i

EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF EIA SCOPING REPORTS

ASSOCIATED WITH HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AFRICA

By

BRADLEY KEVIN THORPE

MINOR-DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER of SCIENCE

in

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

in the

FACULTY of SCIENCE

at the

UNIVERSITY of JOHANNESBURG

SUPERVISOR: Dr. I. T. RAMPEDI

MAY 2014

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express sincere thanks to Dr. I.T. Rampedi for his guidance and academic

support, as well as my wife for her continued moral support and patience, during the last two

years. The completion of this research and this minor-dissertation would have been a

challenge without either of their inputs and advice. Lee-Ann Foster is gratefully

acknowledged for assistance in some of the technical aspects in the structure of this

dissertation.

iv

ABSTRACT

The minimum requirements for environmental impact assessment (EIA) in South Africa are

prescribed in the 2010 EIA Regulations under the National Environmental Management Act

(Act No. 107 of 1998) [NEMA]; where EIA is used as a decision-support tool by competent

authorities in evaluating the environmental authorisation applications of activities likely to

have adverse environmental impacts. Regulations under the National Environmental

Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) [NEM:WA] define the nature and thresholds of

those waste management activities for which environmental authorisation, in the form of a

waste management licence, is required.

The aforementioned regulations make a distinction between Category A activities and

Category B activities; where an application for authorisation for Category B activities needs

to be supported by a comprehensive Scoping and EIA (SIA) process undertaken by an

independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP). With the exception of the

disposal of general waste to land, Category B activities relate to hazardous waste storage,

treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal. The above-mentioned SIA process is

implemented in two distinct phases, the first of which is the scoping phase; which aims to

identify the key potential impacts that could be realised from a development proposal and to

set the terms of reference for the subsequent EIA phase. Scoping thus aims, inter alia, to

ensure that the overall EIA is undertaken in an efficient and effective manner, with emphasis

on identification of impacts of potential significance.

By using a modified version of the South African adapted Lee and Colley (1992) Review

Package, this dissertation presents the findings of an evaluation of the quality of hazardous

waste-related Scoping Reports prepared in South Africa. A sample of 20 Scoping Reports

was assessed using the aforementioned review package. The results indicated that 75% of

Scoping Reports were undertaken satisfactorily in terms of overall quality. Conversely, 25%

of these reports were deemed to be of an unsatisfactory quality, with 10% having been very

poorly attempted and deficient in many material respects. This is concerning in respect of

the sectoral focus (hazardous waste management) of this research; where by definition,

owing to the inherent physical, chemical or toxicological characteristics, the handling of

hazardous waste may have a significant detrimental impact on human health and the

environment if managed inappropriately.

KEY WORDS: Scoping Report; quality appraisal; EIA; South Africa; hazardous waste.

v

ABBREVIATIONS

DEA: Department of Environmental Affairs

DWAF: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

EAP: Environmental Assessment Practitioner

EAPASA: Environmental Assessment Practitioner Association of South Africa

ECA: Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989)

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

ES: Environmental Statement

IAPs: Interested and Affected Parties

NEMA: National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)

NEM:WA: National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008)

EIR: Environmental Impact Report

PoSEIA: Plan of Study for EIA

S & EIA: Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment

ToR: Terms of Reference

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... iv

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ viii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH BACKGROUND .......................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 The value of scoping in EIA processes .................................................................. 2

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ..................................................... 5

1.3 JUSTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ........................................ 5

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 7

1.5 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................... 7

1.6 ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERTATION ........................................................... 8

1.7 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH ....................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 10

LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 10

2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 10

2.2.1 The development of EIA practice ........................................................................ 10

2.2.2 EIA in South Africa .............................................................................................. 12

2.2.3 Scoping ............................................................................................................... 13

2.3 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA .................................... 14

2.3.1 Hazardous waste management reform in South Africa ........................................ 15

2.3.2 Challenges facing hazardous waste management in South Africa ...................... 19

2.4 METHODS OF APPRAISING EIA QUALITY ............................................................. 20

2.4.1 Lee and Colley EIR Review Package .................................................................. 20

2.4.2 European Commission Guidelines ...................................................................... 21

vii

2.4.3 Oxford-Brookes University Review Package ....................................................... 22

2.4.4 Legal compliance ................................................................................................ 22

2.5 EIA QUALITY APPRAISAL IN SOUTH AFRICA ........................................................ 23

CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................... 25

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 25

3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 25

3.2 LEE AND COLLEY REVIEW PACKAGE ................................................................... 25

3.2.1 Sample size selection ......................................................................................... 25

3.2.2 Primary data sourcing procedures ....................................................................... 29

3.2.2.1 Sourcing Primary Data from Department of Environmental Affairs ................... 29

3.2.2.2 PAIA Application and Administrative Fees ........................................................ 29

3.2.2.3 EAP Websites .................................................................................................. 29

3.2.3 Primary data analytical procedures ..................................................................... 30

3.2.3.1 Report Reviewing ............................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................... 34

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 34

4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 34

4.2 REVIEW AREA 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES AND

RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 35

4.3 REVIEW AREA 2: SCOPING .................................................................................... 40

4.4 REVIEW AREA 3: COMPLIANCE TO LEGISLATIVE, GUIDELINE AND POLICY

FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................. 44

4.5 REVIEW AREA 4: COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS ............................................... 47

4.6 OVERALL SCOPING REPORT QUALITY ................................................................. 51

4.7 MINIMUM CONTENT OF A SCOPING REPORT ...................................................... 57

4.8 AREAS OF WEAKNESS ........................................................................................... 60

4.9 AREAS OF STRENGTH ............................................................................................ 61

CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................... 62

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 62

5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 62

5.2 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 62

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT / STUDY ........................... 63

LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 65

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: EIA Process Flow diagram, in terms of GNR. 543 of 18 June 2010. ....... 4

FIGURE 2: The Assessment Pyramid. ..................................................................... 28

FIGURE 3: Schematic Representation of the Review Topic Hierarchy in Review

Areas 1 & 2. ............................................................................................................. 28

FIGURE 4: Review Area 1 - Description of Project and Receiving Environment ...... 37

FIGURE 5: Review Area 2 - 'Scoping and Impact Identification'. ............................. 42

FIGURE 6: Review Area 3 – ‘Legislative and Policy Framework’. ............................ 46

FIGURE 7: Review Area 4 - 'Communication of Results’. ........................................ 49

FIGURE 8: Trends Analysis of Results for Review Area 2 and 3. ............................ 53

FIGURE 9: Scoping Report Quality Appraisal. ......................................................... 54

FIGURE 10: Review Area Quality Appraisal Comparism. ........................................ 55

FIGURE 11: Review Area Quality Appraisal Comparison Summary. ....................... 56

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Hazard Classes of the SANs 10234 (GHS) Classification System. .......... 16

TABLE 2: Waste Disposal Restrictions under the Standard for Disposal of Waste to

Landfill (GNR 645 of 23 August 2013). ..................................................................... 17

TABLE 3: Waste Type Determinations and Landfill Requirements under the Waste

Classification and Management Regulations (GNR 643 of August 2013). ............... 18

TABLE 4: Assessment Symbols for Review Topics (Lee and Colley). ..................... 27

TABLE 5: Assessment Symbol Aggregation. ........................................................... 27

TABLE 6: Tabular Summary of Review Areas, Categories and Sub-categories Used.

