ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A GENERAL …€¦ · environmental impact assessment for a general landfill site and a hazardous waste storage facility in lephalale, limpopo

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A GENERAL LANDFILL SITE AND A HAZARDOUS

WASTE STORAGE FACILITY IN LEPHALALE, LIMPOPO PROVINCE

PUBLIC & FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS

10 June 2009

PRESENTED BY GESAN GOVENDER

WELCOME!!!!!!!

• Mr Kubentheran Nair (Eskom Project Manager)

• Ms Bronwyn Stolps (Chief Advisor – Eskom Land & Rights)

Project Team

• Mr Gesan Govender (Envirolution Project Director)

• Ms Nkhensani Khandlhela (Envirolution Project Manager)

GENERAL LANDFILL SITE AND A HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY

Agenda

• Meeting Procedure

• Purpose of the Meeting

• Project Description

• Conceptual Designs

• Preliminary Design

• Environmental Legislation

• Background to the EIA

process

• Alternatives considered

• Key specialist findings• Preliminary Design

• Project Motivation

• Site Location

• Legislative Framework

• Screening Process

• EIA Process

• Key specialist findings

• Public Participation

• Conclusions

• Way Forward


Meeting Procedure

• Keep cell phones off

• Sign the attendance register

• Work through the facilitator

• Note your comments in the comment sheets provided• Note your comments in the comment sheets provided

• Focus on issues relevant to the EIA

• Identify yourselves during question time

• Wait for Q & A session to ask questions


Purpose of Meeting

• Provide a brief overview of the EIA Process

• Present a summary of the findings of Impact

Assessment Phase

• Receive comments and feedback

• Provide details regarding the Way Forward


• Construction of general landfill site (including co-disposal) and hazardouswaste storage facility

• Project also involves the construction of low hazardous waste cell

• Location – Matimba Power Station (Farm Grootestryd)

• Eskom anticipates a 20 hectare site (incl. associated infrastructure)

• It is estimated that the facility will handle ± 1,200,000 m3 of waste

• Ancillary infrastructure includes the following:

Project Description

• Ancillary infrastructure includes the following:

� General storage and handling facilities;

� Water supply pipelines (for both construction and operation);

� Electricity supply during the construction phase;

� Access roads (internal and external); and

� Overhead power lines.

• The proposed development will be constructed on Eskom owned property.


• Design will consider cost effective and environmentally acceptable

(EIA findings) facilities

• Key guideline will be the DWAF Minimum requirements for Waste

Disposal by landfill

• Other considerations (waste streams, waste volumes, water

balance, cover material, contours, land availability)

• Site classification, site layout, access, hydrology and drainage,

Conceptual Designs

• Site classification, site layout, access, hydrology and drainage,

containment, leachate management & detection, monitoring system

• Waste cell for disposal of low hazardous waste is included

• Other components of the landfill include weighbridges, site offices,

ablution block, workshop, guard house, recycling facilities etc.


Proposed landfill site

Stormwater containment

pond

Decommissioned dump

Leachate Collection

drain

Storm water cut off drain

Security gate

GENERAL LANDFILLSITE AND A HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY

• Existing waste disposal site in Lephalale is not licensed

• Eskom SHE Policy and legal requirement (legal non

conformance)

• Matimba and Medupi Power Station (currently under

construction) produce general and hazardous waste

• Waste from Matimba and Medupi is transported to Gauteng for

Project Motivation

• Waste from Matimba and Medupi is transported to Gauteng for

disposal (road infrastructure under pressure due to other

developments)

• Eskom incurring high costs from transporting waste

• Eskom also considering two coal fired power stations in general

vicinity

• Eskom thus require a landfill and a hazardous waste storagefacility in close proximity to Matimba and Medupi Power Stations


Matimba Power Station – Location

Site Site


EIA Process

� An EIA is a good planning and decision-making tool.

� It is able to identify the environmental impacts of a proposed project.

� It ensures that the project will be environmentally acceptable and integrated into

the surrounding environment in a sustainable manner.

� The key objective of public participation is to assist stakeholders to identify

issues of concern and make suggestions for enhanced benefits.


Scoping and EIA Process

Project Registration

Scoping phaseIdentify impacts of the proposed project and determine specialist studies required. Compile a plan of study for

EIA.

Environmental Impact Assessment phaseConsolidate and integrate findings of specialist studies

Public announcementBID

Briefing I&AP’s on the proposed project and invitation to comment

Public ReviewPublic Review of the Draft Scoping

Report and Plan of Study for EIA

Consolidate and integrate findings of specialist studies into the Environmental Impact Report. Compile an EMP to indicate how significant environmental impacts will

be adequately mitigated.

AuthorisationThe relevant authority reviews the EIR & EMP and

approves or declines the project application.

