May 2010 Impact Assessment Phase 3rd document for review
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Extension with the view of Closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site,
Vanderbijlpark
GDARD REF NO: GAUT 002/08-09/N0152
Proponent: Emfuleni Local Municipality
DDRRAAFFTT EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL IIMMPPAACCTT RREEPPOORRTT
Project 8848 May 2010 i 8848
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, located in Vanderbijlpark, is owned and managed by the Emfuleni Local Municipality (ELM) and receives industrial and urban waste from the surrounding areas. The site is operated by Enviro-Fill and has been operational since the 1970s, prior to the establishment of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill [Department of Water Affairs (DWA1), 1998] and as such is not permitted / licensed. In order to comply with the necessary legal requirements, the proposed extended site and its activities must be appropriately designed and licensed, in line with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 385, 386 and 387 of 2006, promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998 and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEM:WA), promulgated on 3 July 2009. Due to the poor environmental siting, lack of initial planning and historically poor operational procedures and controls, the waste disposal site has impacted upon various sectors of the surrounding environment. The site is approaching its full capacity and needs to be extended and closed as soon as possible.
The ELM has embarked on a project to develop a new waste disposal site, but requires an extension to the existing site to keep it operational for at least another three to seven years until the new site can be commissioned. In terms of the NEM:WA, the proposed extension and closure requires an EIA in support of an application for Environmental Authorisation (EA) as well as a waste license to the relevant authority that is, the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD2).
The ELM has appointed Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd (ZC), an independent company, to conduct an EIA and waste license process to evaluate the potential environmental and social impacts of the proposed project.
The first phase of an EIA is the Scoping Phase that has been completed. It was the phase during which public issues, concerns and suggestions were identified so that they could be evaluated by the EIA technical specialists during the subsequent phase (the Impact Assessment Phase) of the EIA. The findings of the specialists are being reported on in this document.
According to the NEMA EIA Regulations, Chapter 6, and the NEM:WA Chapter 2, Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) must have the opportunity to comment on the findings of the EIA, which are presented in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). After public review, the Draft EIR will be updated and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) will be submitted to the GDARD for a decision on the project. This Draft EIR is available for public review from 10 May 2010 to 10 June 2010.
Summary of what the Draft EIR contains This report contains the following for comment by stakeholders: • A complete overview of the proposed project; • An overview of the EIA process followed; • A summary of the Public Participation Process (PPP) followed, including a list of comments raised thus far; • Waste Licence Application Process in terms of the NEM:WA; • Project alternatives including the “no-go” (no development) option; • An overview of the baseline receiving environment; • The findings from specialists of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project along with the mitigation measures to reduce the negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts; and • A Draft Environmental Management Plan (Draft EMP) and Operational Management Plan (Draft OMP). AN EIA CONSISTS OF SEVERAL PHASES Scoping Phase Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Decision-making To identify issues, to Phase Report Phase focus the EIA Detailed studies of Consolidate findings of Proponent and potential impacts, Impact Assessment authorities use EIA positive and negative studies findings to decide if project goes ahead
1 The Department of Water Affairs (DWA), was previously known as the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) was previously known as the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 ii 8848
YOUR COMMENT ON THE Draft EIR
The Draft EIR is available for comment from 10 May 2010 to 10 June 2010. This report has been distributed to the authorities, all key stakeholders and all those who have requested a copy. Copies of the report are available at strategic public places in the project area (see below).
List of public places where the Draft EIR is available:
Contact Person Place Telephone Ms Mabosego Vereeniging Public Library 016 – 450 3029 Mrs Marina van Wyk Vanderbijlpark Public Library 016 – 950 5252 Mrs Maria Aphane Boipatong Public Library 016 – 988 3738
The reports are also available electronically from the public participation office. Please contact us to receive a copy or alternatively on our website www.zitholele.co.za .
You may comment on the Draft EIR by:
• Completing the comment sheet enclosed with the report;
• Writing a letter, or producing additional written submissions; and / or
• E-mail, fax or telephone to the public participation office.
DUE DATE FOR COMMENT ON THE DRAFT EIR IS 10 June 2010
PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OFFICE: Anelle Lotter or Patiswa Mnqokoyi Public Participation Office, Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd P O Box 6002 HALFWAY HOUSE, 1685 Tel: (011) 207-2076 / 2074 Fax: 086 676 9950 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 iii 8848
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview of the Proposed Project The main purpose of this project is to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) and a Waste License for the proposed extension with view of closure for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. The site is reaching capacity and as such needs to be extended and ultimately closed. The ELM has appointed Zitholele Consulting, an independent company, to undertake the aforementioned processes. The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed to meet the waste disposal needs for the area. Kwezi V3 Engineers (KV3) in association with Masakhe Isizwe Engineers (Pty) Ltd were appointed by the ELM on 12 February 2008 (3 year contract) to site, obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB+ waste disposal site in the ELM. Once operational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. Purpose of this Report This report constitutes the Draft EIR, a key component of the EIA Process for the proposed extension with the view of closure, of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, in Vanderbijlpark.
The report addresses the requirements for the Impact Assessment Phase for the EIA as outlined in the National Environmental Management Act, (NEMA) (No 107 of 1998) EIA regulations. The aim of this Draft EIR is to:
• Provide information to the authorities as well as Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) on the proposed project;
• Provide information regarding alternatives that are being considered;
• Indicate how I&APs have been and are still being afforded the opportunity to contribute to the project, verify that the issues they have raised to date have been considered, and comment on the findings of the impact assessment;
• Describe the baseline receiving environment;
• Provide information on the assessing and ranking of the alternatives;
• Provide proposed mitigation measures in order to minimise negative impacts and enhance positive impacts; and
• Present the findings of the Impact Assessment Phase in a manner that facilitates decision-making by the relevant authorities.
Environmental Impact Assessment Process An EIA for the proposed extension with the view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is being undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations promulgated in terms of Section 24 (5) of the NEMA.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 iv 8848
To ensure effective public participation in the EIA phase, the Public Participation Process (PPP) is being implemented in stages. This process included the identification of, and consultation with all relevant stakeholders, as well as ongoing communication and networking with I&APs throughout the duration of the project. Issues and concerns raised during this process are compiled in an Issues and Response Report (IRR), and included within the Scoping Report, and this Draft EIR.
This Draft EIR is available for public review. Comments received from the public will be considered and incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), which will be presented to the GDARD for comment, consideration and a decision.
Alternatives Considered Three different design alternatives were considered in the Scoping phase of the project (2008). The three alternatives were as follows:
• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The site will have an additional 3,651,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan of approximately 9 years;
• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone. The site would gain an extra 3,006,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan of approximately 7-8 years; and
• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone. An addition of 1,140,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life of the waste would be approximately 3 years.
The EIA for the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site was initiated in January 2007. The project has been on-going for almost three years and throughout this period waste has been and continues to be disposed of at Boitshepi. As a result some of the information that has been provided in earlier phases of this project is outdated and no longer applicable, therefore certain capacity and lifespan calculations are no longer correct and out by approximately two years and required re-evaluation.
The approval letter received from the GDARD from the Scoping Phase stated that Alternative 3 (100 metre buffer) was the preferred alternative, and at that stage alternative 3 would allow for an additional 3 years airspace. This is no longer the situation and the three alternatives have been re-evaluated as follows:
• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users), the site will have an additional 3,221,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan of approximately 8 years;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 v 8848
• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone The site would gain an extra 2,576,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan of approximately 6-7 years; and
• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone. An addition of 710,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life of the waste would be approximately 1-2 years.
Alternative 3 initially seemed viable and preferable, with the smallest footprint for the proposed extension as an intermediate solution prior to the new waste disposal being established. However, on evaluation of the recent calculations it is evident that this alternative is no longer feasible since it will not accommodate the disposal requirements for the area until the new site is commissioned and it is therefore no longer the preferred alternative but is fatally flawed. Regardless of this fatal flaw, it is included in the impact assessment for consistency and information purposes.
Conclusion This section provides a short summary which compares the three different design alternatives and their associated ranking values for the environmental sensitivities during the construction, operation and decommissioning phase.
The environmental impacts for each alternative for the proposed extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site have been summarised below. The following broad conclusions can be drawn from the impact assessment.
• The current baseline environment in the study area is highly impacted upon from an environmental and social perspective;
• The receiving environment is not of a sensitive nature with the exception of a wetland south east of the site.
• There are no sensitive features on site as most of the environmental aspects are already highly disturbed and therefore, the ecosystems found on site have adapted to the conditions of a waste disposal site.
• The most significantly impacted baseline elements in the area are soils and land capability, topography, terrestrial ecology, visual aesthetics, air quality, health and nuisance. These elements have already been highly impacted by the existing waste site operations.
• During the construction phase for the extension of the site, the impacts will range from VERY LOW to HIGH. The most significant impacts will be to air quality and health and nuisance the significance of these impacts is dependent on the preferred buffer zone alternative. Mitigation measures employed will adequately reduce the significance of impacts that may be sustained by the construction activities with the exception of air quality for the 0 metre buffer zone (alternative 1) as the specialist has indicated that this is unacceptable.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 vi 8848
• During the operational phase, the impacts range from VERY LOW to HIGH. The most significant impacts will be to visual aesthetics, air quality and health and nuisance. Mitigation measures together with the OMP for the site will reduce the significance of the impacts during operations significantly;
• It is important to note that all three alternatives are adjacent to each other and as such have the same or similar potential impacts. The alternative with the smaller footprint naturally has a smaller impact than the other alternatives however the differences of the footprint sizes is so small that it is hardly evident in the assessment with the exception of social and health issues relating to the distance of the site from the surrounding land users. As such the difference in ranking of the alternatives is insignificant with the exception of the 0 metre buffer (alternative 1).
• From a size of impact perspective only the smaller footprint, that is Alternative 3, 100 metre buffer zone would be the preferred alternative, however as mentioned this alternative is no longer feasible as it would not accommodate the waste disposal needs of the area for the full period until the new waste disposal site is commissioned. Therefore the preferred alternative is Alternative 2 – the 50 metre buffer zone.
On the basis of the findings in this report, it is suggested that alternative 2 (two) be utilised as the preferred alternative for the proposed extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site as it has the least sensitive features associated with it whilst be feasible to meet the disposal needs of the community.
This section provides a short sensitivity matrix, which compares the three different alternatives and their associated environmental sensitivities.
On the basis of the matrix presented below and the points listed above, it is suggested that alternative two be utilised as the preferred alternative for the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site as it is the least sensitive of the feasible alternatives. Although Alternative three has the smallest footprint and is the greater distance from the adjacent / surrounding land users it cannot accommodate the disposal needs in the area until the new waste disposal site is commissioned.
Alternative summary and preference. Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: SENSITIVITIES 0m buffer zone 50m buffer zone 100m buffer zone
Construction 11.5 9.5 9.5
Operational 11.5 8.5 8.5
Closure 1 0.5 0.5
TOTAL 24 18.5 18.5
Preference 3 1 1
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 vii 8848
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
B- Water deficit climate, resulting in only sporadic leachate generation B+ Water surplus climate, resulting in significant leachate generation B Climatic water balance measured in millimeters BEE Black Economic Empowerment BID Background Information Document C Communal Waste Disposal Site CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act CECO Contractor Environmental Control Officer CM Contract Manager DEA Department of Environmental Affairs EIR Environmental Impact Report EMP Environmental Management Plan SR Scoping Report DWA Department of Water Affairs DWEA Department of Water and Environmental Affairs E Evaporation from soil surface in millimeters of soil EA Environmental Authorisation EAd Environmental Advisor EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration ECA Environmental Conservation Act ECO Environmental Control Officer EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ELM Emfuleni Local Municipality EM Environmental Manager EMC Environmental Monitoring / Management Committee EMP Environmental Management Plan ENPAT Environmental Potential Atlas G General waste or waste disposal site for general waste GAA Golder Associates Africa GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development GIS Geographic Information System
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 viii 8848
GNR Government Notice Regulation GPS Geographic Positioning System H Hazardous waste or waste disposal site for hazardous waste HDI Historically Disadvantaged Individual H:h Hazardous waste disposal site that can receive wastes with a hazard rating of 3 and 4 H:H Hazardous waste disposal site that can receive wastes with a hazard rating of 1 and 2 I&APs Interested and Affected Parties IEM Integrated Environmental Management ISCOR Iron and Steel Corporation (now Mittal Steel) JBA Jarrod Ball and Associates L Large M Medium MD Managing Director MIG Municipal Infrastructure Grant MRD Maximum Rate of Deposition NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEM:WA National Environmental Management Waste Act NGOs Non Governmental Organisations NWA National Water Act PAC Pan-African Congress PM Project Manager PPP Public Participation Process R Rainfall in millimeters of water RA Relevant Authority RFP Request for Proposal RoD Record of Decision S Small SAPS South African Police Services ToR Terms of Reference WRC Water Research Council ZC Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 ix 8848
Adherence to Regulation 387 requirements for an Environmental Impact Report
Section (s) where Reference Contents of an EIR Covered in this Draft EIR (2) (a) (i) and Details of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and relevant Section 1.5 (ii) expertise (2) (b) Detailed description of the proposed activity Section 5 and 6 Detailed description of the property on which the proposed activity is (2) (c ) Section 5, Appendix A2 to be undertaken Description of the environment (physical, biological, social, economic (2) (d) Section 7 and cultural) that may be affected by the activity Section 3.1.2 and 3.2.2. (2) (e) Details of the PPP Appendix B (2) (e) (i) Steps undertaken in accordance with the Plan of Study (PoS) Section 3,5,6,7, 10 and 11 A list of persons, organisations and organs of state that were (2) (e) (ii) Appendix B3 registered as Interested and affected parties (I&APs). A summary of comments received from, and a summary of issues (2) (e) (iii) raised by I&APs, the date of receipt of these comments and the Section 4 and Appendix B4 response from the EAP to those comments Copies of any representations, objections and comments received (2) (e) (iv) Section 4 and Appendix B4 from registered I&APs Description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity and identified potential alternatives to the proposed activity, including (2) (f) advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity or Section 1 and 5.2 alternatives may have on the environment and the community that may be affected by the activity An indication of the methodology used in determining the significance (2) (g) Section 10 of potential environmental impacts Description and comparative assessment of all alternatives identified (2) (h) Section 11,12 and 13 during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process Summary of the findings and recommendations of any specialist Section 7, 11 and Appendix (2) (i) report or report on a specialised process C Description of all the environmental issues that were identified during the EIA process, and assessment of the significance of each issue (2) (j) Section 11 and 12 and an indication of the extent to which the issue could be addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures (2) (k) An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact Section 11 (2) (k) (i) Cumulative impacts Section 11 (2) (k) (ii) Nature of the impact Section 11 (2) (k) (iii) Extent and duration of the impact Section 11 (2) (k) (iv) Probability of the impact occurring Section 11 (2) (k) (v) Degree to which the impact can be reversed Section 11 (2) (k) (vi) Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources Section 11 (2) (k) (vii) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated Section 11 (2) (l) Assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge Section 11 An opinion as to whether the activity should or should not be (2) (m) authorised, and if authorised, any conditions that should apply to the Section 12 and 13 authorisation (2) (n) An environmental impact statement Section 12 (2) (n) (i) Summary of the key findings of the environmental Impact Assessment Section 12 and 13 Comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications of Section 11, 12 and 13 (2) (n) (ii) the proposed activity and identified alternatives (2) (o) Draft environmental management plan (Draft EMP) Appendix E (2) (p) Copies of specialist reports Appendix C
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 x 8848
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background Information ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Overview of the Proposed Project ...... 4 1.3 Context of this Report ...... 4 1.4 Objectives of the Impact Assessment Phase ...... 4 1.5 The Project Team ...... 5 1.6 Project Progress ...... 8 2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 9 2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) ...... 9 2.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) ...... 9 2.3 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) ...... 13 2.4 The Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) ...... 14 2.5 Additional Legal Frameworks and Legislation ...... 14 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 18 3.1 Scoping Phase ...... 18 3.2 Impact Assessment Phase ...... 24 4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED ...... 28 4.1 Authorities ...... 28 4.2 Stakeholders ...... 28 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 29 5.1 Location ...... 29 5.2 Need for the extension of the Waste Disposal Site with view of closure ...... 29 5.3 Components for a Waste Disposal Site ...... 29 5.4 Services and Infrastructure ...... 31 5.5 Major Activities of the Overall Waste Project ...... 32 5.6 Overall EIA Project Schedule ...... 33 5.7 Description of the Development Activities - Extension ...... 33 5.8 Description of the Development Activities - Closure ...... 38 6 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED...... 39 6.1 Site Alternatives ...... 39 6.2 Design Alternatives ...... 39 6.3 The No Go Alternative ...... 42 7 BASELINE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ...... 43 7.1 Bio-Physical Environment ...... 43 7.2 Cultural Environment ...... 62 7.3 Socio-Economic Environment ...... 64 8 WASTE LICENSE APPLICATION ...... 67 8.1 Introduction ...... 67 8.2 Site Classification ...... 67 8.3 Existing Footprint of the Site ...... 71 8.4 Future of the Waste Disposal Site ...... 72 8.5 Application requirements for extension with view of closure ...... 72 9 WASTE DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN ...... 75 9.1 Constraints and factors affecting the design ...... 75 9.2 General site layout ...... 75
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 xi 8848
10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 81 10.1 Significance Assessment ...... 81 10.2 Spatial Scale ...... 82 10.3 Duration Scale ...... 83 10.4 Degree of Probability ...... 83 10.5 Degree of Certainty ...... 83 10.6 Quantitative Description of Impacts ...... 84 10.7 Notation of Impacts ...... 84 11 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 85 11.1 Construction Phase ...... 85 11.2 Operational Phase ...... 109 11.3 Decommissioning Phase ...... 122 12 IMPACT SUMMARY ...... 134 13 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 137
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 xii 8848
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site...... 3
Figure 2: Environmental Assessment Practitioner...... 6
Figure 3: Technical and Public Participation Process and activities that comprise the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site...... 21
Figure 4: Site notice boards were put up in the study area...... 22
Figure 5: Waste Disposal Site Liner for a GLB+ site as per the Minimum Requirements...... 30
Figure 6: Capping cross section for a GLB+ waste disposal site as per the Minimum Requirements...... 31
Figure 7: Example of a Leakage Detection System...... 35
Figure 8: Landfill Gas Management...... 36
Figure 9: Existing site notice boards at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site...... 37
Figure 10: Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site with Alternative Buffer Zones...... 41
Figure 11: Regional Surface Geology...... 46
Figure 12: Soil Type Delineation...... 47
Figure 13: Site specific geology...... 48
Figure 14: Conceptual Groundwater flow model for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site...... 50
Figure 15: Upper Vaal Water Management Area...... 51
Figure 16: Topography of the site ...... 53
Figure 17: Urban garden vegetation unit...... 56
Figure 18: Alien grassland vegetation unit...... 57
Figure 19: Barren areas with scattered aliens...... 57
Figure 20: Vegetation Map...... 58
Figure 21: Fauna on site...... 61
Figure 22: The location of the site in relation to the closest towns ...... 65
Figure 23: Boitshepi – Flow of waste during operations...... 74
Figure 24: Existing site layout...... 76
Figure 25: Anchoring of the slope liner...... 77
Figure 26: Site layout plan...... 79
Figure 27: Cross Section of the proposed extension of the site...... 80
Figure 28: Piezometric map for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site...... 91
Figure 29: Existing screening around the site ...... 98
Figure 30: Windblown litter to the vlei to the south of the site...... 113
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 xiii 8848
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Newspapers in which the proposed project was announced...... 22
Table 2: A stakeholder meeting was advertised as part of the public review period of the Draft Scoping Report...... 22
Table 3: Newspapers in which advertisements were placed for public review of the Draft Scoping Report...... 23
Table 4: List of public places where the Draft Scoping Report was made available...... 24
Table 5: Advertisements placed to announce the public review of the draft EIR and draft EMP...... 26
Table 6: Major activities for the proposed project...... 32
Table 7: Primary milestones of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site...... 33
Table 8: Endangered Plant Species...... 55
Table 9: Species List...... 59
Table 10: Faunal Species List...... 60
Table 11: Types and estimated quantities of wastes received at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site during 1998...... 69
Table 12: Estimated types and quantities of wastes in the next 7 years at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site from 2008...... 70
Table 13: Waste Disposal Site Size Classes (DWA, 2005)...... 70
Table 14: Quantitative Rating and Equivalent Descriptions for the Impact Assessment Criteria...... 81
Table 15: Description of the Significance Rating Scale...... 82
Table 16: Description of the Spatial Rating Scale...... 82
Table 17: Description of the Temporal Rating Scale...... 83
Table 18: Description of the Degree of Probability of an Impact occurring...... 83
Table 19: Description of the Degree of Certainty Rating Scale...... 83
Table 20: Example of Rating Scale...... 84
Table 21: Impact Risk Classes...... 84
Table 22: Impact Rating Matrix for soils and land capability during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 87
Table 23: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 88
Table 24: Deep aquifer hydraulic properties GCS (1996) ...... 90
Table 25: Hydrocensus data...... 90
Table 26: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 92
Table 27: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 94
Table 28: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 95
Table 29: Impact Rating Matrix for terrestrial ecology during construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 96
Table 30: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 98
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 xiv 8848
Table 31: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 101
Table 32: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 102
Table 33: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 108
Table 34: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils (Alternative 1-3)...... 110
Table 35: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 111
Table 36: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 112
Table 37: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 114
Table 38: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 115
Table 39: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology (Alternative 1-3)...... 115
Table 40: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the operational phase...... 117
Table 41: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the operational phase...... 118
Table 42: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 119
Table 43: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the operational phase...... 121
Table 44: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils during the Decommissioning Phase...... 123
Table 45: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 124
Table 46: Impact Rating Matrix for ground water during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 125
Table 47: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 126
Table 48: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 126
Table 49: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology for the Decommissioning Phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 128
Table 50: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the decommissioning phase...... 129
Table 51: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the decommissioning phase...... 130
Table 52: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the Decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 131
Table 53: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the Decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...... 132
Table 54: Alternative Sensitivity Matrix...... 136
Table 55: Alternative summary and preference...... 137
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 xv 8848
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION Appendix A1: EIA Application Form Appendix A2: Locality Map Appendix A3: Site Layout Plan Appendix A4: Buffer Zone Alternatives Appendix A5: EAP Curriculum Vitae Appendix A6: Landowner Consent Forms Appendix A7 GDARD Letter
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Appendix B1: Newspaper Advertisements Appendix B2: Site Notices Appendix B3: Stakeholder database Appendix B4: Issues and Response Report (Version 3) Appendix B5: Correspondence with Authorities and I&APs Appendix B6: Background Information Document Appendix B7: Minutes from Public Meetings
APPENDIX C: SPECIALIST REPORTS Appendix C1: Biophysical Report Appendix C2: Social Impact Assessment Report Appendix C3: Heritage Impact Assessment Report Appendix C4: Geotechnical Investigation Report Appendix C5: Geohydrological Investigation Report Appendix C6: Air Quality Assessment
APPENDIX D: DETAILED WASTE INFORMATION Appendix D1: Total Volumes of Waste Disposed Appendix D2: Evaporation and Precipitation Data Appendix D3: Calculation on Climatic Water Balance Appendix D4: Airspace Savings Appendix D5: Closure and After Care Plan and Site Emergency Plan Appendix D6: Water Monitoring Plan Appendix D7: Waste Disposal Facility Designs
APPENDIX E: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX F: OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 1 8848
1 INTRODUCTION
Anthropogenic / human activities generate by-products which are seen as useless and are discarded as waste. The increasing population growth accompanied by urbanisation and industrialisation, have resulted in an increase in the volume of waste generated by society. Waste is associated with numerous environmental and social impacts as discussed in this report.
It has been estimated that globally 95% of all urban waste is disposed of on land, either in open trenches or in sanitary waste disposal sites. According to the Minimum Requirements for Disposal by Landfill, Second edition3 (Department of Water Affairs4 [DWA], 1998), every waste disposal site must be licensed, designed, constructed, operated and closed according to the stipulated requirements. Furthermore, according to the National Environmental Management Waste Act (NEM:WA) of 2008 Section 26, (1) No person may—(a) dispose of waste, or knowingly or negligently cause or permit waste to be disposed of, in or on any land, water body or at any facility unless the disposal of that waste is authorised by law.
1.1 Background Information
The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is located in Vanderbijlpark. The site is situated to the east of Boipatong and to the west of Tshepiso, hence the name Boitshepi (Figure 1). The site is owned by Vesco Land Management (Vesco), managed by the Emfuleni Local Municipality (ELM) and is operated by Enviro-Fill. ELM is in the process of purchasing the land from Vesco.
The site has been operational since the 1970s, prior to the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill (DWA, 1998) and as a result Boitshepi was not developed or operated in accordance with these requirements and has had a negative impact on the surrounding environment.
In February 1994, Jarrod Ball and Associates (JBA), specialist waste consultants, completed a Status Quo Analysis on the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. The study recommended some remedial measures, but these were not implemented and the situation at the site deteriorated.
3 The Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, third edition (DWA 2005) has been compiled, but has not yet been promulgated. For this reason and for the purpose of this report, the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, second edition have been cited and referenced (DWA, 1998), 4 The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) was previously known as the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 2 8848
In September 1994, JBA was appointed, based on the recommendations of the Status Quo Analysis, to proceed with the licensing, rehabilitation and closure of the waste disposal site. However, during this time it was recognised that the Boitshepi could be of prime strategic importance within the region because of its central location within a large waste generation area. The long-term use of the waste site was therefore viewed as potentially of great value, if the environmental problems could be remedied.
