1

Wanda Marais

From: NokoyoD <NokoyoD@daff.gov.za>Sent: 24 May 2019 10:53 AMTo: Wanda MaraisSubject: RE: NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD: Revised Draft Basic Assessment Report: Quest

Petroleum logistics park, filling station & depot

Good day Wanda  Thank you for copying DAFF the invite on the email below. I notice you mention the possibility of clearing indigenous vegetation on the affected site. As Forestry we don’t know of any forest on that site, the vegetation cover may be indigenous but not covered under the NFA. I we happen to be not correct we would rely on you to afford us site inspection which we do not expect at this stage.  Regards  Thabo  

From: Wanda Marais <WMarais@srk.co.za>  Sent: 23 May 2019 03:53 PM Subject: NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD: Revised Draft Basic Assessment Report: Quest Petroleum logistics park, filling station & depot Importance: High  Dear Authorities, Stakeholders & Interested and Affected Parties,  NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD: Revised Draft Basic Assessment Report: Quest Petroleum logistics park, filling station & depot DEDEAT Ref. No: ECm1/C/LN1&3/M/04‐2019  The Draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) for the proposed Quest Petroleum Logistics Park, filling station and depot was made available for a 30‐day comment period from 19 March to 18 April 2019. Subsequently, due to the inclusion of additional information, a Revised Draft BAR has been compiled and is being released for an additional 30‐day comment period.  Please find attached the Executive Summary of the Revised Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR), which has been submitted to the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs & Tourism (DEDEAT) for consideration.   The Executive Summary provides a summary of the key elements of the Revised DBAR, however, should you wish to access the complete report, it can be viewed in printed form at the Walmer Public Library, Port Elizabeth or downloaded from the SRK Consulting webpage by clicking on the link: https://www.srk.co.za/en/za‐quest‐petroleum‐ba‐nelson‐mandela‐bay  The Revised DBAR will be available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days (24 May – 24 June 2019). It will thereafter be amended in response to the comments received and released as the Final Basic Assessment Report (FBAR) which will be submitted to DEDEAT for a decision on whether Environmental Authorisation should be granted or refused. Comments on the Revised DBAR will assist to ensure that all potential environmental impacts related to the listed activities have been assessed. You are therefore urged to submit comments, as these could ultimately influence the recommendations of the FBAR and the decision taken by DEDEAT.   Should you wish to comment on the contents of the Revised DBAR, please submit such comment, in writing, by 17h00 on 24 June 2019 to: 

From: Bloem MarisaTo: Wanda MaraisCc: Karissa Nel; Gareth AndrewsSubject: RE: REQUEST FOR DWS COMMENT: Proposed Quest Petroleum Logistics Park, Filling station & depotDate: 25 June 2019 01:34:43 PM

Good Morning Wanda Apologies for not responding sooner. Our office will respond to the documents that you will upload during the phases of theapplication. We will not be submitting comments at this stage.This is the usual practice as comments are provided during the proposal of the project and notwhen the WULA has been submitted. Once documents are uploaded, only then will wecomment. I hope this clarifies things for you. Kind regardsMarisa

From: Wanda Marais [mailto:WMarais@srk.co.za] Sent: 25 June 2019 10:08 AMTo: Bloem MarisaCc: Karissa Nel; Gareth AndrewsSubject: FW: REQUEST FOR DWS COMMENT: Proposed Quest Petroleum Logistics Park, Fillingstation & depotImportance: High Good morning Ms Bloem, DEDEAT has reiterated their request for comment from DWS as set out below. Can you kindlyprovide the comment as a matter of urgency or confirm that DWS is satisfied with providing theirinput during the WULA process currently underway and will not be submitting comments at thisstage. Kind Regards Wanda Marais

From: Wanda Marais Sent: 17 May 2019 09:40 AMTo: 'bloemm@dwa.gov.za' <bloemm@dwa.gov.za>Subject: FW: REQUEST FOR DWS COMMENT: Proposed Quest Petroleum Logistics Park, Fillingstation & depotImportance: High Good morning Ms Bloem,

