Non-compliance with environmental laws as reported in the National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Reports
ArcelorMittal operates at the following locations in South Africa:
- Vereeniging Works (Steel), Gauteng
- Vanderbijlpark Works (Steel), Gauteng
- Saldanha Works (Steel), Western Cape
- Newcastle Works (Steel), KwaZulu-Natal
- Coke and Chemicals operation, Pretoria, Gauteng
Department of Environmental Affairs’ compliance monitoring and enforcement action
| Vanderbijlpark |
| NECER |
Significant Inspection Findings |
Further Developments and Status of Enforcement Process |
| 20091 |
The following findings were recorded at an inspection in November 2008:
Lack of waste permits for areas used for the temporary storage of sludge waste on a continuous basis.
Lack of registration certificates for certain scheduled processes, including the re-heating furnaces and galvanising lines.
Non-compliance with some conditions of ROD related to kilns 5 and 6.
Five unauthorised activities for which section 24G rectification applications had been submitted.
Environmentally harmful activities as a result of, inter alia, waste management practices, uncontrolled emissions (specifically linked to blast furnace C and coke battery no.1) and dust emissions due to moving vehicles and activities at the off-loading and storage areas.
It was also noted in the 2009 report that it had not been possible for inspectors to visit and assess compliance of all operations at the site due to the fact that 40% of the site was not operational as a result of the global economic crisis. |
|
| 2010 |
– |
– |
| 20112 |
In a follow up inspection carried out on 23 – 27 August 2010 the following findings were made:
Failure to appoint an appropriately knowledgeable independent Environmental Control Officer for various technical processes for the duration of construction and commissioning.
Failure to fulfil all information requirements in the amended EMP (submitted to the GDARD); as well as the failure to submit the amended EMI [sic] timeously.
ArcelorMittal does not have a Section 20 (1) ECA Waste Disposal site Permit.
Failure to notify the Department within 24 hours if any condition of this authorisation is not adhered to. Discharge of treated storm water that does not comply with the standards in the Water Use License.
|
In the 2011 report it was noted (presumably in relation to the 2008 inspection) that:
Detailed representations were received from the facility dated 14 May 2009. In addition, the authorities were informed that ArcelorMittal has decided to shut down coke battery no. 1 as a result of the findings of the inspection.
Regarding the status of the enforcement process, it was stated that:
Report still undergoing vetting process.
|
| 20123 |
– |
In the 2012 report, the following information was recorded regarding enforcement action:
Due to the consolidation of the facility’s APPA permit by DEA, certain sections of the plant were not inspected during the follow-up inspection conducted by GDARD in August 2010 and a decision was made to delay further monitoring until after the AEL was issued (which has recently occurred). A criminal investigation has been recently initiated in respect of the non-compliances and ongoing incidents at the site.
|
| 20134 |
– |
The update provided in the 2013 report was as follows:
Due to the consolidation of the facility’s APPA permit by DEA, certain sections of the plant were not inspected during the follow-up inspection conducted by GDARD in August 2010 and a decision was made to delay further monitoring until after the AEL was issued (which has recently occurred). A pre-compliance notice was issued to Mittal Vanderbijlpark on 24 July 2012, regarding its non-compliance with conditions stipulated in its AEL which specifically related to the exceedances of particulate matter release limits. A final compliance notice in this regard was issued to Mittal Vanderbijlpark on 26 September 2013, which included an instruction to cease operations of certain facilities and its associated activities.
On 9 February 2013 a fire occurred at the Vanderbijlpark plant which caused severe damage to three Basic Oxygen Furnaces (BOFs) in the steel making facility.
ARCELORMITTAL in February/March 2013, applied to the Minister for an exemption to operate its two electric arc furnaces for a period of three months while rebuilding the furnaces that recently burnt down. The matter was referred by the Minister to the Atmospheric Emission Licensing Authority, Sedibeng District Municipality. ARCELORMITTAL obtained an AEL application [sic] from the Sedibeng District Municipality.
Repairs to the steel making facility have been completed and the three BOFs have been re-commissioned and are now fully operational.The issuance of the application and the conditions contained therein, as well as the information obtained during the ongoing criminal investigation will further inform the administrative enforcement process.