In terms of the aforementioned appointment, JBA carried out, inter alia, a limited geohydrological investigation of the site to determine the extent of the impact of the waste site on surface and groundwater pollution. The results of this investigation were used as the basis for discussions with the DWA in February 1995, regarding the future of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
During these discussions, various alternative waste disposal options were proposed and it was recommended that these options be investigated by means of a Feasibility Study. Of prime importance was the fact that the site, irrespective of the option chosen, would have to meet the objectives of the Minimum Requirements, namely environmental and public acceptability. The future of the waste disposal site would thus be decided, based on the findings of that study. At this meeting, the urgency of addressing some priority remedial measures, such as proper storm water management and access control, was also emphasised.
After 2005, JBA became part of Golder Associates Africa (GAA) and the members of JBA joined GAA. The Boitshepi Project was put on hold due to the unrest and some violence which was taking place at that time. A man lost his life because of a shooting that took place on site. The previous Lekoa Municipality (now ELM) withdrew all its resources. The withdrawal of the Municipality from site led to a number of issues, illegal dumping commenced as well as uncontrolled disposal of hazardous waste by industries in the area. After 1994, the local authorities were amalgamated and that led to the birth of new local government. Western Vaal Metropolitan Local Municipality became ELM under the Sedibeng District Municipality.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 3 8848
Figure 1: Location of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 4 8848
1.2 Purpose and Overview of the Proposed Project
The main purpose of this project is to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) and a Waste License for the proposed extension with view of closure for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. The site is reaching capacity and as such needs to be extended and ultimately closed. The ELM has appointed Zitholele Consulting, an independent company, to undertake the aforementioned processes.
The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed in line with legislative requirements. Kwezi V3 Engineers (KV3) in association with Masakhe Isizwe Engineers (Pty) Ltd were appointed by the ELM in February 2008 (3 year contract) to site, obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB+ waste disposal site in ELM. Once operational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
1.3 Context of this Report
This report constitutes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), a key component of the EA Process for the extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
1.4 Objectives of the Impact Assessment Phase
This report addresses the requirements for the Impact Assessment Phase for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as outlined in the regulations as promulgated in April 2006 in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, (NEMA) (No 107 of 1998) which became effective on 1 July 2006. The aim of this Draft EIR is to:
• Provide information to the authorities as well as Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) on the proposed project; including details on the: - Alternatives that are being considered; - Receiving environment; and
- Assessing and ranking methodology.
• Indicate how I&APs have been, and are still being, afforded the opportunity to contribute to the project, verify that the issues they raised to date have been considered, and comment on the findings of the impact assessment;
• Provide proposed mitigation measures in order to minimise negative impacts and enhance positive impacts; and
• Present the findings of the Impact Assessment Phase in a manner that facilitates decision-making by the relevant authorities.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 5 8848
1.5 The Project Team
The project team for the proposed waste disposal site project is divided into various role players as follows:
• The Applicant / Proponent;
• The Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP); and
• The Decision Making Authority.
1.5.1 The Applicant / Proponent
The ELM, the “proponent”, is applying for EA from the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). As the owner and manager of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site; the ELM will remain the responsible legal entity and will carry the environmental liability for the proposed project.
The ELM is one of three Local Municipalities comprising the Sedibeng District Municipality. It is the western-most Local Municipality of the District, which covers the entire southern area of the Gauteng Province extending along a 120 km axis from east to west. The Vaal River forms the southern boundary of the ELM and its strategic location affords it many opportunities for tourism and other forms of economic development. The ELM shares boundaries with Metsimaholo Local Municipality in the Free State Province to the south, Midvaal Local Municipality to the east, the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan area to the north and Westonaria and Potchefstroom (in North West Province) Local Municipalities to the west (Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August 2008).
The municipality is strategically located with access to a well-maintained road network connecting to the N1 national route, which traverses the ELM and links Johannesburg and Bloemfontein. The ELM has two main town centres, namely Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark within the area and Sasolburg is only 10 km to the south, across the provincial boundary. It forms the heartland of what was formerly known as the Vaal Triangle, renowned for its contribution to the iron and steel industry in South Africa (Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August 2008).
Emfuleni also contains the six large peri-urban townships of Evaton, Sebokeng, Sharpeville, Boipatong, Bophelong and Tshepiso. These six areas lack facilities normally associated with towns of their size. The other approximately ten small settlements tend to be suburban settlements within 6 km of the above towns; they are Bonanne, Steel Park, Duncanville, Unitas Park, Arcon Park, Sonlandpark, Waldrift, Rust-ter-Vaal, Roshnee and Debonairpark. (Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August 2008)
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 6 8848
The area also comprises a number of large residential areas, all of which require considerable investment in infrastructure and environmental upgrading. The ELM is rich in history as it encapsulates the Anglo Boer War, heritage assets such as the Sharpeville monument and the liberation struggle epitomised by the signing of the Constitution in 1996 in Sharpeville (Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August 2008).
Applicant/ Proponent Contact Details Company: Emfuleni Local Municipality Contact: Mr Thinus Redelinghuys Address: P. O. Box 3, Vanderbijlpark, 1900 Tel: (016) 986 8471 / 8442 Fax: 086 555 6019 Cell: 084 600 8744 E-mail [email protected]
For more information regarding ELM please refer to their website at www.emfuleni.gov.za.
1.5.2 The Environment Assessment Practitioner In terms of the EIA Regulations promulgated in April 2006 within the NEMA (No 107 of 1998) which became effective on 1 July 2006, the proponent must appoint an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to undertake the environmental assessment of an activity regulated in terms of the aforementioned Act. In this regard, the ELM appointed Zitholele Consulting to undertake the EIA for the proposed extension with view of closure for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
Zitholele Consulting is an empowerment company formed to provide specialist consulting services primarily to the public sector in the fields of Water Engineering, Integrated Water Resource Management, Environmental and Waste Services, Communication (public participation and awareness creation) and Livelihoods and Economic Development.
Zitholele Consulting has no vested interest in the proposed project and hereby declares its independence as required by the EIA Regulations.
Jacqui Hex PO Box 6002, Halfway House, 1685 Tel: +27 (11) 207 2078 Fax: 086 676 9950 email : [email protected]
Figure 2: Environmental Assessment Practitioner.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 7 8848
EAP Contact Details Companies: Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd Contact: Jacqui Hex Address: P O Box 6002, Halfway House, 1685 Cell: 082 560 8601 Landline: 011 207 2078 Fax: 086 676 9950 E-mail: [email protected]
Jacqui Hex, MSc (Env. Man.) (cum laude), BSc Hons (Geog), BSc Natural & Environmental Sciences
Mrs. Jacqui Hex joined Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd in the January 2007 as an environmental scientist. She forms part of the Environment and Waste management sector of the Environment and Waste division of the company. She was awarded the top masters student award at the University of Johannesburg in 2006. She has also attended a course on Environmental Auditing, EIAs and International Association in Public Participation. She has an in depth knowledge on EIAs, environmental law, strategic environmental assessment, integrated environmental management, social impact assessments, environmental auditing, environmental economics, environmental management frameworks and waste management. A Curriculum Vita of the EAP is provided in Appendix A5.
1.5.3 The Decision Making Authority
Waste License
The Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of a province who is responsible for waste management is the licensing authority in respect of all activities listed in both categories of Schedule 1 of the NEM:WA pertaining to general waste. The application for a waste licence in terms of Section 45 of the NEM:WA for general waste activities must be submitted by lodging an application with the relevant provincial department. Therefore, in this regard, the GDARD is the licensing authority for a waste license.
Environmental Authorisation
In terms of the EIA: on 21 April 2006, the Minister of Environmental Affairs promulgated regulations on terms of Chapter 5 on the NEMA, GNR, 385, 386 and 387 in Government Gazette No. 28753 of 21 April 2006. These regulations replaced the EIA regulations that were promulgated in term of the Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) (ECA) in 1997 and introduced new provisions regarding the EIA, The Competent Authority in respect of the activities listed in GNR. 386 and 387 is the environmental authority in the province in which the activity is to be undertaken, unless it is an activity contemplated in
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 8 8848
Section 24C (2) of the NEMA. GDARD is the relevant provincial department for lodging this application for EA.
1.6 Project Progress
The Scoping Phase of this project has been completed, this included the following:
• Pre-application consultation with relevant stakeholders and authorities;
• Completion and submission of the relevant EIA Application documentation;
• Compilation, submission, and approval of the Plan of Study (PoS) for Scoping;
• Placement of advertisements;
• Compilation and distribution of a Background Information Document (BID);
• Hosting a public meeting;
• Public review period and Issues and Response Report (IRR);
• Compilation of a Draft Scoping Report (Draft SR); and
• Compilation, submission and approval of the Final Scoping Report (Final SR) and PoS for EIA.
This phase of the project is the Impact Assessment Phase, where the following is required to be undertaken:
• Specialist Studies;
• Compilation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Draft Environmental Management Plan (Draft EMP);
• Compilation of waste related documentation as required for the waste license application;
• Public review period and Issues and Response Report; and
• Compilation, submission and approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) and Final Environmental Management Plan (Final EMP) for EIA.
Once comments have been received on this Draft EIR and Draft EMP. these reports will be updated with public comments, finalised and submitted to the GDARD.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 9 8848
2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Environmental legislation in South Africa was promulgated with the aim of, at the very least, minimising and at the most preventing environmental degradation. The following Acts and Regulations are applicable to the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site Project:
2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996)
Section 24 of the Constitution states that: Everyone has the right to
(a) an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
(b) have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that-
- prevent pollution and ecological degradation; - promote conservation; and
- secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
The current environmental laws in South Africa concentrate on protecting, promoting, and fulfilling the Nation’s social, economic and environmental rights; while encouraging public participation, implementing cultural and traditional knowledge and benefiting previously disadvantaged communities.
2.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)
The NEMA contains a set of principles that govern environmental management and against which all Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and actions are measured. Sustainable Development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the following:
• Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably;
• The pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided are minimised and remedied;
• Waste must be avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and reused or recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner;
• That a risk averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions;
• Responsibility for the environmental, health and safety consequences of a policy, programme, project, product, process, service or activity exists throughout its life cycle;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 10 8848
• The participation of I&APs in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation. In particular, participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured;
• Decision makers must take into account the interests, needs and values of all I&APs and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including traditional and contemporary knowledge;
• Community well-being and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means;
• The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health or the environment and to be informed of dangers, must be respected and protected;
• Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law; and
• The vital role of women and youth in environmental management and development must be recognised and their full participation therein must be promoted.
The EIA for this project will be conducted in terms of the EIA Regulations of 2006 that were promulgated in terms of Section 24 (5) of the NEMA. The Provincial GDARD is the competent authority responsible for issuing EA for the proposed project. The NEMA EIA Regulations were promulgated on 21 April 2006 and became effective on 3 July 2006. The NEMA regulations replaced the previous EIA Regulations under the ECA.
A Basic Assessment must be applied to activities listed in Listing Notice 1 No. R386. Activities identified in terms of Section 24(2)(a) and (d) of the NEMA, which may not commence without EA from the Competent Authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impacts of activities must follow the procedure as described in regulations 22 to 26 of the EIA regulations, 2006 of the NEMA
General Notice Regulation (GNR). 387, lists activities that have been identified in terms of Section 24(2) (a) and (d) of the NEMA which may not commence without EA from the Competent Authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment and communication of potential impacts of activities must follow the procedure as described in regulations 22 to 26 of the EIA regulations, 2006 of the NEMA i.e. a full EIA comprising both Scoping and Impact Assessment is necessary for the proposed waste disposal site extension, operation and closure.
A full EIA is applicable to all projects likely to have significant environmental impacts due to their nature or extent, activities associated with potentially high levels of environmental degradation, or activities for which the impacts cannot be easily predicted.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 11 8848
On 1 May 2009, NEMA was again amended by the coming into effect of the National Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2008 (Act No. 62 of 2008) (NEMAA). On 3 July 2009, certain listed activities were also removed from or amended in Listing Notice 1 (GN No. R. 386) and Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R. 387). The amendments were made as part of the rationalisation of the regulation of waste management activities as outlined in the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA) and its regulations thereof.
The project activities relating to waste management were listed as follows in the NEMA EIA regulations, 2006: GNR 386: Activity 23 (d): The decommissioning of existing facilities or infrastructure for the disposal of waste.
GNR 387: Activity 1 (o): The final disposal of general waste covering an area of 100 square metres or more or 200 cubic metres or more of airspace. Section 2.3 of this report contextualises on the NEM:WA and therefore can be referred to for a brief overview.
As mentioned above, the listed activities that were removed from or amended in the Listing 1 and Listing 2 of the NEMA Regulations, 2006, were published in a list of Waste Management Activities published in terms of section 19 of the NEM:WA., they are:
Category A, Activity 20: The decommissioning of activities listed in the Schedule.
Category B, Activity 10: The disposal of general waste to land covering an area in excess of 200m2 5.
The following activities have not been amended or repealed from NEMA Regulations, 2006, and are therefore still applicable to the proposed extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site:
Activity 1(e): The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for: Any process or activity which requires a permit or licence in terms of legislation governing the generation or release of emissions, pollution, effluent or waste and which is not identified in GNR.386 of 2006.
Activity 2: Any development activity, including associated structures and infrastructure, where the total area of the developed area is, or is intended to be 20 hectares or more.
5 Refer to Section 2.3 below for a brief overview of the NEM:WA.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 12 8848
The NEMA can be regarded as the most important piece of general environmental legislation. It provides a framework for environmental law reform and covers three areas, namely:
• Land, planning and development;
• Natural and cultural resources, use and conservation; and
• Pollution control and waste management.
The law is based on the concept of sustainable development. The objective of the NEMA is to provide for co-operative environmental governance through a series of principles relating to:
• The procedures for state decision-making on the environment; and
• The institutions of state which make those decisions.
The NEMA principles serve as:
• A general framework for environmental planning;
• Guidelines according to which the state must exercise its environmental functions; and
• A guide to the interpretation of NEMA itself and of any other law relating to the environment.
2.2.1 What are the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) principles?
Some of the most important principles contained in NEMA are that:
• Environmental management must put people and their needs first;
• Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable;
• There should be equal access to environmental resources, benefits and services to meet basic human needs;
• Government should promote public participation when making decisions about the environment;
• Communities must be given environmental education;
• Workers have the right to refuse to do work that is harmful to their health or to the environment;
• Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner and there must be access to information;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 13 8848
• The role of youth and women in environmental management must be recognised;
• The person or company who pollutes the environment must pay to clean it up;
• The environment is held in trust by the state for the benefit of all South Africans; and
• The utmost caution should be used when permission for new developments is granted.
2.3 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008)
A new era of an integrated waste management system in South Africa through the NEM:WA has been established. The NEM:WA came into effect in July 2009. Provisions have been made in the form of legislative and regulatory tools to facilitate and ensure implementation of the Act by all spheres of government. To this end, the Minister of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWEA) published a Waste Management Activity List in July 2009 which has clear thresholds on waste activities that need authorisation prior to commencement. The published Waste Management Activity List effectively replaces Schedule 1 of the NEMA and all waste related activities listed in EIA lists.
All waste-related activities listed in terms of section 24(2) of the NEMA have been repealed at the same time that the Minister published the new list of waste management activities in order to align the NEM:WA and the EIA regulations and to avoid the necessity to submit two applications for the same activity.
Waste management activity means: any activity listed in Schedule 1 or published by notice in the Gazette under section 19 and includes inter alia the disposal of waste.
2.3.1 Schedule 1 – Waste management activities in respect of which a waste management licence is required
The Acting Minister of the DWEA, under section 19(1) of the NEM:WA, has published a List of Waste Management Activities which has, or is likely to have a detrimental effect on the environment in GN No. 718 of 3 July 2009.
The schedule has listed activities in two different categories, i.e. Category “A” and Category “B”.
For Category “A” activities: a person who wishes to commence, undertake or conduct an activity listed under this Category, must conduct a Basic Assessment process, as stipulated in the EIA regulations under section 24 (5) of the NEMA as part of a Waste Management Licence Application.
The applicable activity to the proposed project in Category “A”, is as follows:
(18) The decommissioning of activities listed in the Schedule
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 14 8848
For Category “B” activities: a person who wishes to commence, undertake or conduct an activity listed under this Category, must conduct a full EIA process, as stipulated in the EIA regulations under section 24(5) of the NEMA as part of a Waste Management Licence Application.
The applicable activity to the proposed project falls under Category “B”, which is as follows:
(10) The disposal of general waste to land covering an area in excess of 200m2.
Therefore, it is imperative that a full EIA be conducted for the proposed project.
2.4 The Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989)
The ECA, Act No 73 of 1989 was previously applicable to waste facility establishment, operation and disposal as Section 20(1) states that ‘no person shall establish, provide or operate any disposal site without a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs.
Section 21(1c) The Construction, or upgrading of, transportation routes and structures, and manufacturing, storage, handling or processing facilities for any substances which are considered dangerous or hazardous, and is controlled by the national legislation.
The Minister would in such a permit indicate the control and management of disposal sites in general, the control and management of certain disposal sites or disposal sites handling particular types of waste; and the procedure to be followed before any disposal site could be withdrawn from use or utilised for another purpose.
The promulgation of the NEMA and the subsequent NEM:WA have replaced the ECA, and therefore its regulations.
2.5 Additional Legal Frameworks and Legislation
2.5.1 Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Second edition, 1998
The project must comply with the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, (Second edition 1998) and Minimum Requirements for the handling, classification and disposal of hazardous waste (Second edition 1998):
The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by landfill are:
• To improve the standard of waste disposal in South Africa;
• To improve guidelines for environmentally acceptable waste disposal for a spectrum of site sizes and types; and
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 15 8848
• To provide a framework of minimum waste disposal standards within which to work and upon which to build.
The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for the handling, classification and disposal of hazardous waste are to:
• Prevent water pollution and ensure sustained fitness for use of South Africa’s water resources;
• Attain and maintain minimum waste management standards in South Africa, so as to protect human health and the environment from possible harmful effects caused by the handling, treatment, storage and disposal of waste;
• Effectively administer and provide a systematic and nationally uniform approach to the waste disposal process; and
• Endeavour to make South African waste management practices internationally acceptable.
2.5.2 The National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
The provision of water in South Africa is divided into public water and private water, and its use is regulated by the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA) (under the directorship of the DWA). It must be noted that, in terms of the NWA, it is an offence to pollute public and/or private water to render it unfit for the propagation of fish and aquatic life, including rainwater, seawater, and subterranean water.
2.5.3 The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004)
The objectives of this Act are-
a) Within the framework of the NEMA, to provide for-
• The management and conservation of biological diversity within the of Republic of South Africa and of the components of such biological diversity;
• The use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and
• The fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bio- prospecting involving indigenous biological resources.
b) To give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the Republic of South Africa;
c) To provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 16 8848
d) To provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) to assist in achieving the objectives of this Act.
2.5.4 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004)
The object of this Act is -
• To protect the environment by providing reasonable measures for - - The protection and enhancement of the quality of air in the RSA; - The prevention of air pollution and ecological degradation; and
- Securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
• Generally to give effect to section 24(b) of the Constitution in order to enhance the quality of ambient air for the sake of securing an environment that is not harmful to the health and well-being of people.
2.5.5 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Integrated Environmental Management Information Series
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism6 [DEAT, now referred to as the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)] Information Series 2002 - 2006 comprise 23 information documents. The documents were drafted as sources of information about concepts and approaches to Integrated Environmental Management (IEM). The IEM is a key instrument of NEMA and provides the overarching framework for the integration of environmental assessment and management principles into environmental decision-making. The aim of the information series is to provide general guidance on techniques, tools and processes for environmental assessment and management.
2.5.6 The National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)
The objectives of this act are to: • Introduce an integrated and interactive system for the management of the national heritage resources; to promote good government at all levels, and empower civil society to nurture and conserve their heritage resources so that they may be bequeathed to future generations;
6 The Department of Environmental Affairs was previously known as the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 17 8848
• Lay down general principles for governing heritage resources management throughout the Republic;
• Introduce an integrated system for the identification, assessment and management of the heritage resources of South Africa;
• Establish the South African Heritage Resources Agency together with its Council to co- ordinate and promote the management of heritage resources at national level;
• Set norms and maintain essential national standards for the management of heritage resources in the Republic and to protect heritage resources of national significance;
• Control the export of nationally significant heritage objects and the import into the Republic of cultural property illegally exported from foreign countries;
• Enable the provinces to establish heritage authorities which must adopt powers to protect and manage certain categories of heritage resources; and
• Provide for the protection and management of conservation-worthy places and areas by local authorities; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
2.5.7 Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993)
The Occupation Health and Safety Act (OHSA) makes provisions that address the health and safety of persons working on the site. The objectives of the act are to:
• Provide for the health and safety of persons at work and for the health and safety of persons in connection with the use of plant and machinery;
• Protect persons other than persons at work against hazards to health and safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;
• Establish an advisory council for occupational health and safety; and
• Provide for matters connected therewith. 2.5.8 Provincial Gazette Extraordinary, 9 February 2005, No 43 109-Solid waste By- laws for the Emfuleni Local Municipality
In terms of chapter 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, section 152(1) (b) lists as an object of Local Government to ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner and (d) to promote a safe and healthy environment and to exercise the power and functions of municipalities as set out in section 156.
The Sedibeng District Municipality has a duty to ensure that residents of the District Municipality have a safe and healthy environment by ensuring that waste is handled and disposed of in a responsible and environmentally friendly manner. This can be achieved by regulating and controlling the generation, collection, processing, transfer and disposal of such waste at appropriate waste processing and disposal sites.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 18 8848
3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The EIA Process being followed for this project complies with the NEMA EIA Regulations GN No. R.385 to R. 387 as amended and administered by the DEA, and promulgated in April 2006 in terms of the Section 24 (5) of the NEMA. The technical and Public Participation Process (PPP) undertaken for this EIA is summarised below and schematically represented in Figure 3 below.
The EIA process can be divided into the following phases:
• The Scoping Phase;
• The Impact Assessment Phase; and
• The Environmental Authorisation Phase.
Each of these phases is explained in detail below.
3.1 Scoping Phase
3.1.1 Technical Process
For the Scoping Phase of this EIA, the following technical process was followed:
Pre-Application Consultation
Subsequent to ZC being appointed, a project kick-off meeting was held on 17 January 2007. The client described the proposed project and its scope. The Boitshepi Waste Disposal was visited by Messrs Mzu Tshem and Ken Bromfield of ZC.
During this project kick-off meeting the following was discussed:
• Project scope and requirements;
• Project schedule;
• Identification of key stakeholders and role players; and
• Preliminary buffer zone alternatives for the extension of the site.
Consultation with the Authorities
A pre-application consultation with Mr Leon Bredenhann, Given Mashiane and Karen de Villiers of the DEA and Mrs Eunice Rammbasa of the GDARD was conducted on 14 September 2007. During this meeting the proposed project was presented to the authorising authority and the project-specific requirements for the EIA were discussed and finalised.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 19 8848
Application Forms and Landowner consent
The EIA application form (Appendix A1) for the proposed project was submitted to the GDARD on 10 April 2008. (Refer to Appendix A6). Acknowledgement of receipt of the application form by the GDARD was received on 8 July 2008.
Site Visits
Monthly site visits were conducted by Mrs Jacqui Hex from ZC and Mr Elias Barnard from GAA from April 2007 to November 2009 in order to identify all environmental aspects to be assessed during the EIA phase.
Draft Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA
The Draft Scoping Report (SR) was prepared based on the information gathered and issues identified during the Scoping Phase activities. The PoS for EIA including the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the envisaged specialist studies were also included in the Final Scoping Report
Final Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA
The Draft SR and PoS were updated based on comments obtained from I&APs and were consolidated into the Final Scoping Report and the PoS for the EIA. This report was submitted to the GDARD for acceptance and approval to proceed was received on the 9 April 2009 (Appendix A7).
3.1.2 Public Participation Process
Public participation is an essential and legislative requirement in an EIA processes. The principles that demand communication with society at large are best embodied in the principles of the NEMA (Act 107 of 1998, Chapter 1), South Africa’s overarching environmental law. In addition, Section 24 (5), Regulation 56 of GN R385 under the NEMA, guides the PPP that is required for an EIA. The NEM:WA, Part 2, Section 73 also makes provision for public participation.
The PPP for this project has been designed and undertaken to satisfy the requirements laid down in the above legislation. Figure 3 below provides an overview of the EIA technical and PP processes, and shows how issues and concerns raised by the public are used to inform the technical investigations of the EIA at various milestones during the process. This section of the report highlights the key elements of the PPP to date.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 20 8848
Objectives of public participation in an Environmental Impact Assessment
The objectives of public participation in an EIA are to provide sufficient and accessible information to I&APs in an objective manner to assist them:
• During Scoping: - Encourage the I&APs to provide of issues of concern and suggestions for enhanced benefits and alternatives. - Contribute their local knowledge and experience.
- Verify that their issues have been considered and to help define the scope of the technical studies to be undertaken during the Impact Assessment.
The key objective of public participation is to ensure transparency throughout the process and promote informed decision making.