I hope that you are well. Kindly revert urgently regarding our request for DWS comment as set out below. Kind Regards Wanda Marais

From: Wanda Marais Sent: 29 April 2019 01:28 PMTo: 'bloemm@dwa.gov.za' <bloemm@dwa.gov.za>Cc: Karissa Nel <KNel@srk.co.za>; Gareth Andrews <GAndrews@srk.co.za>Subject: REQUEST FOR DWS COMMENT: Proposed Quest Petroleum Logistics Park, Filling station& depotImportance: High Good afternoon Ms Bloem, REQUEST FOR DWS COMMENT: Proposed Quest Petroleum Logistics Park, Fuel station &depot I hope that you are well. A copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) for the proposed project was delivered toDWS and was open for comment for a 30-day period (19 March – 18 April 2019). DWS did notsubmit any comment during this time, however DEDEAT has specifically requested that weobtain comment from DWS ‘…with respect to the usage of water from the borehole on site, aswell as any requirements they may have to protect the natural resource of the ground water andaquifers.’ Can you kindly supply us with the requested comment, alternatively with written confirmationthat DWS does not intend to submit any comments on the proposed project? Please take notethat a Water Use Licence application is currently underway for the above-referenced boreholefor which Phase 1 documentation will be submitted shortly. Kind Regards, Wanda Marais B Proc

Public Participation Practitioner

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Ground Floor, Bay Suites, 1a Humewood Rd, Humerail, Port Elizabeth, 6001P O Box 21842, Port Elizabeth, 6000Tel: +27-(0)41-509-4809; Fax: +27-(0)41-509-4850Email: wmarais@srk.co.za

www.srk.co.za

This transmission is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that by its privileged and confidentialnature is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication ofthis transmission by someone other than the intended recipient or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this transmission, or by collect call to the above phonenumber.

DISCLAIMER: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely forthe addressee. If you have received this message in error, please notify the systemmanager/sender. Any unauthorized use, alteration or dissemination is prohibited. TheDepartment of Water and Sanitation further accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss,whether it be direct, indirect or consequential, arising from this e-mail, nor for anyconsequence of its use or storage.

Gideon (Kallie) Erasmus B.Proc, MA (cum laude) in Political Science (Unisa)

Attorney, Notary, Conveyancer Prokureur, Notaris, Aktevervaardiger

Kerkstraat 61 Church St, Prince Albert, 6930 ( (023) 5411 900 6 0866 855 979 * Box / Bus 50, Prince Albert, 6930 kallie@erasmuslaw.com

Our Reference: GE/PE Logistics Park Your Reference: Ms Wanda Marais

Date: 23 June 2019

Ms Wanda Marais SRK Consulting By E-Mail: wmarais@srk.co.za Dear Ms Marais,

INTRODUCTION.

1. We refer to the above and again confirm that we act for:

1.1. Infinite Prospects 142 CC trading as Caltex Greenbushes

1.2. Kouga Business Brokers trading as Caltex Colleen Glen Service

Station; and

1.3. Seven Bridges Trading 23 (Pty) Ltd trading as Caltex Eastern Cape

Marketer (CECM).

Erasmus Environmental and Development Law Attorneys

Omgewings- en Ontwikkelingsreg Prokureurs

COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: QUEST PETROLE-UM LOGISTICS PARK, FILLING STATION & DEPOT: DEDEAT Ref. No: ECm1/C/LN1&3/M/04-2019

2

2. We acknowledge receipt of the Revised Draft Basic Assessment Report

herein and comment as set out below on behalf of our clients.

In Limine: The Revised BAR is fatally flawed as it is impossible to discern from

the contents thereof precisely which activities as listed in the

NEMA EIA Regulations are being proposed and/or require au-

thorisation.

3. The fundamental purpose of an EIA process is to afford members of the

public and other interested parties an opportunity to engage with the

process with a proper understanding of what the proposal entails.

