No. 983 of 2013, Category A, Activity 3: The recycling of general waste at a facility that has an operational area in excess of 500m2, excluding recycling that takes place as an integral part of an internal manufacturing process within the same premises.

The biodigestion process will produce approximately 80 tonnes per day of digestate as a waste product, which will be dried and pelletized on site. This activity may be triggered if the operational area of the drying facility exceeds 500m2. This activity is being applied for as the extent of the facility is unknown at this stage,

GN No. 983 of 2013, Category A, Activity 5: The recovery of waste…in excess of 10 tons but less than 100 tons of general waste per day

The waste-to-value Biodigester plant will use manure (general waste) as a raw material. The capacity of the Biodigester plant will be up to 100 tons of general waste per day. The purpose of the Biodigester is to generate biogas to burn in a Combined Heat and Power engine that will generate electricity for use at the RCL Foods plant, i.e. energy recovery.

GN No. 983 of 2013, Category A, Activity 6: The treatment of general waste…at a facility that has the capacity to process in excess of 10 tons but less than 100 tons [per day].

The biodigestion process will produce approximately 80 tonnes per day of digestate as a waste product, which will be dried and pelletized on site. This drying and pelletizing could be considered as “treatment” of waste, since the drying process is also to minimise its impact, as it will weigh less, occupy a smaller space and will be dry, prior to further use.

GN No. 983 of 2013, Category A, Activity 12: The construction of a facility for a waste management activity listed in Category A of this schedule.

c) Property description/physical address

Where a large number of properties are involved (e.g. linear activities) please attach a full list to this application including the same information as indicated above

2. FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

“alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to— (a) the property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity;

Province North West

District Municipality Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Local Municipality Rustenburg Local Municipality

Ward Number(s) 37

Farm name and number 10 Cobalt Street, Rustenburg, North West, 0299 Rustenburg Ext.9, Erven 7164, 2259 & 2260

Portion number Rustenburg Ext.9, Erven 7164, 2259 & 2260

21 digit Surveyor General Code T0JQ00270000716400000 T0JQ00270000226000000 T0JQ00270000225900000


(b) the type of activity to be undertaken;

(c) the design or layout of the activity;

(d) the technology to be used in the activity;

(e) the operational aspects of the activity; and

(f) the option of not implementing the activity.

Describe alternatives that are considered in this application as required by EIA Regulation, 2014 Appendix 1(h) . Alternatives should include a consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity (NOT PROJECT) could be accomplished in the specific instance taking account of the interest of the applicant in the activity. The no-go alternative must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the other alternatives are assessed. The determination of whether site or activity (including different processes, etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity and its environment. After receipt of this report the, competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent. Should the alternatives include different locations and lay-outs, the co-ordinates of the different alternatives must

be provided. The co-ordinates should be in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeeshoek94 WGS84 co-ordinate system. a) Site alternatives

List alternative sites, if applicable. Site Alternatives

Description

Alternative Site 1 (preferred or

only site alternative)

Surrounding environment to the north, south, east and west:

It is proposed that the new facility be constructed on the existing RCL Foods chicken processing site and the adjacent Epol animal feed production site. The site is situated within an industrial area in the town of Rustenburg, which interfaces with residential suburbs in close proximity.

The industrial area extends to the north-west, including heavy industry such as a platinum mine. To the north-east immediately adjacent to the RCL facility lie industrial and commercial premises, with undeveloped land extending for some 800m to the north east before residential development commences.

Directly north of the facility lie industrial and commercial premises with undeveloped land beyond.

To the west of the site lie industrial and commercial premises with Tlhabane residential suburb situated just beyond, some 630m west of the site.


Vegetation and biodiversity

According to Mucina and Rutherford’s Vegetation Map for South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho (2006), the vegetation type in the Rustenburg area is Marikana Thornveld. The vegetation threat status in terms of the national list of threatened and endangered ecosystems, 2011, is Vulnerable.

According to the North-West Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area map, the area where the site is situated is a CBA2. The proposed plant location is, however, entirely situated on the long-developed RCL Foods chicken processing facility which is located within an industrial area. There are no sensitive natural features remaining where the plant is proposed to be located.

Freshwater features

A canalised non-perennial drainage channel at its closest point lies some 52m south of the proposed development location. The drainage channel flows in an east-west orientation from a dam situated approximately 2km east of the site. The non-perennial drainage channel and dam form part of the Hex River system, with the river located some 5km east of the site.

Slope

The site has a slope to the South of approximately < 1 ° with the inferred groundwater flow in the same direction.

Cultural/heritage features

The RCL chicken processing plant and the Epol feed processing plant have been operational for many years and the site was fully transformed (cleared, levelled, developed) at that time. As such no heritage or cultural features of significance remain on the site which could be impacted by the proposed waste-to-value plant development.

Social environment

The RCL facility is situated in a long-established industrial area in the town of Rustenburg in the Bojanala District Municipality. The industrial area is, however, located in close proximity to residential areas, with the residential suburb of Karlienpark some 250m south of the proposed development site. Potential impacts from the proposed Biodigester plant (e.g. odours or chemical spills or leaks; risk of fire) will therefore need to be managed carefully.

Alternative Site 2

N/A

Alternative Site 3

N/A


Site Co-ordinates

Latitude (S):

Longitude (E):

Alternative S1 (preferred or only site alternative)

25o 38′ 13.54″ 27o 14′ 05.06″

Alternative S2 (if any) o ′ ″ o ′ ″

Alternative S3 (if any) o ′ ″ o ′ ″

Corner points: Number of corner Latitude Longitude 1 25° 38' 08.57" 27° 14' 01.58"

2 25° 38' 07.79" 27° 14’ 07.61"

3 25° 38' 14.41" 27° 14' 02.36"

4 25° 38' 14.10" 27° 14' 05.61"

5 25° 38' 13.58" 27° 14' 05.94"

6 25° 38' 12.17" 27° 14' 06.44"

7 25° 38' 12.30" 27° 14' 08.00"

8 25 38’ 10.97” 27 14’ 09.55”

In the case of linear activities:

Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

Alternative S1 (preferred or only route alternative)

Starting point of the activity o ′ ″ o ′ ″

Middle/Additional point of the activity o ′ ″ o ′ ″

End point of the activity o ′ ″ o ′ ″

Alternative S2 (if any)




Alternative S3 (if any) ′ ″





For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide an addendum with co-ordinates taken every 250 metres along the route for each alternative alignment. In the case of an area being under application, please provide the co-ordinates of the corners of the site as indicated on the lay-out map provided in Appendix A. b) Lay-out alternatives Alternatives Description Alternative 1 (preferred or

only alternative)

The waste-to-value plant will include bulk processing and storage tanks, which will be connected by internal pipelines, for the following: anaerobic digestion of the effluent and manure to produce biogas; effluent equalisation tanks to ensure steady pressure flows of effluent from the plant to the Biodigester tanks; a manure storage unit; and a biogas storage tank. The proposal also includes a water recovery plant, including a series of bulk tanks for settling, filtration and aeration of the effluent for a final stage of treatment via Reverse Osmosis prior to discharge to municipal sewer.

The new expansion will be located on the north-eastern side of the existing property. The co-ordinates of the approximate corners of the site are listed above. Please refer to Appendix A for the site location. The layout of the plant is determined by availability of space, as well as risk minimisation factors (demarcation of certain flammable / explosive zones, etc.). Alternative layouts were therefore not investigated.

Alternative 2

N/A

Alternative 3

N/A

c) Technology alternatives

Alternatives Description Alternative 1 (preferred or

only alternative)

Anaerobic digestion – series of biological processes where micro-organisms break down the liquid effluent in the absence of oxygen. Resultant biogas will be utilised to fuel a Combined Heat and Power (CHP)-type gas engine for production of electricity and heat. The current stream of effluent can be re-directed to the anaerobic digester – no additional process step is required.

Alternative 2 Pyrolysis – thermal decomposition of the effluent in a depleted oxygen environment which produces char, oil, tar and synthesis gas. The syngas is combusted for the production of steam and heat. As the effluent is in liquid form, it must first be dried and separated, adding another step to the process where contamination can occur due to leakages, etc.

This technology alternative was therefore not investigated any further.

Alternative 3 Combustion – direct combustion of effluent for the production of steam and


heat in a biomass boiler. As the effluent is in liquid form, it must first be dried and separated, adding another step to the process where contamination can occur due to leakages, etc.

This technology alternative was therefore not investigated any further.

d) Other alternatives (e.g. scheduling, demand, input, scale and design alternatives)

Alternatives Description

Scale

Alternative 1 (preferred or

only alternative)

Biodigester will have the capacity to treat up to 15 000 kL of effluent per day

and will produce approximately 2000m3/hr of biogas. The CHP gas engine will

have capacity to generate up to 10 MW of electricity.

