; MINUTES OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

MINUTES OF A PUBLIC MEETING

VIEWS: 28 PAGES: 18

  • pg 1
									   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT


PROPOSED EXPANSION OF PETRONET’S PIPELINE CAPACITY, THE
  NEW MULTI-PRODUCTS PIPELINE (NMPP): JAMESON PARK TO
      LANGLAAGTE (VIA ALRODE): GAUTENG PROVINCE




               MINUTES OF A
              PUBLIC MEETING
               NASREC Exhibition Centre



                         HELD ON
                 TUESDAY, 23 JANUARY 2007
                         AT 18:30
             NASREC EXHIBITION CENTRE, NASREC
                                    ENQUIRIES

BOHLWEKI-SiVEST JOINT VENTURE


Public Participation Process

Mrs Nicolene Venter or Ms Zelda le Roux
Bohlweki-SiVEST Joint Venture
PO Box 867, GALLO MANOR, 2052
Tel.:     (011) 798 6001
Fax:      (011) 798 6010
E-mail: jmp-lla@nmppeia.co.za

Environmental Impact Assessment

Ms Kelly Martin                                Mr Dave Blair
Bohlweki-SiVEST Joint Venture                  Bohlweki-SiVEST Joint Venture
PO Box 867, GALLO MANOR, 2052                  PO Box 2921, Rivonia, 2128
Tel.:     (011) 798 6001                       Tel:    011 803 6844
Fax:      (011) 798 6010                       Fax:    011 803 7272
E-mail: kellym@bohlweki.co.za                  E-mail: daveb@sivest.co.za




                                YOUR COMMENTS

Your comments on this document would be greatly appreciated. In
particular, we request you to verify that your comments during the
meeting have been minuted correctly. Please address your written
comments to Nicolene Venter and Zelda le Roux at the address
given above by not later than Friday, 23 MARCH 2007. Please
note however that the minutes are not verbatim.




Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                        ii                                23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.     WELCOME, INTRODUCTION & APOLOGIES ........................................................... 1


2.     PURPOSE OF THE MEETING................................................................................ 1


3.     INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................... 1


4.     ROUTE PRESENTATION ...................................................................................... 2


5.     PREFERRED ROUTE ALIGNMENT .......................................................................... 3



6.     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.............................................................. 3


7.     PUBLIC PARTICIAPTION .................................................................................... 6


8.     DISCUSSION SESSION...................................................................................... 6
8.1    Route Alignment & Alternatives ........................................................................... 6
8.2    General Environmental Issues ............................................................................. 6
8.3    Water related Issues .......................................................................................... 7
8.4    EIA Process....................................................................................................... 7
8.5    Construction related Impacts .............................................................................. 7
8.6    Communication ................................................................................................. 8
8.7    Servitude related concerns ................................................................................. 8
8.8    Servitude negotiations ....................................................................................... 9
8.9    General Comments ........................................................................................... 9
8.10 Safety and Security .........................................................................................10
8.11 Socio Economic Concerns .................................................................................11


9.     CLOSURE & THE WAY FORWARD ........................................................................12


TABLES

Table 1: Specialist findings with regards to the Social and Socio-Economic Aspects ........... 4
Table 2: Specialist findings with regards to the Biophysical Aspects ................................. 5


APPENDICES

ATTENDANCE & APOLOGY RECORD................................................................ Appendix A

PRESENTATION ........................................................................................... Appendix B

Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                             iii                                           23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
                               MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING
                                  TUESDAY, 23 JANUARY 2007
                              NASREC EXHIBITION CENTRE, NASREC



Dr David de Waal, Afrosearch, welcomed all present at the meeting. He informed the
attendants that Bohlweki-SiVEST JV had been appointed as independent consultants to
undertake the necessary environmental studies and public participation process associated
with the proposed project. He introduced himself, as the facilitator, the environmental team,
as well as the Fluor and Transnet Project Team members as follows:
•      Mr Carlos Galego, Transnet
•      Ms Christelle van der Merwe, Transnet
•      Mr Sifiso Dlamini, Transnet
•      Mr Joe McMahon, Petronet
•      Mr Rinus Stroebel, Fluor
•      Mr Glen Price, Fluor
•      Ms Kelly Martin, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV
•      Ms Liesl Koch, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV
•      Ms Zelda le Roux, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV
•      Mr Gift Magangane, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV
•      Mr Tebogo Sekoko, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV
•      Ms Nicolene Venter, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV


Formal apologies had been received from:
•    Mr Shailendra Komal – Sasol Gas Ltd
•    Ms Tina Prinsloo – Barloworld


2.     PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

Dr David de Waal briefly explained that the purpose of the meeting was to:


•    Provide Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) with information regarding the proposed
     expansion of Petronet’s pipeline infrastructure during the environmental impact assessment
     (EIA) phase;
•    Provide feedback regarding the findings of the EIA report; and
•    Provide an opportunity for I&APs to raise any further comment regarding the project.


