Clive Phashe - Amazon S3...2 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER NOTICE This

1

Clive Phashe

From: Microsoft Outlook

To: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];


[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];





[email protected] ; [email protected];


[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

inbev.com; [email protected]; [email protected];



[email protected]; [email protected]; leratophoko1

@gmail.com; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; tmoshoeshoe3












[email protected]; [email protected]; radebematshepo903





[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Sent: 08 November 2018 08:46 PM

Subject: Relayed: Project Jordan: Basic Assessment Report available for public review

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server: [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected])

2

[email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected])

3

[email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected])

4

[email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) [email protected] ([email protected]) Subject: Project Jordan: Basic Assessment Report available for public review

1

Clive Phashe

From: Tshidi Ntuka (Mokako) <[email protected]>


To: Alex Pheiffer

Subject: Application CV's (Ref:720.19124.00001

Attachments: CURRICULUM VITAE OF Mohapi Mokako.docx; CURRICULUM VITAE OF Thabang

Mokako.docx

Dear Sir/Madam

Kindly receive the attached CV"s for Vacancies (ref: 720.19124.00001).

Regards

Tshidi Ntuka

AA: MMC Environment and Clean Energy

Cluster: TIE

Sedibeng District Municipality

Corner Leslie and Beaconsfield

Vereeniging

1930

Contact No: 016 450 3312

E-mail: [email protected]

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This message contains specific, confidential or proprietary information for exclusive use by the individual/entities to whom/which it has been addressed. If you or your company is not the intended recipient kindly notify the sender immediately. Any use or dissemination of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.

The content of this message does not constitute a commitment or an offer by Sedibeng District Municipality, except where expressly provided for in a written agreement. Any views and/or opinions expressed by the sender do not necessarily represent those of the Sedibeng District Municipality.

Sedibeng District Municipality do not accept liability or legal responsibility for the contents of this message nor any errors in or omissions to the content of electronically generated communications, or any loss or damages howsoever caused, arising as a result of reliance on the contents or unauthorized use thereof. Should verification be required, kindly request the sender to do so.

Sedibeng District Municipality has taken steps to ensure that this message is free from computer viruses, but the responsibility of detection and prevention lies solely with the recipient. Sedibeng District Municipality does not warrant the integrity of the data transmitted, nor that it had not been corrupted nor previously intercepted and/or tampered with.

2











3



1

Clive Phashe

From: Suzan Aidelomo Transnet Freight Rail JHB <[email protected]>

Sent: 14 November 2018 11:14 AM

To: Alex Pheiffer

Subject: Proposed project

Greetings

Kindly indicate if the proposed project will affect the Railway line

Regards,

Suzan Aidelomo

Environmental Specialist

Risk Management- Transnet Freight Rail-BU SAC

011 7742111

083 278 9500

[email protected]

www.transnet.net

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email and its attachments is both confidential and subject

to copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified not to read, disclose copy or use

the contents thereof in any manner whatsoever, but are kindly requested to notify the sender and delete it

immediately. This e-mail message does not create any legally binding contract between Transnet SOC LTD

and the recipient, unless the contrary is specifically stated. Statements and opinions expressed in e-mails

may not represent those of Transnet SOC LTD. While Transnet will take reasonable precautions, it cannot

give any guarantee or warrant that this email will be free of virus infections, errors, interception and,

therefore, cannot be held liable for any loss or damages incurred by the recipient, as a result of any of the

above-mentioned factors.

1

Clive Phashe

From: Vena, Unathi (GPDRT) <[email protected]>

Sent: 14 November 2018 08:14 AM

To: Alex Pheiffer

Cc: Clive Phashe

Subject: RE: Project Jordan: Basic Assessment Report available for public review

UID09duf63i2bd

Good morning

I kindly request that you to direct to all correspondence to Mr. Freeman Masuku is the Chief Director for DRT-

Planning and his section deals with the kind of matter email [email protected] .

Kind Regards,

Ms.Unath Vena

Regional Manager

DRT Vereeniging Region

Mobile: 074 080 4471 / 016 451 1047

Disclaimer: The Gauteng Provincial Government does not take responsibility for Gauteng Provincial Government users' personal views. Gauteng Provincial Government services available online at www.gautengonline.gov.za - The information contained in this communication from [email protected] sent at 2018-11-14 08:14:31 is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for use by [email protected] and others authorized to receive it. If you are not [email protected] you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Powered by Afrovation.

From: Alex Pheiffer <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 8:46 PM

To: Alex Pheiffer <[email protected]>

Cc: Clive Phashe <[email protected]>

Subject: Project Jordan: Basic Assessment Report available for public review

PROJECT JORDAN: PROPOSED MAIZE WET MILL PLANT, NEAR VEREENINGING

SLR REF. NO.: 720.19124.00001

GDARD REF. NO.: Gaut 002/18-19/E0097

Dear Interested and Affected Party

Project Jordan Holding Company (Pty) Ltd is facilitating the environmental application process for the proposed

maize wet mill plant which would be developed and operated as a majority Black Owned (>51%) plant. The

proposed maize wet mill plant would be located on Erf 188 of Leeuwkuil Ext 5 and a portion of Portion 237 of the

farm Leeuwkuil 596 IQ, on Stout Close (off Lager Road) in the Emfuleni Local Municipality in the Sedibeng District

Municipality.