The scale of the plant is suitable for RCL’s budget and for supplying their

energy and water needs in a cost effective manner. Other scales of operating

were therefore not investigated any further.

Alternative 2 N/A

Alternative 3 N/A

Activity

Alternative 1 (preferred or

only alternative)

The construction of a Biodigester including a downstream reverse osmosis

(RO) plant for additional treatment of the treated effluent discharging from the

Biodigester. The purpose of RO is to treat the effluent to a level where the

water can be re-used for appropriate on-site applications, e.g. use in the

boilers, and for floor and crate washing (non-food uses; and not for irrigation).

This represents a significant cost savings to RCL Foods, as well as a

significant reduction in water consumption – a natural resource. The inclusion

of RO is therefore the preferred alternative.

The inclusion of manure as a feedstock. This represents a threefold benefit

for RCL Foods:

The efficient disposal of poultry manure from their poultry broiler

farms.

A significant increase in the electricity output capacity of the

Biodigester plant, so that the RCL plant is expected to run entirely off

the electricity generated by the waste-to-value plant; and

The digestate produced as a by-product of the manure digestion

process is a valuable fertilizer that will be sold to agricultural users.

Activity 2 Originally, the development proposal was for the biodigester without the

additional treatment step of RO. Due to the obvious benefits of further treating

the effluent outflow from the biodigester for re-use, this alternative was not

investigated any further.


In addition, the original proposal did not include manure as a feedstock.

Owing to the benefits listed above, this alternative was not investigated any

further.

Activity 3 N/A

e) No-go alternative

The No Go Alternative means “the option of not implementing the activity”, or maintaining the status quo at the site. In terms of the No Go Alternative, the Biodigester would not be constructed on the allocated site. Should this option be considered the following would be applicable:

Negative impacts associated with the No Go Alternative include: Negative impacts associated with the No-Go Alternative would include lack of job creation and capital investment; as well as lost cost savings and operational efficiencies, which would be associated with the biodigester development.

There would also be no decrease in the RCL plant’s demand on the national electricity grid, which is a significant benefit given the state of demand for finite fossil fuels. Another lost benefit would be that water consumption at the plant would remain the same, as the effluent from the plant would not be treated to a high quality for re-use in appropriate on-site applications. This is also considered to be a significant benefit due to the country’s stressed water resources.

Positive impacts associated with the No Go Alternative include: Positive impact associated with the No-Go Alternative during the construction phase would include the absence of nuisance-type impacts, such as noise, light, vibration and dust impacts. But these impacts are in keeping with the industrial surrounds, as well as being short-term in nature, and can be managed adequately with the implementation of a construction phase EMP.

Summary No significant benefits associated with the No Go Alternative have been identified, which would support the development of the biodigester not going ahead. No environmental risk factors were identified which should prevent the proposed biodigester development from taking place. All risks identified can be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the identified design, construction and operational phase mitigation measures, which are included in the EMP attached in Appendix J.

The No Go Alternative is thus not the preferred alternative for this application.


f) Please motivate for preferred site, activity and technology alternative

The preferred location for the Biodigester plant is situated within the existing RCL Foods chicken processing facility and Epol animal feed manufacturing sites. These sites are already zoned as Industrial Zoning 2 in an industrial area that has been developed many years ago. There will be no need for additional connections to the municipal water or electricity supply network; or to the municipal sewerage or stormwater system. Alternative sites were therefore not investigated any further. The layout of the plant is determined by availability of space, as well as risk minimisation factors (demarcation of certain flammable / explosive zones, etc.). Alternative layouts were therefore not investigated. The anaerobic digestion process will produce fewer emissions than the pyrolysis or biomass boiler process alternatives. It will also not produce char, oil or ash as an additional waste as the digestion process breaks down the effluent without combustion. The digestion process can also handle the liquid effluent as-is and does not require any drying/separation step. Pyrolysis and a biomass boiler were therefore not investigated any further as technology alternatives. The biodigestion plant is the preferred technology alternative. Once the Biodigester is in operation, it will decrease the quantity of effluent sent to the municipal sewers, thereby decreasing demand on the system. The plant will also decrease the RCL plant’s demand on the national electricity grid and the potable water supply infrastructure; as well as reducing operational expenditure for RCL, thereby improving the plant’s profitability and contributing to employment stability at the plant.

Because of these numerous benefits, the activity alternative of operating without manure as a feedstock and without the further treatment step of RO, was not investigated any further.

Paragraphs 3 – 13 below should be completed for each alternative. 3. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY a) Indicate the physical size of the preferred activity/technology as well as alternative

activities/technologies (footprints):

Alternative: Size of the activity:

Alternative A12 (preferred activity alternative) +-10000m2

Alternative A2 (if any) m2


or, for linear activities:

Alternative: N/A Length of the activity:

Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) m

Alternative A2 (if any) m

.


Alternative A3 (if any) m

b) Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above footprints will occur):

Alternative: N/A Size of the site/servitude:

Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) +-30000m2



4. SITE ACCESS

Does ready access to the site exist? YES NO

If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m

Describe the type of access road planned:

The plant will utilise the existing RCL Foods and Epol site access points off Cobalt, Mangaan and Brons

Streets. There will be a temporary minor increase in heavy vehicle traffic during the construction phase. During

the operational phase, up to 5 additional truck trips per day will frequent the RCL Foods and Epol sites. In the

context of the surrounding industrial area, this is a negligible impact.

Include the position of the access road on the site plan and required map, as well as an indication of the road in relation to the site. 5. LOCALITY MAP

An A3 locality map must be attached to the back of this document, as Appendix A. The scale of the locality map must be relevant to the size of the development (at least 1:50 000. For linear activities of more than 25 kilometres, a smaller scale e.g. 1:250 000 can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map.). The map must indicate the following:

an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if any;


indication of all the alternatives identified;

closest town(s;)

the accurate indication of the site in relation to closest protected environments or national parks (i.e. within 2.5 km)

road access from all major roads in the area;

road names or numbers of all major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s);

all roads within a 1km radius of the site or alternative sites; and

a north arrow;

a legend; and

locality GPS co-ordinates (Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeeshoek94 WGS84 co-ordinate system

6. LAYOUT/ROUTE PLAN A detailed site or route plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. It must be attached as Appendix B to this document.

The site or route plans must indicate the following:

the property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50 metres of the site;

the current land use as well as the land use zoning of the site;

the current land use as well as the land use zoning each of the properties adjoining the site or sites;

the exact position of each listed activity applied for (including alternatives);

servitude(s) indicating the purpose of the servitude;

a legend; and

a north arrow.

7. SENSITIVITY MAP

The layout/route plan as indicated above must be overlain with a sensitivity map that indicates all the sensitive areas associated with the site, including, but not limited to:

watercourses;

the 1:100 year flood line (where available or where it is required by Department of Water and Sanitation);

ridges;

for gentle slopes the 1 metre contour intervals must be indicated on the plan and whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, the 500mm contours must be indicated on the plan; and

cultural and historical features;

areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species); and

critical biodiversity areas and ecological support area.

protected areas (e.g. Magaliesberg Protected Environment, Pilanesberg National Park etc.)

The sensitivity map must also cover areas within 100m of the site and must be part of Appendix B.


8. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Colour photographs from the centre of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix C to this report. It must be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, if applicable. 9. FACILITY ILLUSTRATION

A detailed illustration of the activity must be provided at a scale of at least 1:200 as Appendix D for activities that include structures. The illustrations must be to scale and must represent a realistic image of the planned activity. The illustration must give a representative view of the activity. 10. ACTIVITY MOTIVATION

Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity):

1. Is the activity permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights?

YES NO Please explain

The RCL and adjacent Epol facilities are situated in a long-established industrial area in the town of Rustenburg in the Bojanala District Municipality. The properties are currently zoned Industrial Zoning 2 which allows for the proposed development.

2. Will the activity be in line with the following?

(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES NO Please explain

The 2013 Provincial Development Plan (PDP) refers to an increase in direct jobs through the construction

sector with special reference to the renewable industries sector. Renewable energies, especially solar and

waste/biomass to energy initiatives must play an increasingly important role in the following two decades and

contribute a much greater share of provincial energy consumption.

The construction of the anaerobic Biodigester will create both temporary and permanent employment

opportunities for the local municipality. It will also reduce demand on the provincial energy and potable water

supply requirement which can remove two of the constraints on growth.