Public reviewReview of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental

Management Plan (EMP)Public and focus group meetings

(Today)

Appeal periodA 30-day period allowing either the

applicant or I &AP to appeal the authority decision


Environmental Legislation

• Primary Legislation: National Environmental Management Act,

1998 (Act 107 of 1998) NEMA

• Section 20 of Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989)

• National Environmental Management Waste Act 59 of 2008

(July 2009) (Schedules a & b)

• NEMA EIA Regulations 2006 (GN R. 385, 386 and 387)• NEMA EIA Regulations 2006 (GN R. 385, 386 and 387)

• Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (Authority)

• Limpopo Dept of Economic Development Environment &

Tourism (Provincial Authority)

• DEAT Ref Number is 12/12/20/1399


Legislation – GN 386

Listed Activity No(G. Notice No 386)

Summary

Item 1(l): transmission and distribution of above ground electricity (>120kv)

Item 1(m): impacts on water resources (32m)

Item 1 (p): temporary storage of hazardous waste

Item 7 above-ground storage of dangerous goods (>30 cubic meters but less than1000 cubic meters)

Item 13 abstraction of groundwater

Item 15 construction of a roads

Item 16 transformation of undeveloped, vacant or derelict land for development


Legislation – GN 387

Listed Activity No(GN 387)

Summary

Item 1(c): above ground storage of a dangerous good

Item 1(e): permitting or licensing requirements

Item 1(f): recycling, re-use, handling, temporary storage or treatment of generalwaste

Item 1(g): recycling, handling, treatment, storage or final disposal of hazardous waste

Item 1 (l) transmission and distribution of above ground electricity (>120 kV)

Item 1 (o) Final disposal of general waste covering an area of 100 square metres


The three phases involved are:

• Phase 1: Site Screening Study

• Phase 2: Environmental Scoping Study

EIA Process

• Phase 3: EIA & EMP (we are here)


• Envirolution and Specialist team undertook site visits

• Site visits undertaken on 17-18 Nov 2008 & 17 Dec 2008

• Included identification of 3 potential farms in the area

• Three farm portions (Kromdraai 513LQ, Grootvallei 515 LQ, Hanglip 508 LQ)

Screening process

• Three farm portions (Kromdraai 513LQ, Grootvallei 515 LQ, Hanglip 508 LQ)


�The following specialists were involved:

• Agricultural Potential;

• Air Quality;

• Avifauna (birds);

• Engineering Design input;

• Geo-hydrological;

• Geotechnical;

Screening process

• Heritage;

• Noise;

• Social ;

• Wetland;

• Terrestrial Fauna & Flora;

• Traffic; and

• Visual.


Screening process (Summary)


• The farms Kromdraai and Hanglip were subsequently eliminated due to fatal

flaws and/or unavailability

• Four sites within Grootvallei were then proposed

• Number of the sites identified were greenfield sites (no development had

occurred on site)

Alternative Sites - Scoping

• A 5th Site (Farm Grootestryd in Matimba Power station) was later added

• Specialist studies indicated Site 5 will have the least environmental impact

• Four sites identified in Grootvallei during scoping were then eliminated

• Site 5 was therefore evaluated in the EIA phase


Proposed alternative sites (Scoping)


• Site 5 is already disturbed

• A decommissioned dump is located close to the site

• Site is fenced off

• Site 5 was therefore evaluated by specialists in the EIA phase

• Three options within Site 5 (A, B & C) were considered

Alternative Sites – EIA Phase

• All three sites are homogenous in nature


Site 5

EIA Phase Approach

• Specialists assessed Site 5 in its totality

• Assessed potential impacts from each individual site (Site 5A, 5B & 5C)

• Sensitivities in each sub sites were assessed

• Significance of potential impacts were based in terms of nature, extent,

duration, intensity and probability.


• Recommendations for site preferences

• It emerged from specialist assessment that due to the homogenous nature of

the study area, any of the sites (5a,b & c) can be considered, however

• Site 5b is the most preferred

• Site 5a can be considered with effective mitigation

• Site 5c is the least preferred, however with robust mitigation, site is suitable

Specialists Site 5a Site 5b Site 5c Most

Preferred

Least

preferred

Ecology √ √ √ Site 5a

(more

disturbed

than other

sites

None (Site 5b

and 5c are

less disturbed

– but can be

mitigated)

Visual impact √ √ √ Site 5b Sites 5a (2nd)

and 5c least

preferred

Heritage √ √ √ All sites are equally suitableHeritage √ √ √ All sites are equally suitable

Geohydrology √ √ √

(least

contaminated

but can be

mitigated

with

appropriate

design

measures)

Site 5a and

b (already

polluted)

None (as

impacts can

be mitigated)

Specialists Site 5a Site 5b Site 5c Most

Preferred

Least

preferred

Geotechnical

suitability

√

(source of

cover

material)