2

The development and operation of the proposed maize wet mill plant includes activities listed under the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2014 (as amended). Such listed activities are prohibited from

commencing until authorisation is obtained from the competent authority, which in this case is the Gauteng

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). The activities that are triggered require a Basic

Assessment (BA) process to inform the GDARD’s decision on the application for environmental authorisation. In

addition, the proposed project also requires authorisation from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) for

specific water uses under Section 21 of the National Water Act, 1998 (No. 36 of 1998) (NWA).

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SLR) has been appointed as the independent environmental consultant to

undertake the BA process for the proposed maize wet mill plant.

Please find attached a copy of the Executive Summary of the Basic Assessment Report (BAR). The Executive

Summary provides a synopsis of the BAR.

Interested and Affected Parties have 30-days from 09 November to 10 December 2018 to review and provide

comment on any aspect of the proposed project and the findings of the BA process. A copy of the full report has

been made available on the SLR website (at https://slrconsulting.com/za/slr-documents/) and at the Vereeniging

Public Library. Electronic copies (compact disk) of the report can be requested from SLR.

Any comments should be forwarded to SLR at the contact details provided below. For comments to be included in

the updated BAR that is submitted to GDARD for decision-making, comments should reach SLR by no later than 10

December 2018.

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Attention: Alex Pheiffer or Clive Phashe

PO Box 1596, Cramerview 2060 (if using post please call SLR to notify us of your submission)

Tel: (011) 467 0945

Fax: (011) 467 0978

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Alex

Alex Pheiffer

Senior Environmental Consultant-

+27 83 269 7545

+27 11 467 0945

2027

[email protected] -

SLR Consulting Unit 7

Fourways Manor Office Park

1 MacBeth Avenue

Fourways, Johannesburg, Gauteng, 2191-

Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer

3

This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the

recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together

with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically

stated.

ZAEXC1S

1

Clive Phashe

From: SalomeS Strydom <[email protected]>


To: Alex Pheiffer; Matthew Hemming

Cc: Cecil Schreuder; Sampie Shivambu; Clive Phashe

Subject: Re: Project Jordan: Basic Assessment Report available for public review

Good day, Basic Assessment report received 8 November 2018 refers. I would hereby like to inform you that the Emfuleni Local Municipality Water and Sanitation section has no objection to the application. Prior consultation has taken place and all concerns have been addressed to satisfaction of the Manager Planning and projects, Metsi-a-Lekoa (Water and Sanitation). Kind regards

Salome Strydom

Manager: Planning, Assets & Projects

Metsi-a-Lekoa

Emfuleni Local Municipality

Tel: (016 ) 986-8315

Cell: 083-485-0872

Fax: 086-555-5917

[email protected] 26°41'22.14"S 27°48'40.24"E

This e-mail and any file attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged

and/or confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy it. If you are not the addressee you may not

disclose, copy, distribute or take any action based on the contents hereof. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited

and may be unlawful. The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail message may not necessarily be those of the Emfuleni

Local Municipality. >>> Alex Pheiffer <[email protected]> 11/08/18 8:47 PM >>>

PROJECT JORDAN: PROPOSED MAIZE WET MILL PLANT, NEAR VEREENINGING

SLR REF. NO.: 720.19124.00001

GDARD REF. NO.: Gaut 002/18-19/E0097

Dear Interested and Affected Party

Project Jordan Holding Company (Pty) Ltd is facilitating the environmental application process for the

proposed maize wet mill plant which would be developed and operated as a majority Black Owned (>51%)

plant. The proposed maize wet mill plant would be located on Erf 188 of Leeuwkuil Ext 5 and a portion of

Portion 237 of the farm Leeuwkuil 596 IQ, on Stout Close (off Lager Road) in the Emfuleni Local

Municipality in the Sedibeng District Municipality.

The development and operation of the proposed maize wet mill plant includes activities listed under the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2014 (as amended). Such listed activities are

2

prohibited from commencing until authorisation is obtained from the competent authority, which in this case

is the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). The activities that are

triggered require a Basic Assessment (BA) process to inform the GDARD’s decision on the application for

environmental authorisation. In addition, the proposed project also requires authorisation from the

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) for specific water uses under Section 21 of the National Water

Act, 1998 (No. 36 of 1998) (NWA).

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SLR) has been appointed as the independent environmental

consultant to undertake the BA process for the proposed maize wet mill plant.

Please find attached a copy of the Executive Summary of the Basic Assessment Report (BAR). The

Executive Summary provides a synopsis of the BAR.

Interested and Affected Parties have 30-days from 09 November to 10 December 2018 to review and

provide comment on any aspect of the proposed project and the findings of the BA process. A copy of the

full report has been made available on the SLR website (at https://slrconsulting.com/za/slr-documents/) and

at the Vereeniging Public Library. Electronic copies (compact disk) of the report can be requested from

SLR.

Any comments should be forwarded to SLR at the contact details provided below. For comments to be

included in the updated BAR that is submitted to GDARD for decision-making, comments should reach

SLR by no later than 10 December 2018.