The 2013 PDP also states that the “North West province needs to create an environment for the manufacturing

of renewable energy technologies. If this goal is not viable, job creation will be limited to the implementation,

maintenance and operation of renewable energy technologies. “

The operational phase of the Biodigester will create employment opportunities within the renewable industries

sector for the local municipality.


(b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES NO Please explain

(c) Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and Spatial Development

Framework (SDF) of the Local Municipality (e.g. would the approval

of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved

and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).


The anaerobic Biodigester will be constructed in an area already allocated to industrial development. The site

will use existing access roads and municipal supply systems (e.g. water supply network or municipal

stormwater systems). This project will not compromise the integrity of the existing IDP and SDF as the site is

not situated on an ecologically sensitive or cultural heritage site. The plant will assist in the Environment

Objectives as outlined in the 3rd Generation IDP for Bojanala Platinum District (2012/17) specifically by

reducing the consumption of energy and reducing the amount of waste within the District.

(d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES NO Please explain



stormwater systems).

(e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the

Department (e.g. Would the approval of this application

compromise the integrity of the existing environmental management

priorities for the area and if so, can it be justified in terms of

sustainability considerations?)


The construction and operation of the anaerobic Biodigester for the production of steam and power from

biogas, will aid in achieving the implementation plans and targets as outlined in the North West Environmental

Implementation Plan (2015-2020). This includes investing in renewable energy technology development and

generation facilities, and the encouragement to use biomass for energy generation.


(f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO Please explain

N/A

3. Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within the timeframe intended by the existing approved SDF agreed to by the relevant environmental authority (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP)?




stormwater systems). This project will not compromise the integrity of the existing IDP and SDF as the site is

not situated on an ecologically sensitive or cultural heritage site. The plant will assist in the Environment

Objectives as outlined in the 3rd Generation IDP for Bojanala Platinum District (2012/17) specifically by

reducing the consumption of energy and reducing the amount of waste within the District.

4. Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific local context it could be inappropriate.)


The construction and operation of the waste-to-value system could include temporary and/or permanent

employment opportunities with the associated economic and social upliftment and skills transfer. Once the

Biodigester is in operation, it should increase the quality of the effluent sent to the municipal sewers, decrease

the RCL plant’s demand on the national electricity grid, reduce potable water demand and potentially decrease

the possibility of odours generated from the effluent treatment system as the Biodigester process is completely

enclosed.

5. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development? (Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)


The proposed Biodigester will replace the existing wastewater treatment plant situated at the Rustenburg

facility. The energy generated by the plant will be utilised to power the Biodigester plant itself, with residual

power distributed to the chicken processing plant. Waste heat will be fed back to the processing plant.

There will be no need for additional connections to the municipal water or electricity supply network; or to the

municipal sewerage or stormwater systems.


6. Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and if not what will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority and placement of services and opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.)


There will be no need for additional connections to the municipal water or electricity supply network; or to the

municipal sewerage or stormwater systems. The system will power itself and surplus power and energy will be

used within other areas of the RCL plant, recycling of water will also form part of the system. As such a

reduction in electricity requirements, water supply and a reduction of effluent water discharge to sewer will

result in a net reduction in infrastructure requirements in these areas. The plant will utilise the existing site

accesses off Cobalt, Mangaan and Brons Streets, and will have a negligible traffic impact of up to 5 additional

truck trips per day.

7. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or importance?


This project will provide a cost-effective means of treating the effluent water for re-use in suitable applications

(non-potable, non-food areas). It will also decrease the demand on the national power grid, potable water

supply infrastructure and sewerage system.

8. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site within its broader context.)


The RCL and Epol facilities are situated in a long-established industrial area in the town of Rustenburg

(Industrial Zone 2). The proposed development will occur within the developed RCL and Epol sites.

9. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site?


The proposed plant location is entirely situated on the long-developed RCL Foods chicken processing facility

within an industrial area (Industrial Zoning 2). There are no sensitive natural features remaining where the

plant is proposed to be located. The proposed Biodigester/CHP gas engine will use the effluent currently

treated and discharged to the municipal sewer to produce electricity, steam and heat. This system reduces the

demand for electricity, water and improves effluent discharge water quality to sewer.


10. Will the benefits of the proposed land use/development outweigh the negative impacts of it?


The proposed Biodigester will replace the current waste water treatment plant, providing a cost-effective

means of treating the effluent to a much higher quality (i.e. a reduced chemical oxygen demand of some 80 –

90 %.) prior to discharge to municipal sewer. It will also reduce electricity and potable water demand at RCL

facility.

11. Will the proposed land use/development set a precedent for similar activities in the area (local municipality)?


The development may introduce the concept of such new technology to the area and its benefits to a broader

range of stakeholders in the area who may then go onto implement it at their own facilities where appropriate.

12. Will any person’s rights be negatively affected by the proposed activity/ies?


The RCL facility is situated in a long-established industrial area in the town of Rustenburg in the Bojanala

District Municipality. The industrial area is, however, located in close proximity to residential areas. Potential

impacts from the proposed Biodigester plant (e.g. odours or chemical spills or leaks; risk of fire). Provided that

the facility is well managed, no negative impacts should occur.

13. Will the proposed activity/ies compromise the “urban edge” as defined by the local municipality?


14. Will the proposed activity/ies contribute to any of the 17 Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPS)?


The proposed Biodigester will contribute to the following SIPS as outlined in the Presidential Infrastructure

Coordinating Commission Report (2012):

SIP4: Unlocking the economic opportunities in North West Province

SIP8: Green energy in support of the South African economy


15. What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain

The construction of the anaerobic Biodigester will create both temporary and permanent employment

opportunities for the local community. It will also reduce demand on the provincial energy and potable water

supply requirements which can remove two of the constraints on growth within the province.

The operational phase of the Biodigester may create more employment opportunities within the renewable

industries sector for the local municipality.

Making the RCL facility as a whole more efficient and by reducing production costs contributes to the continued

viability of the facility, therefore ensuring long term employment opportunities at the site and the associated

downstream benefits.

16. Any other need and desirability considerations related to the proposed activity? Please explain

The facility will reduce municipal infrastructure requirements and improve the efficiency of the RCL facility.

17. How does the project fit into the National Development Plan for 2030? Please explain

The project aids the National Development Plan (2030) by increasing the diversity of South Africa’ electricity production energy mix, by employing the least-cost power generation technology while propelling local economic growth and by decreasing the demand of the plant on the provincial electricity grid, potable water supply and reducing the load on the municipal waste water treatment works by reducing the quantity of discharged effluent water.


18. Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in Section 23 of NEMA as amended have been taken into account.

The NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 and the DEA&DP’s Guideline on Public Participation have been consulted

for this Basic Assessment process. This means that relevant Organs of State with jurisdiction over the activity

will be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft and Final Basic Assessment Reports

and EMP. Thus, there is an opportunity for environmental considerations to be included in decision-making by

these Organs of State.

In addition, all reports compiled during this EIA process have been made accessible to the public, therefore

ensuring an open and transparent process and allowing the interests, needs and values of the public to be

considered during the assessment process where possible. No particular community is more at risk than

another in terms of possible impacts associated with the development. The development includes measures to

minimise all associated impacts so that any and all nearby receptors are protected and environmental justice is

served.

The identification of any possible negative environmental impacts associated with the development have led to

the recommendation of suitable design, layout and operational mitigation measures to either avoid any such

impacts altogether; or to ensure that such impacts remain at an acceptable level without adversely impacting

the environment.

The most reasonable and feasible alternatives in relation to the proposed activity, the necessary mitigation

measures for implementation during the life cycle of the development, are considered by the EAP to represent

the Best Practicable Environmental Option for land use at the site

19. Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in Section 2 of NEMA as amended have been taken into account.

Please refer to Question 18 above.

11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES List all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable to the application as contemplated in the EIA regulations, if applicable:

Title of legislation, policy or guideline

Applicability to the project Administering authority

Date

The National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998 (as amended)

This legislation was taken into account and has resulted in this environmental application to the Competent Authority.

READ 1998

Regulations 983, 984 and This legislation was taken into account READ 2014


985 in terms of the NEMA, 1998 (as amended)

and has resulted in this environmental application to the Competent Authority.

The National Environmental Management Waste Act, Act 59 of 2008

This legislation was taken into account and has resulted in this environmental application to the Competent Authority

READ 2008

The list of waste management activities contained in GN No. 921 of 2013

This legislation was taken into account and has resulted in this environmental application to the Competent Authority.

READ 2013

The National Water Act, Act No. 36 of 1998

This legislation was taken into account in considering whether the proposed activity triggers the need to apply for a Water Use Licence.

DWS 1998

DEA&DP Guideline Document: Guideline on Alternatives, March 2013

This guideline document was taken into account in the compilation of the environmental application for consideration by the Competent Authority. This Guideline was used to guide the EAP as to the correct interpretation and application of any alternatives identified and investigated.