................................................................................................................................. 32

TABLE 7: Frequency of Specific Waste-Management Activities in the EIRs under

Scrutiny. ................................................................................................................... 34

TABLE 8: Tabular Summary of Review Results for Review area 1 and Associated

review Categories..................................................................................................... 36

TABLE 9: Review Area 1, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories. ................... 37

TABLE 10: Summary of Review Results for Review Area 2 and Associated Review

Categories. ............................................................................................................... 41

TABLE 11: Review Area 2, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories. ................. 43

TABLE 12: Summary of Review Results for Review area 3 and Associated Review

Categories. ............................................................................................................... 45

TABLE 13: Review Area 3, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories. ................. 47

TABLE 14: Summary of Review results for review Are 4 and associated Review

Categories. ............................................................................................................... 49

TABLE 15: Review Area 4, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories. ................. 50

TABLE 16: Tabular Summary of Overall Review Results and Associated Review

Areas. ....................................................................................................................... 54

TABLE 17: Regulatory Requirements for Sub-category Scoring. ............................. 58

TABLE 18: Tabular Summary of Performance Against Regulatory Requirements. .. 60

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Environmental impact assessment plays a critical role in ensuring the integration of

sustainability principles in project planning and implementation, as well as the

involvement and consultation of stakeholders in decision-making processes likely to

affect human health and environmental quality (Lee and Colley, 1992; Wood et al.,

2006; Sandham and Pretorius, 2008; Fuggle and Rabie, 2009; Aucamp, 2010;

Peterson, 2010). Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was formally adopted in

South Africa as early as 1997 as a means of improving the quality of environmental

management decision-making processes regarding the sustainability of development

actions, especially those with significant environmental impacts (Hoffman, 2007;

Fuggle and Rabie, 2009). The promulgation of the National Environmental

Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) [NEMA], as well as the first EIA Regulations

under NEMA in 2006 and subsequent revision thereof in 2010, indicate the quest for

better environmental management in South Africa.

Numerous environmental management processes have been introduced since that

time to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the South African EIA

system. Although scoping is not legally prescribed in countries such as Bangladesh,

Russia, Vietnam, and the UK (George, 2000; Glasson et al., 2012), it is a

compulsory and a mandatory step in South Africa for certain EIAs (FIGURE 1). As a

result, the amended National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)

[NEMA], with its latest Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2010)

(particularly GNR. 543, Part 3) explains all the requirements for a full EIA, which

involves Scoping and an Environmental Impact Report (S & EIR). The 2010 NEMA

EIA Regulations (GNR. 543), also provides specific procedures to be adhered to

when it comes to a Basic Assessment as well. In addition to these requirements, the

2

National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) [NEM:WA]

and its associated regulations, is mandatory for development actions dealing with

waste management and its minimisation.

1.1.1 The value of scoping in EIA processes

Scoping identifies relevant and priority issues from a wide range of potential issues

worthy of consideration in an EIA study (Wood et al., 2006). Thus, the scoping

process is geared to determine the terms of reference (ToR) for the EIA, the purpose

being to ensure that more focused environmental impact assessments are

undertaken and relevant and useful EIRs are ultimately prepared (Wood, 2000).

Weston (2000a), as cited in Wood et al. (2006), emphasises the vital role of scoping

in EIA practice. According to Mulvihill and Jacobs (1998), the importance of the

scoping phase in EIA practice is often undermined both by researchers and

practitioners alike. Since scoping determines the ToR for inculcating sustainability

assurance in development actions (DEAT, 2007), it is supposed to be an open

process involving relevant authorities, the developer or proponent as well as

interested and affected stakeholders (GNR. 543 NEMA EIA Regulation, 2010).

Therefore, scoping is extremely crucial and decisive in an EIA process because of

the following benefits:

It enhances optimal allocation of limited resources available to the EIA team

(Wood et al., 2006);

It helps to prevent confusion and misunderstanding between parties that

determine the information required in an environmental impact report

(Glasson et al., 2012);

It provides high quality information needed in environmental review

documents, along with key information on cumulative and indirect

environmental impacts (Gregory et al., 1992; Baker and Rapaport, 2005); and

It helps to provide information for setting environmental baselines, upon which

to compare the potential effects of proposed actions.

Thus, effective scoping can help enormously to save time and financial resources as

well as determine the focus and quality of an environmental impact assessment

3

report (EIR). However, when significant environmental issues are not identified

timeously during scoping and addressed adequately, this could give rise to

inadequate and poor environmental decisions by regulatory or competent authorities

and other role players involved. Moreover, financially costly delays may be

experienced while missing environmental information is to be gathered and

assessed (Wood, 2000).

4

FIGURE 1: EIA Process Flow diagram, in terms of GNR. 543 of 18 June 2010.

Source: DEA (2010).

5

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Although the quality of a limited number of EIA reports have been examined in South

Africa within the framework of previous EIA Regulations (2006 NEMA EIA) (for

instance, Kruger and Chapman, 2005; Du Pisani and Sandham, 2006; Sandham and

Pretorius, 2008; Retief et al., 2011), there is generally a lack of detailed scientific

knowledge on the quality of environmental impact assessment reports (EIR) dealing

with the environmental authorization of hazardous waste management activities

under the new NEMA EIA (2010) Regulations. Moreover, EIA Reports (EIARs) are

often criticized for being unfocused, too costly and time consuming, as well as being

of a poor quality (Mulvihill and Jacobs, 1998; Wood, 2006; Pinho et al., 2007).

Hence, the current research has evaluated the quality of scoping reports based on

EIA applications dealing with the environmental authorization of a selected number

of hazardous waste management projects in South Africa.

1.3 JUSTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

It has been reported that there are “too few adequate, compliant landfills and

hazardous waste management facilities in South Africa, which hinders the safe

disposal of all waste streams” (Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), 2011);

and of the more than 2 000 waste management facilities existing in South Africa, a

significant number of them are not properly permitted and licensed (DEA, 2011).

Hazardous waste, given its physical, chemical and toxicological characteristics may

have detrimental impacts on human health and the environment if poorly or

inappropriately managed (NEM:WA, 2008). This is a significant point since Section

24 of the South African Constitution (1996) maintains that:

“Everyone has the right-

(a) To an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-

being, and

(b) To have the environment protected, for the benefit of present

and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other

measures that –

i. Prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

6

ii. Promote conservation; and

iii. Secure ecologically sustainable development and use of

natural resources while promoting economic and social

development”.

Source: Constitution of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 1996).

Thus, the management and disposal of hazardous waste remains a serious

environmental management challenge in South Africa, and as a result the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) [NEM:WA] makes

provisions for mandatory EIAs of different types regarding, inter alia, the storage,

recovery, treatment or disposal of any hazardous waste. Despite these points, the

quality of scoping processes associated with these EIAs as well as the licensing of

such projects has never been evaluated in a systematic manner in South Africa.