Note: VEJA, represented by the CER, objected to ArcelorMittal’s application for an exemption from the conditions of its AEL in order to run the EAFs, due in part to the insufficient public participation period. |
| 2014 |
– |
– |
| 2015 |
– |
– |
In a report by the non-profit organisation groundWork published in 2014, entitled ‘Slow Poison: Air Pollution, Public Health and Failing Governance’, further detail is provided on the above enforcement actions:
In September 2012, the corporation was forced to close down its electric arc furnaces (EAFs) at Vanderbijlpark because they failed to comply with air quality legislation. The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) issued it with a compliance notice for contravening the terms of its AEL – by emitting more PM10 than allowed – and gave it thirty days to implement a dedusting solution. ArcelorMittal responded by closing down the plant’s three EAFs. It said that completing a R230 million dust extraction system to abate emissions from the furnaces was ‘too costly’ and scrapped the project. Its appeal against the notice was unsuccessful but, because it closed the EAFs and complied with other requirements, the notice was withdrawn.
In April 2013, following a major fire which forced the closure of the plant’s Basic Oxygen Furnaces (BOFs) and remaining steel-making capacity, ArcelorMittal applied to vary its AEL so that it could operate its EAFs again. In fact, it sought to run them for three months while the BOFs were repaired without doing anything about emissions. It also argued that it should be exempt from having to conduct public consultation for this change in the AEL or, alternatively, that a period of seven days should be allowed. The Sedibeng District Municipality agreed to the abbreviated consultation. VEJA objected to: the reduced consultation which fell far short of the ‘reasonable opportunity’ prescribed by NEMAQA; the lack of adequate information to access the application; and to the proposed variation of the AEL. Nevertheless, the Municipality granted the application on the 9th of May 2013, and agreed to provide VEJA with the requested air quality monitoring reports. ArcelorMittal again shut down the EAFs on the 1st of July 2013. NECER 2012-2013 states that the issuance of the AEL application and its conditions, together with the ongoing criminal investigation, will further inform the administrative enforcement process.5
| Newcastle |
| NECER |
Significant Inspection Findings |
Further Developments and Status of Enforcement Process |
| 20096 |
An inspection in September 2007 found 57 non-compliances which included:
Lack of adequate monitoring.
Air emission exceedances.
Unauthorised waste disposal sites.
Inability to demonstrate compliance with certain conditions of the registration certificates due to a lack of monitoring.
Non-compliance with a number of conditions of the waste permit, specifically in relation to monitoring and contradictions in audit findings.
Contravention of certain conditions of the EIA authorisations.
36 of the non-compliances detected were in relation to the management of the two permitted H:H and GSB landfill sites.
Unauthorised activity for which a section 24G rectification application had been submitted.
Environmentally harmful activities that could be prevented/rehabilitated in terms of the NEMA duty of care; and
Failure to report an emergency incident to the authorities.
|
It was reported that,
ArcelorMittal responded comprehensively to the findings of the inspection and no enforcement action was taken.
|
| 2010 |
– |
– |
| 20117 |
Representations had been received on the 19th of June 2008 and a follow-up inspection was undertaken on the 23rd of February 2011 where the following findings were made:
Non-compliances to environmental authorizations conditions still continues.
Significant air emissions from some operations on site.
Potential ground and surface water as well as soil pollution from activities on site.
Unauthorized waste disposal sites.
|
The following was reported regarding the enforcement process:
Follow-up compliance inspection report being finalized, after which it will be vetted and an enforcement strategy developed.
|
| 20128 |
– |
In the 2012 report, the following update was provided regarding the status of the enforcement process:
Based on the findings of the follow-up inspection, an enforcement strategy is being developed.
|
| 20139 |
– |
The 2013 update was as follows:
Due to a number of authorisations issued to ArcelorMittal subsequent to the baseline inspection in 2007, a follow-up inspection was conducted in February 2013. An inspection report detailing the findings of this inspection is still being finalised. Upon finalisation of the inspection report and the vetting thereof, an enforcement strategy will be drafted.
|
| 201410 |
|
The above information was updated as follows in the 2014 report:
A further follow-up inspection was conducted during February 2013. An inspection report detailing the findings of this inspection has been finalised and issued to the facility. Representations were received in this regard, pursuant to which a notice in terms of section 31H of NEMA was issued to the facility in March 2014 in which additional information was requested.
|
| 201511 |
|
The following update is provided in 2015:
A response to the Section 31H notice was received on 11 April 2014.
On 23 July 2014, a combined pre-compliance notice and pre-directive was issued to the facility. Representations were received on 22 September 2014. Further enforcement action is currently underway.
|
| 201612 |
|
The following update is provided in 2016:
The DEA was not satisfied with the representations received in response to the combined PCN and pre-directive that was issued during July 2015 and
afforded ArcelorMittal Newcastle an opportunity to make further written representations. After receiving these representations, the DEA then decided to amend the original PCN in order to address the non-compliances occurring on the premises of ArcelorMittal Newcastle.