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Attention: Alex Pheiffer or Clive Phashe

PO Box 1596, Cramerview 2060 (if using post please call SLR to notify us of your submission)

Tel: (011) 467 0945

Fax: (011) 467 0978

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Alex

Alex Pheiffer Senior Environmental Consultant-

+27 83 269 7545

+27 11 467 0945

2027

[email protected] -

SLR Consulting Unit 7


1 MacBeth Avenue


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the


3


stated. ZAEXC1S -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean. Click here to report this message as spam.

Directorate Land Use and Soil Management, Private Bag x120, Pretoria, 0001

Delpen Building, c/o Annie Botha & Union Streets, Riviera

From: Director: Land Use and Soil Management

Tel: (012) 319 7634 Fax: (012) 329 5938 e-mail: [email protected] 012 3197580 [email protected]

SLR PO Box 1596 Cramerview 2060 15 November 2018 Dear Sir/Madam This serves as a notice of receipt and confirms that your application has been captured in our electronic AgriLand tracking and management system. It is strongly recommended that you use the on-line AgriLand application facility in future. Detail of your application as captured: Type: Applicability Your reference number: 20181108 Property Description: Leeuwkuil 596-IQ, ptn 237 x 5/Erf 188 Dated: 8 November 2018 Please use the following reference number in all enquiries: AgriLand reference number: 2018_11_0087 Enquiries can be made to the above postal, fax or e-mail address. Yours sincerely, HJ Buys pp DIRECTOR: LAND USE AND SOIL MANAGEMENT http://www.agis.agric.za/agriland

mailto:[email protected]

13294381_1

Senior Partner: JC Els Managing Partner: SJ Hutton Partners: BW Abraham RB Africa NG Alp OA Ampofo-Anti RL Appelbaum DC Bayman KL Beilings AE Bennett AP Blair DHL Booysen AR Bowley JL Brink MS Burger RI Carrim T Cassim SJ Chong A Christie KL Collier KM Colman

KE Coster K Couzyn DB Cron PA Crosland JH Davies PM Daya L de Bruyn PU Dela JHB de Lange M Denenga DW de Villiers BEC Dickinson

MA Diemont DA Dingley G Driver HJ du Preez CP du Toit SK Edmundson KH Eiser AE Esterhuizen MJR Evans AA Felekis GA Fichardt G Fitzmaurice

JB Forman C Gabriel CP Gaul KL Gawith OH Geldenhuys MM Gibson SJ Gilmour H Goolam CI Gouws PD Grealy JM Harvey MH Hathorn JS Henning KR Hillis XNC Hlatshwayo S Hockey CM Holfeld PM Holloway AV Ismail ME Jarvis CM Jonker S Jooste LA Kahn M Kennedy A Keyser

JC Kraamwinkel M Kyle J Lamb A Manie L Marais S McCafferty MC McIntosh SJ McKenzie SI Meltzer CS Meyer AJ Mills JA Milner D Milo

NP Mngomezulu M Moloi LE Mostert VM Movshovich RA Nelson ZN Ntshona AN Nyatsumba L Odendaal GJP Olivier N Paige AMT Pardini AS Parry

S Patel GR Penfold SE Phajane TC Phala MA Phillips D Ramjettan GI Rapson Z Rawoot K Rew NJA Robb DC Rudman WJ Rysbergen M Sader H Samsodien JW Scholtz KE Shepherd AJ Simpson N Singh N Singh-Nogueira P Singh J Smit MP Spalding PS Stein MW Straeuli LJ Swaine

Z Swanepoel A Thakor TK Thekiso A Toefy PZ Vanda PP van der Merwe SE van der Meulen CS Vanmali JE Veeran B Versfeld MG Versfeld

TA Versfeld DM Visagie EME Warmington J Watson AWR Westwood RH Wilson M Yudaken Chief Operating Officer: SA Boyd

Webber Wentzel is associated with ALN


Attention: Alex Pheiffer / Clive Phashe

By E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

90 Rivonia Road, Sandton Johannesburg, 2196

PO Box 61771, Marshalltown Johannesburg, 2107, South Africa

Docex 26 Johannesburg

T +27 11 530 5000 F +27 11 530 5111

www.webberwentzel.com

Your reference Our reference Date

720.19124.00001 G Rapson / P Novotny 10 December 2018 GDARD: Gaut 002/18-19/E2290 3030687

Dear Sirs

Comments on the Basic Assessment Report prepared in support of, and objection against, the application for an environmental authorisation for the proposed Jordan Maize Wet Mill Plant, Vereeniging (GDARD reference: Gaut 002/18-19/E2290) ("EA Application")

1. Executive summary

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

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

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

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

Page 2

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.2.2 Effluent discharge: The BAR indicates that a domestic sewerage treatment plant and a waste water / effluent treatment plant will be installed and operated on-site under the ambit of legally declared general authorisations. An inadequate legal assessment has failed to record, however, that these activities in actual fact require a WUL or integrated WUL, with the further consequences that impacts resulting from these activities have not been comprehensively assessed. For example, at no point has salt loading as a consequence of the total

Page 3

dissolved salts in the treated waste water being discharged into the environment and/or sprayed into the ground via irrigation methods been addressed, nor has the consequences of concrete wall ruptures been sought to be mitigated against. These impacts are likely to have consequences for the receiving environment;