DEA&DP 2013

DEA&DP Guideline Document: Guideline on Public Participation, March 2013

This guideline document was taken into account in the compilation of the environmental application for consideration by the Competent Authority. This Guideline was used to guide the applicant as to the correct procedures to follow for public participation.

DEA&DP 2013

DEA&DP Guideline for involving a Specialist in an EIA Process

This guideline document was taken into account in the compilation of the environmental application for consideration by the Competent Authority. This Guideline was used to guide the EAP as to the extent of specialist involvement in the application process.

DEA&DP 2005

12. WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT a) Solid waste management

Will the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiation phase? YES NO

If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Unknown

How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?


General waste will be collected by the Municipality and disposed of to landfill. Hazardous waste (if any) will be collected by private contractors and disposed of to a suitable landfill, with chain of custody documentation obtained as proof of end recipient.

Where will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe )?

General waste will be collected by the Municipality and disposed of to landfill.

Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES NO

If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? 80 tonnes per day

How will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)?

The manure digestion process produces a digestate by-product. The digestate is biologically stable resisting further breakdown under normal storage conditions. The digestate comprises about 10% moisture, 30-40% organic material, and about 1% nitrogen. The digestate is free of pathogens; and is suitable for use in fertilizer applications. The digestate will be dried and pelletized on site (i.e. recycled and treated) before sale to agricultural users.

If the solid waste will be disposed of into a municipal waste stream, indicate which registered landfill site will be used.

N/A

Where will the solid waste be disposed of if it does not feed into a municipal waste stream (describe)?

As above, the digestate will be treated and recycled on site for sale as fertilizer.

If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site or be taken up in a municipal waste stream, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the NEM:WA? YES NO

(The manure feedstock for the digestion process is classified as a general waste. It then follows that the digestate is similarly a general waste). If YES, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA. An application for a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA must also be submitted with this application.

Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility? YES NO

If YES, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. An application for a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA must also be submitted with this application. (An application for a Waste Licence has been submitted to the READ. The application process is Basic Assessment, since only Category A waste management activities are triggered – Category A, Activities 3, 5, 6 and 12). b) Liquid effluent

Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system?

YES NO

If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? m3

Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO


If YES, describe the type of effluent and the disposal mechanism/method

The biodigester itself will not produce any effluent. Rather the plant is designed to treat effluent that is being produced by the RCL chicken processing plant.

Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility?

YES NO

If YES, provide the particulars of the facility:

Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:

Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:

The biodigester plant, including downstream RO plant, is purpose-designed to treat effluent water for re-use.

c) Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere other that exhaust emissions and dust associated with construction phase activities?

YES NO

If YES, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES NO

If YES, the applicant must consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. If NO, describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration:

Emissions from effluent: The storage and processing of industrial effluent can lead to nuisance odours– in this case, effluent containing about 0.25% total suspended solids, as well as fats / oils / grease. These solids comprise animal matter, feed (from the intestines and stomach of the processed chickens), and inorganic matter such as sand. With decomposition of these organic fats and solids, odorous compounds such as sulphides can be released. Such nuisance odours can impact negatively on people’s wellbeing and amenity (i.e. they are a social impact). The proposed biodigester plant will operate as a closed system, since loss of effluent entails loss of valuable feedstock. Odorous emissions will therefore be well controlled and negligible. Emissions from manure delivery and storage: Emissions from animal manure are commonly released when the manure is stored for long periods of time; and when the manure is applied to land. This is due to the anaerobic and aerobic breakdown of organic matter, including biological macromolecules, sulphur containing compounds, organic nitrogen, and the hydrolysis of uric acid. Emissions will include aerosolized particles combined with organisms like bacteria, fungi, and moulds; hydrogen sulphide (H2S); ammonia (NH3); methane (CH4); volatile organic compounds (VOC’s); and carbon


dioxide (CO2). Some of these emissions can pose occupational health risks, i.e. for workers exposed to these emissions on a long-terms basis, or exposed to acute levels of these emissions during an incident. These emissions could also pose community health risks, i.e. to nearby communities exposed to these emissions on a long terms basis. Other emissions from long-term manure storage and land application, such as CH4 and CO2, are classified as greenhouse gases with associated cumulative air quality impacts. The occupational risks of these identified compounds are well researched and quantified. The community health risks are not as well researched, however. There is some indication of potential community health risks (respiratory; psychological health), but the research is not conclusive. Also, studies undertaken relate to the long-term storage and land application of manure on farms. This application relates to the controlled, short-term storage of manure prior to digestion. The storage of the manure feedstock for a period of up to 3 days will take place in a purpose-designed storage unit, which may include chemical or biological filtration at the ventilation points as appropriate. This will ensure that emissions with associated potential for community health risk will be adequately controlled. The ventilation system for the storage unit will ensure that the unit operates within the occupational health limits for the relevant compounds identified as posing an occupational risk. Conveyance and digestion of the manure take place in a closed system. The proposal therefore aligns with findings that anaerobic digestion of manure is a means of reducing odours associated with the common management of manure – namely storage for long periods of time, and then application as fertilizer to the soil. Emissions from the digestion process: According to the applicant and project engineers, Trigen, the biogas itself comprises 50-75% methane, 25-50% CO2 and the balance trace amounts of H2S and other gasses. The biogas is contained in a closed system to reduce risk and loss of product and so fugitive emissions of biogas are not anticipated. Emissions from storage, drying and pelletizing of the digestate by-product of manure digestion: The digestion of manure produces as a by-product a digestate, which is about 10% moisture. This digested material is biologically stable and will resist further breakdown and odour production when stored under normal conditions3. However, thermal treatment of the digestate is proposed by means of drying and pelletizing. This will render the digestate easy to market and transport as a fertilizer. Ammonia will be emitted when the digestate is dried. These emissions will be scrubbed with sulphuric acid and / or carbon filtration before release to atmosphere. The by-product of the ammonia emissions scrubbing is ammonium sulphate. This is a stable liquid fertilizer which will be sold to agricultural users. Combustion emission from burning the biogas in CHP’s: When the biogas is combusted within the CHP’s, or when it is flared, combustion emissions include CO2, H2O, SO2 and NOx. According to Trigen, 1 MWH of electricity generated by a biogas-fired CHP system produces 1 ton less CO2 than the production of 1 MWH of electricity using coal. Similarly, the waste heat produced for use at the RCL plant is generated with lower CO2 emissions than the heat produced by coal or liquid fuel-fired

3 Pennsylvania State University. Anaerobic Digestion: Biogas Production and Odour Reduction from Manure,

2017.


boilers. Possible reduction of odours from greater poultry processing facility High moisture containing sludge, produced by the poultry processing facility’s waste water treatment plant, is currently returned to the poultry by-products rendering plant, where odorous emissions can result during high temperature cooking and drying to produce protein meal. This sludge is an essential feedstock for the Biodigester plant and so will no longer be returned to the rendering plant. Odorous emissions at the rendering plant from this source should therefore be significantly reduced with the implementation of the Biodigester. Conclusion: The air quality impacts associated with all aspects of the waste-to-value plant are considered to be low. In addition, there is a probable benefit in terms of reduction of odours compared to the current practice of including the WWTW sludge in the rendering plant cook.

d) Waste Licence/Registration

Will any aspect of the activity produce waste that will require a waste licence/registration in terms of the NEM:WA?

YES NO

If YES, please submit evidence that an application for a waste licence/registration has been submitted to the competent authority e) Generation of noise

Will the activity generate noise? YES NO

If YES, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES NO

If YES, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. If NO, describe the noise in terms of type and level:

The Biodigester and associated systems (fans, pumps, etc.) will generate noise. The project engineers have advised that the noisiest equipment will operate inside a noise proof container ensuring noise of not more than 65dBA. This is in keeping with noise levels anticipated in an industrial area and so the impact is considered to be negligible.

13. WATER USE Please indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es):

Municipal Water board Groundwater River, stream, dam or lake

Other The activity will not use water

If water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month:

N/A litres

Does the activity require a water use authorisation (general authorisation or water use license) from the Department of Water and Sanitation?

YES NO


If YES, please provide proof that the application has been submitted to the Department of Water and Sanitation.

14. ENERGY EFFICIENCY Describe the design measures, if any that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:

The waste-to-value plant will digest up to 15000 kL of effluent per day and up to 100 tonnes of manure per day. This is expected to produce enough biogas to generate electricity sufficient to meet the entire plant’s electricity requirements. In addition to electricity, waste heat from the CHP engine will be used to generate steam and hot water for integration back into the existing processing plant.

Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any:

The waste-to-value plant will provide an alternative energy source to the existing plant.

Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section? YES NO

If YES, please complete the form entitled “Details of specialist and declaration of interest” for the specialist appointed and attach in Appendix F.

SECTION B: SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Important notes: 1. For linear activities (pipelines, etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to

complete this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section B and indicate the area, as it appears on the Site Plan.

2. Paragraphs 1 - 6 below must be completed for each alternative.

Current land-use zoning as per local municipality IDP/records:

Industrial Zoning 2

In instances where there is more than one current land-use zoning, please attach a list of current land use zonings that also indicate which portions each use pertains to, to this application.

Is a change of land-use or a consent use application required? YES NO


1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE

Indicate the general gradient of the site.

Alternative S1:

Flat 1:50 – 1:20 1:20 – 1:15 1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5 1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5

Alternative S2 (if any):


Alternative S3 (if any):


2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE

Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site:

2.1 Ridgeline 2.4 Closed valley 2.7 Undulating plain / low hills

2.2 Plateau 2.5 Open valley 2.8 Dune

2.3 Side slope of hill/mountain 2.6 Plain 2.9 Seafront 3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE

Is the site(s) located on any of the following? Alternative S1: Alternative S2

(if any): Alternative S3

(if any):

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO YES NO YES NO

Dolomite, sinkhole or doline areas YES NO YES NO YES NO

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO YES NO YES NO

Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO YES NO YES NO

Soils with high clay content (clay fraction more than 40%) – Possibly: available information suggests that soils in the area tend to be clayey. A geotechnical investigation will be undertaken prior to the detailed design of the waste-to-value plant, and appropriate engineering will be undertaken as required to ensure the structural integrity of the plant.

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO YES NO YES NO

An area sensitive to erosion YES NO YES NO YES NO


If you are unsure about any of the above or if you are concerned that any of the above aspects may be an issue of concern in the application, an appropriate specialist should be appointed to assist in the completion of this section. Information in respect of the above will often be available as part of the project information or at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by the Council for Geo Science may also be consulted. 4. GROUNDCOVER

Indicate the types of groundcover present on the site. The location of all identified rare or endangered species or other elements should be accurately indicated on the site plan(s).

Natural veld - good conditionE

Natural veld with scattered aliensE

Natural veld with heavy alien infestationE

Veld dominated by alien speciesE

Gardens

Sport field (on-site for Epol staff use)

Cultivated land Paved surface Building or other structure

Bare soil

If any of the boxes marked with an “E “is ticked, please consult an appropriate specialist to assist in the completion of this section if the environmental assessment practitioner doesn’t have the necessary expertise. 5. SURFACE WATER

Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites?

Perennial River YES NO UNSURE

Non-Perennial River


YES NO UNSURE

Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE


If any of the boxes marked YES or UNSURE is ticked, please provide a description of the relevant watercourse.


The proposed biodigester and RO plant will be situated entirely on the RCL Foods and Epol sites, which are entirely transformed by development already. Also, the proposal includes all tanks and pipes designed according to relevant codes of practice; hardened surfaces; and bunding where required. It is therefore not anticipated that the biodigester plant will impact in any way on the nearby drainage channel.

6. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA

Indicate land uses and/or prominent features that currently occur within a 500m radius of the site and give description of how this influences the application or may be impacted upon by the application:

Natural area Dam or reservoir Polo fields

Low density residential Hospital/medical centre Filling station H

Medium density residential School Landfill or waste treatment site

High density residential Tertiary education facility Plantation

Informal residentialA Church Agriculture

Retail commercial & warehousing Old age home River, stream or wetland N

Light industrial Sewage treatment plantA Nature conservation area N

Medium industrial AN Train station or shunting yard N Mountain, koppie or ridge N

Heavy industrial AN Railway line N Museum

Power station Major road (4 lanes or more) N Historical building N

Office/consulting room Airport N Protected Area N

Military or police base/station/compound

Harbour Graveyard N

Spoil heap or slimes damA Sport facilities Archaeological site N

Quarry, sand or borrow pit Golf course Other land uses (describe)

The site is situated in an industrial area. About 200m south of the site is a residential area.

If any of the boxes marked with an “N “are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain

N/A

If any of the boxes marked with an "AN" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain:

No impacts expected – the waste-to-value plant will be situated at an existing industrial facility.


If any of the boxes marked with an "H" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain:

N/A

Does the proposed site (including any alternative sites) fall within any of the following:

Critical Biodiversity Area (as per provincial conservation plan)

According to the North-West Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area map, the area where the site is situated is a CBA2. The proposed plant location is, however, entirely situated on the long-developed RCL Foods and Epol processing facilities within an industrial area. There are no sensitive natural features remaining where the plant is proposed to be located.

YES NO

Core area of a protected area? YES NO

Buffer area of a protected area? YES NO

Planned expansion area of an existing protected area? YES NO

Existing offset area associated with a previous Environmental Authorisation? YES NO

If the answer to any of these questions was YES, a map indicating the affected area must be included in Appendix B (as part of sensitivity map). 7. BIODIVERSITY

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the site and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as Appendix B to this report. a) Indicate the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the

reason(s) provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category)

Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its selection in biodiversity plan

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA)

Ecological Support

Area (ESA)

Other Natural Area

(ONA)

No Natural Area

Remaining (NNR)


http://bgis.sanbi.org/

mailto:[email protected]


According to the North-West Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area map, the area where the site is situated is a CBA2. The proposed plant location is, however, entirely situated at the long-developed RCL Foods and Epol processing facilities within an industrial area. There are no sensitive natural features remaining where the plant is proposed to be located.

b) Indicate and describe the habitat condition on site

Habitat Condition

Percentage of habitat

condition class (adding up to 100%)

Description and additional Comments and Observations

(including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land management practises, presence of quarries,

grazing, harvesting regimes etc).

Natural %

Near Natural (includes areas with

low to moderate level of alien invasive

plants)

%

Degraded (includes areas

heavily invaded by alien plants)

%

Transformed (includes cultivation,

dams, urban, plantation, roads, etc)

100%

The site is located within a developed industrial area of Rustenburg that has been entirely disturbed in the past.

c) Complete the table to indicate:

(i) the type of vegetation, including its ecosystem status, present on the site; and

(ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem is present on site.

Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems

Ecosystem threat status as per the

Critical Wetland (including rivers, depressions, channelled and unchanneled wetlands, flats, seeps pans, and artificial Endangered


d) Please provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on

site, including any important biodiversity features/information identified on site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats)

Vegetation and biodiversity


According to the North-West Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area map, the area where the site is situated is a CBA2. The proposed plant location is, however, entirely situated on the long-developed RCL Foods chicken processing facility within an industrial area. There are no sensitive natural features remaining where the plant is proposed to be located.

Freshwater features

A canalised non-perennial drainage channel at its closest point lies some 52m south of the proposed development location. The drainage channel flows in an east-west orientation from a dam situated about 2km east of the site. The non-perennial drainage channel and dam form part of the Hex River system, with the river located some 5km east of the site.

8. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES

Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including Archaeological or paleontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site? If YES, explain:

YES NO

Uncertain

N/A

If uncertain, conduct a specialist investigation by a recognised specialist in the field (archaeology or palaeontology) to establish whether there is such a feature(s) present on or close to the site. Briefly explain the findings of the specialist:

N/A

Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO

National Environmental Management:

Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)

Vulnerable wetlands)

Least Threatened

YES NO UNSURE


Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)?

YES NO

If YES, please provide proof that this permit application has been submitted to SAHRA or the relevant provincial authority.

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTER

a) Local Municipality

Please provide details on the socio-economic character of the local municipality in which the proposed site(s) are situated. Level of unemployment:

The information presented below was obtained from the 2011 Census via Stats SA website. (http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=993&id=rustenburg-municipality)

266 471 people are economically active (employed or unemployed but looking for work), and of these, 26.4%

are unemployed. 34.7% of the 142 219 economically active youth (15 – 34 years) in the municipality are

unemployed.

http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=993&id=rustenburg-municipality


Economic profile of local municipality:




Level of education:


According to Census 2011, Rustenburg Local Municipality has a total population of 549 575 people, of whom

88.5% are black African, 9.4% are white, with the other population groups make up the remaining 2.1%. Of

those aged 20 years and older, 5.4% have completed primary school, 36.2% have some secondary education,

31.1% have completed matric, and 8.9% have some form of higher education, while 5.4% of those aged 20

years and older have no form of schooling.



b) Socio-economic value of the activity client to please advise

What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? +-R150 million

What is the expected yearly income that will be generated by or as a result of the activity?

Unknown

Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO

Is the activity a public amenity? YES NO

How many new employment opportunities will be created in the development and construction phase of the activity/ies?