Even so, when scoping is imprecisely undertaken, it can have undesirable effects on

the entire environmental assessment process (Glasson et al., 2012), apart from

compromising the ability of interested and affected parties (I&APs) to participate

meaningfully in the decision-making processes pertaining to the authorization and

licensing of waste management activities. More importantly, appraising the quality of

scoping processes and associated reporting has the potential to give an overview on

whether EIAs submitted for review and authorization are functioning as initially

intended by the regulators.

Thus, by concentrating on the quality of EIA scoping processes, the current study

aims to add further insights on how EIA can help to ensure (1) adequate evaluation

of impact significance and mitigation regarding the management of hazardous waste,

(2) environmentally responsible approaches in such activities, (3) integration of views

and concerns of interested and affected parties, and (4) the achievement of the

triple-bottom line sustainability principles in environmental management. Such

systematic review of the quality of sector specific Scoping Reports may ultimately

become more widely used as a measure of rapid quality control in the waste

management sector while improving the quality of subsequent EIR procedures (Lee

et al., 1999).

7

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The problem statement enunciated above is associated with four research

objectives, as outlined below:

1. To evaluate the quality of submitted Scoping Reports in South Africa that deal

with the licensing of hazardous waste management projects;

2. To determine whether or not the selected Scoping Reports have complied

with the relevant environmental legislation;

3. To analyse the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Scoping Reports

compiled; and

4. To draw recommendations relevant to EIA practice in South Africa.

1.5 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND

METHODOLOGY

There are various methods of determining the quality and effectiveness of EIA

worldwide (Wood, 2006; Pinho et al., 2007; Peterson, 2010). Based on research

conducted by Sandham and Pretorius (2008), ‘matrix systems’ and ‘review

packages’ are regarded as the two most predominant methods of EIR quality

appraisal, with the ‘review package’ method being most commonly used

internationally. On the other hand, Kruger and Chapman (2005), have used

checklists successfully in assessing EIA report quality in the South African context.

In the current study, the internationally recognized Lee and Colley Review Package

(Lee and Colley, 1992), as adapted for South African applicability by Sandham and

Pretorius (2007), was used. However, for the purpose of the present study, this

‘South African Review Package’ was further modified in certain respects to ensure

local appropriateness to the South African hazardous waste management sector, as

well as to the scoping phase of an EIA. Such adaptation has been applied previously

with success by various researchers, for example in Bangladesh (Kabir et al., 2010),

South Africa (Hoffman, 2007; Sandham and Pretorius, 2008; Sandham et al.,

2010/2008) and Lesotho (Talime, 2010).

8

1.6 ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERTATION

This dissertation is presented in five different chapters, and they are briefly

explained. Chapter 1 is based on the introduction and research background. This

chapter provides a brief introduction and outlines the research problem, research

objectives while providing justification and significance for the research. This is

presented together with a concise overview of the role and objectives of the scoping

process in environmental impact assessment, as well as the methodology applied in

undertaking such studies.

Chapter 2 deals with the review of literature pertaining to the research problem. This

chapter commences with an overview of the role of formal EIA practice as a tool

towards the achievement of informed environmental decision-making and the

sustainable development goal in the authorization of development proposals. In this

chapter, the role of scoping in the EIA process is specifically dealt with. The chapter

then proceeds to outline the role of EIA quality reviews as a measure of the

adequacy and functioning of the EIA system under which they are implemented.

Lastly, the chapter provides a concise summary of different methods employed both

locally and internationally to undertake EIA Report (EIR) / Environmental Statement

(ES) quality appraisals and the extent to which such methods have been applied in

South Africa and elsewhere on the continent.

Chapter 3 explains the research methodology used for the current research. This

chapter provides detail on the review package used in undertaking the quality

appraisal, as well as the factors leading to the selection of the chosen review

package. The chapter also provides an overview of aspects of the research relating

to data sourcing, data analysis, quality control and the minimisation of subjectivity

from the study.

Chapter 4 presents the research findings as well as their discussion. These findings

are presented in a series of tabular and graphic summaries. The findings are initially

presented and discussed separately for each of the four review areas and later on,

an overview of the overall quality of Scoping Reports is provided. Lastly, chapter 5

focuses on the conclusions and recommendations relevant for the study.

9

1.7 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH

Given the nature of the study (a minor dissertation), the research was only

undertaken for EIA Scoping Reports and did not include any quality evaluation of

subsequent stages. Research focussing only on scoping procedures is justifiable in

South Africa, in view of the revised and detailed substantive (or beefed-up)

requirements prescribed in the National Environment Management Act: EIA (2010)

Regulations. Lastly, only a limited number of 20 Scoping Reports were evaluated.

10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This study is primarily concerned with appraising the quality of Scoping Reports and

scoping procedures pertaining to environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes

in South Africa dealing with hazardous waste management activities; where such

includes hazardous waste storage, treatment, recovery, incineration as well as

disposal. This chapter commences with an overview of the role of formal EIA

practice as a tool towards the achievement of sustainable development goals and

informed environmental decision-making in respect of development proposals. The

role of scoping in the EIA process is specifically dealt with. The chapter then

proceeds to outline the role of EIA quality reviews as a measure of the adequacy and

functioning of the EIA system under which they are implemented. Lastly, the chapter

provides a concise summary of the different methods employed both locally and

internationally to undertake EIA Report (EIR) / Environmental Statement (ES) quality

appraisals and the extent to which such methods have been applied in South Africa

and elsewhere on the continent.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.2.1 The development of EIA practice

There has been a notable increase in consciousness and awareness over

environmental issues and problems in the last three decades; where such has been

mirrored by the introduction of legislation with ‘environmental protection’ focus in

many countries since (Hoffmann, 2007; Glasson et al., 2012). Glasson et al. (2012)

furthermore, describes the important role of introducing such legislation in

establishing the relationships between development proposals and the environment,

the prime purpose being to enhance the improvement of decision-making processes

both by planning and competent authorities.

11

The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, as well as the publication

of Garret Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons in the same decade, contributed

significantly to what Aucamp (2010) describes as a drive toward increasing

environmental consciousness. Given the rapidly increasing impetus and momentum

with regard to the sustainability agenda, EIA legislation was first formally adopted by

countries such as, inter alia, the USA and UK as far back as 1969 and 1985,

respectively (Hoffmann, 2007; Glasson et al., 2012); where the USA’s National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 has been an important model for the

development of other EIA systems since that time (Macintosh, 2010; Glasson et al.,

2012).

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) can be broadly described as the process of

assessing the potential environmental impacts of a proposed development proposal

on the receiving environment, such that informed decision-making around the

potential approval of such a project can take place (Lee and Colley, 1992; Sandham

and Pretorius, 2008; Sandham et al., 2008; Mbhele, 2009; Peterson, 2010). The UK

Department of Communities and Local Government (2006), as cited in Morris and

Therivel (2010), define the formal EIA process as the assimilation of information

relevant to the potential impacts of a development proposal, and subsequent

interrogation thereof towards informing decision-making with respect to

environmental permitting. The quality of decision-making on whether or not to

approve developments with potential environmental impacts is thus only as good as

the EIA process and the reporting mechanism used to inform such decision-making.