3.     INTRODUCTION & PROJECT OVERVIEW


Ms Kelly Martin introduced the project team and explained how the different team members
and companies present fit together regarding the project.       She also gave a brief overview
regarding the background to the proposed project, which included the following:


Who is the Applicant?
•    Petronet are the project proponent and are a division of Transnet.


Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                1                               23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
What is the NMPP project and why is it necessary?
•    Existing Petronet pipeline is an ageing asset that is unable to meet the growing demand
•    To expand both capacity and flexibility of Petronet’s existing infrastructure
•    Meet the growing demand for refined petroleum products in the internal Petronet network
•    Facilitate the growth of the domestic economy
•    The bulk transportation, distribution & storage of refined petroleum products through
     network of high-pressure long-distance pipelines
•    Petronet’s clients - major oil companies such as Engen, BP, Sasol, Total, and Shell
•    Petronet’s clients own the products
The proposed project consists of three sections of which only the Jameson Park – Alrode -
Langlaagte section is the focus of this Public Meeting:


•    Jameson Park – Alrode – Langlaagte (Gauteng Province) ~ 77 km
•    Kendal – Waltloo (Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces) ~ 88 km
•    Coastal Terminal – Inland Terminal (Jameson Park) (KwaZulu-Natal and Free State
     Provinces)    ~ 545 km
The Combined total distance ~ 710 km


Kelly gave an overview of the existing Petronet refined petroleum network that is currently in
existence and operation, and she explained and how the proposed NMPP would connect into
the existing network.


A short Petronet video clip was shown to provide attendees with a general overview of the
Petronet, and to illustrate to the delegates how the network of existing infrastructure that is
currently in operation is managed and maintained.


4.     ROUTE PRESENTATION


Mr Glen Price, Fluor, gave an overview regarding the technical background to the proposed
project, which included the following:


The route selection considerations include:
•    Length of route
•    Environmental and Social impacts
•    Constructability
•    Cost and Schedule
•    Operations and Maintenance
•    Property boundaries
•    Existing infrastructure


He elaborated on the project technical details, with the help of a sketch of the proposed
pipeline:




Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                 2                                 23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
                                      20 – 30m CONSTRUCTION SERVITUDE

                                        6m PERMANENT SERVITUDE




                                                            PIPELINE MARKER
                            TOPSOIL




                          1000mm                                  BACKFILL MATERIAL
                           MIN.



                                                                   SELECTED FILL


                                                                 400mm – 500mm DIA. CARBON STEEL




Several generic photographs were shown illustrating a previous pipeline that was constructed
by Fluor, these pictures provided a graphical representation of the construction methodology.


5.     PREFERRED ROUTE ALIGNMENT


Mr Glen Price gave a brief overview of the nominated preferred route alignment from Jameson
Park to Langlaagte, via Alrode (1:250 000 scale map for easy reference) that was taken
through to the EIA phase of the project for detailed investigation.


A detailed route overview was presented, with the aid of aerial photographs at a scale of
1:5 000, of the preferred route alignment. A hard copy of the preferred route alignment map,
as well as the EIA Newsletter was distributed to the attendees.


6.     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS


Ms Kelly Martin presented the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process that has been
followed for the proposed project, and has been agreed to by the environmental authorities
and decision makers. The initial application for the NMPP project was made to the National
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (N DEAT), however, due to resource
limitations the N DEAT delegated the project to the provincial environmental department ,
Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (G DACE). A summary of
the process involves; the application to the relevant Authorities, Submission of the Plan of
Study for Environmental Scoping, Submission of and Environmental Scoping Report,
Submission of the Plan of Study for EIA, Submission of the EIA report (current phase of the
project), and then finally awaiting the Record of Decision from the decision making authority.
The public participation process is undertaken throughout the EIA process. The EIA report was
Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                    3                                 23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
not yet complete however the specialists had undertaken site visits and compiled preliminary
reports, the findings of these reports were presented. The EIA report will rate the significance
of the impacts identified by the specialists and investigate management and mitigation
measures to be implemented. The specialist studies that were undertaken in the EIA phase of
the project, involved detailed investigations, which were conducted for the following aspects:


•      Social and Socio-Economic Aspects:
       •     Heritage (Archaeological, Cultural and Historical)
       •     Social (Noise, Visual and Economic aspects)
•      Biophysical Aspects:
       •     Geology and Soils
       •     Geohydrology (Groundwater)
       •     Surface Water and Drainage
       •     Biodiversity (Flora and Fauna)


Ms Kelly Martin presented the specialists findings with regards to the Social and Socio-
Economic aspects, as seen in Table 1:


Table 1: Specialist findings with regards to the Social and Socio-Economic Aspects
                 Phase           Issue                                         Focus Areas
HERITAGE         Construction    •   No Heritage sites (Stone or Iron          •   To be managed during
                                     Ages) identified along route                  construction
                                 •   Possibility of finding heritage
                                     resources during construction
                 Operation       •   No heritage impacts anticipated
NOISE            Construction    •   General construction related activities   •   To   be     managed       during
                                     (equipment and blasting)                      construction
                 Operation       •   Pump stations and Depots
VISUAL           Construction    •   Vegetation clearing and scarring          •   Areas of intact vegetation,
                                 •   Construction related activities               Klipriversberg Nature
                                 •   Soil erosion and general visual               Reserve
                                     degradation
                 Operation       •   Once vegetation reinstated -no visual
                                     impacts anticipated
SOCIO            Construction    •   Safety and security                       •   Vosloorus
ECONOMIC                         •   Employment opportunities                  •   Leondale
                                 •   Foreign workforce (crime and spread       •   Alrode
                                     of disease)                               •   Alberton
                                 •   Disruption due to construction            •   Kibler park
                                     activities – traffic related              •   Nasrec
                                                                               •   Langlaagte
                 Operation       •   Safety and Security                       •   Mainly residential areas


Ms Liesl Koch presented the specialists findings with regards to the Biophysical aspects of the
proposed NMPP project, which are included in Table 2:


Table 2: Specialist findings with regards to the Biophysical Aspects

Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                       4                                       23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
                 Phase          Issue                                       Focus Areas
FLORA            Construction   •   Removal of all vegetation within        •   Klipriversberg Nature
                                    servitude                                   Reserve ridge
                                •   Fragmentation of intact habitat         •   Three wetland crossings
                                •   Potential destruction of available      •   Rocky area near Jameson
                                    habitat for Red Data species                Park
                 Operation      •   Edge effect                             •   At all intact vegetation
                                •   Potential alien infestation                 areas
                                •   Re-colonisation of disturbed habitat
FAUNA            Construction   •   Removal of all vegetation within        •   Klipriversberg Nature
                                    servitude                                   Reserve ridge
                                •   Fragmentation of intact habitats        •   All Wetlands
                                •   Potential destruction of available      •   Rocky outcrops
                                    habitat for Red Data species
                                •   Potential impact on Red Data Species
                 Operation      •   Potential destruction of available      •   Klipriversberg Nature
                                    habitat for Red Data species                Reserve ridge
                                                                            •   All Wetlands
                                                                            •   Rocky outcrops
GROUND-          Construction   •   Loss of Wetland function                •   Wetlands that are
WATER                           -   Inadvertent draining                        susceptible to erosion
AND                             -   Impacts on water purification           •   Hardened surfaces
WETLANDS                            function                                    potentially increasing run-
                                •   Erosion                                     off
                                •   Loss of habitat                         •   Quartzite rock areas
                                •   Fragmentation of habitats                   (Klipriversberg Nature
                                •   Stormwater run-off                          Reserve ridge)
                                •   Potential impact on groundwater
                                    aquifers
                 Operation      •   In the event of maintenance, the        •   All wetlands where
                                    replacement of organic material (only       maintenance has taken
                                    relevant for trenching)                     place
                                •   Potential pollution of groundwater
GEOLOGY          Construction   •   Construction activities                 •   Klipriversberg Nature
AND SOILS                       -   Excavation                                  Reserve ridge (quartzite)
                                -   blasting                                •   Along N3
                                                                            •   Potential presence of
                                •   Dolomitic areas                             undermining near
                                                                                Langlaagte
                 Operation      •   No operational issues at this stage




7.     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS


Ms Nicolene Venter gave a presentation on the aims and objectives of the public participation
process that was followed for the proposed project during the environmental impact assessment
phase.