The amended combined PCN and pre-directive was issued on 6 August 2015. The facility submitted representations on 21 September 2015 but failed
to satisfy the DEA in relation to the legal requirement for operators utilising the Blast Oxygen Furnace Slag to be in possession of a waste management licence. Accordingly a final combined compliance notice and directive was issued on 07 December 2015. ArcelorMittal Newcastle applied for a suspension
of certain instructions contained in the compliance notice and submitted an objection. Both the suspension and the objection was dismissed
by the Director General and Minister respectively.
|
| Vereeniging |
| NECER |
Significant Inspection Findings |
Further Developments and Status of Enforcement Process |
| 2009 |
– |
– |
| 2010 |
– |
– |
| 201113 |
An inspection carried out in May 2007 made the following findings:
Continued dumping of hazardous waste on an unpermitted site, despite repeated instructions from authorities to cease such activity.
Particulate emissions to air that cause, have caused or may cause significant and serious pollution of the environment.
Significant and serious pollution of surface and groundwater with phenols, iron, oil, fluoride and other hazardous substances.
Failure to lodge audit reports.
A follow-up inspection conducted in July 2010 by GDARD made the following findings:
ArcelorMittal Vereeniging stopped with all activities at Vaal dump site.
ArcelorMittal submitted a rehabilitation plan to GDARD in January 2008 and re-submitted it again in March 2010 requesting approval.
99% of Magnetite was removed from the site.
The magnetite was disposed of at Holfontein H:H landfill site and the disposal certificate has been submitted to the department and monthly progress reports were submitted to the department regarding the removal of magnetite from Vaal dump site.
|
The following information was provided in the 2011 report, but presumably related to enforcement action from earlier years, as other actions were listed under the present year’s enforcement status section:
Pre-notices were issued to ArcelorMittal by DEAT and Gauteng Inspectors: Gauteng Inspectors ordered ArcelorMittal to cease dumping hazardous waste on its Vaal Dump, and to submit a revised rehabilitation plan for this site. In October 2007, DEAT Inspectors ordered ArcelorMittal to implement a major dust emission control project within 18 months, and to submit proposals on interim measures to control fugitive dust emissions. The Inspectorate currently believes that ArcelorMittal has made every effort to comply with authorities’ requirements, and will hold it to the timeframes set in the notices.
The following was also reported in the 2011 report regarding the status of the enforcement process:
DEA issued APPA section 12(2) final Notice [sic] in 2007 to implement a major dust emission control project within 18 months, and to submit proposals on interim measures to control fugitive dust emissions. GDARD issued compliance notice in terms of Section 31L of NEMA and directive in terms of Section 28(4) of NEMA in 2007 which instructed ArcelorMittal Vereeniging to cease dumping hazardous waste on its unlicensed Vaal Dump, and to submit a revised rehabilitation plan for this site. Dumping at the site ceased and GDARD approved the revised rehabilitation plan. ArcelorMittal Vereeniging has been informed that it must apply to DEA for a waste management license to close and rehabilitate the site.
|
| 201214 |
– |
The following update was provided in the 2012 report:
ArcelorMittal has still not submitted an application to the DEA for the rehabilitation of the Vaal disposal site and there remains a dispute in relation to the legal interpretation and whether or not a licence is required. The NPA has requested the Department to undertake further investigation in relation to the criminal case.
|
| 201315 |
– |
In the 2013 report, the following information was recorded:
ArcelorMittal has still not submitted an application to the DEA for the rehabilitation of the Vaal disposal site and there remains a dispute in relation to the legal interpretation and whether or not a waste management license is required. The NPA has requested the Department to undertake further investigation in relation to the criminal case.
A follow-up inspection was conducted on 27-28 August 2012, an inspection report detailing the findings of the inspection is still being reviewed prior to finalisation. During the inspection, various documents were not provided to the EMIs upon request. On 13 November 2012, the DEA issued the facility with a letter, providing it with a final opportunity to provide all the information requested during the inspection. Some of the information requested was submitted and is being used to finalise the inspection report. The DEA however remains of the opinion that the Vaal disposal site requires a waste management license for the rehabilitation thereof and is awaiting the application. Upon finalisation of the inspection report, an enforcement strategy will be drafted and a decision with regards to the appropriate enforcement action will be made.