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

1.2.3 Need and Desirability: Jordan / the EAP have placed an over-emphasised focus on the developmental policy and spatial planning frameworks at the national, regional and local levels. In doing so, they have undertaken an idealistic, conceptual and foundational assessment of the need and desirability for the proposed maize wet mill plant, and have ignored the practical, feasible and market implications of the proposed project. Whether the project is principally aligned with authoritative guidelines and social, economic and spatial development cannot be undermined by the factual, regional, market and activity-specific context in which the project is to be developed. Jordan has failed to consider that THS not only operates three milling plants in the region in which the proposed project is to be developed, but that THS currently meets the national demand for the maize plant's products. Demand for additional processing in South Africa by a new maize wet mill plant in this region cannot be economically justified or substantiated in terms of need and demand, and THS submits that a market for these new products will only be obtained by the displacement of the current domestic production capability. The development of a new maize wet mill plant in this region will thus have significant and adverse consequences for local production, with knock-on effects throughout industry and the domestic market; and essentially, the proposed project will result in a less than zero-sum gain, i.e. no net real benefit from a job creation or economic perspective, potential populace / social displacement and a net negative impact on the environment. It has thus not been adequately proven that the proposed project will be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.

1.2.4 Procedural flaws: Public participation has not ensured that municipal role players have been sufficiently engaged, nor have enquiring community members and I&APs had their concerns allayed in respect of the as-yet unidentified BEE partner which is intended to have majority ownership of the proposed plant. The ultimate BEE partner will have a bearing on whether Jordan will have sufficient technical and financial resources to comply with the conditions of any EA that is granted. The significance of the failure to identify the BEE partner should not be underplayed. The BAR further records that the

Page 4

proposed project will also contribute toward meeting the conditions imposed on Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV in its merger with SABMiller, however, it is insufficient to refer to merger conditions without detail as to what the conditions are that Jordan is seeking to meet by implementing the proposed project. The interrelationship between these large industry players in this industry has also not been contextualised for the benefit of I&APs participating in the public consultation process.

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

2. Introduction

2.1 The BAR provides that Jordan is facilitating the environmental authorisation ("EA") application process for the proposed maize wet mill plant which would be developed and operated as a majority Black Owned (>51%) plant. THS understands, however, that the proposed empowerment transaction has yet to be implemented. The proposed maize wet mill plant would be located in the Emfuleni Local Municipality ("ELM") in the Sedibeng District Municipality ("SDM"), and would occupy an area of approximately 16.2 ha.

2.2 SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd ("SLR") has been appointed as the independent environmental assessment practitioner ("EAP") to undertake the basic assessment process for the proposed maize wet mill plant in support of the EA Application.

2.3 THS, as a registered I&AP in respect of the proposed EA Application, hereby submits its comments on and objections to the BAR within the 30-day period prescribed by SLR.1

3. THS's interest in the EA Application

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

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

3.3 Despite the executive summary of the BAR providing that:

1 Pursuant to the public participation process mandated under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998

("NEMA").

Page 5

"[a]ll identified impacts are considered in a cumulative manner such that the impacts of the current baseline conditions on and surrounding the site and those potentially associated with the project are discussed and assessed together",

the BAR fails, to assess the market- dynamic, forces and demands likely to be impacted by the new entry of a large-scale industrial/agricultural installation, as well as the proximity of the proposed plant to three of THS's existing milling facilities. These cumulative impacts will have significant and potentially destructive impacts on the domestic industry and local production capabilities, which have not been addressed or assessed in the BAR.

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

4. THS's comments on the BAR

THS, on the basis of its above interests, as well as various regulatory, environmental and technical concerns, herein sets out its comments on the BAR.

4.1 Procedural and substantive flaws in the application process

Incoherent application timelines and processes

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

4.1.2 The date on which the EA Application itself was submitted to GDARD has nowhere been confirmed. No other submission dates are highlighted by the EAP. This is problematic in that it is not possible for I&APs to verify whether Jordan is in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 ("EIA Regulations")2 and the timelines prescribing the EIA process

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

2 Published under Government Notice R982 in Government Gazette 38282 of 4 December 2014, as amended.

Page 6

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

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

Assessment and reporting requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Page 7

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

4.1.8 On this basis, Jordan and SLR have identified that the following activities under Listing Notice 1 of the EIA Regulations3 trigger the need to obtain an EA for the proposed project:

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

4.1.8.2 Listed Activity 8, relating to the development and related operation of hatcheries or agri-industrial facilities outside industrial complexes where the development footprint covers an area of 2 000 square metres or more. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the proposed project being an agri-industrial operation outside an industrial complex covering an area of more than 2 000 m2;

4.1.8.3 Listed Activity 14, relating to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or for the storage and handling, of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 80 cubic metres or more but not exceeding 500 cubic metres. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the proposed plant intending to store a number of chemicals considered to be dangerous goods, as well as diesel for backup power generation, the storage of which will be below 500m3;

4.1.8.4 Listed Activity 25, relating to the development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage with a daily throughput capacity of more than 2 000 cubic metres but less than 15 000 cubic metres. The BID clarifies that this activity is triggered by the proposed project requiring wastewater (plant effluent) and domestic sewer treatment plants, whose combined daily throughput capacity would be 5 654,5m3 per day;

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


Page 8

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

4.1.9 Listing Notice 1 and Listing Notice 34 trigger activities which require a basic assessment process under the EIA Regulations. The basic assessment process is a less stringent, rigorous and less time-consuming process which is reserved for activities which impose fewer and/or less destructive impacts on the environment. The BAR has been prepared on this basis.