4. The BID for this project states that “The main activities (amongst others)

potentially associated with the proposed project calling for the BA pro-

cess to be followed are the following:” and then lists 4 listed activities.

5. It also claims that “… more detailed information regarding the proposed

project will be made available in the Draft Basic Assessment Report”.

6. The Revised DBAR describes the proposed activity as:

“The applicant, Quest Petroleum (Pty) Ltd., proposes to develop a logis-

tics park, filling station and depot on Portion 52 (of 9) of the Farm Little

Chelsea No. 10 in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipal area. The site co-

vers an area of approximately 5.2 ha and is situated in Seaview Road,

approximately 400 m north of the N2 National Road and very close to

the Seaview Road off-ramp (refer to the Locality Plan in Appendix A).”

7. That description could cover a myriad of listed activities yet the DBAR

contains not a single reference to a listing in terms of the NEMA EIA

Regulations.

3

8. Neither appendix 6, a letter from the department dated 14 February

2019, nor the description of the 24G rectification process now included

in the Revised BAR are of any assistance:

8.1. The letter records that:

“The Section 24 G application was authorised on 23 November

2017. This authorisation was granted only for those activities

which were illegally commenced on the site, and did not author-

ise the full development proposal that was contained in the 2011

application”.

8.2. As neither the 24G application nor authorisation have been dis-

closed to I&APs, the letter is of no use.

8.3. The description of what was authorised in terms of section 24G

contained in the DBAR is similarly of no use as it seems to suggest

that the only part of the proposed project that still requires au-

thorisation is the filling station.

9. To confuse matters further, the BAR says the previously authorised fuel

tanks have been removed, but the site development plan shows existing

80m3 fuel tanks.

10. Unless I&APs know precisely what authorisations are being applied for

and what is or is not extant, no sensible engagement with the EIA pro-

cess is possible.

11. A more fundamental problem, however, is that the applicant now en-

visages a phased development:

“It is proposed to construct the above-mentioned activities in two phas-

es with Phase 1 comprising the Logistics Park and Phase 2 the filling sta-

tion and truck stop with ancillary convenience shop and fast- food res-

4

taurant facilities. Phase 1 will commence as soon as all the relevant au-

thorisations are in place with the construction of Phase 2 starting approx-

imately 1.5 to 2 years later”.

12. This proposed phasing merely confirms that there is no need for the pro-

posed filling station.

13. The omission of the previous application for authorisation in terms of the

ECA, the section 24G application for rectification, all documents related

to the above-listed omissions, and a proper explanation of what the dif-

ference is between expansion and a greenfield development, makes it

impossible, not only for lay persons, but for all I&APs to properly consider

this application and Draft BAR.

14. As such it constitutes a denial of the right of I&APs to administrative ac-

tion that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair as entrenched in the

Constitution and enabled by the Promotion of Administrative Justice

Act, 3 of 2000.

15. Furthermore, as is self-evident from the Revised Draft BAR and accom-

panying reports, there has been no assessment at all of:

15.1. Whether the terms of the 24G authorisation have been complied

with;

15.2. For what purpose the said tank has been used since authorisa-

tion;

15.3. Whether there has been contamination of the site from the exist-

ing fuel tank;

15.4. What impact the proposed expansion will have on the existing

authorisation.

5

16. The fact is that:

16.1. this is an application to expand what started out as a criminally

unlawful activity, a fact not initially drawn to the attention of

I&APs, and in respect of which, the likelihood of a proper public

participation process having been held is unlikely;

16.2. there is nothing in the Revised Draft BAR to even suggest that the

unlawfully constructed tanks and associated infrastructure have

been lawfully used since rectification was authorised; and

16.3. there is no evidence that it has not contaminated the site al-

ready.

17. On this ground alone, the Draft BAR ought to be rejected out of hand

and the applicant compelled, subject also to what is stated below, di-

rected to undertake a full scoping and EIA

NO NEED FOR THE PROPOSED FILLING STATION FACILITY HAS BEEN PROVEN.