The process included:
Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                    5                                      23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
      •   the distribution of the EIA Newsletter and associated comment form,
      •   distribution of a knock & drop pamphlet
      •   meetings held during the EIA phase of the project,
      •   public places where the draft EIR will be available once completed; as well as
      •   newspapers in which the public meetings were advertised and the publication date thereof.


As the process progressed, all I&APs registered on the project’s database would receive letters
to report on progress to date, to thank those who had commented to date, and to outline the
next steps in the process. They would also be advised when the draft Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Report would be available for public review, the various venues where the
draft EIA is available for public review as well the review period.


8.        DISCUSSION SESSION


8.1       Route Alignment & Alternatives


8.1.1 Mr Andrew Barker, Andrew Barker Development (on behalf of IPROP, Cavalry Christian
          College and Rand Quest Syndicate) expressed the concerns of his clients regarding the
          alternatives around the Nasrec area.       They endorse the western alignment as the
          proposed corridor should be kept within the areas were several services are already
          present. He mentioned that the proposed alignment should avoid all sensitive areas.


          Comment noted.


8.1.2 Mr Andrew Barker mentioned that if the proposed NMPP goes ahead with the currently
          proposed preferred route, it will bisect the Calvary Christian College property.             The
          Calvary Christian College has acquired property adjacent to its existing property which
          will be incorporated as part of the school.    Thus, the proposed alignment bisects the
          property right in the middle.


          Comment noted.


          Post meeting note:
          There are two existing servitudes through that specific area. The road will bisect the
          two areas belonging to the school; we plan to follow the road through this area.


8.2       General Environmental Issues


8.2.1      Mr Francis Rahlapane, Spoornet enquired as to when the draft EIAR will be available.


          Ms Kelly Martin, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV replied that the draft EIAR is envisaged to be
          available from the end of February 2007 and provision will be made to send a copy to
          Spoornet for review.




Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                   6                                     23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
        Post meeting note:
        It is envisaged that the Environmental Impacts Assessment report will be available for
        public review at the end of March 2007.


8.3    Water Related Issues


8.3.1 Ms Yollanda Gallen, Riverlea Resident enquired whether the proposed NMPP pipeline will
        pass adjacent to the wetlands on the proposed route or through the wetlands.


        Ms Liesl Koch, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV replied in a positive manner and stated that the
        routing of the pipeline will avoid the wetlands as far as possible, but the pipeline may
        go through wetlands in certain instances. The specialists involved with the wetland
        studies have compiled stringent mitigation and management measures that need to be
        adhered to should the wetlands be crossed.


8.4     EIA Process


8.4.1 Mr Andrew Barker referred to a question raised at the Rand Quest Syndicate Focus
        Group Meeting held in October 2006 regarding the relationship between the EIA process
        and the Department of Minerals and Energy’s legislation regarding mining and
        prospecting. This question was not responded to in the draft Minutes, and requested
        that the matter be attended to.


        Comment and request noted.


        Post meeting note:
        Minutes of the Rand Quest Syndicate focus group meeting has been resent to the
        attendees of the meeting, with the inclusion of the relevant page to the question
        mentioned.


          8.5    Construction related Impacts


8.5.1 Mr Francis Rahlapane wanted to know where the proposed NMPP project will cross the
        railway line servitudes.


        It was agreed that Mr Price indicate all the proposed railway line crossings to Mr Francis
        Rahlapane after the meeting, and both parties agreed thereto.


        Mr Glen Price, Fluor, informed the attendees that the specifications for railway crossings
        have already been obtained from Spoornet and will be followed diligently.         He also
        mentioned that no railway lines will be dug up.


        Post Meeting Note:
        Mr Price showed Mr Rahlapane where the proposed railway line crossings are after the
        meeting.


Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                7                                 23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
8.5.2 Ms Denise Oliphant, African Creative Vision Company, asked as to whether blasting
        techniques will be used in the Nasrec area with the gas pipeline already present and
        how would blasting affect these gas pipelines.


        Mr Rinus Stroebel, Fluor, replied in a positive manner when he explained that it is an
        engineering principle to appoint a blasting expert in order to develop blasting
        specifications for the project and to review blasting requirements that will be
        implemented on the project.