Identification of Interested and Affected Parties
The identification of stakeholders is an ongoing process, refined throughout the process as on-the-ground understanding of affected stakeholders improves through interaction with various stakeholders in the area. The identification of key stakeholders and community representatives (landowners and occupiers) is important and was done in collaboration with the local municipality and other organisations in the study area.
Stakeholders’ details are captured on Maximiser 9, an electronic database management software programme that automatically categorises every mailing to stakeholders, thus providing an ongoing record of communications - an important requirement by the authorities for public participation. In addition, comments and contributions received from stakeholders are recorded, linking each comment to the name of the person who made it.
Announcement of opportunity to become involved
The opportunity to participate in the EIA Process was announced in August 2008 as follows:
• Distribution of a letter of invitation to become involved, addressed to individuals and organisations by name, accompanied by a BID containing details of the proposed project, including maps of the project area, and a registration sheet (Appendix B6);
• Advertisements were placed in the following newspapers (Appendix B1):
According to the NEMA, Section 24 (5), EIA Regulations, Section 56 of GN R385, a register of I&APs must be kept by the public participation practitioner. Such a register has been compiled and is being kept updated with the details of involved I&APs throughout the process (See Appendix B3).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 21 8848
COMPILE STAKEHOLDER DATABASE APPLICATION /REGISTRATION OF EIA AND AUTHORITIES MEETING ANNOUNCE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT
Personalised letter Media Advertise- Posters Public and Background On-site Web INFORMATION GATHERING Information Document release ments notices places
FOCUS GROUP AND ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS COLLATE BASELINE INFORMATION ISSUES AND REPONSE REPORT
PRIORITISE ISSUES PROGRESS FEEDBACK LETTER AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF DRAFT SCOPING REPORT
DRAFT SCOPING REPORT AND TORS OF SPECIALIST STUDIES (Including Issues and Response Report )
Stakeholder Public places SCOPING workshops
ACCESS FURTHER INFORMATION; REPRIORITISE ISSUES IF NECESSARY RECEIVE COMMENTS AND CONSOLIDATE IN ISSUES AND RESPONSE REPORT
FINAL SCOPING REPORT AND EIA PLAN OF STUDY
END OF SCOPING
COMMENCE SPECIALIST STUDIES
FINALISE SPECIALIST STUDIES PROGRESS FEEDBACK LETTER AND INTEGRATE FINDINGS ANNOUNCEMENT OF DRAFT EIR
DRAFT EIR, summary draft EIR (Including Issues and Response Report; Specialist Reports)
RE-ASSESS WHERE NECESSARY OPEN HOUSES / PUBLIC MEETINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT IMPACT PROCEEDINGS FINAL EIR AND DRAFT EMP (as Issues/Response Report)
SUBMIT FINAL EIR AND EMP TO AUTHORITIES
PROGRESS FEEDBACK LETTER AUTHORITY DECISION AND CONDITIONS IF POSITIVE AUTHORITY DECISION FEEDBACK Personalised letter Advertisements
DECISION-MAKING FINALISE EMP AND IMPLEMENT
Figure 3: Technical and Public Participation Process and activities that comprise the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 22 8848
Table 1: Newspapers in which the proposed project was announced. Publication Publication Date Vaal Weekblad 27 August 2008 Vaal Weekly 27 August 2008 Vereeniging Ster 27 August 2008 Vaal Vision 28 August 2008 Vanderbijlpark Ster 27 August 2008 Sasolburg Ster 27 August 2008
• Notice boards were placed during August 2008 at conspicuous places (Figure 4), at various public places, and on Bakwena Road. Site notices were placed prominently to invite stakeholder participation. (Appendix B2).
Figure 4: Site notice boards were put up in the study area.
Obtaining comments and contributions
The following opportunities were provided during Scoping for I&APs to provide comment:
• Completing and returning registration/comment sheets in which space was provided for comment;
• Providing comment telephonically or by email to the public participation office; and
• Attending the stakeholder meeting of 13 November 2008 that was widely advertised (see table below) and raising comments there.
Issues relevant to the current project configuration were carried forward into this Impact Assessment Phase.
Table 2: A stakeholder meeting was advertised as part of the public review period of the Draft Scoping Report. Date Venue Thursday, 13 November 2008 Vanderbijlpark Library
The minutes of the public meetings are attached to this Draft EIR in the form of an IRR.
Issues and Response Report and Acknowledgements
The issues raised during the announcement, were captured in an IRR Version 1, which was appended to the DSR. This report was updated to include additional I&AP contributions that
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 23 8848 were received as part of the scoping phase process. The issues and comments raised during the public review period of the Draft Scoping Report were added to the report as Version 2 of the IRR which was appended to the FSR. The contributions made by I&APs were and will continue to be acknowledged in writing (Appendix B4).
Draft Scoping Report
The purpose of the review of the Draft SR was to enable I&APs to verify that their contributions had been captured, understood and correctly interpreted, and to raise further issues. At the end of Scoping, the issues identified by I&APs and by the environmental technical specialists, were used to define the ToR for the Specialist Studies that were conducted during this Impact Assessment Phase of the EIA. A period of four weeks was available for public review of the Draft SR (3 November 2008 to 28 November 2008).
In addition to media advertisements and site notices to announce the opportunity to participate in the EIA, the opportunity for public review was announced as follows:
• In newspaper advertisements published to advertise the public review period; and
• In a letter sent out on 27 October 2008, and addressed personally to all individuals and organisations on the stakeholder database (Appendix B5).
Table 3: Newspapers in which advertisements were placed for public review of the Draft Scoping Report. Publication Publication Date Vaal Weekblad 3 – 7 November 2008 Vaal Weekly 3 – 7 November 2008 Vereeniging Ster 3 – 7 November 2008 Vaal Vision 3 – 7 November 2008 Vanderbijlpark Ster 3 – 7 November 2008 Sasolburg Ster 3 – 7 November 2008
The Draft SR, including the IRR Version 1, was distributed for comment as follows:
• Left in public places in the project area. The public places where documents were made available are listed in Table 4 below;
• Mailed to key stakeholders (Appendix B3);
• Mailed to I&APs who requested the report;
• Copies were made available at the public meeting.
I&APs could comment on the report in various ways, such as completing the comment sheet that accompanied the report, at the public meeting that was held on 13 November 2009 and submitting individual comments in writing or by email.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 24 8848
Table 4: List of public places where the Draft Scoping Report was made available. Place Contact Person Telephone Vereeniging Public Library Ms Mabosego 016 – 450 3029 Vanderbijlpark Public Library Mrs Marina van Wyk 016 – 950 5252 Boipatong Public Library Mrs Maria Aphane 016 – 988 3738
Final Scoping Report
The Final SR was updated to include any additional issues raised by I&APs and therefore contained any new information that was generated as a result of this EIA process. The Final SR was distributed to the Authorities (GDARD) and key I&APs, and to those individuals who specifically requested a copy. I&APs were notified of the availability of the Final SR.
3.2 Impact Assessment Phase
As with the Scoping Phase, the Impact Assessment Phase consists of a technical process and a public participation process. These processes are explained separately below.
3.2.1 Technical Process
Specialist Studies
In this Impact Assessment Phase of the EIA, specialist studies were conducted to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of the proposed project, and to recommend appropriate measures to enhance positive impacts and avoid or reduce negative ones. The specialist reports are appended to this Draft EIR as Appendix C.
Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Management Plan
This Draft EIR was prepared with information and issues identified during the Scoping Phase activities, comments from the GDARD and other commenting authorities and the findings from the specialist studies. Appended to this Draft EIR is the Draft Environmental Management Plan (Appendix E).
The Draft EIR includes:
• A detailed description of the proposed development;
• A description of the need and desirability of the proposed development and the identified potential alternatives to the proposed activity;
• A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment may be affected by the proposed development;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 25 8848
• A description of the methodology followed and being followed for the stakeholder engagement process;
• The Issues and Response Report and Stakeholder Database;
• A summary of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential impacts;
• A description and comparative assessment of all alternatives identified during the environmental impact assessment process;
• A summary of the findings of the specialist studies;
• A detailed assessment of all identified potential impacts;
• A list of the assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge;
• An opinion by the consultant as to whether the development is suitable for approval within the proposed site;
• An EMP that complies with regulation 34 of the NEMA ,Act 107 of 1998; and
• Copies of all specialist reports appended to the EIR.
Environmental Management Plan
The Environmental Management Plan highlights the most significant potential impacts and provides mitigation measures for these impacts to ensure that the risk of impact is reduced and that the activity generating the impact is suitably managed. The EMP includes:
• Recommended management plans and detailed measures for environmental objectives identified to manage impacts, in order to facilitate the monitoring and control of the activity generating the impact; and
• The identification of the responsible person for the mitigation and monitoring of impacts.
3.2.2 Public participation during the Impact Assessment
Objectives of Public Participation in the Impact Assessment Phase
The objectives of public participation in an EIA are to provide sufficient and accessible information to I&APs in an objective manner so as to:
• During Impact Assessment: - Verify that their issues have been considered either by the EIA Specialist Studies, or elsewhere.
- Comment on the findings of the EIA, including the measures that have been proposed to enhance positive impacts and reduce or avoid negative ones.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 26 8848
Public participation during the impact assessment phase of the EIA mainly involves a review of the findings of the EIA, presented in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), the Draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the specialist studies.
Public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Management Plan
A period of four weeks has been made available for public review of the Draft EIR and Draft EMP from 10 May 2010 to 10 June 2010.
The opportunity for public review of the Draft EIR and Draft EMP was announced as follows:
• In advertisements published (see Table 5 below) to advertise the public review period of the Draft EIR and Draft EMP. Table 5: Advertisements placed to announce the public review of the draft EIR and draft EMP.
Publication Publication Date Vaal Weekblad 12 May Vaal Weekly 12 May Vereeniging Ster 12 May Vision Sebokeng & Evaton 13 May Vanderbijlpark Ster 12 May Vaal Weekblad 12 May
• In a letter distributed on 4 May 2010 and addressed personally to all individuals and organisations on the stakeholder database.
The Draft EIR and Draft EMP, including the IRR Version 3, have been distributed for comment as follows:
• Left in public venues within the vicinity of the project area (these are listed in Table 4 above – the same venues were used as during the scoping phase);
• Mailed to key stakeholders; and
• Mailed to I&APs who requested the report.
I&APs can comment on the report in various ways, such as completing the comment sheet that accompanies the report and submitting individual comments in writing or by email.
Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Management Plan
The Final EIR and EMP will be updated with additional issues raised by I&APs and will contain new information that was generated as a result of the public review process. The Final EIR and EMP will be submitted to the Authorities (GDARD) and key I&APs, and to those
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 27 8848 individuals who specifically requested a copy. I&APs will be notified of the availability of the final reports in a letter that will be distributed to all stakeholders towards the end of June.
Announce authorities’ decisions on Environmental Authorisation
Once the GDARD has made a decision for the proposed project, stakeholders will be notified according to the requirements set by the GDARD in their authorisation letter. A letter will be faxed and emailed to the list of stakeholders and those without email or fax facilities will be contacted telephonically. Advertisements will be published in the same newspapers as listed in Table 3 above.
3.2.3 Appeal
A Notice of Intent to appeal on the EA can be lodged with the GDARD by either the proponent or a stakeholder within stipulated time period (within an EA) following the issue of the EA. An appeal must be submitted to the relevant department within 30 days of lodging the Notice of Intent to appeal. The appeal should describe the grounds for appeal and must be substantiated with evidence.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 28 8848
4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED
Issues and concerns raised during the EIA have been documented in the IRR (See Appendix B4).
4.1 Authorities
To date, the following Authorities have raised issues and concerns regarding the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and the identified alternatives.
• Emfuleni Local Municipality.
4.2 Stakeholders
The issues and concerns documented to date have been tabulated in the IRR (Appendix B4) and have been summarised into the following board categories:
• The type of materials being disposed;
• Social Issues;
• Illegal Dumping;
• Ecological Issues;
• Economic;
• Access to the site; and
• Air quality.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 29 8848
5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
5.1 Location The ELM consists of two main town centres, namely Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark with Sasolburg 10 km to the south, across the provincial boundary. The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is located in Vanderbijlpark. The site is situated to the east of Boipatong and to the west of Tshepiso, hence the name Boitshepi (Figure 1).
5.2 Need for the extension of the Waste Disposal Site with view of closure The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is reaching capacity and as such needs to be extended and ultimately closed. The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is the only site that can accommodate the waste disposal needs in the ELM for the time being. The site receives an average of 20,000 to 25,000 tons of waste per month from local residences and industries.
The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed to meet the waste disposal needs for the area. Kwezi V3 Engineers (KV3) in association with Masakhe Isizwe Engineers (Pty) Ltd were appointed by the ELM on 12 February 2008 (3 year contract) to site, obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB+ waste disposal site in the ELM. Once operational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. 5.3 Components for a Waste Disposal Site The following components of the waste disposal site are being taken into consideration throughout this EIA and the design of the site:
• The lifespan of the site • Footprint of the facility (ground space); • Height of the facility (airspace); • Type of waste to be disposed as well as the volumes (waste stream analysis); • Geotechnical, hydrogeological conditions and liner design; and • Capping of the site.
Lifespan of the facility
The lifespan of the facility will be linked to the buffer zone alternative to be approved and is dependent on the new waste disposal site being established. It is estimated that the site will require at least an additional 3 years of operations.
Footprint of the facility
The existing waste disposal site has footprint of approximately 10 ha. The new facility footprint will depend on the alternative approved. The additional footprint will range between 12 (0 metre buffer) and 3.5 ha (100 metre buffer).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 30 8848
The current use of the land adjacent to the waste disposal site and the property on which it is situated is of industrial, agricultural and a wetland. Major towns within the region are Vereeniging (located to the north east of the site) Vanderbijlpark (south west of the site), Sasolburg (south of the site) and Meyerton (north east of the site). There are currently approximately 500 salvagers on site. These salvagers depend on the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site for their livelihood. The majority of the salvagers live in the ‘informal settlements’ of Tshepiso (east of the site), Boipatong (west of the site), Bophelong (north of the site), Evaton (north of the site), Orange Farm, Sebokeng (north of the site), Sharpeville (east of the site) and Zamdela.
The Vaal Triangle encompasses a mixture of commercial, agricultural, and residential land use activities, all within close proximity to one another. Vanderbijlpark is home to Vanderbijlpark Steel (previously part of ISCOR (Iron and Steel Corporation), now part of the global company Arcelor Mittal. Other Industrial activities within this region include coal-fired power stations, chemical factories, petrochemical plants, metallurgical plants and multiple small industries.
Height of the facility
The present highest point of the waste disposal site is 1496 m above sea level. The extension will be designed to this height across the approved footprint.
Geotechnical Conditions and Foundation Design
The current site is situated in an area dominated by clay soils and is unlined. It is recommended that the extension of the site be lined as per the Minimum Requirements (Figure 5). A geotechnical investigation was undertaken (Appendix C4) in order to establish whether the extension / new site can be constructed on the geological conditions that prevail on site. This in turn influenced the foundation design of the disposal facility.
Figure 5: Waste Disposal Site Liner for a GLB+ site as per the Minimum Requirements.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 31 8848
Capping of the Waste Disposal Site
There is no permit / licence for the existing waste site. However the cells of the existing waste disposal site that have reached capacity must be capped during the same period that the extension is lined. The type of capping proposed for the site is in line with the Minimum Requirements for a GLB+ waste disposal facility (Figure 6).
As stated in the Minimum Requirements the design of covers is highly dependent on site- specific circumstances, e.g., nature of waste (wet, dry, putrescible). Although the primary function of the cover is to keep water out of the waste body, the cover design will also be affected by the containment and gas management philosophy adopted and the preferred materials and technology (e.g., clay, GCLs and FMLs) for the given situation. Cover designs should be based on the figure below. However, at the discretion of the Competent Authority, components and configurations may be varied.
Figure 6: Capping cross section for a GLB+ waste disposal site as per the Minimum Requirements.
5.4 Services and Infrastructure
The waste disposal site already has the following auxiliary services and infrastructures present on site:
• Access and Roads;
• Weighbridge;
• Fencing;
• Water;
• Electricity;
• Staff facilities; and
• Site office and fuel storage area.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 32 8848
5.5 Major Activities of the Overall Waste Project
The major activities for the proposed project (including the EIA), prior to and after construction, are explained in the table below. Table 6: Major activities for the proposed project. ACTIVITY DETAILS PRE CONSTRUCTION PHASE Screening As part of the undertaking of an EIA, a technical team devised buffer zone alternatives for the proposed project. An environmental team was commissioned to undertake a screening exercise in the area to determine the most feasible alternative from an environmental perspective to take into the EIA.
EIA An EIA is being undertaken to ensure that all environmental, social and cultural impacts are identified and to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to raise issues and concerns. This is necessary to obtain Environmental Authorisation from the competent authority in this case the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD).
Consultation with private All stakeholders and property owners have been, and are being engaged in the EIA. property owners
Structure liner Investigations will be undertaken to ensure that the liner specifications are in line with the investigation underlying geology.
Approval from authorities
Relocation of services If any infrastructure needs to be relocated for the development, it must be undertaken prior to commencement with construction.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE Structures Fencing - Provide a safe and secured waste disposal area to restrict access and prevent injuries to livestock – already in place, however needs to be maintained Formation - Provide a ground formation compacted to the correct standard on which to extend the waste disposal site.
Drainage - Provide water drainage channels within the site and leachate management system.
REHABILITATION PHASE Rehabilitate the The area where construction activities have taken place must be rehabilitated to minimise construction area environmental degradation by following the EMP that is compiled in conjunction to the EIA.
OPERATIONAL PHASE Commencement of Rehabilitation tasks have to take place progressively during operations. operations DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE Decommissioning of the Once the waste disposal site is no longer in use and is no longer required, a decommissioning waste site and its process may commence including the capping of the waste body and rehabilitating the area. infrastructure
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 33 8848
5.6 Overall EIA Project Schedule
The primary milestones for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site Project (prior and through to post construction) are described in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Primary milestones of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. MILESTONES DATE Final Scoping Report 20 February 2009 Undertake Specialist Studies January - March 2010 Draft EIR and EMP April 2010 Stakeholder Engagement on EIR / EMP May - June 2010 Finalise EIR and EMP June 2010 Submission to Relevant Authorities July 2010 Environmental Authorisation October / November 2010 Appeal Period To be confirmed after the Environmental Authorisation Construction (including EMP Auditing) To be confirmed after the Environmental Authorisation
5.7 Description of the Development Activities - Extension
5.7.1 The Pre-Construction Phase
Environmental Authorisation and Waste Licence
If the competent authority decides to grant EA, then an EA will be issued complying with Regulation 38 of the NEMA Regulations, 2006 in the name of the applicant. Once an EA is issued, a Waste Licence can also be issued in order for the proposed project to proceed. Should both the EA and Waste License be received, and the appeal process lapses the ELM may commence with construction towards extension.
Appointment of Contractor
After a tendering process, the ELM will appoint a construction contractor.
Construction Schedule
The primary milestones for the construction for the extension of Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site are described below.
5.7.2 Construction Phase
Once a positive EA and waste license is obtained, construction for the extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site will be undertaken over a period to be determined by the municipality. The construction phase of the development will involve the following aspects:
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 34 8848
• Site preparation and vegetation clearance for contractor’s camp;
• Erection of camp sites for the contractors;
• Construction of surface drainage and storm water diversion drains;
• Construction of the liner;
• Construction of a leachate collection system;
• Construction of a leakage detection system;
• Construction of gas management systems (not applicable at this stage); and
• Site preparation and commissioning.
Site preparation and vegetation clearance is undertaken for contractor’s camp in order to facilitate construction.
An area will be cleared for the siting of a contractor’s camp to facilitate construction. This area will be chosen to have the least environmental impacts which are easily mitigated and will be rehabilitated as per the EMP requirements post construction.
Erection of camp sites for the contractors
The contractor’s camp will be located on the site within the palisade fencing and therefore no additional fencing will be required. Site establishment shall take place in an orderly manner and all amenities shall be installed at the camp site (if applicable) before the main workforce moves onto site.
Construction of surface drainage and storm water diversion drains.
This includes the separation of unpolluted from polluted surface water and the containment of polluted water on site in impoundments. Also where leachate is generated, it must be contained separately from water which is only slightly polluted through contact with the waste.
Construction of the liner
This is a layer of low permeability material placed beneath a waste disposal site and designed to direct leachate to a collection drain or sump, or to contain leachate. It may comprise natural materials, synthetic materials, or a combination thereof (refer to Section 5.3).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 35 8848
Construction of a leachate collection system
The leachate collection system will be equipped with suitable drains or collection pipes that direct the gravity flow of leachate to defined collection points or sumps from which it can be collected for treatment.
Construction of a leakage detection system
The leakage detection system will be constructed to intercept any leachate that may pass the barrier of the liner. This leachate is then directed to separate leachate collection sumps or sewer, where the quantity and quality can be monitored and from which accumulated leakage can be removed or passed through to the sewer system. This system is designed to fulfil the requirements for the early warning monitoring of leakage given in Section 6 of the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring of Waste Management Facilities, Second Edition, 1998.
Figure 7: Example of a Leakage Detection System. Construction of gas management systems
A gas management system is constructed to extract gas by applying suction to a system of perforated pipes within the waste site to reduce odour problems and the explosion hazard.
When organic waste decomposes without the presence of oxygen, anaerobic fermentation slowly produces landfill gas. Landfill gas contains 40-60% methane, with the remainder being mostly carbon dioxide. Methane is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to its properties as a greenhouse gas, making it a key climate change gas to address. Burning methane produces energy, carbon dioxide and water. This is a very useful outcome as besides being an energy source, the hugely potent methane is replaced by the considerably less potent CO2. A gas management system will therefore capture the methane and combust it for energy. It can be used to produce electricity, or used directly for cooking and for space and water heating. When concentrated and compressed, it can also be used as a vehicle fuel source.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 36 8848
CEF (Pty) Ltd, a state owned entity, is proposing landfill gas (LFG) to electricity renewable energy projects at landfill sites in the ELM. The proposed activities will consist of extraction and utilisation of landfill gas, and the use of the recovered gas to produce electricity.
The proposed activities are regulated in terms of NEMA EIA Regulations and as such are subject to the Scoping and EIA procedure. In order for the activities to proceed, they will require environmental authorisation.
WSP Environment & Energy has been appointed by CEF to undertake the function of independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner to facilitate the Scoping and EIA procedure in accordance with the EIA Regulations.
Figure 8: Landfill Gas Management. Site preparation and commissioning
This commences after all infrastructure has been established, in order to prepare the site to a state that is ready to receive waste and to operate as an environmentally acceptable disposal facility for a pre- determined period. This would entail having all the above in place, installed and ready for the acceptance of waste.
5.7.3 Operational Phase
The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for waste disposal site operation are:
• To ensure that all waste is disposed of in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner; and
• To ensure that the disposal operation is acceptable to those whom it affects.
Waste disposal sites must be operated in accordance with the following sanitary waste disposal site operating principles:
- Waste must be compacted; and
- Covered at the end of each day’s operation.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 37 8848
There are different methods that should be applied for landfilling general waste:
• Trench system (Only for communal and small sized waste disposal sites);
• Standard cell operation;
• Wet weather cell; and
• Special cells for putrescible waste.
Facilities and resources that the waste disposal site should have during its operation include:
Sign posting and road access; Signs in the appropriate official languages must be erected in the vicinity of the waste site, indicating the route and the distance to the waste disposal site from the nearest main road. These traffic signs must conform to the requirements of the Road Ordinance. A general notice board must also be erected at the site entrance stating the class of the disposal site and the types of waste that can be accepted as well as the correlated tariffs charged.
Figure 9 is a depiction of such a notice board at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site that can only be amended once EA has been granted by the GDARD to accommodate the requirements of the extended site.
Figure 9: Existing site notice boards at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. Controls
Waste Acceptance General waste disposal sites may only receive general waste. Prior to waste being accepted at the general waste disposal sites, it must be inspected by a suitably qualified staff and the transporter must confirm that waste is indeed general waste.
On entering a waste disposal site, all drivers are expected to go over a weighbridge. A weighbridge is a piece of equipment that weighs both the vehicle and waste that it contains to accurately record the amount of waste being disposed. The driver then completes a form where the weight and type of waste is recorded as well as the identity of the driver and
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 38 8848 registration number of the vehicle. A clerk in the weighbridge office then enters this information into the computer. As indicated in Figure 9 above, disposable tariffs are payable as per the tonnes of waste disposed. Clean builders rubble, clean cover material, greens (excluding tree branches) and public domestic waste are all disposed free of charge, furthermore, mixed builder’s rubble, bulky tree stump, domestic waste, big blocks, delisted industrial waste, are assigned a specific tariff to each of them.
Access Control It is a Minimum Requirement that vehicle access to the site be limited to a single controlled entrance to prevent the unauthorised entry and illegal dumping. The site entrance should have a lockable gate which should be managed during operation hours.
Collection of disposal tariffs Waste disposal tariffs should be levied and collected at all waste disposal sites from medium size upward. The tariffs, as mentioned above should be displayed on the notice board (Figure 9 above).
Security It is a Minimum Requirement that unauthorised pedestrian access be strictly prohibited. Waste reclamation and squatting should be discouraged.