18. It is a mandatory requirement of NEMA EIA regulation 2(c) that an appli-

cant must “describe the need and desirability of the proposed alterna-

tives”, which includes the proposed activity and the so-called no-go al-

ternative.

19. There has still been no consideration of alternatives with the applicant

merely stating that if the proposed activity is not authorised, no jobs will

be created.

20. In Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General: Envi-

ronmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and

6

Environment, Mpumalanga Province and Others1, the Constitutional

Court held unequivocally that the socio-economic impacts of a pro-

posed filling station must be substantively considered by the competent

environmental authority in any EIA for a proposed filling station.

21. It is, furthermore, a mandatory requirement of NEMA that “sustainable

development requires the integration of social, economic and environ-

mental factors in the planning, implementation and evaluation of deci-

sions”

22. In response to our clients’ concerns regarding the need for another filling

station/truck stop in an already overtraded area, the response from the

EAPs (in the comments response report) is limited to the following:

“The location of the site is suitable in terms of supplying the traffic from

the N2 National Road, the Seaview Road and the surrounding areas

(such as Greenbushes) with fuel and associated facilities. The proposed

depot and logistics park will provide storage space and offices to ten-

ants”.

23. In response to our query regarding socio-economic impacts, the vacu-

ous response was as follows:

“Your concerns are noted, there are both positive and negative socio-

economic impacts. Kindly refer to Section D(2) of the Draft Basic Assess-

ment Report that described all potential impacted identified for the pro-

ject. The resultant sales of fuel and other business on the property will

contribute to the local economy as well as creating additional employ-

ment opportunities in the local area. Furthermore the filling station will

1 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC).

7

improve the levels of convenience to residents of areas that are in close

proximity to the site”.

24. Those vacuous responses reveal an alarming disregard for the mandato-

ry requirements of NEMA and the NEMA regulations:

24.1. “Suitability” is not synonymous with need – it is not even an ele-

ment of “need”;

24.2. The economic impacts of the proposed filling station, by defini-

tion, includes the impact on existing filling stations, including loss

of sales and presently sustainable jobs – neither of which is even

mentioned;

24.3. The need for another filling station, consequently, stands to be

determined by the extent to which existing filling stations meet

current and could meet foreseeable fuel retailing needs. That is

the sole measure.

25. In the present instance, there has been no identification of filling stations

to be affected, no assessment of how many jobs will be lost, and no as-

sessment of economic impacts at all.

26. The fact is that there are already the following extant filling stations with-

in a 10km radius of the proposed site serving precisely the same market

as is targeted by the proposed filling station:

26.1. Shell Highway and Truck stop site Geduldsrivier 9.5 kms away – li-

censed and under construction

26.2. Engen Baywest – licensed not under construction as yet

26.3. Colleen Glen Service Station (3.5kms)

26.4. Caltex Greenbushes (2 kms)

8

26.5. Shell Sherwood (7.5 kms)

26.6. Engen Rowallen Park

26.7. Caltex Hunters Retreat

26.8. BP Kabega Park

26.9. Shell Kabega Park

26.10. Engen Linton Grange

26.11. Caltex Westering

26.12. Sasol Cape Road

27. As a proposed Highway Site and Truck Stop, the following facilities exist

within a 60 km radius from the proposed site:

27.1. Caltex Mentorskraal

27.2. Caltex PE Convenience Centre

27.3. BP Colchestor

27.4. Engen Dealparty

27.5. Andy’s Deal Party

28. The Draft BAR is also silent on the objective facts that:

28.1. The fuel retailing market in the area has been stagnant for some

time;

28.2. The increasing economic pressure on motorists is likely to impact

negatively on fuel sales everywhere for the foreseeable future;

28.3. Between them the existing filling stations:

9

28.3.1. Fully and properly serve the local market;

28.3.2. Have sufficient residual capacity to properly serve that

market for the foreseeable future.

29. The fact is also that the EAP’s claim that “truck drivers in this area would

have a convenient facility to rest, wash and make repairs to trucks if re-

quired” is entirely spurious. There is already a similar facility under con-

struction approximately 10kms from the proposed site and several similar

facilities within a 30 km radius from the proposed facility.