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

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

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

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

4.1.12.2 Listed Activity 14 of Listing Notice 1, relating to the storage of dangerous goods: Given that coal is a flammable solid comprised of carbon, and is thus also classified as a dangerous good, it must be assessed whether less than 500m3 of combined storage capacity can be contemplated for the proposed project. Given the amount of combined dangerous goods to be stored and handled on-site, a Listing Notice 25 activity may be triggered; and



Page 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need and desirability

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

Page 10

4.1.19 The Department of Environmental Affairs ("DEA") published its Guideline on Need and Desirability in 2014 ("Need and Desirability Guideline").6 Despite having identified the Need and Desirability Guideline in the legislative and policy context of the Draft BAR, what will be evidenced below is that the EAP has not fully engaged with the Need and Desirability Guideline in seeking to motivate the proposed project.

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

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

4.1.22 In addition, in seeking to align the proposed project with the principles of NEMA, Jordan / SLR have made unsupported, intangible statements, such as:

"Industry and agriculture has been identified as a key driver of economic growth and job creation and as such the proposed maize wet mill plant is anticipated to serve the developmental interests of people."

"Government has set development goals aimed at reducing poverty, unemployment and inequality. The contribution of the industry and agricultural sectors in this regard is promoted in the national, regional and local policy and planning frameworks, thus the proposed development is deemed acceptable in principle." (emphases added)

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

4.1.24 In motivating the need and desirability of a proposed project, it must be ensured and evidenced that the project will be sustainable from an economic, social and environmental perspective. THS is of the view that the BAR does

6 Published in Government Notice R891 of Government Gazette 38108 of 20 October 2014.

Page 11

not motivate or evidence sustainable development, because its assessment does not address the achievement of the triple bottom line in terms of the demand for this very specific project. There has been no information provided which considers how the development may affect or promote justifiable economic and social development, within the context of the relevant spatial plans and ecological integrity.

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

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

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

4.1.27.1 THS Germiston Mill, 68 km away;

4.1.27.2 THS Kliprivier, 39 km away; and

4.1.27.3 THS Meyerton Mill, 20 km away.

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

Page 12

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

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

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

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

Description of the policy and legislative context

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

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

4.1.33 Waste management

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

4.1.33.2 At page 2-4 of the BAR, it is recorded that the proposed maize wet mill plant would require the storage of coal ash, which is a Category C

Page 13

activity7 requiring compliance with the National Norms and Standards for Waste Storage.8 Category C(2) relates to the storage of hazardous waste at a facility that has the capacity to store in excess of 80m3 of hazardous waste at any one time, excluding the storage of hazardous waste in lagoons or temporary storage of such waste. In relation to the proposed project, the EAP provides that the proposed plant would temporarily store approximately 210m3 of coal ash for removal from site at any given time [Note: THS submits that this activity may also require a WUL in terms of section 21(g) of the NWA, as set out below]. Beyond this, not much more is said.

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

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

4.1.33.4.1 the Waste Classification and Management Regulations, 20139 have not been identified or considered; and

4.1.33.4.2 the National Waste Information Regulations, 201210 have not been identified or considered, given that the BAR records quantities in the region of 210m³ of coal ash and 35m3 of other hazardous

7 Per the List of Waste Management Activities that have, or are likely to have, a Detrimental Effect on the

Environment published under Government Notice 921 in Government Gazette 37083 of 29 November 2013, as amended.

8 Published under Government Notice R926 in Government Gazette 37088 of 29 November 2013.

9 Published under Government Notice R634 in Government Gazette 36784 of 23 August 2013.

10 Published under Government Notice R625 in Government Gazette 35583 of 13 August 2012.

Page 14

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

4.1.33.5 Insofar as general waste is concerned, which is contemplated to be generated at page 4-11 of the BAR, the BAR fails to identify as applicable the National Norms and Standards for the Sorting, Shredding, Grinding, Crushing, Screening or Baling of General Waste, 2017.11

4.1.33.6 Contaminated soils are also contemplated to result from the proposed milling operations (see page 4-11 of the BAR), yet the BAR fails to identify the legislative prescriptions of the National Norms and Standards for the Remediation of Contaminated Land and Soil Quality in the Republic of South Africa12 as being applicable to the treatment of any such resulting contaminated soils.

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

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

4.1.34 Air quality

4.1.34.1 The BAR provides, at page 2-4 thereof, that:

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

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

11

Published under Government Notice 1093 in Government Gazette 41175 of 11 October 2017. 12

Published under Government Notice 331 in Government Gazette 37603 of 2 May 2014.

Page 15

4.1.34.3 Subcategory 5.1 of the NEMAQA Listed Activities13 lists the storage and handling of ore and coal not situated on the premises of a mine or works as defined in the Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 as an activity which requires an atmospheric emission licence ("AEL"). Applications requiring the AEL for this activity are locations designed to hold more than 100 000 tons. THS submits that the proposed maize wet mill plant will likely meet these capacities and will thus require an AEL for its coal storage activities (see paragraphs 4.2.12 to 4.2.16 below), and Jordan has not indicated otherwise.