The early application of EIA, however, witnessed a discrete fragmentation of its

application toward assessing the impact of development actions on individual

biophysical aspects (e.g. impacts on air, water, soil and biodiversity), and it was only

in the late 1980’s that public participation and social impact assessment were

introduced into formal EIA practice (UP, 2012). It should always be kept in mind,

however, that it is the natural environment that provides the ecological goods and

services, as well as natural resources, on which all societies and associated

economic systems depend upon for their existence. The current approach to EIA can

thus see the potential significance of natural environmental aspects reduced,

comparable to EIA practice of 30 years ago, but “EIA should at all times be

12

maintained as a process that must seek to facilitate the attainment of sustainable

development through the careful assessment of all relevant considerations so as to

appropriately inform environmental decision-making” (UP, 2012: Chapter 1:1).

South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)

[NEMA] provides for a broad ranging definition of the term ‘Environment’ that is

indeed cognisant of the broadening sustainability agenda in EIA practice and is

inclusive of biophysical (natural environment), social and economic elements, as well

as the interactions amongst and between these elements. EIA practice in the South

African context (which it must be said is not unique to EIA practice worldwide)

requires that a holistic approach be adopted to ensure that all relevant elements

contributing to the sustainability of decision-making in respect of development

proposals be given due and proportional consideration.

2.2.2 EIA in South Africa

EIA, as a formal means of informing decision-making concerning the potential

environmental impacts of development proposals, was first formally adopted in South

Africa under the auspices of the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989)

[ECA]. EIA was practiced on a voluntary basis prior to this, but on a somewhat lesser

scale (UP, 2012). The promulgation of the ECA represented South Africa’s first

statute focused solely on environmental protection, and coincided with the

establishment of the first National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) around

that time (Aucamp, 2009).

The ECA was superseded by the National Environmental Management Act (Act No.

107 of 1998) [NEMA] in 1998, with the exception of Sections 21, 22, and 26 thereof,

as well as the ECA EIA Regulations, which were only repealed some time later in

2006 by Regulations promulgated under NEMA (Hoffmann, 2007). The

aforementioned NEMA EIA Regulations were amended in June 2010 by the DEA in

an attempt to further streamline EIA process in South Africa (namely GNR. 543, 544,

545 and 546 of 18th June 2010). Importantly, and in the context of this study, both

the ECA and NEMA advocate(d) a discrete scoping phase in requisite EIA practices

of their time, although the application of scoping as a discrete phase of EIA was

13

often lacking, or amalgamated with the EIA phase, through the submission for

decision-making of what Sandham and Pretorius (2008) refer to as ‘beefed-up

Scoping Reports’, under ECA.

NEMA furthermore provides for Ministerial powers for the promulgation of Specific

Environmental Management Acts (SEMA) thereunder, relating to the regulation of

specific environmental aspects and activities. It was these aforementioned provisions

that saw the promulgation of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act

(Act No. 59 of 2008) [NEM:WA] in June 2009 as a SEMA under the over-arching

principles and application of NEMA and its associated EIA Regulations. The

NEM:WA itself, as well as schedules of listed general and hazardous waste

management activities thereunder, set the framework for the management of waste

in South Africa, together with various strategy and policy documents. The minimum

administrative, procedural and content requirements for EIAs required in terms of the

NEM:WA are dictated by the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations of 18th June 2010 (GNR.

543 of 18 June 2010).

NEM:WA makes clear provision for the holders of waste (with extension to waste

managers alike) to investigate, assess and evaluate the impact of that waste on

human health and well-being and the environment (Papu-Zamxaku et al., 2010). This

requirement is formalised through the publication of listed waste management

activities under NEM:WA, which guide waste generators and managers alike on the

requirements for a waste management licence application and EIA; where any such

EIA (be it a Basic EIA or Full Scoping and EIA process) is to be undertaken in terms

of the relevant provisions for such under the current NEMA EIA Regulations. Any

proposed activity involving the management (excluding storage <35m3) or disposal

of hazardous waste requires an application for a waste management licence to be

supported by a comprehensive scoping and an EIA process.

2.2.3 Scoping

Scoping was developed as a tool in EIA practice in the late 1980’s in order to identify

and focus on the important and pertinent potential environmental impacts of a

development proposal (UP, 2012). The importance of the scoping phase in the EIA

14

process thus needs to be given due recognition towards the relevance and quality of

decision-making around development proposals. Scoping in the EIA process,

whether as a distinct phase thereof, or integrated with the greater assessment, aims

to identify the priority issues from a broader range of potential impacts and issues for

assessment in the EIA (Wood, 2000; Aucamp, 2009; Glasson et al., 2012). In this

manner, keeping the focus of the EIA relevant and allowing the process to be

implemented efficiently and effectively. The importance of scoping, as a stand-alone

phase in EIA practice, is recognised by Kruger and Chapman (2005:52); where they

recommend that “the EIA process in South Africa reverts back to the ‘traditional’

scoping report, where scoping solely involves a thorough identification of issues.

This will eliminate the inconsistencies found between normal scoping reports and

‘beefed-up’ scoping reports”.

According to Hoffmann (2007), the review and quality appraisal of EIA reports and

processes is deemed necessary to ensure that the EIA system under which they

were developed achieves its ultimate goals. The preparation of high quality Scoping

Reports (where scoping is deemed an integrated precursor to actual impact

assessment) could thus under these auspices be seen as an effective translation of

EIA policy and regulations into practice (Talime, 2010).

According to DEAT (2004), Leu et al. (1996), Sadler (1996) and Wood (2003), as

cited in Sandham and Pretorius (2008:229), “Since the EIA Report (EIR) is a major

component of the EIA process, the quality of the report can contribute towards better

decision-making regarding environmental issues, and a review of EIR quality is

therefore an important aspect of measuring the effectiveness of EIA process”.

Similarly, the quality of Scoping Reports can contribute toward the quality of the

overall EIA process and thus ultimately the quality of the decision-making processes

which it is intended to guide and inform.

2.3 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA

Waste management in South Africa has since the late 1990’s been largely informed

by a series of documents called the Minimum Requirements 2nd Edition, which was

published by the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in 1998 as ‘Minimum

15

Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste;

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill; and Minimum Requirements

for the Monitoring of Water Quality at Waste Management Facilities’, respectively.

These minimum requirements were aimed at providing a norm by means of which

authorities, waste generators, permit- and licence holders and other interested and

affected parties (I&APs) could differentiate acceptable waste management practices

from unacceptable practices. The classification and management provisions in the

Minimum Requirements Series had no legal standing in itself, although certain

provisions thereof were historically formalised and enforced in varying degrees

through inclusion into the conditions of waste permits issued in terms Section 20 of

the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) [ECA], as well as

subsequent waste management licences issued in terms of NEM:WA.

Through the implementation of the Minimum Requirements Waste Classification

System over the past 15 years, a number of short-comings were identified by

regulatory authorities, industry and waste managers. In an attempt to address these

issues, a draft 3rd Edition of the Minimum Requirements was published in 2005, but

the revised system was never finalised and implemented.