Operational Management Plan This is a plan that is a site specific document that has been developed as part of the waste license application procedure. It describes the way in which the site is to be operated, commencing at the level and detail of daily cell construction and continuing through to the projected development of the site with time. Please refer to Appendix F for the Operational Management Plan.
Resources Adequate facilities, equipment, and suitably trained staff are required in order to ensure an ongoing environmentally acceptable waste disposal operation.
5.8 Description of the Development Activities - Closure 5.8.1 Rehabilitation Phase
The progressive rehabilitation of waste sites by means of capping and the subsequent establishment of vegetation is a Minimum Requirement. Capping should be implemented on all areas where no further waste deposition will take place, and re-vegetation should commence as soon as possible. Screening berms are the first areas where vegetation must be established. This ensures that waste disposal operations take place behind vegetated berms. These are extended upwards in advance of the disposal operation to ensure continued screening. This is referred to as the “rising green wall” approach. All final levels and slopes must be in accordance with the waste site design and the end-use plan. Slopes should not be steeper than 1:3 so as to minimise erosion.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 39 8848
6 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) Guidelines (DEA) state that information on reasonable alternatives should be provided. The following alternatives have been considered and are discussed in more detail below:
• Site alternatives;
• Design alternatives; and
• “No-go” alternative.
Alternatives are different means of meeting the general purpose and need of a proposed activity. Alternatives may involve location (site), activity, process or technology, temporal or the no-go alternatives. Alternatives relevant to the project have been detailed below.
6.1 Site Alternatives
There are no site alternatives as the activity is for the extension and decommissioning of an existing site. It is proposed that the current waste disposal site be upgraded and extended with the view to closure.
6.2 Design Alternatives
Three different design alternatives were considered in the Scoping Phase of the project (2008). The three alternatives were as follows:
• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The site will have an additional 3,651,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan of approximately 9 years;
• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone. The site would gain an extra 3,006,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan of approximately 7-8 years; and
• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone. An addition of 1,140,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life of the waste would be approximately 3 years.
The EIA for the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site was initiated in January 2007. The project has been on-going for almost three years and throughout this period waste has been and continues to be disposed of at Boitshepi. As a result some of the information that has been provided in earlier phases of this project is outdated and no longer applicable, therefore certain capacity and lifespan calculations are no longer correct and out by approximately two years and required re-evaluation.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 40 8848
The approval letter received from the GDARD from the Scoping Phase stated that Alternative 3 (100 metre buffer) was the preferred alternative, and at that stage alternative 3 would allow for an additional 3 years airspace. This is no longer the situation and the three alternatives have been re-evaluated as follows:
• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users), the site will have an additional 3,221,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan of approximately 8 years;
• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone The site would gain an extra 2,576,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan of approximately 6-7 years; and
• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone. An addition of 710,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life of the waste would be approximately 1-2 years.
Alternative 3 initially seemed viable and preferable, with the smallest footprint for the proposed extension as an intermediate solution prior to the new waste disposal being established. However, on evaluation of the recent calculations it is evident that this alternative is no longer feasible since it will not accommodate the disposal requirements for the area until the new site is commissioned and it is therefore no longer the preferred alternative but is fatally flawed. Regardless of this fatal flaw it is included in the impact assessment for consistency and information purposes.
The three alternatives are illustrated in Figure 10.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 41 8848
Figure 10: Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site with Alternative Buffer Zones.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 42 8848
Alternative 1 In the case of alternative 1, where there will be no buffer zone, the surrounding land users will be highly affected and there will be a significant impact as a result of the activities, as there will be no distance between the community and the waste disposal site. The site will have an additional 3,221,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan of approximately 8 years.
Alternative 2 In the case of Alternative 2, where there will be 50 meter buffer zone, the site would gain an extra 2,576,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan of approximately 6-7 years. Although the GDARD has approved the SR and PoS based on alternative 3, after careful consideration, Zitholele Consulting and the appointed specialists for the project collectively see alternative 2 as the most feasible (socially, economically and environmentally) and preferred option.
Alternative 3 If the extension of the waste disposal site footprint is the 100 metre buffer zone, the community would be less impacted on compared to a 0 m buffer zone. An addition of 710,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life of the waste would be approximately 1-2 years. A letter of approval of the SR and the PoS has been received from the GDARD. The report has been approved based on this alternative as the preferred alternative. This alternative is no longer feasible as it would not accommodate the disposal needs in the area until the commissioning of the new site. Refer to Appendix D4 for the airspace calculations for all the aforementioned alternatives.
6.3 The No Go Alternative
In the case that none of the three design alternatives is suitable for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, the recommendation would be that a new waste disposal site be constructed immediately as there will be no further airspace available for the disposal of waste in the region. However, the site will still require a closure waste license in terms of the NEM:WA, 2008. It is a Listed Activity 20 in GN. No. 718, and falls within Category “A” of the Schedule.
As described in detail in the Scoping Report, the Boitshepi Disposal Site is currently operating without a waste license. It is currently accepting urban and industrial waste. There is a huge demand for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site extension as that would mean more airspace for disposing of the waste, and therefore more lifespan to continue disposing. The ‘no-go’ alternative is likely to result in the needs for extension not being met, with concomitant potentially significant impacts from an economic and social perspective for site users. The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed to meet the waste disposal needs for the area. Consultants have been appointed to site, obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB+ waste disposal site in ELM. Once operational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 43 8848
7 BASELINE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
The regional environment is described in the section below. For the context of this report the regional environment refers to a 50 km radius around the study area.
7.1 Bio-Physical Environment 7.1.1 Climate
Methodology and Data Sources
The climate information was obtained from the Climate of South Africa database.
Airshed Planning Professionals (Pty) Ltd undertook a qualitative assessment addressing emissions from the construction, operational and closure phases of the waste disposal site. Since meteorological mechanisms govern the transport, dispersion and eventual removal of pollutants in the atmosphere, the dispersion potential of the site was evaluated. Use was made of hourly average meteorological data from the South African Weather Services station in Vereeniging. The prevailing wind field and wind velocities were analysed, together with the stability classes, temperature and rainfall.
The site falls within the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area. This area was declared a priority area based on the concern for elevated particulate concentrations. The DEA implemented six ambient monitoring stations within the Vaal Triangle to measure ambient concentrations of PM10, SO2, NO2, and CO. Two of these stations are located in the vicinity of the Boitshepi site, with one in Sebokeng and one at Three Rivers. The ambient concentrations from these two stations were evaluated as part of the Airshed study (Refer to Appendix C6).
Regional Description The study area displays a mild climate, characterised by warm moist summers and cool dry winters typical of the Highveld climate. The region falls within the summer rainfall region of South Africa, rainfall occurs mainly as thunderstorms from October to March, with a mean annual precipitation (MAP) of 668mm. This varies from 900mm in the central higher lying areas to 556mm in the lower lying northern and southern areas of the province. Mean annual temperature varies from approximately 19.3°C in the north of the province to 16.0°C in the south. The eastern and central areas, however, experience a lower mean annual temperature of around 15.0°C. There is large variation between summer and winter temperatures, with Gauteng experiencing a daily mean temperature in January and July of 21.2°C and 9.8°C, respectively (Schulze, 1997).
Due to the long clear nights, mild wind and dry air in Gauteng in winter, the occurrence of frost is common in the region. The region experiences on average 30 days of frost per year (Schulze, 1997). Winter atmospheric conditions cause temperature inversions, which have
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 44 8848
the effect of keeping polluted air close to the surface, so that winter air quality over the Highveld is generally poor.
Site Description
All sources of atmospheric emissions near the site were identified with potential pollutants listed. Domestic fuel burning from the informal settlements surrounding the site is likely to be the main contributing sources in the area together with Cape Gate and Arcelor Mittal Vanderbijlpark.
Sensitivities There are no foreseen climatic sensitivities associated with the site or the proposed activity.
7.1.2 Geology and Soils
Methodology and Data Sources
Geology A desktop screening assessment, using a GIS tool was undertaken of the geological environment. The geological data was taken from the Environmental Potential Atlas (ENPAT) data from the DEA.
Seventeen test pits were excavated across the site for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site using a Cat 428 backactor supplied by Lichenry Construction from Vereeniging. The test pits were entered by a registered professional engineering geologist who described the soil and bedrock formations in terms of the methods advocated by Jennings et al (1973) namely, moisture condition, colour, soil consistency, soil structure, soil type and origin (MCCSSO). Disturbed representative soil samples were recovered from the test pits and submitted to SNALAB’s commercial soils laboratory in Pretoria for testing and identification, three water samples were submitted to RHC’s chemical laboratory in Pretoria for analysis. The detailed descriptions of the test pit profiles are provided on the Soil Profile Sheets of the Geotechnical Report attached in Appendix C4.
Soils A site visit was conducted by the specialist on the 17th of February 2010. Soils were augered at 150m intervals where possible along the proposed extension alternatives using a 150 mm bucket auger, up to refusal or 1.2 m. Soils were identified according to the Soil Classification; a taxonomic system for South Africa (Memoirs on the Natural Resources of South Africa, no. 15, 1991). The following soil characteristics were documented:
• Soil horizons; • Soil colour;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 45 8848
• Soil depth; • Soil texture (Field determination); • Wetness; • Occurrence of concretions or rocks; and • Underlying material (if possible).
Regional Description The region is underlain by colluvial and alluvial soils overlying shale and sandstone bedrock of the Ecca Group, Karoo Super group (refer to Figure 11 for regional geology and Figure 12 for regional soil type delineation). The Ecca group consists mainly of shales, with thickness varying from 1,500m in the south, to 600m in the north. Since shales are very dense, they are often overlooked as significant sources of ground water.
The Daspoort quartzite of the Pretoria Group outcrops to the north of the region. Topsoil in the region essentially consists of brown and grey, loose to medium dense, clayey sand which extends to an average depth of 0.5m. Some portions of the region’s topsoil are underlain by orange mottled light grey, firm sandy clay with occasional gravel, cobbles and boulders, while some areas are underlain by brown, clayey sand containing abundant gravel, cobbles and boulders of colluvial origin. On the other hand, a small portion of the region is underlain by orange, very strongly cemented soft to hard rock, hardpan ferricrete. The clay is of alluvial origin. The transported alluvial and residual soils are underlain, at an average depth of 1.5m, by residual mudrock and sandstone over the portions and also by residual quartzite.
Site Description The surface area of study area has been fairly extensively disturbed by the removal of soil for use as cover for the solid waste. The study area is underlain by transported and residual soils developed over shale bedrock belonging to the Vryheid Formation, Ecca Group, Karoo Supergroup and by quartzite bedrock belonging to the Daspoort Formation, Pretoria Group, Transvaal Supergroup. No rock outcrops were encountered in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Sensitivities Seventeen test pits were excavated across the site for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site using a Cat 428 backactor. The test pits were for the purposes of describing the soil and bedrock formations.
Minor to strong inflow of perched ground water seepage was encountered in some 80% of the test pits at depths ranging from 0,4m to 2,1m below surface. The design of underground structures such as basements or buried tanks if not correctly implemented could affect the ground water.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 46 May 2010 8848
Figure 11: Regional Surface Geology.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 47 May 2010 8848
Figure 12: Soil Type Delineation.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 48 May 2010 8848
Figure 13: Site specific geology.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 49 8848
7.1.3 Drainage Features (Surface and Ground water)
Methodology and Data Sources Surface water A desktop screening assessment using a GIS tool was undertaken on the surface water environment. The surface water data was taken from the WR90 data supplied by the DWA.
Ground water A total of seven boreholes were located by Golder Associates Africa around the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. Data was recorded in each borehole, collar plinths condition, static water level, casing information and borehole depth. The measurements of field parameters (Electrical conductivity (EC), Temperature and pH), were carried out at each site with a portable calibrated pH meter (pH/Conductivity EC500).
Regional Description The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is located in the Upper Vaal River Catchment (DWA) Catchment C22F (Figure 15).
Surface waters comprise flowing rivers and lakes or dams, with many of the smaller tributaries being seasonal in nature (i.e. dry in the winter). Such rivers include the Klip River, which flows south east of the site towards the Vaal River south of Vanderbijlpark and the Suikerbosrant, which flows east of the site into the Vaal River.
The Vaal Dam is located on the Vaal River some 56km south of Johannesburg, close to Vereeniging. The catchment area of the dam is approximately 38 500 km2. The catchment area has a MAP of approximately 700mm.
The aquifers found in the region are diverse due to the varied and complex geology. The aquifers can be grouped into four hydrogeological types (DWA), 1999A) namely: intergranular (alluvial – found in valley bottoms); fractured aquifers; karstic (dolomitic) aquifers; and intergranular and fractured aquifers (in the weathered zone). The quality of water in these resources is highly variable depending on the geology, ecological setting and influence of man.
Site Description Surface water To the south-east of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, there is a large wetland and dam, fed by the local stream.
Ground water The underlying lithology is not uniform across the site. The northern area is underlain by overburden and sandstone, whereas the southern area is underlain by overburden, clay,
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 50 8848
siltstone, mudstone, sandstone, quartzite and shale. This implies that the site is underlain by different hydrogeological compartments and therefore could be impacted differently.
Sensitivities Surface water There are drainage sensitivities posed upon the drainage features surrounding the site (identified wetland and the dam). All the surface water bodies are considered to be sensitive features, and should be avoided as far as possible.
Ground water In areas underlain by sandstone; waste disposal site leachate is most likely to seep directly to groundwater. However; in the southern area, the site is underlain by a clay rich horizon and seepage is most likely to flow along this clay layer and could discharge directly into the stream (Please refer to Figure 14).
Two aquifers have been identified at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site; namely, shallow and deep aquifers.
Shallow aquifer This is a perched aquifer (at depth between 0 and 10m) present in the south of the waste disposal site.
Deep aquifer The deep aquifer is present on the contact between the red mudstone and greyish shale. The deep aquifer is highly permeable.
Figure 14: Conceptual Groundwater flow model for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 51 8848
Figure 15: Upper Vaal Water Management Area.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 52 8848
7.1.4 Topography and Land Use
Methodology and Data Sources The topography of the area was taken from the Surveyor General 1:50 000 topocadastral map sheet of the area (2627 DB). Land Use was determined utilising a GIS desktop study, the data was obtained from the DWA’s database. Information was also taken from GDARD’s Hydrology and Water Research Commission (WR90).
Regional Description The topography of the region is characterised by moderate relief. Small, scattered wetlands and pans occur in the area, rocky outcrops and ridges also form part of the significant landscape features in the area. Altitude ranges from 1,450 to 1,600 metres above sea level (masl).
Site Description For all three alternative sites, the area’s land use is characterised predominantly by residential areas (including informal settlements). There are industries such as Cape Gate to the north of the waste disposal site, and there are residential areas in all directions from the site. The topography is not mountainous as it is within a residential area (refer to Figure 16).
Sensitivities A wetland is present on the southern border of the site, however there appears to be no other foreseen topographical and land use sensitivities posed upon the site or the proposed activity. The current surrounding land use is mostly residential and industrial, the waste disposal site’s existence is appropriate and therefore, topographical and land use sensitivities are not foreseen.
Wetlands provide important ecosystem services such as flood attenuation, regulating water flow, recharging ground water and purifying and removing pollutants from water. Wetlands also provide for a large number of species, many of which those are economically important.
An ecological investigation has been undertaken to determine if any further terrestrial sensitivity is present in the study area and to assess its significance.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 53 May 2010 8848
Figure 16: Topography of the site
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 54 8848
7.1.5 Terrestrial Ecology (Flora)
Methodology and Data Sources
The floral study involved extensive fieldwork, a literature review and a desktop study utilising GIS. The site was investigated during two site visits conducted on 14 January 2010 and 17 February 2010 by Mr Konrad Kruger. All species within the waste disposal site were identified, photographed and their occurrence noted.
• The floral data below is taken from the Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). Also, while on site, the following field guides were used: - Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa (Frits van Oudtshoorn, 1999); - Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa (Braam van Wyk and Piet van Wyk, 1997); - Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld (Braam van Wyk and Sasa Malan, 1998); - Problem Plants of South Africa (Clive Bromilow, 2001); and
- Medicinal Plants of South Africa (Ben-Erik van Wyk, Bosch van Oudtshoorn and Nigel Gericke, 2002).
The occurrence of the species was described as either:
• Very common (>50 % coverage);
• Common (10 – 50 % coverage);
• Sparse (5 – 10 % coverage); and
• Individuals (< 5 % coverage).
.Regional Description
According to the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), the study area falls within the Grassland Biome, where most of the country’s maize production occurs. The main vegetation types found in the region are the Soweto Highveld Grassland and Central Free State Grassland vegetation units as classified by Mucina and Rutherford7 . As the study area only falls within the Soweto Highveld Grassland, this unit is described in more detail below.
7 The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Mucina and Rutherford 2006. GERMISHUIZEN, G. & MEYER, N.L. (eds) 2003. Plants of southern Africa: an annotated checklist. Strelitzia 14. National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 55 8848
Soweto Highveld Grassland The Soweto Highveld Grassland is found in the Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces in a broad band roughly delineated by the N17 Highway in the north, Perdekop in the southeast and the Vaal River in the south. The landscape is typical of the gently undulating Highveld plateau which supports dense tufted grassland dominated by Themeda triandra, Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis racemosa, Heteropogon contortus and Tristachya leucothrix. This grassland is only interrupted by wetlands, occasional ridges and agricultural activities.
This vegetation type is endangered as almost no conservation of the vegetation type occurs. An estimated 45% of the vegetation type has already been transformed by cultivation, urban sprawl and mining.
Endangered Species According to the PRECIS database, there are six plant species of concern in the quarter degree grid. These are listed in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Endangered Plant Species. Family Species Threat Status Growth Forms AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophone disticha (L.f.) Herb. Declining Geophyte, succulent AMARYLLIDACEAE Crinum bulbispermum (Burm.f.) Declining Geophyte, hydrophyte Milne‐Redh. & Schweick. HYPOXIDACEAE Hypoxis hemerocallidea Fisch., Declining Geophyte C.A.Mey. & Avé‐Lall. APOCYNACEAE Stapelia paniculata Willd. subsp. Near Threatened Succulent paniculata MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. Near Threatened Succulent subsp. lesliei ASTERACEAE Gnaphalium nelsonii Burtt Davy Rare Herb
Site Description
The vegetation on site has been significantly disturbed by the waste disposal activities to the point where very little natural grassland remains on the site. Large sections of the waste disposal site that are no longer operational have been covered by vegetation ranging from indigenous grasses to alien invasive plants. Three main vegetation types could be identified on site, but all of them are significantly disturbed. The following vegetation types identified on site are shown in Figure 17 below:
• Urban garden;
• Alien grassland; and
• Barren land with scattered aliens.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 56 8848
In addition to the vegetation units identified above, there is an area that is currently being used for the composting of garden waste that has piles of plant material on the ground. This area is shown in the map but not classified as a vegetation type.
Urban Garden The urban garden unit comprises the area surrounding the administration buildings and the weigh bridge. In this area, several typical garden plants have been established and there is some form of vegetation management. There are also planted trees present in this area that include Rhus lancea (Karree) and Combretum erythrophyllum (River Bushwillow). Garden plants include Kikuju, Agave and some flower beds as shown below.
Figure 17: Urban garden vegetation unit. Alien grassland and Barren Area with scattered Aliens
The alien grassland and the barren area with scattered aliens are very similar vegetation types, as they are both dominated by alien plants. In the case of the alien grassland, there is some form of natural grassland vegetation returning to the habitat. The typical species are given in Table 9 below and shows the high number of weeds present on site.
The barren area is created by the large number of salvagers / re-claimers and their operations on the site. Also there is very little substrate for vegetation to grow on as large parts of the site have slag material at or near the surface. Both of these vegetation types are illustrated in Figure 18 and Figure 19 below.
One species in particular is indicative of the slag in the waste body, namely Smelter’s bush. Smelter’s bush (Flaveria bidentis) is a plant that thrives on high metal content soils and in this case the slag from nearby smelters is providing that habitat.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 57 8848
Figure 18: Alien grassland vegetation unit.
Figure 19: Barren areas with scattered aliens.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 58 May 2010 8848
Figure 20: Vegetation Map.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 59 May 2010 8848
Species List
The floral species identified on site are listed in the Table 9 below. Refer to Appendix C1 for the Biophysical Report. Table 9: Species List. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Status Curly Dock Rumex crispus Individuals Weed Blackjack Bidens pinosa Sparse Weed Spanish Blackjack Bidens bipinnata Individuals Weed Gallant Soldier Galinsoga parviflora Sparse Weed Khaki Bush Tagetes minuta Common Weed Smelter's Bush Flaveria bidentis Dominant Weed Black Nightshade Solanum retroflexum Individuals Weed Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Individuals Weed Milkweed Asclepias fruticosa Sparse Weed Thorn-apple Datura stramonium Sparse Weed Sunflower Helianthus annuus Individuals Weed Herbs Verbena Verbena bonariensis Individuals Weed Pumpkin Cucurbita pepo Individuals Crop Flax-leaved Fleabane Conyza bonariensis Individuals Weed Bachalor's Button Gomphrena celesioides Individuals Weed Starvation Senecio Senecio consanguineus Individuals Indigenous Canary Weed Senecio inaequidens Individuals Indigenous Plantain Plantago lanceolata Individuals Weed Morning Glory Ipomoea purpurea Individuals Weed Dubbeltjie Tribulus terrestris Common Weed Fine-leaved Verbena Verbena tenuisecta Sparse Weed Scottish Thistle Cirsium vulgare Individuals Weed Bur Bristle Grass Setaria verticillata Sparse Indigenous Nine-awned Grass Enneapogon cenchroides Individuals Indigenous Red Dropseed Sporobolus Festivus Sparse Indigenous Kikiuyu Pennisetum clandestinum Sparse Domestic Couch Grass Cynodon dactylon Common Indigenous Common Reed Phragmited australis Sparse Indigenous Wireleaf Daba Grass Mishanthus junceus Individuals Indigenous Sedge Mariscus congestus Individuals Indigenous Grasses Stiburus Stiburus alopecuroides Individuals Indigenous Thimble Grass Fingerhuthia africana Individuals Indigenous Common Signal Grass Brachiaria brizantha Individuals Indigenous Garden Urochloa Urochloa panicoides Common Indigenous Natal Red-top Melenis repens Individuals Indigenous Common Thatching Grass Hyparrhenia hirta Sparse Indigenous Annual Three-awn Sristida adscensionis Sparse Indigenous Common Russet Grass Loudetia simplex Sparse Indigenous Dallis Grass Paspalum dilatatum Sparse Weed Succulents Agave Agave americana Sparse Weed Combretum River Bushwillow erythrophyllum Sparse Indigenous Trees Karree Rhus lancea Individuals Indigenous Sweet Thorn Acacia karroo Individuals Indigenous
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 60 May 2010 8848
Sensitivities
A detailed ecological assessment (Terrestrial Ecology Assessment has been undertaken on site). Please refer to Appendix C1.
7.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology (Fauna)
Methodology and Data Sources
Due to the disturbed nature of the waste disposal site, and the lack of decent habitat, the faunal survey was conducted by simply spending time on site and documenting all the species observed. No traps were used during the survey.
Regional Description
Of the fauna, bird species are the most prolific. Mainly water birds, such as herons, flamingos, ducks and egrets, are found in the region. Various species of weavers are also evident. Some weaver species feed on vegetation on the site, and could thus be exposed to the effects of pollutants from the activities taking place in the area.
Insect species such as mosquito larvae are dominant in the region. Frogs are also abundant in the area. Mammal species include mice and rats. These appear to inhabit mostly the marshes. No Red Data List species of mammals have been recorded in the area.
Site Description
The habitat on site is severely degraded and provides limited opportunities for natural faunal species occurring in the area. A waste disposal site does however offer excellent habitat for opportunistic species such as rats and numerous birds that scavenge on the site. In addition several domestic animals from the adjacent township found their way onto the site.
To the south-east of the site there is a wetland and dam, fed by the local stream. This area has numerous birds which often frequent the grassed parts of the waste disposal site. In addition shallow pools on site were providing habitat for tadpoles as shown in Figure 21 below.
Table 10: Faunal Species List. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Status Ladybug Family Coccinellidae Individuals Indigenous Insects and Wolfspinnekop Family Lycosidae Individuals Indigenous Arachnids Purple Emperor Butterfly Family Nymphalidae Individuals Indigenous Jewel Bug Family Buprestidae Individuals Indigenous Amphibians Guttoral Toad Bufo gutturalis Common Indigenous Golden Bishop Euplectes afer Common Indigenous Birds Blackeyed Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus Common Indigenous
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 61 May 2010 8848
Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Status Yellowbilled Egret Egretta intermedia Common Indigenous Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash Common Indigenous Threskiornis Sacred Ibis aethiopicus Common Indigenous Crowned Plower (Lapwing) Vanellus coronatus Common Indigenous Feral Pigeon Columba livia Common Streptopelia Laughing Dove senegalensis Common Indigenous Redcapped Lark Calandrella cinerea Common Indigenous Olive Trush Turdus olivaceus Common Indigenous Anser anser Domestic Goose domesticus Domestic Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris Common Indigenous Acrocephalus African Marsh Warbler baeticatus Common Indigenous Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis Common Indigenous House Sparrow Passer domesticus Common Indigenous Gallus gallus Domestic Fowl (chicken) domesticus Common Domestic Red Bishop Euplectes orix Common Indigenous Mammals Brown Rat Rattus rattus Individuals Pest
Figure 21: Fauna on site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 62 May 2010 8848
Sensitivities
Sensitive features such as the wetland was assessed by walking randomly through the area concerned an identifying all species within the area. A detailed ecological assessment (Terrestrial Ecology Assessment has been undertaken on site). Please refer to Appendix C1 for the Biophysical Report.