        Mr Glen Price added that the detailed geotechnical reports that are currently being
        conducted, will identify areas where blasting is required, the methodology of blasting to
        be conducted in that area and should any existing infrastructure be at risk, it is
        probable that a re-alignment will be required.


        Post meeting note:
        Route Engineering, will as part of their work, identify the services that will need to be
        crossed and will liase with the owners of such services to obtain crossing approvals
        where applicable.


8.6    Communication


8.6.1 Mr Francis Rahlapane enquired as to whether any history of correspondence exist with
        Spoornet regarding the proposed NMPP project?


        Ms Nicolene Venter, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV, replied in a positive manner.           She also
        mentioned that three I&APs (from Spoornet) are registered on the database, namely Mr
        Danie Barnard, Chief Engineer at the Infrastructural Department of Spoornet, as well as
        two other Operations Managers. She stated that correspondence has been forwarded to
        these registered stakeholders from the kick-off of the proposed NMPP project, but in
        principle, service providers wait for the final alignment before any information or
        comment is provided e.g. wayleave requirements.


8.6.2 Ms Denise Oliphant enquired as to how many times a year the Petronet awareness
        pamphlets are distributed. She mentioned that a gas pipeline is already present in their
        community and that more community education is needed to be safe.


        Mr Joe McMahon, Petronet, replied that it would definitely not be a problem to distribute
        more awareness pamphlets to the community members. He also mentioned that the
        proposed NMPP pipeline is not a gas pipeline but a refined petroleum pipeline and the
        education towards the community will unfortunately only focus on the Petronet refined
        petroleum pipelines.


8.7    Servitude related concerns



Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                               8                                 23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
8.7.1 Mr Andrew Barker enquired how Petronet’s maintenance personnel can get back the 20
        – 30 m construction servitude to repair the proposed NMPP pipeline in case of an
        emergency. He enquired as to why the road reserve cannot be used since it is open
        already and maintenance will be easier? The Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve is a very
        sensitive site and should be avoided as far as possible.


        Mr André Botha, Petronet, replied that when the pipeline has been constructed and
        maintenance that needs to take place, the 6 m permanent servitude is wide enough for
        the maintenance team will make use of a TLB (back-actor) to open the trench.


        Mr Glen Price informed the attendees that when considering a proposed route the
        following should be taken into consideration:
        •      Possible disruption of traffic flow during construction
        •      SANRAL and the associated roads’ authorities, in charge of road reserves,
               restrictions
        •      Future traffic expansions – if the pipeline is constructed within a road reserve and
               the roads authority approve the expansion of a road, the pipeline will have to be
               moved (costs related to the relocation)
        •      A building line of 20 m has been set by SANRAL and Fluor was told explicitly to
               stay out of this building line with regards to national roads
        •      Fluor is in the process of applying for a relaxation of the 20m building line in
               certain areas where there is a shortage of space to construct the proposed
               pipeline


8.8     Servitude negotiation


8.8.1 Mr Andrew Barker enquired about the expropriation rights that are available to Transnet
        / Petronet. He stated that several important issues need to be considered such as land
        value and occupational rent during construction.


        Mr Rinus Stroebel replied that in terms of servitude acquisition, it is a totally different
        process from the EIA process and that it falls outside the legal mandate of the EIA
        process that is currently conducted.
        He mentioned, however, that the servitude acquisition process has three levels:
        •      Temporary servitude negotiations – construction phase e.g. 20, - 30m. Property
               owners will be compensated for the loss of income and damages if any should
               occur.
        •      Permanent servitude negotiation – 6m; and
        •      Expropriation in the event where servitude negotiations fails.


        Dr David de Waal mentioned that the expropriation process is a well-defined legal
        process to be followed.


        Mr Rinus Stroebel stated that Transnet will NOT engage in the expropriations process
        without due reason. Expropriation is the last option on the table.


Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                  9                                23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
8.8.2    Mr Andrew Barker, enquired whether the project team as well as the project proponent
        has considered the cost implications comparing residential / industrial land value to the
        land value of government / services (e.g. Telkom / Rand Water) owned property. The
        cost of future developments in a certain area should also be considered when assessing
        the cost implication. Mr Barker reserved the right to raise issues / comments in writing.