2.3.1 Hazardous waste management reform in South Africa

In the light of the aforementioned, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA),

has initiated a project in 2009 to develop a revised waste classification and

management system for South Africa, which would support the move away from

landfilling towards waste management options which favour waste recovery and

reuse, and address some of the concerns that have been raised with respect to

implementing the current Minimum Requirements, 2nd Edition (Thorpe et al., 2012). It

was the DEA’s intention that this new National Waste Classification and

Management System be formalised into Regulations under NEM:WA, with

associated Schedules and/or Norms and Standards in terms of the Act as

appropriate.

The DEA ultimately, on the 23rd August 2013, promulgated the Waste Classification

and Management Regulations under the NEM:WA, together with two Standards for

16

the Assessment and Disposal of Waste to Landfill. This new approach to the

classification of waste, as well as the assessment thereof for disposal to landfill

(where indeed landfilled) represents a notable paradigm shift away from the previous

system in the Department of Water Affairs’ Minimum Requirements for the Handling,

Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste (2nd Ed., DWAF, 1998).

The ‘new’ regulations require that wastes be classified in terms of SANS 10234, the

Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS),

which provides the criteria for classification of waste based on physical, health and

environmental hazards (TABLE 1) (Crous and Thorpe, 2012). In addition, unlike the

minimum requirements, the new regulations do not prescribe specific management

requirements based on whether a waste is classified as hazardous or not,

particularly the type of landfill in which these wastes are to be disposed of (Crous

and Thorpe, 2012).

TABLE 1: Hazard Classes of the SANs 10234 (GHS) Classification System.

Physical Hazards Health Hazards Hazards to the

Aquatic

Environment

Explosives

Flammable gases

Flammable aerosols

Oxidizing gases

Gases under pressure

Flammable liquids

Flammable solids

Self-reactive substances

Pyrophoric substances

Self-heating substances

Substances that emit flammable

gases on contact with water

Oxidizing substances

Organic peroxides

Corrosive to metals

Acute toxicity

Skin corrosion & skin irritation

Serious eye damage & eye

irritation

Respiratory sensitization & skin

sensitization

Germ cell mutagenicity

Carcinogenicity

Reproductive toxicity

Specific target organ toxicity:

single exposure

Specific target organ toxicity:

repeated exposure

Aspiration hazards

Acute aquatic

toxicity

Chronic aquatic

toxicity

17

The Department of Environmental Affairs’ proposed new approach to the

assessment of waste for disposal to landfill requires a comparison of the Leachable-

(LC) and Total Concentrations (TC), of chemical contaminants reasonably believed

to be contained therein, with specified threshold limit values in order to determine a

‘risk profile’ for the waste (Thorpe et al., 2012). This assessment designates five

types of waste, each with specific corresponding disposal requirements (TABLE 3).

Particular types of waste are required to be disposed of at one of four new classes of

landfills, each with a proposed new pollution containment barrier designs (Thorpe et

al., 2012). The Standards also include specific waste disposal prohibitions, aimed at

eliminating the disposal of certain wastes within a set period of time (TABLE 2)

(Thorpe et al., 2012).

TABLE 2: Waste Disposal Restrictions under the Standard for Disposal of

Waste to Landfill (GNR 645 of 23 August 2013).

Waste Prohibited or Restricted in terms of Disposal Compliance

Time-frame

(a) Waste which, in the conditions of a landfill, is explosive, corrosive, oxidizing, or

flammable (according to SANS 10234 or SANS10228). Immediate

(b) Waste with a pH value of <6 or >12. Immediate

(c) Reactive waste that may react with water, air, acids or components of the waste, or

that could generate unacceptable amounts of toxic gases within the landfill. Immediate

(d) Waste compressed gases (according to SANS 10234 or SANS 10228). Immediate

(e) Untreated Healthcare Risk Waste (HCRW). Immediate

(f) (i) POPs pesticides listed under the Stockholm Convention.

(ii) Other waste pesticides.

Five (5) years

Three (3) years

(g) Lead acid batteries. Immediate

(h) Other batteries Eight (8) years

(i) Re-usable, recoverable or recyclable used lubricating mineral oils, as well as oil filters,

but excluding other oil containing wastes. Four (4) years

(j) Reclaimable or recyclable used or spent solvents. Five (5) years

(k) PCB containing wastes (>50 mg/kg or 50 ppm). Five (5) years

(l) Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) – Lamps. Three (3) years

(m) Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) – Other. Eight (8) years

(n) Waste tyres: Whole. Immediate

(o) Waste tyres: Quartered. Five (5) years

(p) Liquid waste–

(i) Waste which has an angle of repose of less than 5 degrees, or becomes free-

flowing at or below 60ºC or when it is transported, or is not generally capable of being

Five (5) years

18

Waste Prohibited or Restricted in terms of Disposal Compliance

Time-frame

picked up by a spade or shovel; or

(ii) Waste with a moisture content of >40% or that liberates moisture under pressure in

landfill conditions, and which has not been stabilised by treatment.

(q) Hazardous waste with a calorific value of:

(i) > 25 MJ/kg.

(ii) > 20 MJ/kg.

(iii) > 10 MJ/kg.

(iv) > 6% TOC.

Four (4) years

Six (6) years

Eight (8) years

Ten(10) years

(r) Brine or waste with a high salt content (TDS > 5%), and a leachable concentration for

TDS of more than 100 000 mg/l. Eight (8) years

(s) Disposal of garden waste:

(i) 25% diversion from the baseline at a particular landfill of separated garden waste.

(ii) 50% diversion from the baseline at a particular landfill of separated garden waste

Five (5) years

Ten (10) years

(t) Infectious animal carcasses and animal waste Immediate

TABLE 3: Waste Type Determinations and Landfill Requirements under the

Waste Classification and Management Regulations (GNR 643 of August 2013).

Disposal Risk Rating Landfill Disposal Requirements Type 0: Very High Risk LC > LCT3, or TC > TCT2

The disposal of Type 0 waste to landfill is not allowed. The waste must be treated and re-assessed in terms of the Standard for Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal to determine the level of risk associated with disposing the waste to landfill.

Type 1: High Risk LCT2 < LC ≤ LCT3, or TCT1 < TC ≤ TCT2

Type 1 waste may only be disposed of at a Class A landfill

Type 2: Moderate Risk LCT1 < LC≤ LCT2, and TC ≤ TCT1

Type 2 waste may only be disposed of at a Class B landfill

Type 3: Low Risk LCT1 < LC ≤ LCT0, and TC ≤ TCT1

Type 3 waste may only be disposed of at a Class C landfill

Type 4: ‘Inert’ Waste LC ≤ LCT0, and TC ≤ TCT0

Type 4 waste disposal allowed at a Class D landfill

19

2.3.2 Challenges facing hazardous waste management in South Africa

The healthcare risk waste (HCRW) industry in South Africa, for example, was

described by the then Deputy Director-General of Environmental Affairs and

Tourism, Joanne Yawitch, as being “...in crisis. It is cut-throat and something is very

wrong...” (Sunday Times, 2 December 2007; as cited in DA, 2009:2). According to

the Democratic Alliance (DA) discussion document published in October 2009, on

“addressing problems in the medical waste sector”, the illegal dumping and storage

of medical waste in South Africa were described as verging on a national crisis. The

aforementioned discussion document claimed that as much as 800 tons of medical

waste is believed to be illegally dumped each year in South Africa (DA, 2009).