7.2 Cultural Environment
7.2.1 Cultural and Historical Features
Methodology and Data Sources
The Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) study was conducted to determine the baseline conditions of the cultural and heritage resources by means of the following activities:
• Surveying the project area, focusing on sensitive areas which were thoroughly surveyed on foot.
• Briefly reviewing literature relating to the pre-historical and historical context of the project area.
• Consulting maps of the project area as well as of peripheral areas adjoining the project area.
• Consulting archaeological (heritage) data bases, such as the ones kept at the Gauteng Provincial Heritage Resources Agency as well as at Museum Africa in Pretoria (Tshwane).
• Synthesising all information obtained from the literature review, maps and data bases with the evidence derived from the fieldwork.
Regional Description
According to archaeological research, the earliest ancestors of modern humans emerged some two to three million years ago. The remains of Australopithecine and Homo habilis have been found in dolomite caves and underground dwellings in the Bankeveld at places such as Sterkfontein and Swartkrans near Krugersdorp. Homo habilis, one of the Early Stone Age hominids, is associated with Oldowan artefacts, which include crude implements manufactured from large pebbles.
The Acheulian industrial complex replaced the Oldowan industrial complex during the Early Stone Age. This phase of human existence was widely distributed across South Africa and is associated with Homo Erectus, who manufactured hand axes and cleavers from as early as one and a half million years ago. Oldowan and Acheulian artefacts were also found four to
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 63 May 2010 8848
five decades ago in some of the older gravels (ancient river beds and terraces) of the Vaal River and the Klip River in Vereeniging. The earliest ancestors of modern man may therefore have roamed the Vaal valley at the same time that their contemporaries occupied some of the dolomite caves near Krugersdorp.
Middle Stone Age sites dating from as early as two hundred thousand years ago have been found all over South Africa. Middle Stone Age hunter-gatherer bands also lived and hunted in the Orange and Vaal River valleys. These people, who probably looked like modern humans, occupied campsites near water but also used caves as dwellings. They manufactured a wide range of stone tools, including blades and points that may have had long wooden sticks as hafts and were used as spears.
The Late Stone Age commenced twenty thousand years ago or somewhat earlier. The various types of Stone Age industries scattered across the country are associated with the historical San and Khoi-Khoi people. The San were renowned as formidable hunter- gatherers, while the Khoi-Khoi herded cattle and small stock during the last two thousand years. Late Stone Age people manufactured tools that were small but highly effective, such as arrow heads and knives.
The Late Iron Age people were also known for their rock art skills. At least one rock engraving site exists near Vereeniging, at Redan.
Early Iron Age farming communities practised a mixed economy, consisting of plant cultivation and stock herding, in the interior of South Africa during the first half of the first millennium A.D. These Bantu-Negroid people, who interbred with the local San and Khoi- Khoi, were ironworkers of some repute and they established the first permanent villages south of the Limpopo River. These communities occupied the savanna of the Limpopo Province as well as the Eastern Lowveld and coastal regions of South Africa. No traces of their existence have as yet been found on the Highveld.
During the Late Iron Age, farming was practised in the northern, central and eastern parts of the country. These farming communities built numerous stone walled settlements throughout the southern Highveld of the Orange Free State, on the Witwatersrand, in the Bankeveld and numerous other places in South Africa from the 17th century onwards. These sites are associated with the predecessors of the black ethnic groups living in South Africa. Some of these sites are also situated near the Vaal valley, but eastwards of Vereeniging and outside the Vaal Triangle. Stone walled sites are also spread out along the range of hills running from Randfontein in the west through Johannesburg to Heidelberg in the east. These sites are associated with the ancestors of the Sotho-Tswana peoples.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 64 May 2010 8848
Site Description
The Phase I HIA study for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site revealed none of the types and ranges of heritage resources as outlined in Section 3 of the National heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999).
7.3 Socio-Economic Environment
Methodology and Data Sources
A literature review of the socio-economics in ELM was conducted. A detailed socio- economic Impact Assessment has been undertaken.
Regional Description
Sedibeng District Municipality consists of the three local municipalities, namely Lesedi, Midvaal and Emfuleni. Emfuleni is approximately 1276 km² comprising of 27.6% of the Sedibeng District. Emfuleni has a population of approximately 700,000 people (83% of Sedibeng population) (Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Emfuleni_Local_Municipality, cited on the 14th August 2008).
In terms of the economy, the district is dominated by manufacturing, which contributed ± 32% to the local economy during 2001. Manufacturing in the district is dominated by the fabricated metal and the chemical sectors (Mittal Steel Company (previously ISCOR) and Sasol). The manufacturing sector will remain the dominant economic sector in the district in the near future. The local economy has been stagnating for a number of years, with a net loss in formal job opportunities. Economic sectors which do present opportunities for further local development and economic growth include agriculture and tourism (2001, Census).
Site Description
The Boipatong residential area is separated from the site by Eskom power lines, an upgraded surface water drain and a berm. To the north, the site is bounded by a developed township, to the south by the Leeuspruit and to the east by an informal settlement. Figure 22 below shows the location of the proposed site within the context of the Vaal Triangle, a major industrial region of South Africa that is formed by the towns of Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging and Sasolburg. Although the space around the site seems vacant, it is surrounded by developed townships and informal settlements.
The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is situated in Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng, South Africa. The townships surrounding this waste disposal site were established in 1955 to house black residents who worked in Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging e.g. Boipatong was established between 1955 and 1956. These surrounding townships were a pool of cheap labour for the
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 65 May 2010 8848
steel industry, ISCOR. ISCOR was built mainly as part of job creation and poverty eradication for the white working class. The Boipatong falls under Ward 3 and Ward 8 within the ELM. The Tshepiso Township falls under Ward 11 and 22 of the ELM.
Figure 22: The location of the site in relation to the closest towns Sensitivities There are currently over 500 salvagers on the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. These salvagers depend on the site for their livelihood. Closing the waste disposal site will have socio-economic effects on these people. As mentioned above, a detailed socio-economic Impact Assessment has been undertaken.
7.3.1 Infrastructure
Infrastructure was identified using the 1:50 000 topocadastral maps of the area, information provided by the ELM and the specialists regarding existing services. A site visit to the area was undertaken to verify this information.
Regional Description In the ELM, 40% of households have water supply within their yards. 7% of the population are relying on community taps that are ± 200m away from their buildings. There is a margin of people who are still relying on spring, dams/pool/stagnant water, river/stream and water vendor.
Electricity is widely used within the municipality with 81% of the total population using it. 13% are using paraffin for one reason or the other; meanwhile 2% are using coal. Meanwhile 81%are using electricity for cooking, 89% are using electricity for lighting. This implies that
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 66 May 2010 8848
8% of the population are not using their electricity for cooking. A total of 9% are using candles for lighting, this means that these houses are not connected.
Site Description Vanderbijlpark is home to Vanderbijlpark Steel (previously part of ISCOR (Iron and Steel Corporation), now part of the global company Arcelor Mittal), situated north west of the site. Vanderbijlpark is also home to Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd, a major player in the wire industry, also located to the immediate north west of the site. The site is surrounded by power lines in all directions. A railway line is visible north west of the site.
Water, Power and Sanitation All these services are currently available at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and the proposed development will not make any additional demands on the existing capacity of the service infrastructure.
Roads and Railway lines Access to the waste disposal site by trucks and other vehicles is via the Nobel Boulevard.
The primary infrastructure within the study area is: • The N1 national road between Gauteng (from Pretoria) and Bloemfontein (Free State);
• The R 28 road (also referred to as the Boy Louw) east of the waste disposal site;
• The R54 road, north of the waste disposal site;
• The R553 (the Golden Highway), west of the waste disposal site from which the site is accessible from;
• R 57 road south east of the disposal site, and joins with the N1 national road to the north east of the waste disposal site;
• The R 42 road (Barrage road) south of the waste disposal site running towards the Vereeniging;
• The existing railway lines north, east and south of the proposed waste disposal site;
• Existing power line between the Boipatong township and the waste disposal site; and
• The current Boitshepi waste disposal site.
Sensitivities Due to the urban nature of the area, many roads are available to travellers, residents and vehicles travelling to the waste disposal site. If any of these roads becomes non-accessible or are damaged as a result of vehicles travelling to the waste disposal site for disposal, access in the area would be limited. At this stage, the proposed project will therefore not require any additional roads to be constructed as the existing road infrastructure is efficient and accessible from the main roads.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 67 May 2010 8848
8 WASTE LICENSE APPLICATION
8.1 Introduction
A new era of an integrated waste management system in South Africa through the National Environmental Management Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA) has been established. The NEM:WA came into effect on 01 July 2009. Provisions have been made in the form of legislative and regulatory tools to facilitate and ensure implementation of the Act by all spheres of government. To this end, the Minister of the DWEA has published a Waste Management Activity List on 03 July 2009 which has clear thresholds on waste activities that need authorisation before they are undertaken. The published Waste Management Activity List effectively replaces Schedule 1 of the Waste Act and all waste related activities listed in EIA Regulations promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of the NEMA.
All waste-related activities listed in terms of section 24(2) of the NEMA have been repealed at the same time that the Minister published the new list of waste management activities in order to align the NEM:WA and the EIA regulations to avoid the necessity to submit two applications for the same activity. An application for a waste licence in terms of Section 45 of the NEM:WA for general waste activities must be submitted by lodging an application with the relevant provincial department. Therefore, in this regard, GDARD is the licensing authority for a waste licence.
The main aim of this project is to obtain a Waste License and Environmental Authorisation for the extension with view of closure of the Waste Disposal Site in a sustainable manner. To license a Waste Disposal Site, an EIA must be conducted under the EIA Regulations under Section 24 (5) of the NEMA. Some details on the waste license are provided in this Section.
8.2 Site Classification
The Classification of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site in terms of the DWA Minimum Requirements is necessary to determine the technical and operational standards with which the waste disposal site has to comply. The waste disposal classification system defines the disposal situation and classifies the type of site according to:
• Waste types involved (G=General; H=Hazardous);
• Size of the waste stream or site operation (C=Communal; S=Small; M=Medium; L=Large); and
• Potential for significant leachate generation and the need for leachate management (B+=positive climate balance; B-=negative climate balance).
Each of these is described in more detail in the sections below.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 68 May 2010 8848
8.2.1 Waste Type
Table 11 below is indicative of the types and volumes of wastes disposed of at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site in the past (data from 1998). The Western Vaal Metropolitan Local Council and industries supplied historical information, for classification purposes.
Approximately 50% of the waste stream on a mass basis comprised non-delisted, industrial wastes. In terms of the DWAs "Minimum Requirements for the Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Waste", a large proportion of these wastes can be classified as Hazardous (H) on the grounds of the industrial group (metal manufacture, metal goods and engineering), as well as the process of manufacture (ferrous metallurgy) (Table 11).
From initial visual assessments by the Consultants it appeared that, although the waste could be classified as Hazardous, it is mostly of a high volume, but of low hazard content, which would probably place it in the low to moderate Hazard Rating.
The results of chemical analyses on the wastes received from Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd (a local steel producer) indicate that the slag, the fume plant dust and the iron hydroxide sludge are, in terms of the Department's classification system, either highly hazardous or extremely hazardous (Table 11). The sludge water, also disposed of on the site, is of a low hazard rating in terms of its Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC).
Table 11 below reflects the types and volumes of wastes currently disposed of at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site (2008). The following assumptions were made in the calculations:
• Cover ratio 1:5 (assumed available);
• Initial Rate of Deposition = 2,737,351 tonnes per annum;
• Annual growth rate = 2%; and
• Add 1,032 households @ 1.39 kg/S-Pan/ day added in at year 2.
Approximately 29% of the current waste stream on a mass basis comprises delisted industrial wastes, approximately half of the previous disposal rates as shown in the Table 11 below.
Waste disposal sites that receive highly hazardous or extremely hazardous wastes are termed H:H waste disposal sites, and because they receive wastes with Hazard Ratings 1 and 2, they should be designed, engineered and operated to the most stringent standards. Boitshepi is, however, an existing waste disposal site that was established well before these legislative requirements, and historically it was not designed, engineered and operated to the required standards. Based on the waste classification of Cape Gate’s waste types, the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site could be classified as an H:H waste disposal sites, but
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 69 May 2010 8848
because the slag is delisted before disposal, the new proposed extension will be classified as a GLB+.
Table 11: Types and estimated quantities of wastes received at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site during 1998.
Assumed in Tonnes % of total on situ waste Airspace Description Waste Source per a mass disposal site utilised - in of Waste Type Annum basis density in m3 tonnes/m Household G 50,400 72.41 % 1,25 40,400
Building G 18,000 25.86 % 2,00 9,000 rubble General General
commercial) commercial) Garden G 1,200 1.72 % 1,20 1,000 (Residential and
- 69,600 46.93 % - 50,400 Sub-total Iron HR 2 8,800 11.18 % 1,00 8,800 Hydroxide sludge Fume plant HR 2 7,400 9.40 % 1,20 6,200 dust Mill scale Unknown 12,200 15.50 % 2,10 5,800
Industrial Industrial Slag HR 1 43,400 55.15 % 1,85 23,500 Foundry Unknown 6,400 8.13 % 1,85 3,500 sand Sludge water HR 3 500 0.64 % 1,00 500 - 78,700 53.01 % - 48,300 Sub-total
- 148,300 100 % - 98,700 TOTAL TOTAL
8.2.2 Size of Waste Stream
The size of the waste disposal site can be determined by the population served and/or by the amount of waste disposed of in tonnes per day, or the amount of waste that accumulated over a given period of time. Although the classification of Hazardous waste disposal sites does not take size into account, as it is based solely on the Hazard Rating, it is nonetheless important to establish the present rate of deposition, in order to calculate airspace utilisation and volumes of cover material needed. This information is necessary for consideration in the
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 70 May 2010 8848
Development and End-use Plan. The present rate of deposition is approximately 22,758 tonnes per month, that is, 1,035 tonnes per day (273,091 tonnes /annum).
The volume of waste disposed per month amounts to an estimated 26,941 m3 (323,293 m3/annum), and that disposed per day amounts to 1,225 m3/ day. Therefore, the site is typically classified as an L site, therefore once again GLB+.
Table 12: Estimated types and quantities of wastes in the next 7 years at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site from 2008. Total Domestic Volumes Cape Additional Total waste volume of Waste with Cover Gate Cape Gate Year volumes airspace Volumes cover only (m3) Waste volumes (m3) required (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) 1 304,168 179,723 215,668 35,945 56,000 20,055 235,723 2 310,833 183,900 220,680 36,780 57,120 20,340 241,020 3 317,050 188,160 225,792 37,632 58,262 20,630 246,423 4 323,391 192,506 231,007 38,501 59,428 20,927 251,933 5 329,859 196,938 236,326 39,388 60,616 21,229 257,554 6 336,456 201,459 241,751 40,292 61,829 21,537 263,288 7 343,185 206,070 247,284 41,214 63,065 21,851 269,135 (Refer to .Appendix D1 for the total volumes of waste being disposed on site currently.)
The site receives an average of 20,000 to 25,000 tons of domestic and industrial waste per month from local residences and industries. These quantities of waste are indicative of a large (L) site, i.e. a site that on average receives more than 500 tons of waste per day, considering a 22 days working month.
Table 13 below illustrates the manner in which waste disposal sites are classified in accordance with the maximum rate of deposition (MRD).
Table 13: Waste Disposal Site Size Classes (DWA, 2005). Waste Disposal Site size class Maximum Rate of Deposition (MRD) (Tons per day) Communal (C) < 25 Small (S) 150 > MRD > 25 Medium (M) 500 > MRD > 150 Large (L) > 500
8.2.3 Climatic Water Balance
To determine whether the site falls within a water deficit or a water surplus environment, a climatic water balance needs to be determined. A water deficit environment is an environment in which the evaporation rate exceeds the rainfall, i.e. water is scarce. Climatic Water Balance is a simple calculation that assists in deciding whether leachate management
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 71 May 2010 8848
is required or not, it therefore provides a conservative means of determining whether or not significant leachate generation will occur.
The Climatic Water Balance over a period of time (B) is calculated using only the two climatic components of the full water balance, namely(R) and (E)
The Climatic Water Balance is defined by:
B = R – E
Where:
B is the Climatic Water Balance in millimetres of water
R is the rainfall in millimetres of water
E is the evaporation from soil surface in millimetres of water.
The value of B has been calculated for the wet season, which for the Highveld region falls within the period October to March (summer rainfall). Data was available for the period October 1931 to September 1996. (Refer to Appendix D2).
From the available data in Appendix D3 , B was positive 5 times in 65 years (or once in 13 years), which is considerably less than once in 5 years. This must therefore be regarded as a "Water Deficit Area".
8.3 Existing Footprint of the Site
The site consists of four disposal phases:
• Phases 1 and 4: Currently operational and due to close in 1-2 years (only accepts general waste);
• Phase 2: Closed (accepted mixed industrial, not delisted and general waste); and
• Phase 3: Operational and estimated to close in 1-2 years (Industrial delisted waste only).
The years stipulated above will depend on the choice of the buffer zone alternative approved by the GDARD (alternatives are outlined in Section 6 above).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 72 May 2010 8848
8.4 Future of the Waste Disposal Site
8.4.1 Closure Report and After Care Plan
Closure is the act of terminating the operation of a waste disposal site. Closure is preceded by rehabilitation and followed by end-use and post-closure monitoring.
End-use sets out the purpose for which the area of the rehabilitated and closed waste disposal site is used. This may be as a park, playing fields, or other suitable land-use.
The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site does not hold a permit; therefore, it must be permitted with a view to closure, hence the project title. In this case, the emphasis of the permit application is on closure design and rehabilitation.
The site must be investigated before rehabilitation and closure can commence, so as to identify any closure requirements that must be implemented. Such investigations will be undertaken by specialists appointed by the ELM. Based on the results of the investigations, a closure or upgrade design may be drawn up and presented in a Closure Report. Also in this report, the current status of the waste disposal site is compared with the identified end- use and closure requirements, and recommendations are made regarding required rehabilitation.
The Closure Report (which includes the closure/ remedial designs) must be approved by GDARD and the I&APs before rehabilitation can commence. Once the waste disposal site has been rehabilitated in accordance with the Closure Report, ELM must notify the GDARD in writing of the intended closure of the site, at least 60 days prior to the event. Should the GDARD approve the condition of the waste disposal site, the ELM will be provided with written permission to close the site.
The site may then be closed and the End-Use Plan may be implemented. Thereafter, the site must be monitored on an ongoing basis. After closure, the Monitoring Committee should continue to monitor the integrity of cover, drainage systems, subsidence, fire, vegetation and security. See Appendix D5 for the Closure and After Care Report and Site Emergency Plan.
8.5 Application requirements for extension with view of closure
8.5.1 Operational Management Plan
An Operational Management Plan (OMP) is a site specific document that has been developed as part of the waste disposal site license application procedure. It describes the way in which the waste disposal site is to be operated, commencing at the level and detail of daily cell construction and continuing through to the projected development of the waste disposal site with time. Everything pertaining to the operation of a waste disposal site should therefore be included in the OMP, which is subject to regular update.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 73 May 2010 8848
The complexity of the OMP varies with the class of site; this varies from a very simple plan, in the case of a G:S site, to a very detailed and sophisticated document for an H:H site. The OMP includes, inter alia, the phasing, the excavation sequence, the provision of wet weather cells, site access and drainage. It also includes all operation monitoring procedures and a plan for mitigatory actions in response to problems detected by monitoring. When drawing up the OMP, cognisance was taken of the input of I&APs during the Feasibility Study and License Application Procedure.
In addressing the monitoring of operation, the OMP has made reference to the role of the Monitoring Committee, which includes I&APs. See Appendix F for the OMP.
8.5.2 Monitoring Plan
Water quality monitoring will be carried out in terms of the Minimum Requirements and the permit conditions. Records of monitoring results must be maintained and should be available to the I&APs or Monitoring Committee, if required.
The ground and surface water quality results from the pre-extension monitoring, together with the annotated designs of the monitoring systems, must be submitted to the GDARD as part of the license application report, i.e. the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. See Appendix D6.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 74 May 2010 8848
Figure 23: Boitshepi – Flow of waste during operations.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 75 May 2010 8848
9 WASTE DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN
9.1 Constraints and factors affecting the design
Taking into consideration the waste disposal need, the physical conditions of the site, and discussions with various ELM project personnel, there are several factors that affect the design philosophy adopted. These are as follows:
• The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and the proposed extension need to comply with the Minimum Requirements for a G:L:B+ waste disposal site.
• The design of the waste disposal site needs to cater for waste disposal needs until the new site has been commissioned and is operational – approximately 4 – 5 years.
• The northern boundary of the site is defined by a vlei area, whilst the southern boundary is the only area available around the site for the proposed extension. The existing waste disposal site defines the northern boundary for the proposed extension. The existing site palisade fence and storm water drain define the southern boundary of the site, and this is the ultimate extent that the site can be extended.
• The existing waste body does not have a liner however this portion of the site is underlain by clay soils. The soils on the site for the proposed extension however are not suitable for use in the waste disposal site liner construction. The liner design is therefore based on a geocomposite waste disposal site liner.
• The design of extension of the site must be integrated with the closure and capping of the existing waste disposal site in terms of liner and drainage.
• The design must make provision for the sequential phased development of the waste disposal site, such that leachate flows from the lowest point of the waste disposal site cell can discharge into the sewer under gravity.
9.2 General site layout
Based on the aforementioned constraints and factors, the overall layout of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site has been developed as shown in the Figure 26. The arrangement of the various facilities (already existing) is also illustrated in the drawings. The designs provided for in this section are based on the preferred alternative, that is, alternative 2 with a 50 metre buffer zone.
The entrance to the site would remain in its current position at the north western corner of the existing waste disposal site throughout operations. The existing gravel access road would continue to be used for waste disposal to the site. The existing site office and weighbridge would also continue to be used for operations.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 76 May 2010 8848
Figure 24: Existing site layout.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 77 May 2010 8848
9.2.1 Extension of the existing site
Initially a strip of land adjacent to the northern toe of the existing waste body is to be developed together with the shaping and capping of the existing waste body. The area to be lined consists of the area north of the existing waste body up to the 50 metre buffer zone from the adjacent land users or concrete palisade fence (approximately 8.5 ha). The footprint of the extension needs to be prepared prior to the capping of the existing waste body in order to ensure that disposal needs are not interrupted during construction.
The footprint of the extension will be lined with a GLB+ liner as per the Minimum Requirements. The only discrepancy between the Minimum Requirements and the designs provided is that the 600mm clay liner will be replaced by a GCL. The reason for this is that there are no clay soils available in the area and it would be more costly to import soil from another source. The liner will be placed along the slope of the existing waste body and along the foot of the site. The liner will be anchored on the slopes approximately 1.5 metres upslope of the top of the existing was body. The anchor will comprise of concrete (Figure 25).
1.5 m
Liner
Concrete
Figure 25: Anchoring of the slope liner. Once the liner is in place the construction of the capping of the existing waste body can take place.
9.2.2 Capping of the existing waste body
Once the extended portion of the waste site has been lined the capping of the existing waste body can be undertaken. The portion of the waste site that will be capped once the liner is in place is approximately 19 ha to a maximum height of 1495m.
9.2.3 Leachate collection and detection
The waste disposal cells are to be developed adjacent to the northern side of the existing site with the contaminated water and leachate collection draining downslope to the south
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 78 May 2010 8848
east of the site to facilitate gravity drainage of contaminated run-off and leachate to the sewer.
The waste disposal cells are to be developed generally according to the footprint shapes shown on the drawings. The initial development of the strip alongside the northern toe of the existing waste site and the shaping of the surface of the existing waste disposal site up to its maximum height of 1495 metres above sea level would provide approximately 6 years of operational life.
The development sequence would be from south to north. A starter berm is to be constructed around the perimeter of the waste site by means of a cut-to-fill operation. At the lower end of the site, on the south eastern side, the contaminated water and leachate would collect into the sewer.
Please refer to Appendix D7 for the current waste disposal facility and the proposed design of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 79 May 2010 8848
Figure 26: Site layout plan.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 80 May 2010 8848
Figure 27: Cross Section of the proposed extension of the site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 81 May 2010 8848
10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
In order to ensure uniformity, a standard Impact Assessment methodology has been utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared. The Impact Assessment methodology makes provision for the assessment of impacts against the following criteria:
• Significance;
• Spatial scale;
• Temporal scale;
• Probability; and
• Degree of certainty.
A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was used to describe impacts for each of the aforementioned assessment criteria. A summary of each of the qualitative descriptors along with the equivalent quantitative rating scale for each of the aforementioned criteria is given in Table 14.
Table 14: Quantitative Rating and Equivalent Descriptions for the Impact Assessment Criteria. Rating Significance Extent Scale Temporal Scale 1 VERY LOW Isolated route / proposed route Incidental 2 LOW Study area Short-term 3 MODERATE Local Medium-term 4 HIGH Regional / Provincial Long-term 5 VERY HIGH Global / National Permanent A more detailed description of each of the assessment criteria is given in the following sections.