30. Finally, on this issue, the applicant relies on projected growth in the area

while failing to inform the department that:

30.1. Much of that “growth” has been on the proverbial books for

years without becoming manifest – and is likely to remain so; and

30.2. Most of that “growth” is of a nature unlikely to increase the de-

mand for fuel in the area.

31. It is respectfully submitted that the failure of the applicant to undertake

a substantive socio-economic impact study is a fatal flaw in the process,

especially when it is borne in mind just how many existing filling stations

with facilities for long-distance drivers there already are serving traffic

along the N2, including those owned by our clients – the Draft BAR has

not even attempted to identify stations that will be affected.

32. A further problem is that the transformation of the industry in the area will

be fatally undermined because the existing filling stations will no longer

be attractive to BEE entrants due to non-profitability or low-profitability.

10

The proposed facility will cost more jobs than it will create.

33. The applicant’s claim that the proposed activity will create 200 new jobs

is completely unsubstantiated and appears to be nonsensical.

34. Filling stations are traffic interceptors. As such, they do not generate

“new” traffic and every litre of fuel sold at a new to market filling station

is effectively “taken” from an existing one.

35. Employment at filling stations, in turn, is directly related to sales volumes.

For every job created at a new to industry site, one is, consequently, lost

at an existing site. This situation becomes exponentially worse if any ex-

isting site were to become non-viable because of an over-proliferation

of filling stations.

The proposed filling station poses a potential danger to the public.

36. As any decent traffic flow audit would have shown, the location of the

site close to the N2 on a busy intersection on Seaview Road will, by defi-

nition, create a dangerous traffic situation and pose a potential danger

to motorists.

THE APPLICANT’S OWN HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION SHOWS THAT THE

PROPOSED SITE IS VULNERABLE TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION.

37. On page 15 of the report under the heading “Aquifer Vulnerability”, the

applicant’s own consultants reach the following conclusions (own em-

phasis):

“For the Site, there may be a temporary shallow water table in the grav-

el layer. This water table may dry up during droughts, but will be present

during rainfall events and the rainy season. This water table is less than 2

m bgl, therefore the vulnerability of the aquifer will be very high.

11

The deeper, and more permanent groundwater level is expected

deeper than 10 m bgl; therefore the aquifer vulnerability is regarded to

be medium.

The permeability of the soils and unconsolidated material beneath the

Site will affect the flow rate at which potential pollutants can reach the

water table”.

38. To authorise an expanded facility or filling station for which no need has

been proven on an admittedly vulnerable site is entirely irreconcilable

with the peremptory constraint to caution prescribed by NEMA.

Conclusion.

39. The Revised Draft BAR as submitted remains an aberration which does

not remotely serve the purpose envisaged for the assessment process in

NEMA:

39.1. The activity is incorrectly described in a manner likely to mislead

members of the public;

39.2. The application is incomplete in that it omits and/or does not

deal with or provide adequate details regarding:

39.2.1. The previous unsuccessful application in terms of the

ECA;

39.2.2. The application for rectification in terms of section 24G;

39.2.3. The authorisation issued pursuant to that application;

39.2.4. Whether the terms and conditions of that authorisation

have been complied with;

12

39.2.5. Socio-economic impacts including impacts on existing

filling stations;

39.2.6. Consequential job-losses;

39.2.7. Negative impacts on transformation of the industry;

and/or

39.2.8. Whether there is a need for the proposed activity and

why is would be desirable.

40. In these circumstances it is submitted:

40.1. That the Revised Draft BAR does not contain sufficient information

for the department to make an informed decision other than to

finally deny the application;

40.2. That the application ought to be finally denied; alternatively

40.3. That the Draft BAR ought to be rejected and the applicant di-

rected to undertake a full Scoping and EIA process before the

application is considered for approval.

41. Kindly acknowledge receipt hereof.

Yours faithfully

G (Kallie) Erasmus

Erasmus

13