Petrol pipelines under the N3: Battle heads to court

The tussle over Transnet’s petrol pipelines behind the Total Petro Port service station on the N3, between Heidelberg and Alberton, in Ekurhuleni, is headed to court, with environmental activists slapping the Gauteng MEC of roads and transport and six others with summonses.

In December The Citizen reported how activist and director of NT55 Investments, Francois Nortje, sought to stop the department from building a road over the pipeline, pending review application challenging the validity of the Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the road.

His lawyers had given the department’s chief director, Freeman Masuku, until the end of last month to make an undertaking not to commence with road construction but no such commitment had been received.

“Neither the EIA (environmental impact assessment) authorities nor road authorities came back to us. We have therefore brought the interdict application,” Nortje said.

He said the MEC, Jacob Mamabolo, and MEC for Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development, Morakane Mosupyoe, had indicated their intention to defend the matter and had until 10 March to file their answering affidavits in the Johannesburg high court.

Other than the alleged invalidity of the EA, also at the heart of the activist concerns is that the public consultation for the EA was not compliant with prescribed requirements and that the issue of petroleum pipelines over which the road will be built have not been dealt with.

Nortje has also warned that the construction of the road was a huge hazard should the pipe be damaged.

If the pipe is damaged during construction it could potentially explode and there would be fire the likes “of which has not yet been seen in Gauteng,” the letter from WP Steyn Attorney’s has warned.

Nortje said tender documents issued in respect of the construction of the road had no plans showing the position of the Transnet fuel pipes, no conditions were received from Transnet Pipelines on how to protect the pipes, and that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process ignored the pipelines.

He has said that everybody acted as though the three pipes carrying millions of litres of fuel a day did not exists, asking what would happen if the pipes were ruptured, as they were not that deep underground.

The lawyers have claimed that the environmental Authorisation granted by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) was invalid as the project was that of the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport, which is a department of Gauteng government.

Their argument is that the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had “a massive conflict of interest and is seen to be partial and biased” in making that decision and that the environmental application should have been considered by and decided upon by the national Minister of Environmental Affairs.

They further argue that the public participation process in relation to the environment authorisation for the road construction was invalid in that the Lesedi Authority, in whose jurisdiction the road extends, was not given a chance to comment on the Scoping Report.

The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could itself not determine whether the public consultation process was properly implemented or not, Nortje said.

Also of concern to the interested parties is that the Water Licence for the construction did not list all water-logged properties affected by the proposed road.

Theo Nkonki, the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport spokesperson has not responded to questions.

siphom@citizen.co.za.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.