        Comment noted. Ms Nicolene Venter informed the attendees that a Focus Group
        Meeting will be set up with the relevant roads authorities to discuss any possible
        relaxation or utilization of their road reserves.


8.9     General Comments


8.9.1 Mr Andrew Barker stated that he (on behalf of his clients) want to go on the record that
        he reserves their rights to comment until the draft EIAR is available for public review.


        Statement noted.


8.9.2 Mr Richard Bennet, IPROP Limited, informed the project team that at the Nasrec
        Landowners Forum (NLF) several important issues were raised, such as the impact of
        the proposed route alignment in the Nasrec area and the impact on the number of
        developments currently planned.       He wishes to see that the comments raised at the
        NLF has been captured and addressed within the draft EIAR. Since the draft EIAR and
        the associated Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is not available yet, he reserves
        his rights to comment until the availability of the draft EIAR.


        Comment noted.


8.10    Safety & Security


8.10.1 Mr R Sowton, Riverlea Resident, raised the concern about the dolomite areas that has
        to be passed through from Jameson Park to the Langlaagte depot.              He enquired
        whether any emergency procedures such as emergency evacuation procedures are in
        place should any evacuation need to take place.        He also made reference to a case
        where a water pipeline has burst in Meyersdal recently.


        Mr Joe McMahon stated that neither Transnet nor Petronet has any evacuation
        procedures and that these measures are the responsibility of the local authorities of the
        area. Petronet work closely with the local emergency services and this also aids in the
        efficiency and reaction times should they be required.


8.10.2 Dr David de Waal referred to Mr Sowton’s question, as it is a question of concern to the
        local communities, and enquired from the project team what would happen if something
        does go wrong?


        Mr Sifiso Dlamini, Transnet, stated that a project like this has two phases, which is
        applicable to the question. Firstly, the planning phase, where the project is designed to
Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                 10                                23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
        avoid events such as these and secondly, the operational phase where emergency
        preparedness procedures, provided for in the planning phase, are followed. The intent
        therefore is to be pro-active in including management measures to firstly reduce the
        risk and lastly to manage the residual risk that can be posed by the project. Hence, the
        emergency preparedness as referred to by Mr J. McMahon.


        Ms Kelly Martin added that Petronet does have community awareness programme of
        which distributes handout pamphlets, to inform the community where the pipeline
        passes through what to do should they detect any leakages.               In those pamphlets it
        stipulates the procedure that communities need to follow as well as contact details for
        the necessary Petronet personnel.


        Mr André Botha explained that the following steps will be followed if an incident should
        occur:
        •     if a possible leak is reported – local authorities are notified;
        •     central control in Durban will close the product flow in the line, if required;
        •     a maintenance team will be despatch to the focus area;
        •     if a major incident has occurred, local authority will be informed to make a decision
              whether to evacuate the area or not; and
        •     pipeline repairs will be completed.


8.103 Councillor Anne Boxall, Ward 54 - City of Johannesburg, enquired about the safety
        measures with regards to the project.
        • Is the depth of minimum 1 m below ground, deep enough; and
        • did Petronet have any third party interferences in the past?


        Mr Joe McMahon replied that the depth specified by the international ASME B31.4 code
        will be followed.    The crown of the pipeline will be covered with at least 1 m of soil,
        which means that the depth can vary according to the attributes of the area that it
        passes through.
        He also mentioned that Petronet has had experiences with third party tampering in the
        past but not on the same level as the Nigerian incidents. Incidents that have occurred
        include theft from the block valves, but have been detected immediately.


8.11        Socio Economic Issues


8.11.1 Clr F Moosa, Ward 68 - City of Johannesburg, submitted the following request prior to
        the commencement of the meeting, as he needed to leave the meeting prior to the
        discussions session due to a previous commitment.            He requested that Transnet, as
        part of their Social Responsibility Programme, consider the cleaning up of the area
        between the proposed route alternative to the east of Nasrec and their existing pipeline
        through Riverlea.      It was also requested that Transnet consider assisting with the
        removal of the dump site situated south east of the college in Riverlea.


        Ms Nicolene Venter, Bohlweki-SiVEST JV, acknowledged this request and informed the
        Councilor that it will be included in the draft Minutes
Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                   11                                  23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
        Post-meeting note:        A fax was sent to Clr Moosa, requesting him to submit this
        request in a formal manner to Transnet. Once the formal request is receiving, it will be
        forwarded to Transnet.