+-800

What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the development and construction phase?

Unknown

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Unknown


How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during the operational phase of the activity?

+-5

What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years?

Unknown

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Unknown

10. SPECIALIST(S) CONSULTATION

Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section? YES NO

If YES, please complete the form entitled “Details of specialist and declaration of interest” for each specialist thus appointed and attach it in Appendix F. All specialist reports must be contained in Appendix G and must meet the requirement in Appendix 6 of EIA Regulations, 2014.


SECTION C: IMPACT ASSESSMENT The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2014, and should take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected parties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts. 1. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,

OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

Provide a summary and anticipated significance of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the planning and design phase, construction phase, operational phase, decommissioning and closure phase, including impacts relating to the choice of site/activity/technology alternatives as well as the mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed. This impact assessment must be applied to all the identified alternatives to the activities identified in Section A(2) of this report.

It is recommended that the full impact description and assessment, contained in Appendix H, is read prior to reviewing the impact summary below.

Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation Alternative 1 (preferred alternative): The development proposal includes the preferred activity and technology alternatives: biodigestion of effluent and manure to produce biogas for power generation purposes; including downstream RO for further treatment of the effluent outflow from the biodigester. The power and water are to be used at the RCL Foods plant.

Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation

Construction phase activities (such as heavy vehicle traffic, use of construction machinery and equipment, installation of pipelines and electricity distribution lines, use of cranes, etc.)

Direct impacts: Natural stormwater drainage channel contamination from contaminated liquid surface spillages: Impact on the natural stormwater system due to a potential spillage of contaminated liquid. There is a low risk of contamination liquid entering the natural stormwater system.

Pre-mitigation: Low Post mitigation: Very low to negligible

Please refer to Sections 4.3.3 & 4.3.4 of the EMP.

.

Direct impacts: Dust: Construction activities at the site will include heavy

Pre-mitigation: Low

1. Please refer to Section



vehicles traversing the site; loading, offloading and stockpiling of soil and materials; etc.

Post mitigation: Low

4.3.7 of the EMP.

2. The EMP will be

monitored by an

Environmental Control

Officer during the

construction phase to

ensure that it is being

complied with.

Direct impacts: Traffic and Access: There are traffic safety impacts associated with any heavy construction-type vehicles and machinery accessing the site for the construction of the proposed plant.

Pre-mitigation: Low Post mitigation: Low


4.3.11 of the EMP.

Direct impacts: Natural vegetation and freshwater systems: Not applicable as described in Section 7, there are no natural features remaining on the site as it has been previously developed

Direct impacts: Fire, Health & Safety Risk: Fire risk associated with the use of any electrical construction equipment.

Pre-mitigation: Medium Post mitigation: Low


4.3.5 of the EMP.

Direct impacts: Income and Employment: The construction of the new plant will provide income and job opportunities during the construction phase.

Pre-mitigation: Low (due to the relatively small scale of the activity) Post mitigation: N/A – this is a benefit

Direct impacts: Noise: Construction activities at the site would entail the use of heavy machinery and equipment. These activities

Pre-mitigation: Medium Post mitigation:


4.3.9 of the EMP.



would emit some noise. Low

Direct impacts: Visual: The construction vehicles and machinery which would be used during the construction phase, as well as materials stockpiles established at the site, will have a minor visual impact on the surrounding environment. Due to the industrial nature of the area, the impact is considered to be entirely in keeping with the surrounds.

Indirect impacts: None

Cumulative impacts: Dust; noise; fire, health and safety risk; traffic; natural stormwater drainage channel contamination from contaminated liquid surface spillages: these impacts are considered to be cumulative due to the industrial facilities surrounding the plant, which are all potential sources of these impacts.

Operational phase activities (spillages, tank or line leaks, filling up of acid storage tanks from delivery trucks, storage of methane gas and acid, storage of manure, storage and treatment of digestate, 24 hour operating times)

Direct impacts: Groundwater and stormwater system contamination: Source: leaking tanks/pipework; uncontrolled manure storage – long term, large scale. Pathway 1: Surface runoff Receptor 1: Stormwater system feeding into wetlands/natural drainage channels (increased chemical and biological oxygen demand; increased nitrification; suffocation of fish; health impacts on users of river water for potable purposes) Pathway 2: Exposed ground Receptor 2: Groundwater and groundwater users (health impacts)

Pre-mitigation: High Post mitigation: Low


4.4.3 of the EMP.

Direct impacts: Air quality – combustion emissions: When the biogas is combusted within the CHP’s, or when it is flared, combustion emissions include CO2, H2O, SO2 and NOx. According to Trigen, 1 MWH of electricity generated by a biogas-fired CHP system produces 1 ton less CO2 than the production of 1 MWH of electricity using coal. Similarly, the waste heat produced for use at the RCL plant is generated with



lower CO2 emissions than the heat produced by coal or liquid fuel-fired boilers. The air quality impacts are therefore considered to be low.

Direct impacts: Reduction in Natural Resource Usage: Reduction in electricity, coal and water usage at the plant.

Pre-mitigation: High Post-mitigation: N/A as this is a benefit

N/A as this is a benefit

Direct impacts: Traffic and access: The proposed plant will generate up to 5 truck trips per day, in an industrial area where truck transport is the norm. And the existing access points to the RCL Foods and Epol sites off Cobalt, Mangaan and Brons Streets will be used. Therefore, there will be no additional impact on traffic and/or access during the operational phase.

Direct impacts: Vegetation and aquatic impacts: Not applicable as described in Section 7, there are no natural features remaining on the site.

Direct impacts: Municipal Infrastructure Benefit: Currently effluent from the RCL Foods plant is treated on-site at a WWTW, where after it is discharged to the municipal sewerage system. With the proposed biodigestion plant, including the RO plant for further effluent treatment for re-use, the current impact on the municipal sewerage system will be significantly reduced. This represents a benefit for municipal expenditure on infrastructure upkeep.

Direct impacts: Fire, health and safety risk: Potential health and safety impacts associated with the risk of fire and explosion are associated with methane gas storage and acid storage. Associated smoke and disturbance related to with the evacuation of the site and surrounding area; risk to life and property.

Pre-mitigation: High Post-mitigation: Medium

Please refer to Section 4.4.1of the EMP.

Direct impacts: Health and Safety Risks – Hazardous Chemical Substances: Potential health and safety impacts associated with the handling of acids at the nutrient dosing tank farm (corrosive; inhalable irritant if

Pre-mitigation: High Post-mitigation: Low

Please refer to Section 4.4.2 of the EMP.



heated)

Direct impacts Health and safety risks – emission from manure: Emissions from animal manure are commonly released when the manure is stored for long periods of time; and when the manure is applied to land. This is due to the anaerobic and aerobic breakdown of organic matter, including biological macromolecules, sulphur containing compounds, organic nitrogen, and the hydrolysis of uric acid. However, this application relates to the controlled, short-term storage of manure prior to digestion. Storage will take place in a purpose-designed storage unit, which may include chemical or biological filtration at the ventilation points as appropriate. This has been included as a requirement in the EMPr – please see Section 4.1.3 Health and safety risks from manure emissions are therefore considered to be negligible.

Direct impacts: Health and safety risks – Ammonia emission from digestate drying: Ammonia will be emitted when the digestate is dried. These emissions will be scrubbed with sulphuric acid and / or carbon filtration before release to atmosphere. The requirement for a suitable emissions scrubbing system has been included in the EMPr. Please refer to Section 4.1.3. Health and safety risks from ammonia emissions during the digestate drying process are therefore considered to be negligible.

Direct impacts: Income and employment: The benefits associated with the proposed plant relate to the capital investment and income it will generate, to the benefit of the surrounding local economy. The development will also generate job opportunities and by improving operational efficiencies will make the RCL facility more competitive, thereby contributing to long term employment stability at the plant

Pre-mitigation: Medium (proportional to the expected percentage reduction in energy and water consumption at the plant) Post-mitigation: N/A – this is a benefit

N/A – this is a benefit

Direct impacts: Nuisance odours: Odours from effluent and biogas:



With nuisance odours, these can arise from the storage and processing of industrial effluent – in this case, effluent containing organic fats and solids. With decomposition, odorous compounds such as sulphides can be released. Odours can also be associated with the biogas generated, which includes 50-75% methane and 0-3% hydrogen sulphide, which are known odorous compounds. Such nuisance odours can impact negatively on people’s wellbeing and amenity (i.e. they are a social impact). The proposed Biodigester plant will operate as a closed system, since loss of effluent entails loss of valuable feedstock; and loss of biogas is both dangerous and represents a loss of product. Odorous emissions will therefore be well controlled and negligible. Odours from manure Emissions from animal manure are commonly released when the manure is stored for long periods of time; and when the manure is applied to land. This is due to the anaerobic and aerobic breakdown of organic matter, including biological macromolecules, sulphur containing compounds, organic nitrogen, and the hydrolysis of uric acid. For this application, storage of manure for a period of up to three days will take place in a purpose-design storage unit, with odour control at the vent points as required. Conveyance and digestion of the manure take place in a closed system. Odours will be negligible. Possible reduction of odours from greater poultry processing facility High moisture containing sludge, produced by the poultry processing facility’s waste water treatment plant, is currently returned to the rendering plant, where odorous emissions can result during high temperature cooking and drying to produce protein meal. This sludge is an essential feedstock for the Biodigester plant and so will no longer be returned to the rendering plant. Odorous emissions at the rendering plant from this source should therefore be significantly reduced with the implementation of the Biodigester.