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

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

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

4.1.34.7 In respect of the Vaal Triangle Air-Shed Priority Area, the EAP indicates that:

"The proposed maize wet mill falls within the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area. New developments which are associated with atmospheric emissions, and hence the potential for contributing to air pollutant concentrations, are subject to focused scrutiny by national air pollution control officers. Emphasis is being placed on ensuring that best practice control measures are being proposed

13

Listed Activities and Associated Minimum Emission Standards identified in terms of section 21 of NEMA, published under Government Notice 893 in Government Gazette 37054 of 22 November 2013, as amended.

Page 16

for implementation and that the development will not substantially add to the existing air pollution burden in the region. The design of the plant has taken this into consideration." (emphases added)

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

4.1.34.9 No assessment is contemplated of whether air quality offsets may be required to be implemented on the basis of the principles and prescriptions published in the Air Quality Offsets Guideline.14

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

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

4.1.35 Water use and management

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

14

Published under Government Notice 333 in Government Gazette 39833 of 18 March 2016.

Page 17

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.35.7 In addition, at various points throughout the BAR and during stakeholder engagement, Jordan and SLR indicate that waste water may be used for irrigation purposes at the proposed plant. However, the legislative and

Page 18

policy context fails crucially to identify and assess the Regulations Requiring that the Taking of Water for Irrigation Purposes be Measured, Recorded and Reported.15 The BAR also fails to identify and asses the impacts of increased salt contents ("Total Dissolved Salts" or "TDS") being sprayed during irrigation processes (see discussion further below).

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

4.1.36 Dangerous goods storage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.37 Hazardous substance management and control

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

15

Published under General Notice 131 in Government Gazette 40621 of 17 February 2017.

Page 19

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

4.1.38 Spatial planning and land use management

4.1.38.1 Although the minutes of the meeting held between GDARD, Jordan and SLR (see Appendix 4.5) note that the Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework Standard ("GPEMF Standard")16 does not apply, as the proposed site falls within Zone 1 - Urban Development and as the proposed project triggers listed activities which are not included in the GPEMF Standard, it is not to say that the GPEMF itself does not and need not inform the proposed project. As set out in more detail below, the GPEMF ought to have been substantively assessed in the BAR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.38.3 The GPEMF contains Environmental Management Zones. These represent the foundation for determining the likely nature of the future use of land in Gauteng as currently foreseen by government (at least at a provincial level). In the desired state process, the various spatial plans have been simplified to reflect spatial priorities for conservation, agriculture development, urban development and rural development. Given the different mandates and goals of each of the policies, there are

16

Published under Government Notice 164 in Government Gazette 41473 of 2 March 2018.

Page 20

obviously significant areas where the different land use options are not aligned. For the purpose of the desired state phase, these areas are described as pressure points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public participation process followed

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

Page 21

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

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

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

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

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

Page 22

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

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

4.2 Substantive legal comments

NEMA Listed Activities triggered

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

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

Main facilities:

4.2.2.1 Corn off-loading, cleaning and storage silos;

4.2.2.2 By-product load out area;

4.2.2.3 Chemical intake and storage tanks;

4.2.2.4 Boiler house (including coal storage and dosing);

4.2.2.5 Internal roads;

4.2.2.6 Treatment plant (for water supply);

4.2.2.7 Offices and administration block (including canteen and parking areas);

Page 23

4.2.2.8 Utilities (water tanks, air compressors, cooling tower, transformers, fire control room, quality control room including laboratories);

4.2.2.9 Steeping, milling and drying area;

4.2.2.10 Refinery plant, tank farm and load out area;

4.2.2.11 Warehouses and spent carbon storage area;

4.2.2.12 Access, weigh-bridges and guard houses;

4.2.2.13 Workshops and truck wash;

4.2.2.14 Waste water (industrial effluent) treatment plant; and

4.2.2.15 Service infrastructure (including switching station and underground cables from the Leeuwkuil substation, water supply pipeline, domestic sewer package plant and storm water facilities).

Key activities:

4.2.2.16 Site establishment, including storm water controls;

4.2.2.17 Clearing of vegetation in accordance with the vegetation management procedures;

4.2.2.18 Stripping and stockpiling of soil resources and earthworks in accordance with soil plan;

4.2.2.19 Foundations, structures and roads;

4.2.2.20 Equipment, pipework and utilities installations;

4.2.2.21 Transportation of construction phase materials and staff (via existing roads);

4.2.2.22 Collection, storage and removal of construction related waste;

4.2.2.23 Landscaping;

4.2.2.24 Delivery of raw materials and other supplies by truck and removal of waste by truck; and

4.2.2.25 Storage of incoming materials.

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

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

Page 24

This is by virtue of the fact that vast amounts of coal (also classified as a dangerous good) are expected to be stored and handled on-site in excess of 500m3;

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

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

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

NWA authorisations

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

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

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

4.2.7.1 section 21(b): storing water;

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

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

Page 25

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.9 Jordan / SLR similarly rely on the section 21(f) NWA water use being covered under the GA published under GN R399 in GG 26187 of 26 March 2004. However, at page 2-7 of the BAR, this water use is incorrectly identified as also permitting the irrigation of any land with waste or water containing waste generated through any industrial activity or by a waterworks, provided that the irrigation is within the limits and conditions set out in the authorisation. This