8.11.2 Me Mavis Danster, Inwoner Riverlea deel die projekspan mee dat hulle as inwoners van
        Riverlea onder onhigiëniese toestande woon as gevolg van die oorvloeï van munisipale
        rioleringspype. Dit was ook genoem dat as gevolg van die verskuiwing van Riverlea se
        enigste Kliniek na ’n terrain buite die bereik van die minder bevoorregtes, dit moeilik is
        vir hulle om van dié gesondheidsdiens gebruik te maak.


8.11.3 Ms Denise Oliphant, enquired about possible job opportunities for the people living in
        the Riverlea & Riverlea Extension area. She enquired about what the social benefit for
        the community will be should the NMPP project be approved.


        Mr Rinus Stroebel, explained that Transnet, as the operator of pipelines, is committed
        to maximising the benefit of the project to the local communities. Transnet has, to this
        effect placed a minimum requirement of 60% local employment on the project. Local
        employment has been defined as people residing within a 100 km radius of the
        proposed NMPP project area. This requirement may be affected by the availability of
        suitable skilled labour. He also mentioned that this intention will be made possible by
        working through the local Department of Labour where registered labourers as well as
        contractors can be identified.   He explained that the construction phase will require
        skilled and unskilled labour, and that the employment possibilities will be addressed,
        and a specific benefit of the proposed NMPP project will include that labourers from the
        surrounding areas will be provided with training if and where possible, and will therefore
        have acquired new skills when the NMPP project has been completed.


8.11.4 Mr Solomon Khalani, Ward Committee Member Ward 68 - City of Johannesburg, wanted
        to know whether there will be any other benefits to the community, besides
        employment.


        Mr André Botha responded that it was too early for commitments by the applicant but
        he did state that certain activities will be required such as regular maintenance (on e.g.
        pipeline markers and the servitude itself) as long-term benefits that can be looked at.


        Ms Christelle van der Merwe, Transnet, stated that Transnet and Petronet truly rely on
        the community members to co-operate with them in order to maximise these benefits
        spoken of.        She invited everyone form the surrounding communities to provide
        suggestions of possible community initiatives that may be considered through the
        Transnet Foundation.


8.11.5 Mr Andrew Barker enquired about the socio-economic impact of two specific areas
        namely the Riverlea area and the Mondeor / Allan Manor area.         The proposed NMPP
        alignment goes through several sensitive areas, school properties, wetlands as well as
        railways etc.
Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                               12                                 23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
        Ms Kelly Martin explained that when the alternatives were assessed, the alternatives
        that followed the existing infrastructure, not bisection biodiversities, were chosen above
        those that doesn’t follow them, as well as all the other selection criteria such as
        cadastral boundaries.


9.      CLOSURE AND THE WAY FORWARD


Dr David de Waal informed the delegates that all comments and concerns raised during the
meeting had been minuted, and would also be included in the Issues Trail that forms part of
the draft EIA Report. The draft minutes of the meeting will be distributed to those who had
attended and submitted their apologies, and requested the delegates to please read through
the draft minutes carefully to ensure that their comments, concerns and issues raised have
been captured correctly as the final minutes are considered a legal document.           It was also
requested that delegates please submit their comments / changes in writing to the public
participation consultants within the allocated timeframes.


The way forward, after distribution and finalisation of the minutes, are:


•      Inclusion of final minutes and comments into the draft EIA Report (EIAR)
•      Availability of the draft EIAR for public review. It is envisaged that the draft EIAR will be
       made available for public review during March 2007 to April 2007
•      Inclusion of comments on draft EIAR into final EIAR
•      Submission of final EIAR to G DACE envisaged for May 2007


Mr Carlos Galego thanked the project team for the public participation process thus far and
thanked the attendees for their part in raising the comments and concerns at these meetings.
He also mentioned that it is good to see the openness of the public towards the proposed
project and their and participation in the process.


He added that Transnet is a responsible corporate body and only wants the best for the South
Africa people, and therefore we need to work together to ensure the realisation of the benefits
for the communities.


Dr De Waal thanked the attendees for the manner in which the meeting was conducted and
the professional manner in which the attendees behaved themselves.


The public meeting was closed at 20:39




Bohlweki-SiVEST JV                                13                                  23 January 2007
Public Meeting - NASREC
    APPENDIX A
ATTENDANCE RECORD
     APPENDIX B
PRESENTATION MATERIAL

								
To top