Direct impacts: Noise: The Biodigester and associated systems (fans, pumps, etc.) will generate noise. The project engineers have advised that the noisiest equipment will operate inside a noise proof container ensuring noise of not more than 65dBA. Please see Section 4.4.4 of the EMPr. This is in keeping with noise levels anticipated in an industrial area and so the



impact is considered to be negligible.

Direct impacts: Visual: The biodigester will be situated at a large-scale processing plant, which already operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. And the plant is situated in a fully industrialised area. It is therefore not anticipated to add to light impacts at night to any significant degree; or to be out of keeping with the sense of place of the area.

Cumulative impacts: All of the identified operational phase impacts are considered to be cumulative: the plant is surrounding by industrial activities, which are all potential sources of the identified impacts.

Decommissioning phase activities

(spillages and leaks, use of construction machinery and heavy vehicles, decommissioning of methane gas and acid storage tanks, cutting and welding of pipelines)

If the biodigester plant is decommissioned in the future, the associated impacts will be materially similar to those detailed in the construction phase section above. The mitigation and management measures listed will therefore also need to be implemented during the decommissioning phase. In addition to this, there is the risk of fire and explosion; the risk of contamination, as well as risk to staff from handling of HCS. These risks have been assessed and mitigation measures provided in the operational section above. Additional measures to be implemented in terms of safe decommissioning of the tanks and lines include:

1. Adequate training in emergency response situations of the contractor and

construction personnel undertaking the decommissioning activities will be

carried out.

2. Fire fighting facilities which will include hand-held fire extinguishers and a

hose reel. These facilities must be approved by the local fire department.

3. Minimisation of hot work by using alternative methods and equipment such

as air driven tools, cold cutting and pre-fabrication off site.

4. The use of appropriate shielding and screening such as blanketing with fire

fighting foam and water screens to minimise fire risk.

5. Minimisation of spark quenching by wetting down and/or using construction

power tools such as jack hammers under running water.

6. Use of gas testing at methane gas and acid storage area to ensure there

are no residual emissions

7. A fire attendant will be on stand-by during the decommissioning process.

Please see Section 4.5 of the EMPr.



No-go option

The No Go Alternative means “the option of not implementing the activity”, or maintaining the status quo at the site. In terms of the No Go Alternative, the Biodigester would not be constructed on the allocated site. Should this option be considered the following would be applicable: Negative impacts associated with the No Go Alternative include: Negative impacts associated with the No-Go Alternative would include lack of job creation and capital investment; as well as lost cost savings and operational efficiencies, which would be associated with the biodigester development. There would also be no decrease in the RCL plant’s demand on the national electricity grid, which is a significant benefit given the state of demand for finite fossil fuels. Another lost benefit would be that water consumption at the plant would remain the same, as the effluent from the plant would not be treated to a high quality for re-use in appropriate on-site applications. This is also considered to be a significant benefit due to the country’s stressed water resources. Positive impacts associated with the No Go Alternative include: Positive impact associated with the No-Go Alternative during the construction phase would include the absence of nuisance-type impacts, such as noise, light, vibration and dust impacts. But these impacts are in keeping with the industrial surrounds, as well as being short-term in nature, and can be managed adequately with the implementation of a construction phase EMP. Summary No significant benefits associated with the No Go Alternative have been identified, which would support the development of the biodigester not going ahead. No environmental risk factors were identified which should prevent the proposed biodigester development from taking place. All risks identified can be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the identified design, construction and operational phase mitigation measures, which are included in the EMP attached in Appendix J. The No Go Alternative is thus not the preferred alternative for this application.

A complete impact assessment which include process undertaken to identify, assess and rank the impacts, the activity will impose on the site through the life of the activity in terms of EIA Regulation 2014, Appendix 1(i) and (j) of GN R.982 must be included as Appendix H. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Taking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impact statement that summarises the impact that the proposed activity and its alternatives may have on the environment after the management and mitigation of impacts have been taken into account, with specific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential impacts actually occurring and the significance of impacts.


Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative The development proposal includes the preferred activity and technology alternatives: biodigestion of effluent and manure to produce biogas for power generation purposes; including downstream RO for further treatment of the effluent outflow from the biodigester. The power and water are to be used at the RCL Foods plant.

Construction phase

Type of Impact: Direct Impacts

Impact Significance Duration of impact Likelihood of occurrence

Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Natural stormwater drainage channel contamination from contaminated liquid surface spillages

Low Very low to negligible Short-term for the duration of construction

Improbable

Dust Low Low Short-term for the duration of construction

Definite

Traffic and access

Low Low Short-term for the duration of construction

Definite

Natural vegetation and freshwater systems: Not applicable as described in Section 7, there are no natural features remaining on the site as it has been previously developed

Fire, Health & Safety Risk

High Low Short-term for the duration of construction

Improbable

Income and employment

Low (due to the relatively small scale of the activity)

N/A – this is a benefit Short-term for the duration of construction

Definite

Noise Medium Low Short-term for the duration of construction

Definite

Visual: The construction vehicles and machinery which would be used during the construction phase, as well as materials stockpiles established at the site, will have a minor visual impact on the surrounding environment. Due to the industrial nature of the area, the impact is considered to be entirely in keeping with the surrounds.

Type of impact: Indirect Impacts None

Type of Impact: Cumulative Impacts Dust; noise; fire, health and safety risk; traffic; natural stormwater drainage channel contamination from contaminated liquid surface spillages: these impacts are considered to be cumulative due to the industrial facilities surrounding the plant, which are all potential sources of these impacts.

Operational Phase

Type of impact: Direct Impacts


Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Groundwater and stormwater

High Low Short-term Improbable


system contamination

Air quality – combustion emissions: When the biogas is combusted within the CHP’s, or when it is flared, combustion emissions include CO2, H2O, SO2 and NOx. According to Trigen, 1 MWH of electricity generated by a biogas-fired CHP system produces 1 ton less CO2 than the production of 1 MWH of electricity using coal. Similarly, the waste heat produced for use at the RCL plant is generated with lower CO2 emissions than the heat produced by coal or liquid fuel-fired boilers. The air quality impacts are therefore considered to be low.

Reduction in natural resource usage

High N/A – this is a benefit Long-term definite

Traffic and access: The proposed plant will generate up to 5 truck trips per day, in an industrial area where truck transport is the norm. And the existing access points to the RCL Foods and Epol sites off Cobalt, Mangaan and Brons Streets will be used. Therefore, there will be no additional impact on traffic and/or access during the operational phase.

Vegetation and aquatic impacts: Not applicable as described in Section 7, there are no natural features remaining on the site.

Municipal Infrastructure Benefit: Currently effluent from the RCL Foods plant is treated on-site at a WWTW, where after it is discharged to the municipal sewerage system. With the proposed biodigestion plant, including the RO plant for further effluent treatment for re-use, the current impact on the municipal sewerage system will be significantly reduced. This represents a benefit for municipal expenditure on infrastructure upkeep.

Fire, health and safety risk

High Medium Short-term Improbable

Health and Safety Risks – Hazardous Chemical Substances

High Low Short-term Improbable

Health and safety risks – emission from manure: Emissions from animal manure are commonly released when the manure is stored for long periods of time; and when the manure is applied to land. However, this application relates to the controlled, short-term storage of manure prior to digestion. Health and safety risks from manure emissions are therefore considered to be negligible.

Health and safety risks – Ammonia emission from digestate drying: Ammonia will be emitted when the digestate is dried. These emissions will be scrubbed with sulphuric acid and / or carbon filtration before release to atmosphere. Health and safety risks from ammonia emissions are therefore considered to be negligible.