“Untrained personnel, lax oversight, poor regulation, dodgy tenders and the murky

delineation of responsibilities” were sighted in the aforementioned discussion

document as being the root of the problem (DA, 2009:4).

Although having featured prominently in the South African press in recent times, the

challenges faced in the HCRW management industry are not unique, with similar

problems facing the greater hazardous waste management sector nationally. The

illegal dumping of other types of hazardous waste is also not uncommon in South

Africa; where capacity to police such activities remains a problem. The South African

Department of Environmental Affairs’ 2012/13 National Environmental Compliance

and Enforcement Report, by way of example, indicates a total of 209-waste related

(NEM:WA) contravention being investigated nationally within the indicated reporting

period. The highest sentence handed down in the reporting period was incidentally

related to pollution and a waste case; where the guilty party was sentenced to a fine

of R 200 000 or 6 years imprisonment, with half suspended for 5 years.

There are only a handful of licensed hazardous waste disposal sites in South Africa,

located in only four of South Africa’s nine provinces, i.e. Gauteng, Western Cape,

Eastern Cape, and Kwazulu-Natal. The most notable of which are the Holfontein

Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility in Springs, Gauteng, and the Vissershok

Hazardous Landfill, just outside of Cape Town in the Western Cape.

20

Section 16 of NEM:WA places a general duty on waste generators to take all

reasonable measures to reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover their waste. This is a

challenge in respect of hazardous waste management, with limited management

alternatives to disposal presently available in the South African context. The disposal

of hazardous waste to land in South Africa, irrespective of the volume disposed of or

the area covered, is an activity requiring a waste management licence; with the

aforementioned license application to be supported by a scoping and EIA process so

as to allow for informed decision-making on the part of the competent authority (i.e.

the Department of Environmental Affairs).

2.4 METHODS OF APPRAISING EIA QUALITY

Many analytical methods can be applied to the assessment of the quality of EIA

Reports. These range from the matrices adopted by Leu et al. (1996) in Taiwan, to

the more commonly applied review packages and checklists adopted elsewhere in

developed and developing nations (Sandham and Pretorius, 2008).

2.4.1 Lee and Colley EIR Review Package

The so-called ‘Lee and Colley’ Review Package has been widely used to review the

quality of environmental statements of proposed project environmental impact

assessments (EIA). Ibrahim (1992), Rout (1994), as well as Mwalyosi and Hughes

(1998) describe this particular review package as the most commonly applied

package in respect of EIA quality reviews in both developed and developing nations

(cited in Sandham et al., 2008). Lee and George (2000) as well as Glasson et al.

(2005) also make assertions as to the wide reaching application of the package

worldwide in EIR quality appraisals. The package has furthermore been adapted in

many instances to undertake, on a more strategic level, quality assessments of

environmental appraisals for local government plans, policies and programmes

(Simpson, 2001).

The methodology applied by Lee and Colley is comprehensively described in

Chapter 3. For the sake of comparison with other, similar, review packages

described in this section, a summarised description of the package is provided. The

21

quality review method using the Lee and Colley Review Package involves evaluating

how well a number of assessment tasks (Sub-categories, Categories and Review

Areas) have been conducted (Talime, 2010). Then drawing upon such assessments,

subsequent reviews proceed upwards progressively from one level to the next whilst

applying more complex criteria to broader tasks until the whole assessment is

completed. A nominal scale from A to F is used to denote the completeness and

quality of the review categories across the four-tier hierarchical structure of the

package (Lee et al., 1999; Sandham et al., 2010). Whereas the alphabetical letter ‘A’

is denoting superior EIA quality; the letter ‘F’ represents inferior or unacceptable EIR

Report quality whereby no attempt has been made by the environmental assessment

practitioner (EAP) to address the review category adequately.

2.4.2 European Commission Guidelines

The EC Guidelines for the review of EIR quality consist of a three-tier checklist type

system that asks 143 sequential review questions distributed across seven different

sections ranging from the ‘description of the project’ through to ‘quality of

presentation’ (Peterson, 2010; Talime, 2011). The guidelines are similar to the Lee

and Colley EIR Review Package in that a simple nominal scale from A to E is used

to assist a reviewer in answering the review questions; where positive answers from

A to C would be regarded as sufficient provision of information for decision-making

with differing levels of quality, and D to E corresponding with poor EIR quality and

the provision of insufficient information to appropriately inform decision-making

(Peterson, 2010).

A three level approach is used by a reviewer in applying the questionnaire to a

review, as follows (Peterson, 2010):

1. A reviewer firstly questions the relevance of each of the review questions to

the subject project, by simply answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’;

2. A reviewer then answers the relevant review questions using the nominal

scale described in the preceding paragraph; and

3. Finally, the reviewer uses the same nominal scale to assess the overall EIR

quality, using the answers to the relevant review questions to inform such an

overall assessment.

22

The EC guidelines differ from the Lee and Colley Review Package in that the

questions to be answered by a reviewer are only asked in one of the three primary

review areas. These areas being the level of the sub-section under each of the

seven respective review sections, as well as at an ‘overall EIR quality’ level. The Lee

and Colley Review Package, however, requires reviewer to appraise quality at four

levels; where these are the i) the overall EIR quality synopsis ii) review areas, iii)

review categories and iv) review sub-categories.

2.4.3 Oxford-Brookes University Review Package

Talime (2010) describes the EIR review package developed by the Oxford-Brookes

University as a type of hybrid between the Lee and Colley Review Package (1992)

and the aforementioned EC guidelines developed for EIR review; where the review

package is commonly called the ‘Impact Assessment Unit’ (IAU) Review Package,

by virtue of its origin of development within the stated unit of the Oxford Brookes

University (Glasson et al., 2005). This review package was developed to specifically

evaluate changes in EIR quality over time.

The review package also takes a hierarchical approach to EIR quality appraisal;

where similar to the Lee and Colley Review Package (1992), the review criteria (of

which there are 92 in total) are distributed amongst review categories (of which there

are eight), and their underlying review sub-categories (Talime, 2010). Whereas the

Lee and Colley Review Package assesses EIR quality across four levels, the subject

package excludes review areas and thus only assesses three hierarchal levels of

quality in the EIR.

2.4.4 Legal compliance

The review package used to appraise EIR or Scoping Report quality, further to

exploring the application of best practice principles in the development thereof

(reporting and procedurally), should at least assess the EIR/ Scoping Report’s

compliance according to the requisite minimum legal requirements for such in the

country of origin for the development of such reports. The Lee and Colley Review

Package (Lee et al., 1999) in fact requires that the sub-categories that broadly

correspond with regulatory minimum requirements be specifically listed by the

23

reviewer. In fact, Kruger and Chapman (2005) adopted a checklist type approach to

EIR quality review in the Free State Province of South Africa, based almost solely on

the requirements of the South African EIA Regulations and EIA guidelines published

by government.