Page 26

has seemingly been swapped with the listed section 21(e) water use at page 2-7, which refers to the permitted discharge of waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer or other conduit provided that the discharge is within the limits and conditions set out in the authorisation. Again, several issues prevail with this contemplated water use and its authorisation:

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

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

4.2.9.3 Practically, the BAR fails to mention how much of the effluent produced on-site will be discharged into the environment. No mention is made regarding the capacity of the water treatment plant either, which is a critical consideration given the fact that the PWV region is a water deficient area, compounded further by the state of disrepair of the Emfuleni and Leeukuil Water Works. The GA specifies that only up to 2 000m3 of waste water may be discharged on any given day. The BAR indicates, however, that a total of 168 000m3 of effluent will be produced per month, which equates to approximately 5 600m3 of effluent per day. Despite the BAR's failure to qualify its intended irrigation activities to ensure application of and compliance with the GA for this water use, if it is assumed that only 2 000m3 of wastewater will be discharged, and 2 000m3 will be irrigated, the plant will still produce excess effluent which the BAR also fails to address in terms of how the excess will be dealt with. The BAR provides little to no information on / assessment of the realistic quality of the effluent likely to be discharged "into the environment" and how or if this is to be monitored, especially as it will ultimately enter the downstream drainage channels, including Leeuwkuil Dam near Sharpeville and Powerville, and eventually into the Vaal River.

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

Page 27

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

NEMAQA authorisations

4.2.12 Jordan / SLR indicate that the proposed project will not require and AEL, as small controlled boilers below the capacity prescribed in the NEMAQA Listed Activities will be used. These boilers are to be governed by the Declaration of a Small Boiler as a Controlled Emitter and Establishment of Emission Standards, 2013.17

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

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

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

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

Specialist assessments

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

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

4.2.17.2 a Climate Change Assessment / Study (on the basis of the severity of existing emissions in the priority air-shed area and the greenhouse gas

17

Published under Government Notice 831 in Government Gazette 36973 of 1 November 2013.

Page 28

reporting obligations Jordan will have). The Court18 recently stressed the importance of a climate change assessment being conducted in support of an application for EA, given the national imperative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in line with international commitments.

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

4.3 Substantive technical comments

Inappropriate location and land use

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

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

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

Infrastructure services and resources

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

18

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58 (8

March 2017).

Page 29

4.3.5 Water

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

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

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

4.3.6 Electricity

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

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

4.3.7 Sewerage

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

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

Page 30

remove TDS from the waste water. Leaving this unmitigated will have severe adverse consequences for the receiving environment.

4.3.8 Traffic and road infrastructure

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

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

Air quality

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

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

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

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

Page 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Conclusion

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

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

5.3 In addition, the failure to undertake a comprehensive due diligence of the legal and policy framework informing the EA Application has resulted in Jordan / the EAP underplaying the full extent of activities / process to be undertaken and wastes to be

Page 32

generated, with the further, crucial consequence that various necessary authorisations / approvals have not been identified or sought to be obtained. This incomprehensive assessment process has resulted in the EAP conducting a basic assessment process instead of the full S&EI process, which is a fatal flaw of the BAR.

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

WEBBER WENTZEL

Garyn Rapson

Partner Direct tel: +27 11 530 5892

Direct fax: +27115306892

Email: [email protected]

1

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT MANAGER: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Tel: +27 16 930 5590

Fax: +27 16 988 1531 E-mail: [email protected]

P.O. Box 3

C/o Klasie Havenga Street and Frikkie Meyer Boulevard

VANDERBIJLPARK 1911

Web: www.emfuleni.gov.za

Date: 14 December 2018 File: Comments

SLR CONSULTING (PTY) LTD P.O BOX 1596 CRAMERVIEW 2060 BY EMAIL

Attention: Alex

Dear Sir,

COMMENTS: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A MAIZE WET MILL PLANT ON ERF

188 AND A PORTION OF PORTION 237 OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ, EMFULENI

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

The above matter has reference. The Emfuleni Local Municipality’s Section of Environmental

Management acknowledges receipt of the draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed

development. We also appreciate you identifying us as an Interested and Affected Party for this

particular project. Our comments are as follows:

The Receiving Environment

Location

-The site is surrounded by a fresh produce market, industrial and residential developments, major

roads and open spaces.

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

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

Environmental Features

-Indigenous vegetation found on site.

2

Infrastructure and Services

Potable Water

- Comments from the Metsi a Lekoa must be obtained to confirm the supply of water to the

proposed development.

Sewage

- Comments from the Metsi a Lekoa must be obtained regarding the use of an onsite sewage

treatment plant.

Storm Water

- The proposed development will result in a large impervious area. As such storm water

management is of great importance. Therefore, the storm water management plan must be

correctly implemented.

Solid Waste Management

Construction phase

- Adequate waste skips to be provided around the construction camp and site.

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

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

- No illegal burning of waste should take place on site.

- Hazardous waste must be separated from general waste and disposed of at a designated

hazardous landfill site.

Operational phase

- Waste must be handled in the correct manner following the principles enshrined within the

‘Cradle to Grave’ concept.

- It is recommended that waste be separated and sorted on site and disposed of correctly at a

licensed municipal landfill site.