Income and employment

Medium (proportional to the expected percentage reduction in energy and water consumption at the plant)

N/A – this is a benefit Long-term Definite

Nuisance odours:

With nuisance odours, these can arise from the storage and processing of industrial effluent; and from the long-term, large scale storage and land application of manure. Such nuisance odours can impact negatively on people’s wellbeing and amenity (i.e. they are a social impact). Plant design will ensure that odorous emissions are well controlled and negligible.

Noise: The Biodigester and associated systems (fans, pumps, etc.) will generate noise. The project engineers have advised that the noisiest equipment will operate inside a noise proof container ensuring noise of not more than 65dBA. This is in keeping with noise levels anticipated in an industrial area and so the impact is considered to be negligible.

Visual: The biodigester will be situated at a large-scale processing plant, which already operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. And the plant is situated in a fully industrialised area. It is therefore not anticipated to add to light impacts at night to any significant degree; or to be out of keeping with the sense of place of the area.


Cumulative All of the identified operational phase impacts are considered to be cumulative: the plant is surrounding by industrial activities, which are all potential sources of the identified impacts.

Decommissioning Phase

Type of impact: Direct Impacts


Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Please see construction phase impact statement.

Type of impact: Indirect Impacts None

Type of impact: Cumulative Please see construction phase impact statement.

Alternative B

N/A

Alternative C

N/A

No-go alternative (compulsory)

The No Go Alternative means “the option of not implementing the activity”, or maintaining the status quo at the site. In terms of the No Go Alternative, the Biodigester would not be constructed on the allocated site. Should this option be considered the following would be applicable: Negative impacts associated with the No Go Alternative include: Negative impacts associated with the No-Go Alternative would include lack of job creation and capital investment; as well as lost cost savings and operational efficiencies, which would be associated with the biodigester development. There would also be no decrease in the RCL plant’s demand on the national electricity grid, which is a significant benefit given the state of demand for finite fossil fuels. Another lost benefit would be that water consumption at the plant would remain the same, as the effluent from the plant would not be treated to a high quality for re-use in appropriate on-site applications. This is also considered to be a significant benefit due to the country’s stressed water resources. Positive impacts associated with the No Go Alternative include: Positive impact associated with the No-Go Alternative during the construction phase would include the absence of nuisance-type impacts, such as noise, light, vibration and dust impacts. But these impacts are in keeping with the industrial surrounds, as well as being short-term in nature, and can be managed adequately with the implementation of a construction phase EMP. Summary


No significant benefits associated with the No Go Alternative have been identified, which would support the development of the biodigester not going ahead. No environmental risk factors were identified which should prevent the proposed biodigester development from taking place. All risks identified can be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the identified design, construction and operational phase mitigation measures, which are included in the EMP attached in Appendix J. The No Go Alternative is thus not the preferred alternative for this application.

SECTION D: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Pre-application public participation was undertaken during May and June 2017. This included the distribution of the Draft BAR, which included the original proposal for a waste-to-value plant using effluent feedstock only. Since that time, the development proposal has been amended to include the digestion of manure, which is a general waste. Therefore, initial notification of potential I&AP’s is being repeated with the distribution of this Final BAR. All forms of notification will make reference to the NEMA and NEMWA listed activities. And notification will include advertisements in two local newspapers, the Rustenburg Herald and the Bonus. A record of pre-application public participation has been attached to this BAR in Appendix I. Proof of the Final BAR phase public participation, including the waste management activities, will be included with the Final BAR submission to the READ for a decision in due course. 1. ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE

Publication name Pre-application: The Rustenburg Herald FBAR: The Rustenburg Herald and The Bonus

Date published Pre-application: 19/05/2017 FBAR: To be advised with final submission

Site notice position Mangaan Street

Latitude Longitude

25 38’ 19.28” 27 13’ 58.26”

Cobalt Street 25 38’ 10.59” 27 13’ 57.04”

Date placed 17/05/2017

Include proof of the placement of the relevant advertisements and notices in Appendix I1. 2. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES

Provide details of the measures taken to include all potential I&APs as required by Regulation 41(2)(e) and 41(6) of GN R.982. Key stakeholders (other than organs of state) identified in terms of Regulation 40(2)(d) of GN R.982:

Title, Name and Surname

Affiliation/ key stakeholder status

Contact details (tel number or e-mail address)


Greater Rustenburg Community Foundation

Community representative organisation

158 Leyds Street Protea Park Rustenburg 0299 Tel: 014 592 1525 Fax: 014 592 1506

Ward Councillor: (Ward 09) G.M Mutre

Community representative Tel: 014 509 3417 Cell:072 198 1111 Email:[email protected]

Zinniaville Ratepayers Association Aasif Ally


Email:[email protected]

Rustenburg Rate Payers Association Johan Schoeman


Email:[email protected]

Include proof that the key stakeholder received written notification of the proposed activities as Appendix I2. This proof may include any of the following:

e-mail delivery reports;

registered mail receipts;

courier waybills;

signed acknowledgements of receipt; and/or

or any other proof as agreed upon by the competent authority. 3. ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES

Summary of main issues raised by I&APs Summary of response from EAP

Department of Water and Sanitation acknowledged receipt of the DBAR. No further comment was received.

None required

Rustenburg Local Municipality – Integrated Environmental Management Unit:

Satisfied with the development proposal The activity will occur within the urban edge

and within a “Built up Area Management Zone” demarcated in the municipal EMF.

The proposed plant will be situated within the existing RCL Foods facility

There are no sensitive features in close proximity

The activity will not lead to substantial

None required


detrimental impact on the environment; alternatively, any detrimental impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels and the NEMA principles are upheld

All other applicable legislation, and any requirements of other government departments must be adhered to.

4. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT

The practitioner must make report (s) available to I&APs record all comments received from I&APs and respond to each comment before is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a comments and response report as prescribed in the EIA Regulations and be attached to the Final BAR as Appendix I3.

5. AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION

Authorities and organs of state identified as key stakeholders. Key stakeholders identified in terms of Regulation 7(1) and (2) and Regulation 40(2) (a)-(c) of GN R.982:

Authority/Organ of State

Contact person (Title, Name and Surname)

Tel No Fax No

e-mail Postal address

Water and Sanitation Services (WSSA) on behalf of the Bojanala District Municipality

Wastewater treatment:

Victor Jansen van

Vuuren

076 413 5267

[email protected]

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Air quality officer: Thapelo Mathekga

014 523 5083 / 083 496 8724

[email protected] / [email protected]

49 Heystek street Rustenburg 0300

Environmental Management: Air Quality Dept of Rural, Environment and Agricultural development

Iketleng Monyeki

014 597 3597 / 083 302 2635

[email protected]

Environmental Management:

EIA Dept of Rural,

Environment and

Motshabi Mohlalisi

014 597 3597 /

014 592 7378 /

072 157

[email protected]

80 Kerk Street, Rustenburg


Agricultural development

8434

Department of Water and

Sanitation - North West Province

Rens Botha

012 392 1308 /

012 392 1401 /

082 808 9560

[email protected]

Department of Energy

Lerato April/David

Modise

012 4068000

[email protected] /

[email protected]

Matimba House

Cnr of Paul Kruger & Visagie Streets Pretoria

0002

Rustenburg Local Municipality -

Environmental Department

Kelebogile Mekgoe

014 590 3185

[email protected] Rustenburg Local

Municipality Waste Depot 156

Bethlehem Drive

(Opposite Radio

Mafisa) Rustenburg

Include proof that the Authorities and Organs of State received written notification and draft reports of the proposed activities as Appendix I4. 6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS Note that, for any activities (linear or other) where deviation from the public participation requirements may be appropriate, the person conducting the public participation process may deviate from the requirements of that sub-regulation to the extent and in the manner as may be agreed to by the competent authority. Proof of any such agreement must be provided, where applicable. Application for any deviation from the regulations relating to the public participation process must be submitted prior to the commencement of the public participation process.


A list of registered I&APs must be included as Appendix I5. Copies of any correspondence and minutes of any meetings held must be included in Appendix I6.


SECTION F: APPENDICES The following appendices must be attached: Appendix A: A3 Locality Map Appendix B: Layout Plan and Sensitivity Maps Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Facility illustration(s) Appendix E: Confirmation of services by Municipality (servitude and infrastructure planning) Appendix F: Details and expertise of Specialist and Declaration of Interest Appendix G: Specialist reports (including terms of reference) Appendix H: Impact Assessment Appendix I: Public Participation Appendix J: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Appendix K: Details of EAP and expertise

Appendix L: Any other Information

Appendix M: Financial Provision (if applicable)

Appendix N: Closure Plan (where applicable) as described in Appendix 5 of EIA Regulations, 2014

Documents

CHIEF DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES · terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of ... Republic of South Africa Tel: +27 ... processing plant on