Cape Town - Pressure is mounting on the Department of Environmental Affairs to reject an application for a gold refinery in the Bo-Kaap, with objectors saying the draft environmental impact assessment (EIA) is flawed because it has omitted studies on crucial potential harmful effects.
Objections are now being submitted against the proposal by Lueven Metals operating from the OroAfrica building on Buitengracht Street to refine scrap and old gold.
While the draft EIA says that the proposed development will not be noxious or have any foreseen impacts on people’s health and well-being, Earthlife Africa and the Brave Foundation say this has not been proven, especially in a residential area.
The City of Cape Town has determined the activity to be zoning compliant, but objectors have refuted this, saying gold refining is a noxious industry.
In its submission to the department, Earthlife Africa said the use of hydrochloric acid, nitric acid and sodium metabisulphite would at the very least give off various nitrous oxides and hydrogen chloride which could give rise to numerous health effects, including respiratory and eye irritations, headaches and reduced lung function.
Children and asthmatics as well as those with chronic respiratory conditions would be most affected, including those walking to schools nearby and those recuperating at the Brave Foundation.
In its submission, the trustees of the Brave Foundation say their proximity to the proposed refinery was ignored by the draft EIA.
“Given that we transition people from many hospitals and rehab centres, we have people with tracheotomies and quadriplegics, all of whom have severely impaired breathing, yet no local study of the effects of said chemicals has been done,” said Brave founder, Robyne Conway.
Earthlife Africa co-ordinator Muna Lakhani said the emissions given off by the refining process were not ones monitored by the city and thus the current ambient levels for nitrogen oxides or hydrogen chloride were not known.
The atmospheric data contained in the EIA was based on a simulation of ambient pollutant concentrations and not actual measurements.
“This makes the report incomplete, and should be rejected,” said Lakhani.
The EIA was also silent on carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic and neurotoxic emissions.
The potential health effects on workers were also not considered.
Lakhani said it was also a “fatal flaw” that no health screening was carried out.
“As the potential health impacts are not shown as required under the National Environment Management Act, the authorities must reject this proposal.”
While the draft EIA said it had assessed potential air quality sensitive receptors within a 5km-radius of the site, Lakhani and Cobyne pointed out the report had not cited any healthcare facilities in the area, including Brave, less than a 100 metres away.
St Paul’s school, estimated at less than 200m away, was also excluded, as was the St Monica’s home for the elderly and vulnerable people.
Consultants had also not considered whether the city could cope in the event of chemicals being dispersed into the local environment.
Said Conway: “The lack of health information, especially the fact that no health study has been done locally, is a serious enough omission for this application to be rejected.”
The objectors also raised concerns about the volumes of toxic sludge that would be produced and how it would be removed. The report also did not address how wastewater would be dispelled.
There was also no suggestion of how the city would respond in case of emergency.
The public have until August 14 to make comments and lodge objections to the Department of Environmental Affairs.
CAPE ARGUS