2.5 EIA QUALITY APPRAISAL IN SOUTH AFRICA

The quality review of Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for EIA process in South

Africa was until very recently limited to a small handful of studies with geographic,

sectoral and/or activity specific focus. The Lee and Colley Review Package has been

used with success locally to appraise the quality of EIRs. This has been done for i)

the provincial level in the North West Province (Sandham and Pretorius, 2008), ii)

the mining, explosives and housing sectors (Hoffman, 2007; Van der Vyver, 2008

and Mbhele, 2009, respectively), filling stations (Kruger, 2012), as well as for iii)

environmental aspect specific EIR quality appraisals relating to projects with

potential impacts on wetland systems (Sandham et al., 2008) and the release of

genetically modified organisms (Sandham et al., 2010).

As a matter of fact, Sandham and Pretorius (2008) adapted the package to create

the North West University (NWU) Review Package, for EIR quality review in the

North West Province. Hoffman (2007) further adapted the NWU Review Package

toward assessing EIR quality within the South African mining sector; where such led

to the development of the Potchefstroom Review Package for the Mining Industry

(PRPMI).

Furthermore, until as recently as 2013 (Sandham et al., 2013), no EIA quality studies

had been undertaken to review EIRs on a national scale, nor those in the hazardous

waste management sector. Moreover, the majority of available literature to date on

EIR quality appraisals undertaken for EIA processes in South Africa have been

executed in terms of the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) [ECA],

which was almost entirely repealed by the provisions of National Environmental

Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998, as amended) [NEMA] in 2006. It appears

that it is only Sandham et al. (2013) to date who have assessed South African EIA

24

Report quality in terms of EIAs conducted in terms of the 2006 NEMA EIA

Regulations.

The latter study by Sandham et al. (2013) provided a comparative quality review, on

a national scale, of EIAs conducted in terms of the 2006 NEMA EIA Regulations,

against those conducted in terms of the previous regulatory regime under the ECA.

The findings of the study showed that despite attempts to improve overall EIR quality

through regulatory reform (i.e. the promulgation of the 2006 NEMA EIA Regulations),

the quality of EIRs under ECA was in fact superior to those compiled under the new

regulations (Sandham et al., 2013).

25

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The quality appraisal of 20 Scoping Reports was undertaken using an adaptation of

the environmental statement (ES) review package developed by Lee and Colley in

1990 [ES, hereinafter, known as environmental impact assessment report (EIR) in

South Africa], and then published with minor amendment in 1992 (Lee et al., 1999).

3.2 LEE AND COLLEY REVIEW PACKAGE

This specific review package was selected because it has been widely used and

successfully adapted to i) different environmental-legal regimes in different countries

(i.e. other than the UK where it originally was developed), as well as ii) specific

development typologies. Lee et al. (1999) clearly state that the review package can,

with limited amendment, be adapted and applied successfully in other countries. The

review package amendments were implemented in a manner that accounted for the

specific provisions for scoping procedures outlined in the 2010 NEMA EIA

Regulations (Lee et al., 1999). The review package used also considered

adaptations already made by Sandham and Pretorius (2008) for applicability to the

South African EIA system context, and it has already been used successfully in the

South African context (Hoffman, 2007; Mbhele, 2009).

3.2.1 Sample size selection

The chosen sample size was selected on the basis of previous EIR quality

appraisals cited in existing literature (Talime, 2010:- 15 EIRs in Lesotho; Mbhele,

2009:– 20 EIRs; Hoffman, 2007:- 20 EIRs specific to the mining sector in the North

West Province of South Africa; Sandham et al., 2008:– 4 EIRs specific to projects

with potential impacts on wetland systems in South Africa; Sandham and Pretorius,

2008:– 28 EIRs undertaken in the North West Province of South Africa; Peterson,

2010:- 50 EIRs in Estonia).

26

The review package entails the hierarchical assessment of a list of criteria or review

topics (Lee et al., 1999). The assessment begins with an assessment of review sub-

categories, arranged in an ordered manner beneath, broader, review categories and

review areas. The completeness / appropriateness of each respective review topic

was rated by the reviewer(s) according to the nominal scale developed by Lee et al.

(1999). A letter was ascribed to each review topic during the review, with an ‘A’, for

example, indicating that the relevant tasks catered to by the review topic were well

performed with no important tasks left incomplete, and an ‘F’ being indicative of very

unsatisfactory performance with important tasks having been all omitted, or very

poorly completed (TABLE 4).

The system of aggregation used for reporting ‘quality’ under Chapter 4 hereto has

been adapted from Van der Vyver (2008); where the symbols A-C are taken to

reflect reports, review areas, categories and sub-categories that are of a satisfactory

quality, with symbols D-F being synonymous with unsatisfactory quality,

respectively.

Similarly, symbols A and B are used as a broad measure of reports, review areas,

categories and sub-categories that have been well performed with only minor

omissions, and with symbols E and F used to denote the extreme opposite end of

the scale (i.e. unacceptable performance with reasonable ground for rejection by

competent authorities and the inability for IAPs to comment meaningfully,

respectively (TABLE 5).

27

TABLE 4: Assessment Symbols for Review Topics (Lee and Colley).

Symbol Explanation Aggregation

A Generally well performed, no important tasks left incomplete.

Satisfactory

B Generally satisfactory and complete, only minor omissions and

inadequacies.

C Can be considered just satisfactory despite omissions and or

inadequacies.

D Parts are well attempted bust must, as a whole be considered

just unsatisfactory because of omissions or inadequacies.

Unsatisfactory E Not satisfactory. Significant omissions or inadequacies.

F Very unsatisfactory, important task(s) poorly done or not

attempted.

N/A Not applicable. The review topic is irrelevant in the context of the

subject Scoping Report N/A

TABLE 5: Assessment Symbol Aggregation.

The review commences with a review of sub-categories. The sub-category

assessments, together with any other impressions gained from the report, are then

used to assess the corresponding review categories. Likewise, the assessment of

the review categories is used to assess the corresponding review areas, which

Symbol Aggregation

A Well Performed

Satisfactory B

C -

D -

Unsatisfactory E Poorly Performed

F

N/A - -

28

assessment is in turn used to document an overall assessment rating for each of the

subject reports (FIGURE 2 and FIGURE 3).

FIGURE 2: The Assessment Pyramid.

Source: (Lee et al. 1999).

FIGURE 3: Schematic Representation of the Review Topic Hierarchy in Review

Areas 1 & 2.

Source: Lee et al. (1999).

29

3.2.2 Primary data sourcing procedures

3.2.2.1 Sourcing Primary Data from Department of Environmental Affairs

Initial efforts to source the Scoping Reports necessary to undertake the study were

focused on obtaining them in hardcopy from the National Department of

Environmental Affairs (Directorate: Waste Management Licensing). Following a

telephonic request, the Department courteously provided access to the report

hardcopy archives, and 20 Scoping Reports for hazardous waste management EIA

processes were randomly selected from existing departmental archives. All selected

reports had been compiled subsequent to the promulgation of the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) [NEM:WA].

3.2.2.2 PAIA Application and Administrative Fees

Policy at the Department of Environmental Affairs dictates that no original hardcopy

versions of the selected reports could be removed from the Department’s premises.