10.1 Significance Assessment
Significance rating (importance) of the associated impacts embraces the notion of extent and magnitude, but does not always clearly define these since their importance in the rating scale is very relative. For example, the magnitude (i.e. the size) of area affected by atmospheric pollution may be extremely large (1000 km2) but the significance of this effect is dependent on the concentration or level of pollution. If the concentration is great, the significance of the impact would be HIGH or VERY HIGH, but if it is diluted it would be VERY LOW or LOW. Similarly, if 60 ha of a grassland type are destroyed the impact would be VERY HIGH if only 100 ha of that grassland type were known. The impact would be VERY LOW if the grassland type was common. A more detailed description of the impact significance rating scale is given in Table 15 below.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 82 May 2010 8848
Table 15: Description of the Significance Rating Scale. Rating Description 5 VERY HIGH Of the highest order possible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: there is no possible mitigation and/or remedial activity which could offset the impact. In the case of beneficial impacts, there is no real alternative to achieving this benefit. 4 HIGH Impact is of substantial order within the bounds of impacts, which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is feasible but difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. In the case of beneficial impacts, other means of achieving this benefit are feasible but they are more difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. 3 MODERATE Impact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts, which might take effect within the bounds of those which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity are both feasible and fairly easily possible. In the case of beneficial impacts: other means of achieving this benefit are about equal in time, cost, effort, etc. 2 LOW Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have little real effect. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is either easily achieved or little will be required, or both. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means for achieving this benefit are likely to be easier, cheaper, more effective, less time consuming, or some combination of these. 1 VERY LOW Impact is negligible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts, almost no mitigation and/or remedial activity is needed, and any minor step which might be needed are easy, cheap, and simple. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means are almost all likely to be better, in one or a number of ways, than this means of achieving the benefit. Three additional categories must also be used where relevant. They are in addition to the category represented on the scale, and if used, will replace the scale. 0 NO IMPACT There is no impact at all - not even a very low impact on a party or system.
10.2 Spatial Scale
The spatial scale refers to the extent of the impact i.e. will the impact be felt at the local, regional, or global scale. The spatial assessment scale is described in more detail in Table 16.
Table 16: Description of the Spatial Rating Scale. Rating Description 5 Global/National The maximum extent of any impact. 4 Regional/Provincial The spatial scale is moderate within the bounds of impacts possible, and will be felt at a regional scale (District Municipality to Provincial Level). 3 Local The impact will affect an area up to 5 km from the proposed waste disposal site. 2 Study Area The impact will affect the area not exceeding the Boundary of the waste disposal site. 1 Isolated Sites / The impact will affect an area no bigger than the site. proposed site
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 83 May 2010 8848
10.3 Duration Scale
In order to accurately describe the impact it is necessary to understand the duration and persistence of an impact in the environment. The temporal scale is rated according to criteria set out in Table 17.
Table 17: Description of the Temporal Rating Scale. Rating Description 1 Incidental The impact will be limited to isolated incidences that are expected to occur very sporadically. 2 Short-term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of the construction phase or a period of less than 5 years, whichever is the greater. 3 Medium term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of life of the waste disposal site. 4 Long term The environmental impact identified will operate beyond the life of operation. 5 Permanent The environmental impact will be permanent.
10.4 Degree of Probability
Probability or likelihood of an impact occurring will be described as shown in Table 18 below.
Table 18: Description of the Degree of Probability of an Impact occurring. Rating Description 1 Practically impossible 2 Unlikely 3 Could happen 4 Very Likely 5 It’s going to happen / has occurred
10.5 Degree of Certainty
As with all studies it is not possible to be 100% certain of all facts, and for this reason a standard “degree of certainty” scale is used as discussed in Table 19. The level of detail for Specialist Studies is determined according to the degree of certainty required for decision- making. The impacts are discussed in terms of affected parties or environmental components.
Table 19: Description of the Degree of Certainty Rating Scale. Rating Description Definite More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Probable Between 70 and 90% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impact occurring. Possible Between 40 and 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impact occurring. Unsure Less than 40% sure of a particular fact or the likelihood of an impact occurring. Can’t know The consultant believes an assessment is not possible even with additional research.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 84 May 2010 8848
10.6 Quantitative Description of Impacts
To allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner in addition to the qualitative description given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 was used for each of the assessment criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described as the function of significance, spatial and temporal scale as described below:
Impact Risk = (SIGNIFICANCE + Spatial + Temporal) X Probability 3 5
An example of how this rating scale is applied is shown below:
Table 20: Example of Rating Scale. Impact Significance Spatial Scale Temporal Scale Probability Rating LOW Local Medium Term Could Happen Impact to air 2 3 3 3 1.6 Note: The significance, spatial and temporal scales are added to give a total of 8, that is divided by 3 to give a criteria rating of 2, 67. The probability (3) is divided by 5 to give a probability rating of 0, 6. The criteria rating of 2, 67 is then multiplied by the probability rating (0,6) to give the final rating of 1,6.
The impact risk is classified according to 5 classes as described in the table below.
Table 21: Impact Risk Classes. Rating Impact Class Description 0.1 – 1.0 1 Very Low 1.1 – 2.0 2 Low 2.1 – 3.0 3 Moderate 3.1 – 4.0 4 High 4.1 – 5.0 5 Very High Therefore with reference to the example used for air quality above, an impact rating of 1.6 will fall in the Impact Class 2, which will be considered to be a low impact.
10.7 Notation of Impacts
In order to make the report easier to read the following notation format is used to highlight the various components of the assessment:
Significance or magnitude- IN CAPITALS Duration – in underline Probability – in italics and underlined. Degree of certainty - in bold Spatial Scale – in italics
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 85 May 2010 8848
11 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The Impact Assessment highlights and describes the impact to the environment following the above mentioned methodology and will assess the following components:
• Soils and Land Capability;
• Topography;
• Groundwater;
• Surface water;
• Geotechnical;
• Terrestrial Ecology;
• Visual Impact;
• Air Quality;
• Heritage resources; and
• Social Environment.
As mentioned a letter of approval of the SR and the PoS has been received from the GDARD. The report was approved based on alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. It is almost three (3) years since the EIA was initiated. The provided airspace estimations were based on the state of the waste disposal site during that time.
After careful estimation of the possible sizes and lifespan of the different buffer zone alternatives, the three alternatives were re-assessed Section 6.2 above.
Therefore, for these reasons, alternative 3 is no longer deemed feasible as it cannot cater for the disposal needs of the area until the new site is commissioned.
The impact assessment has therefore assessed the different components as they are mentioned in this section above for the proposed/modified alternatives.
11.1 Construction Phase
11.1.1 Soils and Land Capability
Initial Impact The site currently has an operating waste disposal facility on site. The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and its operations have impacted on all the soils on site to the point where there are no recognisable natural soil forms remaining. As the waste disposal site was established prior to the onset of detailed waste management regulations, there is no liner or
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 86 May 2010 8848
pollution prevention layer present underneath the site. There is however a leachate collection system adjacent to the site which collects the drainage water by means of a cut-off trench to a central point before discharging into the local sewer network.
The waste present on site includes domestic waste, building rubble, garden waste and slag. These materials, especially the slag, have the potential to significantly pollute the underlying soils by generating leachate with high metal content.
The initial impact to soils and land capability is therefore rated as a VERY HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the long-term. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact The additional impacts to soils and land capability during construction for the extension of the waste disposal site include the clearing of vegetation in the area of the extension of the site, compaction and levelling of the soil. The clearing of the vegetation could potentially result in erosion as the vegetation is removed, exposing the soil to the elements. Furthermore the construction vehicles have the potential to compact the soil by their movements or pollute the soil by spilling hydrocarbons. Both of these impacts reduce the agricultural potential / land capability of the soils. The placing of the waste disposal site on the soil creates a long term impact that renders the underlying soil sterile and useless in terms of agriculture.
In addition, the area surrounding the site has been transformed into an informal settlement and a heavy industrial area. These land uses have also contributed to the impacts to the soils.
The additional impact to soils and land capability during the construction phase is a HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the short term. This impact will occur and as such is rated as a Moderate. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives but due to the smaller footprint from Alternative 3, this is the preferred alternative.
Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains a High impact. The same is applicable for the operational and rehabilitation phases.
Mitigation Measures • Ensure that the extension is designed according to the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal 2nd Edition and ensure that the site is lined accordingly;
• Ensure that the waste body has a storm water drainage system that prevents dirty water from contaminating the adjacent soil;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 87 May 2010 8848
• Link the extension to the existing leachate collection system;
• Ensure that the existing leachate collection system is in good working order and monitored;
• Ensure that all machinery on site is in a good working order;
• Limit all activities to the proposed extended waste disposal site;
• Ensure that adequate storm water control measures are in place to prevent erosion;
• Spread absorbent sand on areas where oil spills are likely to occur, such as the refuelling area in the hard park (if present);
• Oil-contaminated soils are to be removed to a contained storage area and bio- remediated or disposed of at a licensed facility;
• If soils are excavated for the levelling operations, ensure that the soil is utilised elsewhere for cover material in the waste disposal site;
• Ensure that soil is stockpiled in such a way as to prevent erosion from storm water;
• When closing the site, ensure that the site is properly capped to prevent the infiltration of water into the waste body.
Residual Impact
The residual impact with the successful implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above will be slightly less significant as the probability reduces. Therefore the rating reduces to Moderate.
The table below provides a summary of the impact on soils and land capability in the construction phase.
Table 22: Impact Rating Matrix for soils and land capability during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial VERY HIGH Study site Long Term Is Occurring 3.7- High Additional HIGH Study site Short Term Will occur 2.7- Moderate Cumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- High Residual HIGH Study site Long Term Very Likely 2.7- Moderate
11.1.2 Topography
Initial Impact The study site is within the existing fenced off existing waste disposal site; therefore the topography of the study area is already disturbed. The initial impact to topography is
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 88 May 2010 8848
therefore rated as a MODERATE negative impact occurring in the study area and will be permanent. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact For the proposed extension, the construction phase will involve relatively shallow excavations in order to prepare the various waste management areas, source suitable clay material, construct the liners and develop the on-site infrastructure, including the upslope berm to divert clean runoff around the site. Preparation of the waste management areas will involve profiling to ensure suitable gradients for the collection of contaminated runoff from the site and collection of leachate from the waste management cells.
These activities will result in minor, but permanent changes to the existing topography of the site. The additional impact to topography for alternative 1 and 2 is a LOW negative impact and is therefore rated as above- Moderate impact that will definitely very likely in the study area.
For alternative 3, the additional impact will be lower than for alternative 1 and 2 as the topography will only be changed slightly as the footprint for alternative 3 is much smaller.
Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as High impact. The same is applicable for the operational and rehabilitation phases.
Mitigation Measures The change in topography is essential for the proper functioning of the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and no mitigation are available.
Residual Impact Due to the fact that the change for the proposed extension is essential, and no mitigation measure is required, the residual impact without the implementation of the mitigation measures will remain as High impact.
The table below provides a summary of the impact on topography during the construction phase.
Table 23: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Alternative Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact 1-3 Study Initial MODERATE Permanent Is Occurring 3.3.- High site 1 and 2 Isolated 2.6 - Additional LOW Permanent Will occur site Moderate
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 89 May 2010 8848
Type of Alternative Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact 3 Isolated LOW Permanent Very Likely 1.9 - Low sites 1-3 Study Cumulative MODERATE Permanent Will occur 3.3- High site 1-3 Study Residual MODERATE Permanent Will occur 3.3- High site
11.1.3 Groundwater
Groundwater Consulting Services (GCS) (1996) identified deep and shallow aquifers separated by a less permeable clay layer. This was confirmed by EnviroXcellence (2008) during the drilling of boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3.
According to GCS (1996) report, boreholes BH2, BH3 and BH4 are probably covered by the waste body. Borehole BH3 is reported as BH1 in the GCS report. However; for current reporting, by the GAA specialist the numbering observed onsite as reported by EnviroXcellence is used.
Shallow aquifer This is a perched aquifer (at depth between 0 and 10m) reported to be present in boreholes BH1, BH2, B4a and B4b drilled in the south of the waste disposal site . This aquifer was not observed in borehole BH3, drilled in the north of the waste site. The recorded blow out yield of 0.1l/s was considered insufficient for test pumping by EnviroXcellence, 2008. According to the GCS (1996) report, the shallow boreholes reported as BH1a, BH2a, BH3a and BH4a (<8m deep) were not tested, therefore shallow aquifer hydraulics are unknown at this stage.
JBA conducted a geohydrological survey for the cemetery site and the adjacent candidate waste disposal site north of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site in 1997-1998. It was reported that the perched aquifer is present across the site. The seepages were recorded at between 0 and 6m during drilling of monitoring boreholes and test pits. The aquifer parameters (Hydraulic conductivity (K) and Transmissivity (T)) for the shallow aquifer are not reported on in the reviewed reports.
Deep aquifer The deep aquifer is present on the contact between the red mudstone and greyish shale at about 34m in borehole BH2 (EnviroXcellence, 2008). EnviroXcellence considered the final blow out yield of 0.2l/s for BH2 and BH3 insufficient for aquifer testing. However, GCS concluded the following hydraulic properties for the deep aquifer from the aquifer testing exercise in 1996 (Table 25).
However, it must be noted that these parameters were estimated based on very limited data, as none of the pump tests ran for duration longer than 30 minutes and the test on BH3 only
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 90 May 2010 8848
ran for 8.5 minutes. These aquifer parameters should be used with caution and it could be advisable to confirm these parameters by means of slug testing.
Table 24: Deep aquifer hydraulic properties GCS (1996) Borehole Static water Test Analysis Borehole Transmissivity ID level (mbgl) duration Method yields (l/sec) (m2/day) (minutes) BH1 3.085 18 Cooper Jacob <0.1 0.08 BH2 2.9 26 Cooper Jacob 0.1 0.15 BH3 2.95 9 Cooper Jacob <0.01 0.06
Initial Impact A total of seven boreholes were located by GAA in the vicinity of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site in January 2010. The hydrocensus covered an area of roughly 1km around the waste disposal site and the identified boreholes were all found to be on the waste disposal site property itself. The following data were recorded in each borehole: collar plinths condition, static water level, casing information, borehole depth. Water samples were collected at each site. Figure 28 indicates the positions of the monitoring boreholes. Table 25 summarises the hydrocensus results.
Table 25: Hydrocensus data.
COORDINATES BH BH REST (STATIC) WATER WGS 84 DEPT DIAMETER LEVEL BH ID COMMENTS metres Collar metres Latitude Longitude below H (m) (OD mm) height below (South) (East) ground (m) collar level BH3 26.66533 27.85771 31.15 159 0.31 0.59 0.28 North of the waste disposal site BHG02 26.66525 27.85774 x 160 x x x Borehole abandoned
BH4A 26.66989 27.86143 7.9 180 0.58 0.6 0.02 South of the waste disposal site, steel casing, protected with a manhole BH2 26.67013 27.85828 2.5 177 0.25 0.5 0.25 South of the waste disposal site, capped casing BHG01 26.66528 27.85765 9.5 X 0.64 1.03 0.39 North of the waste disposal site, unnumbered, steel casing, protected with a manhole BH4B 26.66993 27.86134 31.37 180 0.56 1.4 0.84 South of the waste disposal site PVC casing inside BH1 26.66999 27.85911 11.1 0.22 1.44 1.22 South of the Waste disposal site, steel casing, protected with a manhole
The initial impact for all three alternatives is of a MODERATE significance that will very likely occur in the study area for the long term and as such is rated as a Moderate impact.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 91 May 2010 8848
Figure 28: Piezometric map for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 92 May 2010 8848
Additional Impact The site preparation and liner construction activities will involve the use of earth moving equipment and vehicles to strip the topsoil, excavate the clay to be used for lining material, shape and profile the site to achieve the required drainage of leachate from the individual cells to the leachate ponds and to install the storm water control systems and other infrastructure. Such activities have the potential for the contamination of the soil with fuels, lubricants and hydraulic fluids from the machinery and from cement during the construction of the infrastructure, but would not compromise use of the aquifer, since there are no known groundwater users within proposed site. All seven boreholes where analysed, and however, the water quality in Borehole B4A is poor with Manganese.
During the construction phase, the additional impact will remain of MODERATE significance impacting at isolated sites in the short term and could occur, and will therefore result in a Low impact.
Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as Moderate impact.
Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures include the refuelling of vehicles off-site, servicing them in properly equipped workshops, placing drip trays under parked vehicles, cleaning up any spills immediately, discharging water from cleaning of cement mixing equipment to sewer, and excavating any contaminated soil immediately, followed by proper disposal at a licensed site.
Residual Impact The residual impact will be reduced if proper mitigation measures are followed. The impact will be reduced from MODERATE to LOW.
The table below provides a summary of groundwater impact during the construction phase.
Table 26: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact 2.4 - Initial MODERATE Study area Long Term Very Likely Moderate Additional MODERATE Isolated sites Short Term Could occur 1.2 Low 2.4 - Cumulative MODERATE Study area Long Term Very Likely Moderate Residual MODERATE Isolated Sites Short - Term Could Occur 1.2- Low
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 93 May 2010 8848
11.1.4 Surface water
Initial Impact
The initial impact to surface water was investigated visually and no surface water samples were taken. An impact to surface water would have a HIGH significance locally in the short term and therefore the initial impact is rated as Moderate.
Additional Impact
During construction vegetation clearing will take place exposing the soil to erosion elements that could potentially be washed into local surface water bodies resulting in an increase in turbidity and sedmentation of local resources, particularly the vlei to the south of the site. Additionally heavy vehicles will be present on site with the potential for hydrocarbon spillage and leakeage. The impact is therefore of a HIGH significance that could occur during construction in the short-term, therefore the impact is rated as a Moderate impact.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact will remain as assessed in the initial and additional sections.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed during construction:
• Divert storm water through sediment traps and then divert all water with cut-off drains towards established trenches.
• Ensure that all machinery on site is in a good working order and does not have leaks;
• Hydro-carbons should be stored in a bunded storage area or in designated facilities at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site;
• No refuelling shall take place on site;
• No maintenance of machinery to be done on site, but to be done at the site’s demarcated area for this;
• Spill-sorb or a similar type of product must be used to absorb hydrocarbon spills in the event that such spills should occur;
• Care must be taken to ensure that in removing vegetation adequate erosion control measures are implemented;
• Ensure that storm water control measures are incorporated into the waste disposal site designs prior to the start of construction;
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 94 May 2010 8848
• A storm water management plan, including sufficient erosion-control measures, must be compiled in consultation with a suitably qualified environmental practitioner / control officer during the detailed design phase prior to the commencement of construction;
• Limit all activities to the proposed waste disposal site;
• Extend the current surface water monitoring plan to include turbidity monitoring during the construction phase of the disposal site;
• Ensure that the operational storm water system is maintained and monitored;
• Ensure that soil is stockpiled in such a way as to prevent erosion from storm water.
Residual Impact
Should all the mitigation measures be implemented the impact on surface water will be decreased and the significance lowered to MODERATE in the study area in the short term, the impact is therefore assessed as a Low impact.
Table 27: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Additional HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Cumulative HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Residual MODERATE Study site Short -Term Could happen 1.4- Low
11.1.5 Geotechnical
Seventeen test pits were excavated across the site for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site using a Cat 428 backactor. The test pits were entered by a registered professional engineering geologist who described the soil and bedrock formations in terms of the methods advocated by Jennings et al (1973) namely, moisture condition, colour, soil consistency, soil structure, soil type and origin (MCCSSO). Disturbed representative soil samples were recovered from the test pits and submitted to SNALAB’s commercial soils laboratory in Pretoria for testing and identification, three water samples were submitted to RHC’s chemical laboratory in Pretoria for analysis.
Soil samples were taken from the seventeen test pits and were subjected to various tests to determine their geotechnical properties.
Initial Impact Gradual to abrupt refusal of the backactor was experienced from below 2,0m in Zone “A” and at depths ranging from 0,3m to 3,1m below surface in Zone “B”. Moderate to strong
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 95 May 2010 8848
seepage of groundwater was encountered from shallow depth in some 80% of the test pits during the investigation that was carried out during the latter part of the wet season.
The initial impact is therefore of MODERATE significance that could happen in the study site and the impact would be permanent therefore the impact is rated as a Low impact.
Additional Impact The current natural state of the geology on the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site will be slightly disturbed during the construction of the waste liner. The significance of the impact is rated as MODERATE at isolated sites that could happen and would result in a permanent impact the impact is therefore rated as a Low impact.
Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as Low impact.
Mitigation Measures This is unavoidable and no mitigation measures are possible.
Residual Impact Due to the fact that the change for the proposed extension is essential, and no mitigation measures are applicable, the residual impact without the implementation of the mitigation measures will remain as Low impact.
Table 28: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low Isolated Additional MODERATE Permanent Could happen 1.8 - Low sites Cumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low Residual MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low
11.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology
Initial Impact As mentioned above in the soil section, the site is heavily impacted and no natural habitat remains on the site. The floral species on site are dominated by alien weeds and pioneer grasses. The fauna on site is indicative of a disturbed environment with opportunistic and domestic animals present. An exception is the avifauna on site which remains relatively
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 96 May 2010 8848
indicative of the surrounding environment, mostly due to the large reed bed and wetland to the south of the site. In addition, the surrounding informal settlements and heavy industrial developments have also contributed to this impact to the fauna and flora.
The initial impact to ecology is therefore rated as a HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the long term. This impact has already occurred and as such is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact The additional impact during the construction phase of the development of the extended site will be mostly from the earthworks and earth-moving equipment. This will clear the little vegetation that is left. Due to the highly impacted nature of the site the additional impact to ecology during the construction phase is a LOW negative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the short term. This impact could occur and as such is rated as a Low impact. The rating same is relevant during the operational and closure phases. Due to the lack of habitat on site, the impact to ecology is anticipated to remain Low as indicated in the table below.
Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact during the construction and operational phases remains as assessed in the initial impact assessment above. Therefore the impact remains a High impact during construction phase.
Mitigation Measures • All construction areas should be demarcated prior to construction to ensure that the footprint of the impacts are limited (including areas where vehicles may traverse);
• All alien invasive species on site should be removed and follow up monitoring and removal programmes should be initiated once construction is complete; and
• Ensure that natural grasses are used as part of the site rehabilitation and closure phase.
Residual Impact
The residual impact will remain as assessed in the cumulative impact assessment for all the development phases. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the existing impact is so large that the additional impact will barely be noticed. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives.
Table 29: Impact Rating Matrix for terrestrial ecology during construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Has already Initial HIGH Study site Long Term 3.3- High occurred Additional LOW Study site Short Term Could Occur 1.3- Low
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 97 May 2010 8848
Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Cumulative Has already HIGH Study site Long Term 3.3- High occurred Residual Has already HIGH Study site Long Term 3.3- High occurred
11.1.7 Visual Impact
The visual simulations prepared by Zitholele illustrate the extent to which the waste disposal site will be visible from key observation points (static and dynamic views). The vertical form/dimensions of the waste disposal site would be hidden by its location among existing buildings and within a well vegetated area. The visual contrast is increased by the shape and scale of the site, which generally will not be viewed along the skyline.
Initial Impact In the case of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, it is pertinent to mention the existing impacts found on site. In this case, there is a waste disposal site, the Boipatong, Tshepiso and Sharpeville communities as well as the heavy industries to the north.
The proposed waste disposal site is potentially visible from the surrounding communities as well as the industrial areas. The potential number of viewers from this area is high as the communities are densely populated but the views vary greatly depending on site specific conditions like the orientation of the homes as well as the location of other buildings, fences, vegetation and localized landforms. However, the large number of viewers in the viewshed means that the proposed extension has a High impact. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives but due to the smaller visible area from Alternative 3, this is the preferred alternative.
The concrete fence that is present on the waste disposal site reduces the visibility of the activities taking place on sight, significantly to the dynamic viewers (travelling along the immediate roads, west, north and east of the waste disposal site), and also the immediate surrounding dwellers.
The initial impact to the visual aspect is therefore rated as a HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and will be permanent as even prior to rehabilitation; the waste body would still be as steep, at least at 1:3. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact The erection of camp sites for the contractors, surface drainage and storm water diversion drains, lining system, leachate collection system, gas management systems and the leakage detection system are all part of the proposed construction activities for the proposed extension of the waste disposal site.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 98 May 2010 8848
The construction activities that are being proposed for the waste disposal site will have a LOW significance, occurring in the study area. The impact will definitely occur. The impact will be during the construction phase.
Cumulative Impact The cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above for all three alternatives since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area.
Mitigation There are several methods of screening the visual impact of a development like a waste disposal site and any of these can be utilised to reduce the visual impact:
• Screening vegetation or fences can be erected along the roads (in this case a concrete fence has already been erected around the site (see Figure 29 below); and
Figure 29: Existing screening around the site Residual Impact
It would be difficult to mitigate the visual impacts associated with the construction phase for waste disposal facilities. There is a concrete fence that currently surrounds the site, and reduces the visual impact. The residual impact is as per the initial impact.