√

(extensively

disturbed)

√

(source of cover

material)Equally

suitable

None

Social impact √ √ √ Equally No sites are Social impact √ √ √ Equally

suitable

No sites are

unsuitable

Agricultural

potential

√ √ √ Equally suitable, no sites are

unsuitable

Traffic √ √ √ Sites 5a &

5c

None (Site

5b is away

from access

roads

Air Quality √ √ √ All sites are

equally

None

Key specialist findings (summary)

SPECIALIST CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical &

Geohydrology

Site 5a and b are already contaminated. Site 5c will require proper

design and management during construction and operational

phases (leachate management)

Ecological (flora, fauna,

avifauna and wetlands)

All sites suitable – no areas of significant sensitivities. Mitigation

measure must be applied

Visual Site 5a & b suitable – Site is already disturbed (previous landfillVisual Site 5a & b suitable – Site is already disturbed (previous landfill

site, roads, railway lines, power lines, conveyor belts, power

station, etc); and hidden away from main roads.

Noise Entire Site 5 – Located away from communities; and noise level

will be minimal during construction and operational phases.

Mitigation measures must be implemented

Heritage No heritage, cultural and archaeological features are known to

exist in the area, all sites are suitable

Social & Air Quality None of the sites has fatal flaws, mitigation measures must be

applied


Public Participation Process to date

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICPARTICIPATION AS PER NEMA REGULATIONS2006 AND DEAT GUIDLINES

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOLLOWEDTO DATE

Place an advertisement in one local newspaper.

Place an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper

or national newspaper.

Advertisements were placed in a local newspaper -Mogol Post; and regional newspaper - Star on 30 January2009.

Fix at least one (1) notice board at a place conspicuous to Notices were erected on site and at visible andFix at least one (1) notice board at a place conspicuous to

the public at the boundary or on the fence of the site where

the activity to which the application relates is to be

undertaken.

Notices were erected on site and at visible andaccessible locations close to the site on 29th - 30thJanuary 2009.


Public Participation Process to date

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICPARTICIPATION AS PER NEMA REGULATIONS2006 AND DEAT GUIDLINES

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOLLOWEDTO DATE

Written notices:

• To owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the

property where the activity will be undertaken;

• To owners and occupiers of land within 100 metres of

the boundary of the property;

• To the municipal councillor of the ward in which the

property is situated;

Distribution of Letters, Background InformationDocuments and Registration / Comment sheets weresent to key stakeholders via fax, post and email from 29January to date.

property is situated;

• To any organisation of ratepayers that represents the

community in the area;

• To the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area;

and

• To any organ of state which has jurisdiction in respect of

any aspect of the activity.

The Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) managing

the application must give registered I&AP’s access to and an

opportunity to comment in writing on the draft scoping and

environmental impact reports

• The Draft Scoping Report was made available for reviewfrom 20 February - 20 March 2009 .• The Draft Environmental Impact Report was madeavailable for review from 26 May 2009 – 26 June 2009.


Issues identified

The following issues were identified through the Public Participation Process:

� Site selection processes;

� Impacts on ground water (leachate management);

� Health and exposure impacts;

� Sewage management (night soil);

� Nature, type, volume of anticipated general and hazardous wastes;

� Rehabilitation of decommissioned waste dump;� Rehabilitation of decommissioned waste dump;

� Management of hazardous wastes stored on site;

� Use of the landfill sites by others;

� Eskom partnership with other organisations regarding this project;

� Cumulative impacts of the proposed development;

� Properties to be affected; and

� Impacts on agricultural soil.

All these issues have been addressed in detail in the Draft EIR (Refer to Issues

response report)


Conclusion and Recommendations

• No fatal flaws in all three sites

• No significant differences in terms of impacts from all three sites

• Majority of impacts are of low significance with mitigation

• All three sites are suitable with effective application of mitigation measures

• Therefore Site 5a or Site 5b (including the 20 ha portion) can be considered


• Site 5b is therefore recommended

Way Forward

• Public review of Draft EIR commenced on 26 May 2009

• Public and focus group meetings (today)

• Public comment period end on 26 June 2009

• Finalisation and submission of the Final Environmental

Impact report – Early July 09

• Authority review and decision (July – Mid August 09)• Authority review and decision (July – Mid August 09)

• Appeal Period (Mid Aug – End of Sept 2009)

• Preparation of Section 20 (permit application - await

authorisation)

• Submit section 20 application to DEAT

GENERAL LANDFILLSITE AND A HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY

Questions, Comments and Suggestions

THANK YOU!!!!Please send all written comments to:

Ms Netisha Chetty

Envirolution Consulting

email: [email protected]

Tel: 0861 44 44 99

Fax: 0861 62 62 22