- All contaminated/hazardous forms of waste such as oil cans, rags, etc. must be correctly stored

and disposed of not making its way to the general landfill sites.

Air Quality

- Emfuleni Local Municipality falls within the Vaal-Triangle Airshed Priority Area. It is declared as

such due to the very poor quality of ambient air in the region.

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

- The Sedibeng District Municipality must be engaged to clarify requirements relating to Section

23 activities.

- Since excavation involves removal of soil cover and leaving bare soil, it is recommended that

dust suppression be conducted at all times to reduce particulate matter (PM10).

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

diesel emissions.

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

3

Other Recommendations

The following is further recommended:

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

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

contamination.

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

2013).

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

- Comments and consent must be obtained from the Metsi a Lekoa regarding the discharge of

industrial effluent.

- Only indigenous plant species should be used for landscaping. As far as possible, plants

naturally growing on the development site that would otherwise be destroyed during

construction should be incorporated into landscaped areas.

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

footprint.

- All recommendations made in the specialist reports and mitigation measures attached to the

EMPr must be adhered to.

- Environmental Management Inspectors are to be given full cooperation as they will regularly

conduct site inspections to monitor and enforce compliance with legislative requirements.

On the basis of the above key factors, Environmental Management does not object to the

proposed development provided that the above factors are carefully considered, addressed and

stringently implemented. Furthermore, this is dependent on the Environmental Authorisation

being obtained from the GDARD.

Regards,

The Section of Environmental Management

1

Clive Phashe

From: edward von bodenstein <[email protected]>

Sent: 05 December 2018 11:31 AM

To: Clive Phashe

Subject: Fwd: Re-Our telecon of 5th December 2018 regarding:SAB proposed glass

manufacturing company and Proposed maize wet mill plant,Vereeniging

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Dear Mr Phashe

This is for your info

Regards

Edward

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: edward von bodenstein <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018, 11:28

Subject: Re-Our telecon of 5th December 2018 regarding:SAB proposed glass manufacturing company and

Proposed maize wet mill plant,Vereeniging

To: <[email protected]>

Dear Mr Hemming

The above matter has reference.

Pursuant to our telecon,l indicated my interest in participating in ine of the above proposed project on the

basis of BEE.

Further to this in mind,l am making a humble request of putting me in touch with the responsible persons in

the two projects.

The intention is to try and create a broad spectrum of participants within the community to the exclusion of

usual beneficiaries.

I trust that you will be of assistance.

Regards

Edward Khululekile Von Bodenstein

0827545268

1

COMMENTS

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

Dust to be controlled amicable

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

Environmental management Plan to be implemented as outline

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

Title Mr First Name Eddy

Iniitials E Surname Tshabalala

Organisation Sedibeng District Municipality Email [email protected]

Postal Address Merriman street, Vereeniging

Postal Code 1939

Tel No 0164503274 Fax No

Please formally register me as an interested and affected part (I&AP) so that I may receive further information and notifications

I would like notifications by email

I would like to receive documents for comment as follows

PROJECT: Proposed Maize Wet Mill Plant, Vereeniging , Gauteng Province Basic Assessment Report

By SLR

Signature Eddy Tshabalala Date 15/01/2019

1

Clive Phashe

From: Suzan Aidelomo Transnet Freight Rail JHB <[email protected]>

Sent: 16 January 2019 12:29 PM

To: Clive Phashe

Subject: RE: Project Jordan: Proposed Maize Wet Mill Plant

Greetings

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

Regards

Suzan

From: Clive Phashe [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 16 January 2019 09:54 AM

To: Suzan Aidelomo Transnet Freight Rail JHB <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Project Jordan: Proposed Maize Wet Mill Plant

Importance: High

Morning Ms. Aidelomo,

Pursuant to the previous email, please confirm receipt and no objection to the project as stated previously.

Kind Regards

From: Clive Phashe

Sent: 14 January 2019 09:38 AM

To: [email protected] Subject: Project Jordan: Proposed Maize Wet Mill Plant

Importance: High

Dear Ms. Aidelomo

Hope this email finds you well.

Pursuant to our telephonic discussion, we understand that Transnet does not have any comments during this Public

review period as the proposed project site does not cross any railway lines.

On a side point, the applicant wishes to enquire whether the Transnet siding near the site could be used for

transporting materials in the future. Is this something you could assist with at a high level?

Warm regards

Clive Phashe

Clive PhasheEMPA Intern -

+27 11 467 0945

2034

2

[email protected] -


Unit 7


1 MacBeth Avenue


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the



stated.

ZAEXC1S

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email and its attachments is both confidential and subject

to copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified not to read, disclose copy or use

the contents thereof in any manner whatsoever, but are kindly requested to notify the sender and delete it

immediately. This e-mail message does not create any legally binding contract between Transnet SOC LTD

and the recipient, unless the contrary is specifically stated. Statements and opinions expressed in e-mails

may not represent those of Transnet SOC LTD. While Transnet will take reasonable precautions, it cannot

give any guarantee or warrant that this email will be free of virus infections, errors, interception and,

therefore, cannot be held liable for any loss or damages incurred by the recipient, as a result of any of the

above-mentioned factors.

Documents

Clive Phashe - Amazon S3...2 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER NOTICE This