Table 30: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the construction phase (Alternative 1- 3). Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Initial HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 - High Additional LOW Study site Short Term Will occur 2.0- Low Cumulative HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 - High Residual HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 - High
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 99 May 2010 8848
11.1.8 Air Quality
Initial Impact
The contribution of various sources of emission to ambient particulate and gaseous concentrations within the study area is of interest given the potential for elevated concentrations in the area. The most significant sources located in close proximity to the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site include:
• Stack, vent and fugitive emissions from industrial operations - industrial emissions include various criteria pollutants (as SO2, NOx, CO and particulates), greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), various heavy metals and other toxins. The closest industrial activities to the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site are Cape Gate (directly to the northwest) and Arcelor Mittal Vanderbijlpark Steel (~1.5 km to the west). Sources of emission at these operations typically include stack emissions (i.e. particulates, NOx, SO2, VOCs, CO and CO2), and fugitive emissions from materials handling operations and crushing, windblown sources (i.e. waste dumps) and vehicle entrainment.
• Fugitive emissions from mining operations - comprising mainly dust releases, with small amounts of NOx, CO, SO2, methane, CO2 being released during blasting operations and vehicle exhaust. The closest mining operation to the Boitshepi site is New Vaal Colliery (~8.5 km to the southeast).
• Vehicle tailpipe emissions - significant primary pollutants emitted by motor vehicles include CO2, CO, hydrocarbons (HCs), SO2, NOx, particulate matter and lead. The regional roads R57, R42 and R59 run to the east, south and west of the waste disposal site respectively.
• Household fuel combustion (coal, wood) - coal burning emits a large amount of gaseous and particulate pollutants including SO2, heavy metals, total and respirable particulates including heavy metals and inorganic ash, CO, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), NO2 and various toxins such as benzo(a)pyrene. Pollutants from wood burning include respirable particulates, NO2, CO, PAHs, particulate benzo(a)pyrene and formaldehyde. Particulate emissions from wood burning have been found to contain about 50% elemental carbon and about 50% condensed hydrocarbons. Low income settlements where domestic fuel burning is prevalent are all around the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, including Boipatong, Tshepiso, Sharpeville and Sebokeng. The Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area - Air Quality Management Plan, identified domestic fuel burning as one of the main sources of particulate emissions within the region.
• Biomass burning - major pollutants from veld fires are particulates, CO and VOCs. The extent of NOx emissions depends on combustion temperatures, with minor sulphur oxides being released.
• Various miscellaneous fugitive dust sources, including: agricultural activities, wind erosion of open areas, vehicle-entrainment of dust along paved and unpaved roads.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 100 May 2010 8848
The pollutants listed above are released directly by sources and are therefore termed 'primary pollutants'. 'Secondary pollutants' which form in the atmosphere as a result of chemical transformations and reactions between various compounds include: NO2, various photochemical oxidants (e.g. ozone), hydrocarbon compounds, sulphur acid, sulphates, nitric acid and nitrate aerosols.
Therefore, from the aforementioned the impact is of an existing HIGH significance that is occurring the long term as a result of both the site and the industries in the area. Therefore the initial impact is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact
Only particulate impacts due to wind erosion on open surfaces, materials handling due to earthworks to shape the floor to an even grade and vehicle entrainment are predicted to be related to construction phase. Possible air quality impacts associated with these emissions are health risks associated with predicted inhalable particulate matter and nuisance impacts as a result of predicted dustfall levels. The impact is therefore rated as a low impact.
Alternative 1 has been rated separately to alternative 2 and 3 as a result of the severity of no buffer zone from the public and therefore an increase in the significance to adjacent land occupiers. It is in the opinion of the specialist that Alternative 1 is not acceptable.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact will remain as assessed for the initial impact, therefore a high impact.
Mitigation Measures
Given the close proximity to residential areas and the exceedance of the general 500 m recommended buffer zone, the following recommendations are made:
• Dust suppression measures should be undertaken on a daily basis throughout construction;
• As a minimum, dust fallout measurements should be undertaken in the vicinity of the Boitshepi site to establish dust fallout levels around the site. These dust fallout levels will provide an indication of nuisance dust impacts; and
• The site operator should control on-site fugitive dust emissions by effective management and mitigation due to the potential cumulative impacts of this pollutant in the study area.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 101 May 2010 8848
Residual Impact
On successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures the impact will be less significant and will be minimised to a Moderate (alternative 2 and 3) to High impact (alternative 1).
Table 31: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Initial HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 - High Additional Alternative 1 Unacceptable Alternative 2 LOW Study site Short Term Could happen 1.2 – Low and 3 Cumulative HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 - High Residual Alternative 1 Unacceptable Alternative 2 2.1 - HIGH Study site Short Term Very Likely and 3 Moderate
11.1.9 Cultural Environment
Initial Impact
The Phase I HIA study for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site revealed none of the types and ranges of heritage resources as outlined in Section 3 of the National heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999).
Therefore, there is no initial impact at all on the current state of heritage/ cultural resources (NO IMPACT). This is applicable to all alternatives that have been considered for the proposed project.
Additional Impact
It is possible that the Phase I HIA study that was undertaken might have failed to notice possible heritage resources in the project area as heritage remains may occur beneath the existing Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and could only be exposed if the waste disposal site is to be developed in some way that may involve excavations of the underlying soils strata in the future.
The significance of the additional impact will therefore be VERY LOW at isolated sites that would occur incidentally, the impact is therefore rated as Very Low.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 102 May 2010 8848
Cumulative Impact
The site is currently being operated, and therefore disposal of waste is currently occurring. The construction cumulative impacts of the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site with the activities already taking place on site (disposal of waste) and the construction activities associated with a waste disposal site will be rated Very Low.
Since there is no initial impact, the cumulative impact is rated as per the additional impact.
Mitigation Measures
If any heritage resources of significance are exposed during the construction phase of the project, following are measures that should be taken in cognisance:
• All construction activities must cease;
• The South African Heritage Resources Authority Agency (SAHRA) shall be notified immediately; and
• An archaeologist accredited by the Association for Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) shall be notified in order to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the discovered finds.
This may include obtaining the necessary authorisation (s) (permit (s)) from SAHRA to implement the appropriate mitigation measures.
Residual Impact
In cases where heritage resources in the project area are exposed/found beneath the existing Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site during the construction activities, and the above mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, the residual impact on the heritage resources will have be VERY LOW,
Table 32: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial NO IMPACT Isolated Additional VERY LOW Incidental Unlikely 0.4- Very Low Sites Isolated Cumulative VERY LOW Incidental Unlikely 0.4- Very Low Sites Isolated Residual VERY LOW Incidental Practically impossible 0.2- Very Low sites
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 103 May 2010 8848
11.1.10 Social Environment
Initial Impact
Re-claimers livelihood The re-claimers’ means of making a living is by salvaging recyclable refuse at the waste disposal site in search of materials such as glass, plastic, paper, tins and pieces of metal that could be sold for recycling. It is estimated that the average income from reclaiming is about R200.00 per month. This is a positive impact that the current Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site has brought. The impact has a LOW significance that is occurring the medium term and is therefore a Moderate Positive impact.
Health and Nuisance The waste disposal site is too close to surrounding houses and the associated odours emanating from the site are felt by the surrounding communities, which is a negative impact. Another concern is that the site is accessible to children from the surrounding communities and as such poses a danger to the children. Additionally the reclaiming of waste on site is informal and PPE is not worn by re-claimers. This has a high health and safety impact. The impact has a VERY HIGH significance and is currently occurring and is therefore rated as a High impact.
Traffic The roads around the site are already in a very poor condition and the area is already affected by traffic. This impact is therefore rated as per the health and nuisance impact as a High impact.
Crime The area is also currently characterised by criminal activities, even on the site itself, such as theft and assault. Although a palisade fence has been erected, there is very little access control on the site and it is easy to access the site from points other than the gate. The initial impact is therefore rated as a VERY HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the medium term. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact
Re-claimers livelihood There are limited economic activities in the immediate area, and unemployment rates are very high. In this context, job creation is a positive impact, even though it will only provide relief in the short term. Recruitment is likely to be a sensitive issue, and must be handled carefully, since it could lead to social unrest if the processes were deemed as unfair or exclusive. The site being extended will have a positive impact on the financial well-being of the existing re-claimers (Alternative 1 and 2 to a larger extent than alternative 3).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 104 May 2010 8848
It is recommended that local contractors be used where possible to enhance the benefits to the local economy. The construction phase will have a socio-economic impact of MODERATE positive significance.
Health and Nuisance During the construction phase, an increase in noise and traffic will be experienced which will be a nuisance to residents living close by, and therefore represent a cumulative impact. An increase in traffic volume can lead to delays for travellers making use of public transport or their own motor vehicles. The drivers may become impatient and more accidents and road rage may take place. Additionally, depending on the approved alternative there will be an increase in nuisance to the surrounding land users. The extent of the nuisance is dependent on the alternative approved. Should alternative 1 be approved there will be no buffer distance between the surround land users and the site construction activities and therefore there will be a high impact. Should alternative 3 be approved there will be minimal change during construction as opposed to the existing operations and therefore the additional impact will be low.
Traffic During the construction phase there will be an increase in the presence of heavy construction vehicles. This is likely to lead to the further deterioration of roads around the site. The roads around the site are currently in a very poor condition and additional heavy traffic will increase the problem. An increase in traffic poses a risk for the safety of pedestrians. Most people in the area around the site travel by foot and some of the youngsters are in the habit of jumping on the vehicles going to the waste disposal site. Since there is already traffic in the area, this will be a cumulative impact.
There will be a moderate impact to the roads as a result of an increase in heavy vehicles and an increased impact to pedestrians.
Crime During the construction phase there is likely to be construction material on the site and there will be construction activities in progress at the end of each day. The material used will be desirable for some sections of the community and they are likely to steal the construction material. Not only material that may be lying around on the site, but also material that has already been used in the construction process.
Uncertainty This impact is already occurring. Projects often generate uncertainty or fear and sometimes the impacts perceived in anticipation of the planned intervention can be greater than the impacts ultimately resulting from the intervention. These impacts include uncertainty, annoyance (a feeling/experience due to disruption of life, but which is not necessarily directed at the intervention itself), dissatisfaction due to a failure of the project to deliver promised benefits, and an experience of moral outrage (such as when a project leads to violation of deeply held moral or religious beliefs). This impact is magnified by the earlier
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 105 May 2010 8848
attempts of the ELM to license the site that were never realised. Businesses are unsure how long they will still be able to use the site, where the alternative site post closure will be, and at what stage they will need alternative solutions. All this has a direct impact on operating costs. Re-claimers are not sure how long they will still be able to make a living from the site or how they will be able to make a living once the site has been decommissioned. These uncertainties place additional stress and psychological strain on them.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact for re-claimer livelihoods, health and nuisance traffic and crime will remain as assessed in the additional and initial phase as the impacts are occurring in the same area.
Mitigation Measures
Re-claimer livelihoods • The registered re-claimers should be given preferential recruitment and reclaiming needs to be formalised;
• Local people should be given the opportunity to apply for the available jobs. Local people should be defined as people living in the directly adjacent townships, most of which are unskilled. This process should be administered in conjunction with the ELM and community leaders (not necessarily political leaders). Given the recent service-delivery protests, it may be necessary for an outside party like the site management to fulfil this task.
Health and Nuisance • Construction vehicles should travel outside of peak traffic times. For taxi commuters peak times are earlier than for self driven cars.
• Construction activities should be limited to day-times (no construction should take place between 16h00-8h00).
Traffic • There are two access routes to the site. For construction purposes the route via Frikkie Meyer Boulevard should be utilised.
• The access route should be upgraded (potholes fixed/filled in) before construction commences.
• Speed limitations should be enforced on construction vehicles.
• Access to the waste disposal site should be restricted. Trucks should be made to stop before the gates, and then be allowed in through a gate that can be closed behind them. The gatekeeper should ensure nobody jumps on the moving vehicles.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 106 May 2010 8848
Crime • Access control is imperative. Although a palisade fence has been erected, this measure is not sufficient in controlling access since there are various pedestrian gates around the site. In addition, the concrete has been broken in order to gain access to the site. Unless access is controlled and security measures are in place it will be almost impossible to control crime. It is likely that initial community resistance will result if access is limited, but this should be weighed against the criminal activities currently taking place on the site.
• There should be two points of access for pedestrians as well as for vehicles provided that twenty four hour security guards are employed. This would make access control to the site much easier. In addition, the palisade fence should be fixed and the municipality should consider erecting an electrical fence inside the site as a further deterrent. Alternatively a solid wall with security spikes should be constructed around the site. It would also be worthwhile to consult with security experts on the best way of securing the site.
• Twenty four hour security guards should be employed. Given the fact that criminal activity on site is already rife, adequate resources should be used. Only one guard would be vulnerable to criminals. Frequent patrols from outside should be done, especially at night.
• Only people with access permits should be allowed on site. Checks for criminal records should be done on individuals before access permits are issued.
Uncertainty • Communication with stakeholders is imperative. A working group with the re-claimers should be established for the duration of the project, with the ELM as the responsible party to drive the workgroup.
• An industrial forum consisting of all the affected businesses should be established to ensure that everybody is aware of the way forward, and communal planning can occur. The ELM is not seen as a trusted role player, therefore this may be challenging. Should it succeed it can assist in repairing the reputation of the ELM.
Safety • Access control and improving the fencing and security of the site are critical. This may alleviate many of the current challenges.
• Road safety talks should be held in the community and posters should be erected in visible places. This should be done in conjunction with the traffic department.
• Site management should be improved to manage health impacts.
• Registered re-claimers should be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as gumboots, gloves, safety vests and masks to protect their health. They should not be allowed on site without their PPE. The principle of no PPE no work should apply and be enforced.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 107 May 2010 8848
• The public should not have free access to the site in order to protect them against health risks.
Residual Impact
Re-claimer Livelihood This is a positive impact and the residual impact will remain as assessed with additional impact.
Health and Nuisance There will be a MODERATE impact experienced, especially by the residents within a 500m radius. (i.e. Boipatong, 60 metres to the immediate east of the site, Boipatong, 240 metres to the immediate south east of the site and Tshepiso 70 m away). They would experience a daytime noise at a level typical of an urban district with commercial premises and main roads.
Mitigation measures prescribe that access control and fence improvement and security etc be imperatively attended. Due to the mitigation measures implementation, safety impacts will be reduced, and therefore the community will be at ease. The impact shall therefore have a LOW significance, occurring in the long-term. After proper implementation of mitigation measures, the reduction of the safety impact will happen.
Because the increase will occur only during the daytime, this will affect only a few residents, and last for the relatively short- term period only, the significance of the noise-nuisance impact is rated as MODERATE to LOW.
Traffic Prior to the mitigation measures being implemented, there will be no further deterioration of roads due to the absence of heavy construction vehicles; therefore, the probability is that the impact on traffic will be reduced. The impact will be reduced from MODERATE to LOW. The impact on safety risk for pedestrians will be reduced, as the most concern is of youngsters being of habit of jumping on the vehicles going to the waste disposal site, and therefore, the impact will be LOW and of short-term. All the drivers of the construction vehicles will be warned of such incidences, therefore chances of incurring such incidence is unlikely to happen. The impact is rated as very low impact.
Crime Given the fact that there has been failure to controlling access into the site, despite of all the control measures implemented, chances of crime will remain HIGH. With good implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact on crime will become Moderate and are very likely.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 108 May 2010 8848
Uncertainty Prior to communication with stakeholders and the development of a working group with the re-claimers, the impact on uncertainties of the surrounding dwellers and businesses will be reduced as they will have a better understanding of the way forward and therefore can plan for their future disposal and alternatively look for jobs elsewhere. An industrial forum consisting of all the affected businesses will also help.
The impact will therefore, prior to the implementation of the mitigation measures- for future businesses, be of LOW significance, and the probability of uncertainty being felt could happen, even prior to mitigation measures. On the other hand, re-claimers will still be uncertain about the proposed project. The impact shall therefore be of MODERATE significance even after communication has been facilitated for their understanding.
Table 33: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Re-claimers 2.33- Study Medium livelihoods LOW Is occurring Moderate - site Term POSITIVE Health and Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High Initial Nuisance site Term Traffic Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Crime Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Re-claimers livelihoods Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Medium- Very Likely 2.7 – and 2 term Moderate Positive Alternative 3 LOW Study Short- Very Likely 1.6 – Low area Term Positive Health and Nuisance Alternative 1 VERY HIGH Local Short-term Will happen 3.3- High Alternative 2 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 - Moderate Additional Alternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 - Low Deterioration of roads 2.1 from heavy MODERATE Local Short-term Very likely Moderate construction vehicles Safety risk Could for LOW Local Short-term 1.4- Low happen pedestrians Theft of Study 2.1- construction HIGH Short-term Very Likely area Moderate material Re-claimers livelihoods 2.7 – Cumulative Alternative 1 Medium- MODERATE Local Very Likely Moderate and 2 term Positive
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 109 May 2010 8848
Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Study Short- 1.6 – Low Alternative 3 LOW Very Likely area Term Positive Health and Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High Nuisance site Term Study Medium Traffic VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Study Medium Crime VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Re-claimers livelihoods Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Medium- Very Likely 2.7 – and 2 term Moderate Positive Alternative 3 LOW Study Short- Very Likely 1.6 – Low area Term Positive Health and Nuisance Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 - and 2 Moderate Residual Alternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 - Low Deterioration of roads Could from heavy LOW Local Short-term 1.4- Low happen construction vehicles Safety risk for LOW Local Short-term Unlikely 0.9-Very low pedestrians Study 2.1- Crime HIGH Short term Very Likely area Moderate 11.2 Operational Phase
11.2.1 Soils and Land Capability
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.1, a High impact.
Additional Impact
During the operational phase the impacts described in section 11.1.1 will persist, but the construction vehicles will be replaced with the vehicles transporting the waste to the site with the potential to generate hydrocarbon spillages. In addition, an increasing volume of waste will be placed on the waste disposal site. An indirect impact from the waste disposal site will be the formation of leachate that will pollute the underlying soils. It should be noted that this impact describes the unmitigated scenario. All these impacts are rated as a HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the long term. This impact will occur and is therefore rated as a High impact. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives but due to the smaller footprint from Alternative 3, this is the preferred alternative.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 110 May 2010 8848
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed in the construction phase since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains a High impact.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures remain as assessed and recommended in Section 11.1.1 above.
Residual Impact
The residual impact with the successful implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above will be slightly less significant as the probability reduces. Therefore the rating reduces to Moderate. This is relevant for all the phases. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives but due to the smaller footprint from Alternative 3, this is the preferred alternative.
Table 34: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial VERY HIGH Study site Long Term Is Occurring 3.7- High Additional HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- High Cumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- High Residual HIGH Study site Long Term Very Likely 2.7- Moderate
11.2.2 Topography
Initial Impact
The initial impact to topography is a MODERATE negative impact which will occur in the study area and will be permanent. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact as in the construction phase.
Additional Impact
The additional impact remains as assessed in the construction phase.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as High impact.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 111 May 2010 8848
Mitigation Measures
The change in topography is essential for the proper functioning of the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and no mitigation is required.
Residual Impact
Due to the fact that the change for the proposed extension is essential, and no mitigation measure is required, the residual impact without the implementation of the mitigation measures will remain as High impact.
Table 35: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Alternative Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact 1-3 Study Initial MODERATE Permanent Is Occurring 3.3.- High site 1 and 2 Isolated 2.6 - LOW Permanent Will occur site Moderate Additional 3 Isolated LOW Permanent Very Likely 1.9 - Low sites 1-3 Study Cumulative MODERATE Permanent Will occur 3.3- High site 1-3 Study Residual MODERATE Permanent Will occur 3.3- High site 11.2.3 Groundwater
Initial Impact
There is no evidence of significant groundwater contamination emanating from the site, although it is noted that BH4A has elevated TDS. During operational phase, the groundwater management systems would have been installed, and therefore, there will be a reduction in the impact of groundwater.
During operational phase, the following would have been installed for the operation of the waste disposal site, leachate collection system which will be equipped with suitable drains or collection pipes that direct the gravity flow of leachate or leakage to defined collection points or sumps from which it can be collected for treatment and leakage detection system constructed to intercept any leachate that may pass the barrier of the liner. This leakage is then directed to separate leakage collection sumps, where the quantity and quality can be monitored and from which accumulated leakage can be removed or passed through to the sewer system. The potential for ground water contamination for the proposed waste disposal site will be MODERATE.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 112 May 2010 8848
Additional Impact
The additional impact during the operational phase remains as assessed Therefore the impact remains as Moderate impact.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as Moderate impact.
Mitigation Measures
Regular (six-monthly) sampling of groundwater levels and quality should be conducted to assess whether seepage/leaching from the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is impacting on the groundwater.
In the event of such impacts being identified, appropriate engineering interventions must be devised and implemented.
It is recommended that any extension, including a liner system, is restricted to the area confirmed to be underlain by clay, i.e., the southern area.
It is understood that extension is planned towards the north and north east, therefore it will be necessary to line the footprint unless the extent of the clay layer is confirmed by test pits and mapping
With respect to closure, from the groundwater perspective, it is important to minimize seepage from the waste disposal site and, accordingly, ponding and infiltration of rain water must be minimized by either:
• landscaping (final shape and topography of the site), and / or
• capping (prevention of infiltration from the surface), and / or
• grassing (to limit infiltration and minimise erosion of the final shape of the site).
Residual Impact
The residual impact with the successful implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above will be slightly less significant as the probability reduces and therefore be a low impact.
Table 36: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3).
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 113 May 2010 8848
Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 2.1- Moderate Additional MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 2.1- Moderate Cumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 2.1- Moderate Residual MODERATE Study site Permanent Unlikely 1.3- Low
11.2.4 Surface Water
Initial Impact
The initial impact will remain as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.4, as a Moderate impact.
Additional Impact
During the operational phase if waste is not covered on a daily basis windblown litter and dust will be blown into the vlei to the north of the site, as currently experienced with the existing site (Figure 30). Additionally if the mitigation measures proposed in the construction phase are not implemented run-off from the waste body will potentially polluted all surface water bodies downstream of the site. Therefore the impact is rated as HIGH significance, locally in the short-term and is therefore a Moderate impact.
Figure 30: Windblown litter to the vlei to the south of the site. Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact will remain as assessed in the additional impact section, that is a Moderate impact.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 114 May 2010 8848
Mitigation Measures
Additionally to the mitigation measures proposed in the construction phase, waste must be covered on a daily basis, storm water infrastructure must be maintained and monitored as litter pickers must be deployed to pick up windblown litter around the site.
Residual Impact
Should the mitigation measures proposed for construction and operation be successfully implemented the impact will be lowered to a MODERATE significance in the study area and therefore be a Low impact.
Table 37: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Additional HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Cumulative HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Residual MODERATE Study site Short -Term Could happen 1.4- Low
11.2.5 Geotechnical
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in 11.1.5, a Low impact.
Additional Impact
There should be no further geological impact during operation as the liner will be in place.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as Low impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are proposed.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 115 May 2010 8848
Residual Impact
The residual impact during the operational phase remains as assessed in the construction phase.
Table 38: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low Additional NO IMPACT Cumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low Residual MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low
11.2.6 Terrestrial Ecology
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a High impact.
Additional Impact
The additional impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a Low impact.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact operational phase remains as assessed in 11.1.6 High impact.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures remain as assessed and recommended in Section 11.1.6 above.
Residual Impact
The residual impact remains as assessed and recommended in Section 11.1.6 above.
Table 39: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Study site Long Term Has already occurred 3.3 - High Additional LOW Study site Short Term Could Occur 1.3 Low Cumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Has already occurred 3.3- High Residual HIGH Study site Long Term Has already occurred 3.3- High
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 116 May 2010 8848
11.2.7 Visual Impact
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in the construction phase in Section 11.1.7.
Additional Impact
For the proposed extension of the waste disposal site, the visual appearance of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site will undergo gradual change over the months as the various waste cells take shape. The height of each cell at any given point in time will depend on the relative rates at which material is deposited and removed for beneficial use.
The worst case scenario would develop if:
• No beneficial uses are developed for any of the materials and all the cells continue growing in height until the design storage capacity of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is reached and the facility has to be closed due to a lack of storage space for additional material.
Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The significance of the visual impact without mitigation is assessed as high for alternative 1.
Alternative 2 and 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre or 100 metre buffer zone. The impact will therefore be MODERATE to LOW and will be in the long- term.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact in the operational phase remains as assessed above for all three alternatives.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are taken to reduce the visual impact, though there is a palisade fence that has been erected.
Residual Impact
All impacts remain as assessed above as there will be no mitigation to reduce the visual impact.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 117 May 2010 8848
Table 40: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the operational phase. Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 - High Additional – HIGH Local Long-Term It is going to 3.6- High Alternative 1 happen Additional – MODERATE Local Long- term It is going to 2.6 - Alternative 2,3 - LOW happen Moderate Cumulative HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 - High Residual – HIGH Local Long-Term It is going to 3.6- High Alternative 1 happen Residual – MODERATE Local Long- term It is going to 2.6 - Alternative 2,3 - LOW happen Moderate
11.2.8 Air Quality
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8, a High impact.
Additional Impact
This impact assessment addressed emissions from the operational phase of the waste disposal site. Emissions associated with the operational phase of the site include the following:
• Fugitive dust emissions from vehicle entrainment; and
• Landfill gas emissions.
Possible air quality impacts associated with these emissions are:
• Health risks associated with predicted inhalable particulate and landfill gas concentrations;
• Cancer risks associated with predicted landfill gas concentrations;
• Odour impacts associated with predicted landfill gas concentrations; and
• Nuisance impacts as a result of predicted dustfall levels.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact on air quality remains as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8, a High impact.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 118 May 2010 8848
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures remains as proposed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8.
Residual Impact
The residual impacts remain as assessed in the construction phase, a High (alternative 1) to Moderate (alternative 2-3) impact.