|
| 201416 |
In the 2014 report, the following findings were reported from the inspection which had been carried out in August 2012:
certain waste disposal sites were being operated without a section 20 ECA permit;
non-compliance with the provisions of the NEMWA in respect of the storage and handling of waste and non-compliance with conditions of the waste management licence;
effluent discharge limits in terms of a water use licence issued by DWA had been exceeded and unauthorised water uses were detected;
non-compliance with conditions of APPA registration certificate;
undertaking of certain listed activities without the necessary EA and where an EA was held, non-compliance with the conditions thereof;
generally environmentally harmful activities, including irregular waste storage, exceeding of water limits stipulated in water permits, significant dust emissions, storm water management and potential soil and groundwater pollution.
|
Much of the above was also repeated regarding the status of the enforcement process, with some additions:
During the inspection, various documents requested by the EMIs were not provided by the facility. In November 2012, DEA issued the facility with a letter, providing it with a final opportunity to provide all the information requested during the inspection. Some of this information was eventually submitted and an enforcement strategy is being developed including a decision with regards to the appropriate enforcement action, if any.
The dispute in respect of the waste management license for rehabilitation remains unresolved. The Department’s Directorate: Legal Services is currently in discussion with the facility in this regard.
A criminal investigation is running parallel to the abovementioned administrative action. The criminal investigation was initially only related to the unlawful operation of a waste disposal site in terms of section 20 of ECA. The DPP North Gauteng declined to prosecute in respect of the ECA section 20 contravention but has requested that a further on-site investigation is undertaken so as to establish whether or not there has been other non-compliance, particularly in respect of section 28(14) of NEMA. This follow-up investigation is in the process of being conducted.
The following information was also provided:
a pre-directive in terms of 31A of ECA; and a pre-compliance notice in terms of section 31L NEMA
And:
During August 2013, and pursuant to corrective actions implemented by the facility following the notices above, DEA took a decision that no further administrative [sic] against the facility was necessary at the time as the issues and concerns raised had adequately been addressed.
Criminal investigations are, however, ongoing.
|
| 201517 |
|
The following update is provided in 2015:
Additional information requested subsequent to the 2012 inspection in a DEA letter dated 13 November 2012 was eventually submitted and was used to finalise the inspection report which was issued to the facility during April 2014. Representations were received and DEA is in the process of taking the appropriate enforcement action.
A criminal investigation is running parallel to the abovementioned administrative action. The criminal investigation was initially only related to the unlawful operation of a waste disposal site in terms of section 20 of ECA. The Director of Public Prosecution of the North Gauteng [sic] declined to prosecute in respect of the ECA section 20 contravention but requested that a further on-site investigation focus on whether there is other non-compliance, particularly in respect of section 28(14) of NEMA (now section 49A(1)(e)).
|
| 201618 |
|
The following update is provided in 2016:
The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute the facility for the waste related contraventions. A decision was taken that no further criminal investigations would be undertaken at present given that no new evidence is available.
|
In a 2011 meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Sanitation, Mr Lukey, Deputy Director General, Environmental Quality Planning, Department of Environmental Affairs, commented on the dust extraction system in Vereeniging. PMG (Parliamentary Monitoring Group) reported his submission as follows:
Operation Ferro targeted the iron and steel industries, and had resulted in two of the ‘dirtiest’ industries cleaning up. A dust extraction system was launched at Arcelor Mittal [sic] in Vereeniging, turning the plant, which had been polluting for 50 years, into a clean plant, while the Aspen Plant in Cato Ridge installed a dust extraction system that reduced the dust emissions by roughly 90%. These developments took place simply through proper compliance enforcement, although he did note that the Chief Executive Officer had to be threatened with imprisonment before agreeing to install the extractor.19
It is unclear which Chief Executive Officer Mr Lukey was referring to.
| Saldanha |
| NECER |
Significant Inspection Findings |
Further Developments and Status of Enforcement Process |
| 2009 |
– |
– |
| 201020 |
An inspection in March 2009 resulted in the following findings:
Non-compliance with conditions of the APPA permits.
Non-compliance with conditions of the ECA Section 20 permit.
Operation of two waste storage areas without required authorisations.
Groundwater pollution detected as a result of sewage.
Non-reporting of emergency incidents.
|
The following information was provided regarding the status of the enforcement process:
Representations from the facility were received in October 2009. Certain findings of non-compliance are disputed by the facility. Information received from the facility partially satisfies the Department that the issues and concerns identified during the inspection in relation to air and waste permit conditions have been and are being addressed. Measures have been implemented to address the issues pertaining to groundwater pollution due to the seepage of sewage from the conservancy. The Department will still decide on whether or not enforcement action against the facility is required.
|
| 2011 |
– |
– |
| 2012 |
– |
– |
| 2013 |
– |
– |
| 2014 |
– |
– |
| 2015 |
– |
– |