Table 41: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the operational phase. Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 - High Additional – Unacceptable Alternative 1 Additional – HIGH Study site Medium- It’s going to 3 - High Alternative 2,3 term happen Cumulative HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 - High Residual – Unacceptable Alternative 1 Residual – 2.1 - HIGH Study site Short Term Very Likely Alternative 2,3 Moderate
11.2.9 Cultural Environment
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.9, as NO IMPACT.
Additional Impact
During the operation of the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, excavation will be one of the activities taking place as part of the operation of the waste disposal site.
It is possible that the Phase I HIA study that was undertaken might have failed to notice possible heritage resources in the project area as heritage remains may occur beneath the existing Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. The proposed project will involve excavations of the underlying soils strata and therefore, the significance of the additional impact will therefore be VERY LOW, as rated in Section 11.1.9.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 119 May 2010 8848
Cumulative Impact
The impact significance is VERY LOW. This impact could happen, if during excavations as the area (Vanderbijlpark) is characterised by heritage sites. The additional impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.9, a VERY LOW impact.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures will remain the same as in Section 11.1.9 for all three alternatives.
Residual Impact
If the above mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, then there will be no residual impact on cultural/ heritage resources in the study area.
Table 42: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial NO IMPACT Isolated Additional VERY LOW Incidental Unlikely 0.4- Very Low Sites Isolated Cumulative VERY LOW Incidental Unlikely 0.4- Very Low Sites Isolated Residual VERY LOW Incidental Practically impossible 0.2- Very Low sites
11.2.10 Social Environment
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.10, a Moderate Positive Impact for re-claimer livelihoods and a High Negative Impact for health and nuisance for all three alternatives.
Additional Impact
Re-claimer livelihood Currently, there are 500 re-claimers on site. With the proposed extension of the waste disposal site for different alternatives, the impacts of job creation for each are assessed differently.
Alternative 1 and 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 or 50 metre buffer zone (none to 50m distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). There will be an increased in the number of years the site is operational and hence re-
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 120 May 2010 8848
claimers will earn a living for a longer period of time. Therefore, for this alternative, the impact on increased employment opportunities will be MODERATE positive impact for re- claimers. This will be of medium term as the estimated lifespan of the waste disposal site.
Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone. The site will then operate for a very short period of time and therefore there will be less airspace for disposal, and therefore less waste to be disposed on the proposed site. The impact will be LOW, acting on a short-term period. Increased employment opportunities could occur.
Health and Nuisance The community are concerned about the odours emanating from the site that is not only a nuisance, but may pose a health risk to them. This impact will persist for the life of the waste disposal site, prior to rehabilitation. This impact is assessed for all different alternatives.
Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The only time that this will be reduced or eliminated will be through rehabilitation and subsequently closure. The impact is of VERY HIGH significance and will be of short-term. It is definite that the odours will emanate for the life of the waste disposal site.
Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone. The impact will be HIGH - MODERATE and will be of medium- term.
Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone. The impact will be MODERATE to LOW, acting on a short-term period.
Traffic During the operational phase, there will be a decrease in the presence of heavy vehicles as those are only used during the construction phase. The only vehicles that will be coming on site will be those that will be bringing waste into the waste site for disposal. Deterioration of roads around the site will be reduced however still persist. The roads around the site are currently in a very poor condition and therefore, less heavy traffic will lower the problem, however the initial impact will persist The lesser the heavy construction vehicles, the lesser the safety risk to pedestrians as well. The impact will therefore remain as assessed in the construction phase.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impacts during the operational phase for all three alternatives remain as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 121 May 2010 8848
Mitigation Measures
Re-claimer livelihoods and health and nuisance The re-claimers earning a living is a positive impact and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. However, the manner in which the work can be addressed by:
• Formalising the manner in which re-claiming is performed;
• Using PPE to all those present on site;
• Ensuring access control; and
• Ensure that re-claiming is in line with the Minimum Requirements.
Traffic For this aspect, there is no mitigation required as these vehicles have to take waste to the waste disposal site.
For all other social aspects, the mitigation measures remain as assessed in Section 11.1.10 for all three alternatives.
Residual Impact
For traffic and employment aspects of the social environment, they will remain the same as being assessed for the cumulative impact above.
Table 43: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the operational phase. Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Re-claimers 2.33- Study Medium livelihoods LOW Is occurring Moderate - site Term POSITIVE Initial Health and Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High Nuisance site Term Traffic Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Re-claimers livelihoods Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Medium- Very Likely 2.7 – and 2 term Moderate Positive Alternative 3 LOW Study Short- Very Likely 1.6 – Low area Term Positive Health and Nuisance Additional Alternative 1 VERY HIGH Local Short-term Will happen 3.3- High Alternative 2 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 - Moderate Alternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 - Low Deterioration 2.1 of roads MODERATE Local Short-term Very likely Moderate from heavy
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 122 May 2010 8848
Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact construction vehicles Safety risk Could for LOW Local Short-term 1.4- Low happen pedestrians Re-claimers livelihoods Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Medium- Very Likely 2.7 – and 2 term Moderate Positive Alternative 3 LOW Study Short- Very Likely 1.6 – Low Cumulative area Term Positive Health and Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High Nuisance site Term Traffic Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Re-claimers livelihoods Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Medium- Very Likely 2.7 – and 2 term Moderate Positive Alternative 3 LOW Study Short- Very Likely 1.6 – Low area Term Positive Health and Nuisance Alternative 1 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 - Residual and 2 Moderate Alternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 - Low Deterioration LOW Local Short-term Could 1.4- Low of roads happen from heavy construction vehicles Safety risk LOW Local Short-term Unlikely 0.9-Very low for pedestrians
11.3 Decommissioning Phase
11.3.1 Soils and Land Capability
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.1, a High impact.
Additional Impact
During the rehabilitation and closure phase the waste disposal site will be capped. Even with proper rehabilitation, the soils will never completely recover unless the waste material is removed from the site. However the additional impact at this stage is a Low – Positive impact. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives but due to the smaller
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 123 May 2010 8848
footprint from Alternative 3, this alternative will have the least impact on soil. Soils will be imported to the site and the site will be re-vegetated.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed in section 11.1.1 since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains a High impact.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures remain as assessed in Section 11.1.1 for all three alternatives.
Residual Impact
The residual impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed in 11.1.1. Therefore the impact remains a Moderate impact.
Table 44: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils during the Decommissioning Phase. Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial VERY HIGH Study site Long Term Is Occurring 3.7- High Additional LOW Isolated Long Term Could occur 1.3- Low – sites Positive Cumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- High Residual HIGH Study site Long Term Very Likely 2.7- Moderate
11.3.2 Topography
Waste disposal site operations continue until all the available permitted airspace has been filled. Once this happens, the site is closed and capped with a layer of impermeable clay and a layer of top soil. Grass and other suitable vegetation types are planted to stabilise the soil and improve the appearance.
Initial Impact
The initial impact to topography will remain a HIGH impact, and will be occurring in the study area and will be permanent. This impact is rated as a High impact.
Additional Impact
The study site is within a residential area; therefore the waste body will be shaped to suit the local topography of the study area and the site will be rehabilitated so that grass and any other flora will vegetate on the waste body capping layer. The additional impact to
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 124 May 2010 8848
topography is of LOW positive significance and is therefore rated as Low positive impact that will definitely occur in the study area.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as High impact.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures remain as assessed in Section 11.1.2 for all three alternatives, however the closure and capping are mitigation measures.
Residual Impact
The residual impact remains as assessed in the additional section.
Table 45: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Study site Permanent Will occur 4-High Isolated Additional VERY LOW Permanent Very Likely 1.9- Low positive sites Cumulative HIGH Study site Permanent Will occur 4-High Isolated Residual VERY LOW Permanent Very Likely 1.9- Low positive sites
11.3.3 Groundwater
Initial Impact
The geohydrological impact will be of HIGH significance and will remain rated as a Moderate impact as per the construction and operational phases.
Additional Impact
Decommissioning and closure of the waste disposal site will involve covering the remaining wastes with impermeable liners satisfying the requirements of the DWA, followed by a layer of topsoil, vegetating the topsoil layer with hardy, but locally indigenous varieties of grasses and shrubs, demolishing unwanted infrastructure, removing contaminated soil, ripping and vegetating compacted areas. No further waste will be disposed on site. No water will be able to infiltrate through the capping and percolate as leachate. Should water penetrate the
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 125 May 2010 8848
capping layer, it will be collected in the leachate collection system and be diverted to the sewer.
The additional impact to groundwater is LOW impact and the site will be capped and no additional waste will be accepted. It is therefore rated as above- Low impact that will definitely occur in the study area.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remains as Moderate impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures proposed during the construction phase for the liner and associated infrastructure on the site are applicable during the construction and rehabilitation for closure. All mitigation measures proposed for the liner are applicable for the capping construction.
Residual Impact
With proper execution of the above closure measures, the probability of an impact on groundwater would be unlikely and therefore remains as assessed for the additional impact.
Table 46: Impact Rating Matrix for ground water during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Could Initial HIGH Local Long Term 2.2- Moderate happen Additional MODERATE Study site Long Term Unlikely 1.2 - Low Could Cumulative HIGH Local Long Term 2.2- Moderate happen Residual MODERATE Study site Long Term Unlikely 1.2 - Low
11.3.4 Surface water
Initial Impact
The initial impact will remain as assessed in the construction and operational phases, that is a Moderate impact.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 126 May 2010 8848
Additional Impact
During the closure / decommissioning and rehabilitation phase, construction activities will take place for the capping liner. Once the capping layer is installed on site and the site has been re-vegetated the potential for polluted run-off from site will be minimal. However during the construction of the capping layer the impact will remain as assessed in the construction phase as a Moderate impact.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact will remain as assessed in the additional phase, a Moderate impact.
Mitigation measures
The mitigation measures as proposed in the construction phase are applicable.
Residual Impact
The residual impact will remain as per the construction phase, a Low impact.
Table 47: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Additional HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Cumulative HIGH Local Short -Term Could happen 2- Moderate Residual MODERATE Study site Short -Term Could happen 1.4- Low
11.3.5 Geotechnical
Since no further contact will be made with the underlying geology, the geotechnical impact remains as assessed in the operational phase.
Table 48: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low Additional NO IMPACT Cumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low Residual MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 127 May 2010 8848
11.3.6 Terrestrial Ecology
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a High impact.
Additional Impact
The additional impact during the closure phase will involve the capping of the site and the re- vegetation of the capping layer. This process will ensure that the cap remains intact and prevents erosion. The re-introduction of grasses to the site will allow the site to rehabilitate naturally and it could reach a self sustaining state. Avifauna, arthropods, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles can all return to the site, as the adjacent wetland provides a source population for these animals and plants. The impact to ecology is rated as a MODERATE positive impact, occurring in the study area and acting in the long-term. The additional impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a Low positive impact.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact of the closure phase will result in the re-establishment of vegetation on site and it will provide the opportunity to fauna to move back onto the site as well. Due to the disturbance on and around the site, it is however anticipated that the main rehabilitation will be in the form of the re-establishment of the grass layer. The cumulative impact to ecology is rated as a LOW impact, occurring in the study area and acting in the long-term. This impact could occur and is therefore rated as a Low positive impact.
Mitigation Measures
• All alien invasive species on site should be removed and follow up monitoring and removal programmes should be initiated once closure is complete;
• Ensure that the rehabilitated waste site is not used as grazing for the local livestock; and
• Ensure that natural grasses are used as part of the site rehabilitation and closure phase.
Residual Impact
The residual impact will remain as assessed in the cumulative impact assessment for all the development phases. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impact remains the same. The mitigation measure will however ensure that the impact is positive.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 128 May 2010 8848
Table 49: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology for the Decommissioning Phase (Alternative 1-3). Impact Type Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Has already Initial HIGH Study site Long Term 3.3 - High occurred Additional MODERATE Study site Long Term Could Occur 1.8 – Low Positive Cumulative LOW Study site Long Term Could Occur 1.6 – Low Positive Residual LOW Study site Long Term Could Occur 1.6 – Low Positive
11.3.7 Visual Impact
With the closure of the site, the visual impact will remain. The rehabilitation will however provide a natural look to the waste body and to the uninformed by-passer to the site will not be that obvious. However, due to the size and especially the height of the closed facility, the structure will remain visible from the surrounding landscape as assessed for the expansion.
This is however only relevant if the re-vegetation of the site is successful with no alien invasive plants and no erosion visible on the site.
The vegetation screen described will be firmly established and most of the trees will be of mature height. Provided the screen is maintained and significant gaps are not allowed to develop, any subsequent closure activities will be well screened.
The progressive rehabilitation of waste sites by means of capping and the subsequent establishment of vegetation is a Minimum Requirement. Capping will be implemented on all areas where no further waste deposition will take place, and re-vegetation should commence as soon as possible. Screening berms are the first areas where vegetation must be established.
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed for the residual impact during the operational phase (Section 11.2.7), a High (Alternative 1) to Moderate (Alternative 2 and 3) impact.
Additional Impact
Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The significance of the visual impact without mitigation is assessed as low positive for alternative 1 as it has the largest footprint and the potential for the largest volume of waste therefore this alternative will be the most visible to the surrounding community. However, should the waste body be reshaped, capped and vegetated to look like a natural hill, the impact will be lessened.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 129 May 2010 8848
Alternative 2 and 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 - 100 metre buffer zone. The impact will therefore be a moderate positive impact and will be of permanent. Either alternative will have smaller footprint and waste capacity then alternative 1 and would therefore blend in with the surrounding environment easier.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact remains as assessed for the additional impact above for all alternatives.
Mitigation
The mitigation measures remain as assessed in 11.1.7 above.
Residual Impact
The residual impact for all the alternatives is the same as with the additional impact as this is the closure phase.
Table 50: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the decommissioning phase. Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Initial Alternative 1 HIGH Local Long-Term It is going to happen 3.6- High Alternative 2,3 MODERATE Local Long- term It is going to happen 2.6 - Moderate - LOW Additional Alternative 1 LOW Local Permanent Could happen (to 1.9 – Low look like a natural positive feature) Alternative 2,3 MODERATE Local Permanent Very likely 2.9- Moderate positive Cumulative As per additional impact Residual As per additional impact
11.3.8 Air Quality
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8
Additional Impact
It is anticipated that the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site will be compacted and capped with soil material in order to cover the waste and to allow vegetation to re-establish on the site. The potential for impacts during this phase will depend on the extent of rehabilitation efforts during closure. This will result in a Moderate impact in the long-term.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 130 May 2010 8848
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact will remain a High impact as assessed for the initial impact.
Mitigation Measures
It is recommended that a Gas Extraction Project be implemented at the site, however this is pending the investigation currently being undertaken by WSP, refer to Section 5.7.2.
Residual Impact
Should the mitigation measures be implemented, the impact for all three alternatives would be a Moderate impact.
Table 51: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the decommissioning phase. Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 - High 2.6 - Additional MODERATE Local Long-Term Very Likely Moderate Cumulative HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 - High 2.6 - Residual MODERATE Local Long-Term Very Likely Moderate
11.3.9 Cultural Environment
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as NO IMPACT as the area would have already been disturbed and there would be no potential for heritage remains to be present.
Additional Impact
The Additional impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.9, a VERY LOW impact.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact will be the same as the additional impact i.e. VERY LOW impact.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures will remain the same as in Section 11.1.9 for all three alternatives.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 131 May 2010 8848
Residual Impact
If the above mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, then there will be a VERY LOW residual impact on cultural/ heritage resources in the study area.
Table 52: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the Decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Initial impact NO IMPACT Additional VERY LOW Study Area Incidental Unlikely 0.5-Very low Cumulative VERY LOW Study Area Incidental Unlikely 0.5 Very low Residual VERY LOW Study Area Incidental Unlikely 0.5- Very low
11.3.10 Social Environment
Initial Impact
The initial impact remains as assessed for the residual impact during operations for all three alternatives.
Additional Impact
Job Creation / Lose
All the re-claimers that have been employed or are working on the site will lose their source of income. The initial impact to the social environment is rated as a HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area and acting permanently. This impact is going to happen and as such is rated as a high negative impact.
Nuisance and Health Waste disposal will cease and the site will be capped. There will be no dust or PM10 impacts once the site has been rehabilitated therefore there will be a positive impact to the surrounding land users.
Traffic
During the decommissioning phase, there will be construction vehicles present in the short term however no waste vehicles will be coming to site. This decrease in heavy vehicles will lessen the local traffic impact and the safety risk to pedestrians.
Crime During the decommissioning phase, there will be material on site that could be stolen. Therefore, there will be NO IMPACT. It is important to note that this is specific to the waste disposal site. Crime in the area could increase as a result of loss of income.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 132 May 2010 8848
Cumulative Impact
All social impacts will remain as assessed as per the additional impact.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed:
Crime • Security is to be present on site throughout the construction component of the closure, that is, during capping.
Job Creation / Lose • The re-claimers must be informed of the new waste disposal site that will replace the Boitshepi site and salvaging at the new site should be formalised.
Residual Impact
The residual impact will remain as assessed for the cumulative impact.
Table 53: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the Decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). Type of Source of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Impact Re-claimers livelihoods Alternative 1 and MODERATE Local Medium- Very Likely 2.7 – 2 term Moderate Positive Alternative 3 LOW Study Short-Term Very Likely 1.6 – Low area Positive Initial impact Health and Nuisance Alternative 1 VERY HIGH Local Short-term Will happen 3.3- High Alternative 2 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 - Moderate Alternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 - Low Traffic Study Medium VERY HIGH Is occurring 3.33 - High site Term Traffic Less traffic on LOW Local Permanent Very Likely 2.6 – roads and Moderate - therefore less POSITIVE deterioration of roads Additional impact Decreased safety LOW Study Permanent Very Likely 2.4 – risk for site Moderate pedestrians due POSITIVE to the decrease of heavy vehicles Job Creation / Study HIGH Permanent Will occur 3.6- High Lose site
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 133 May 2010 8848
Type of Source of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating Impact Impact LOW Study Incidental Could 0.9- Very low Crime area happen HIGH Study Permanent Very Likely 2.9 – Nuisance and area Moderate - Health POSITIVE Cumulative As per additional impact impact Residual As per additional impact Impact
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 134 May 2010 8848
12 IMPACT SUMMARY
The environmental impacts for each alternative for the proposed extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site have been summarised below. The following broad conclusions can be drawn from the impact assessment.
• The current baseline environment in the study area is highly impacted upon from an environmental and social perspective;
• The receiving environment is not of a sensitive nature with the exception of a wetland south east of the site.
• There are no sensitive features on site as most of the environmental aspects are already highly disturbed and therefore, the ecosystems found on site have adapted to the conditions of a waste disposal site.
• The most significantly impacted baseline elements in the area are soils and land capability, topography, terrestrial ecology, visual aesthetics, air quality, health and nuisance. These elements have already been highly impacted by the existing waste site operations.
• During the construction phase for the extension of the site, the impacts will range from VERY LOW to HIGH. The most significant impacts will be to air quality and health and nuisance the significance of these impacts is dependent on the preferred buffer zone alternative. Mitigation measures employed will adequately reduce the significance of impacts that may be sustained by the construction activities with the exception of air quality for the 0 metre buffer zone (alternative 1) as the specialist has indicated that this is unacceptable.
• During the operational phase, the impacts range from VERY LOW to HIGH. The most significant impacts will be to visual aesthetics, air quality and health and nuisance. Mitigation measures together with the OMP for the site will reduce the significance of the impacts during operations significantly;
• It is important to note that all three alternatives are adjacent to each other and as such have the same or similar potential impacts. The alternative with the smaller footprint naturally has a smaller impact than the other alternatives however the differences of the footprint sizes is so small that it is hardly evident in the assessment with the exception of social and health issues relating to the distance of the site from the surrounding land users. As such the difference in ranking of the alternatives is insignificant with the exception of the 0 metre buffer (alternative 1).
• From a size of impact perspective only the smaller footprint, that is Alternative 3, 100 metre buffer zone would be the preferred alternative, however as mentioned this alternative is no longer feasible as it would not accommodate the waste disposal needs of the area for the full period until the new waste disposal site is commissioned. Therefore the preferred alternative is Alternative 2 – the 50 metre buffer zone.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 135 May 2010 8848
12.1.1 Preferred Alternative
On the basis of the findings in this report, it is suggested that alternative 2 (two) be utilised as the preferred alternative for the proposed extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site as it has the least sensitive features associated with it whilst be feasible to meet the disposal needs of the community.
This section provides a short sensitivity matrix, which compares the three different alternatives and their associated environmental sensitivities.
On the basis of the matrix presented below and the points listed above, it is suggested that alternative two be utilised as the preferred alternative for the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site as it is the least sensitive of the feasible alternatives. Although Alternative three has the smallest footprint and is the greater distance from the adjacent / surrounding land users it is cannot accommodate the disposal needs in the area until the new waste disposal site is commissioned.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING 136 May 2010 8848
Table 54: Alternative Sensitivity Matrix. CLOSURE AND DECOMMISSIONING CONSTRUCTION PHASE OPERATIONAL PHASE PHASE Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Sensitivity Alternative 1: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: 50m 3: 100m 2: 50m 3: 100m 1: 0m 2: 50m 0m buffer 0m buffer 3: 100m buffer buffer buffer buffer buffer buffer zone zone buffer zone zone zone zone zone zone zone SOILS AND LAND CAPABILITY Initial Impact High High High Additional Moderate High Low – POSITIVE ; Cumulative High High High ResidualI Moderate Moderate Moderate TOPOGRAPHYI Initial Impact High High High Additional Moderate Low Moderate Low Low – POSITIVE ; CumulativeI High High High ResidualI High High Low – POSITIVE ; GROUNDWATERI Initial Impact Moderate Moderate Moderate Additional Low Moderate Low CumulativeI Moderate Moderate Moderate ResidualI Low Low Low SURFACEI WATER Initial Impact Moderate Moderate Moderate Additional Moderate Moderate Moderate CumulativeI Moderate Moderate Moderate ResidualI Low Low Low GEOTECHNICALI Initial Impact Low Low Low Additional Low NO IMPACT NO IMPACT CumulativeI Low Low Low BIO-PHYSICAL BIO-PHYSICAL ResidualI Low Low Low TERRESTRIALI ECOLOGY Initial Impact High High High Additional Low Low Low –POSITIVE ; CumulativeI High High Low – POSITIVE ; ResidualI High High Low – POSITIVE ; VISUALI IMPACT Initial Impact High High High Moderate Additional Low – Low High Moderate Moderate – Positive ; Impact Positive ; Cumulative High Low – High Moderate – Positive ; Impact Positive ; Residual Low – High High Moderate Moderate – Positive ; Impact Positive ; AIR QUALITY Initial Impact High High High Additional Unacceptable High Unacceptable High Moderate CumulativeI High High High ResidualI Unacceptable Moderate Unacceptable Moderate Moderate SOCIALI - RE-CLAIMER LIVELIHOODS Initial Impact Moderate - POSITIVE ; Moderate – POSITIVE ; Moderate Low Moderate – POSITIVE ; Low – Moderate - POSITIVE Low – Additional POSITIVE POSITIVE High Impact ; ; Low – Moderate - POSITIVE Low – Cumulative Moderate – POSITIVE ; POSITIVE POSITIVE High Impact ; ; Low – Moderate - POSITIVE Low – Residual Moderate – POSITIVE ; SOCIAL SOCIAL POSITIVE POSITIVE Moderate Impact ; ; SOCIAL – HEALTH AND NUISANCE Initial Impact High High High Moderate Low Additional High Moderate Low High Moderate Low Moderate – POSITIVE ; CumulativeI High High Moderate – POSITIVE ; ResidualI Moderate Low Moderate Low High – POSITIVE ; HERITAGEI Initial Impact NO IMPACT Additional Very Low Very Low Very Low CumulativeI Very Low Very Low Very Low
CULTURAL CULTURAL ResidualI Very Low Very Low Very Low I Total 11.5 9.5 9.5 11.5 8.5 8.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 Sensitivities
NEGATIVE IMPACT Very low = 0 Low = 0.5 Moderate = 1 High = 2 Very High = 3 POSITIVE IMPACT Very low = 0 Low = -0.5 Moderate = -1 High = -2 Very High = -3
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING May 2010 137 8848
13 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From the evaluation in Section 12 the various sensitivities have been added and Table 55 below represents the summary of the impacts each alternative would pose on the study area during construction, operation and closure.
Table 55: Alternative summary and preference. Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: SENSITIVITIES 0m buffer zone 50m buffer zone 100m buffer zone
Construction 11.5 9.5 9.5
Operational 11.5 8.5 8.5
Closure 1 0.5 0.5
TOTAL 24 18.5 18.5
Preference 3 1 1
The way forward recommended by this study is as follows:
• This Draft EIR is available for public review from 10 May 2010 to 10 June 2010. I&APs are encouraged to forward any comments and issues to the Zitholele public participation team.
• Once comments are received they will be captured in Version 3 of the IRR and incorporated into the Final EIR;
• The Final EIR and EMP will be compiled and submitted to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) for approval;
• Once the GDARD has reached a decision, an Environmental Authorisation (EA) will be issued; and
• Upon receipt of the Environmental Authorisation (EA), Zitholele will notify all I&APs on the stakeholder database of the GDARD’s decision by means of advertisements and letters.
ZITHOLELE CONSULTING