For this reason, a formal, written, request for copies of the selected Scoping Reports

had to be made in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act No. 2 of

2000) [PAIA]. The submission of the PAIA application was subject to payment of a

nominal administrative fee. Following the submission of the PAIA application, not all

of the requested copies were forthcoming, and when they were made available there

were missing elements or sections. Subsequently, the reasons for such an outcome

were not made clear nor communicated further to the application. Unfortunately, the

delays experienced in sourcing the required reports or missing elements

necessitated a change in approach, which then involved obtaining the required

reports from an alternative source, namely, the various EAP websites in South

Africa.

3.2.2.3 EAP Websites

Given some material omissions in some of the Scoping Reports provided by the

Department of Environmental Affairs, and resultant delays which could jeopardise

the planned schedule for the current research project, the required 20 Scoping

Reports were ultimately accessed in soft copy from websites of a range of

30

environmental assessment practitioners (EAP) that deal with hazardous waste

management EIAs in South Africa. Again, the Scoping Reports obtained were

compiled subsequent to the promulgation of the NEM:WA on 1st July 2008. Obtaining

primary data in this manner is also acceptable, especially as it is common practice in

South Africa for EAPs to use their consulting company websites, as one of the

platforms for obtaining stakeholder review and comment on draft, as well as finalised

Scoping and EIA Reports.

3.2.3 Primary data analytical procedures

3.2.3.1 Report Reviewing

Prior to reviewing all the 20 Scoping Reports, a sample of ten was subjected to an

external moderation review by an independent reviewer. The purpose of the double

reviewer mechanism was to ensure that the review package yields consistent and

objective appraisals. Lee et al. (1999:42) state that, “It should be noted that, in order

to promote objectivity in ES reviewing, it is recommended that each ES [EIR] should

initially be separately reviewed by two different reviewers who should then

endeavour to reconcile any differences when finalising a joint review”.

Subsequently, the following broad review areas were carefully adapted (Lee et al.,

1999; Sandham and Pretorius, 2008) to be in line with the current research problem.

Adjustments made were as follows:

1. Description of the proposed waste management activities, associated

structures and infrastructure, the receiving environment of the site

(baseline conditions);

2. Scoping;

3. Legislative, guideline and policy review; and

4. Communication of results.

The need to adapt the Potchefstroom Review Package arose mainly because in the

current research the focus is on Scoping Reports and not the entire environmental

assessment process under the NEMA EIA Regulations. Whilst aligned toward

achieving the same end goal (i.e. informed decision-making around development

31

proposals with the potential to impact on the environment), the aims and objectives

of the scoping phase of an EIA process are quite different to those of the subsequent

impact assessment phase. The reporting requirements for each of these distinct

phases in the EIA process are also different. A few of the key differences leading to

the review package adaptation are discussed below.

Firstly, scoping is intended to comprehensively identify potential issues and impacts

of concern that may result from a development proposal. The scoping phase does

not, however, require the detailed evaluation of, for instance, impact significance.

Specialist studies aiding in impact significance assessment are also only

implemented during the EIA phase of the assessment. Secondly, while the scoping

phase requires the identification of potential alternatives to a development proposal,

it is only at the EIA phase that the potential significance of each need to be assessed

exhaustively. Lastly, it would also be premature to discuss and assign mitigating

measures to impacts identified at the scoping phase; a stage when the EAP has not

yet evaluated the significance of identified impacts and the need and potential to

mitigate them.

It is for these reasons that the review package was adapted, in order to maintain its

relevance to the scope of the current research. A quality review concerning the

consideration and documentations of ‘impact mitigation’ would, for example, be a

moot exercise in the context of this research scope. An evaluation of ‘impact

significance’ too would be a disputable exercise; as would the i) the detailed

assessment and selection of alternatives, ii) the documentation and integration of

specialist study findings, as well as, iv) EAP recommendations and impact

statements. Therefore, any review area, category or sub-category with no defensible

relevance to scoping was removed from the package.

However, the requirements, for example, relating to the description of i) the proposed

activity, ii) the site in question and ii) the receiving environment of the site remain

common requirements across all reporting phases of the EIA process under the

NEMA EIA Regulations. Any such review areas, categories or sub-categories were

left largely unchanged in subject review package. The same is principally true for

stakeholder engagement. Review Area 4 was left altogether unchanged; where the

32

appropriate communication of results remains a principle requirement across all

reporting phases of the EIA process. In adapting the review package, the inclusion of

minimum legal requirements (as either a review area, category, or sub-category)

under the NEMA EIA Regulations was also affected. This is particularly true in

respect of the total revision to Review Area 3; where it was decided that the current

scope thereof was largely irrelevant to ‘Scoping’, and where the importance of

identifying and considering legislation, guidelines and policies relevant to the

development proposal was not deemed adequately catered for in the Potchefstroom

Review Package. The sub-division of review categories and associated sub-

categories is summarised as follows (TABLE 6).

TABLE 6: Tabular Summary of Review Areas, Categories and Sub-categories

Used.

Review area 1 - Description of the activity(ies) and the environment 2.2.2 All possible impacts must be

identified

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY(IES) 2.2.4

Impacts identified for

alternatives under

consideration

1.1.1 Identification of Applicant 2.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

1.1.2 Identification of EAP 2.3.1 Example of notice published

in media

1.1.2 Need and desirability of the Activity(ies) 2.3.2 On-site notice

1.1.3 Description and nature of activity/development 2.3.3 Identify affected people

1.1.4 Description of site 2.3.4 Identify people that have an

interest in the project

1.1.5 Site plan: Sighting of project with respect to surrounding land uses and activities 2.3.5

Procedure whereby

interested and affected

parties can participate

1.1.6 Description of waste management processes & technology employed 2.3.6

Provision for interested and

affected parties to express

their views

1.1.7 Raw materials used during different phases 2.3.7 List of issues identified

1.1.8 Source and availability of water and materials 2.3.8 Notification criteria

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION: Description of onsite land requirements and duration of each land use 2.3.9 Record of all views as an

addendum

1.2.1 Site Plan 2.3.10

Evidence that interested and

affected parties were

approached

1.2.2 Description and demarcation of land use areas 2.3.11 Key impacts / issues raised

1.2.3 Estimated duration of different phases 2.4 PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA

1.2.4 Expected number of workers and visitors 2.4.1 Method of impact

significance assessment

1.2.5 Access to site and likely means of transport 2.4.2 Specialist assessment(s)

1.2.6 Infrastructure required 2.4.3 Public participation for EIA

phase

33

1.3 WASTE Review Area 3 - Legislative,

Guideline and Policy Review

1.3.1 Waste characterisation / classification (managed) 3.1 LEGAL

1.3.2 Volumes managed 3.1.1 Trigger Legislation /

Regulations

1.3.3 Effluent generated from waste management activity 3.1.2 Other Relevant Legislation

1.3.4 Emissions generated from waste management activity(ies) 3.2 POLICIES / GUIDELINES

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION: Area and location likely to be affected by development 3.2.1 Policy / Guidelines

1.4.1 Indication of likely area to be affected 3.2.2 Spatial Development and

Sectoral Plans / Frameworks

1.4.2 Biophysical description Review Area 4 - Communication of

Results

1.4.3 Biological description 4.1 LAYOUT

1.4.4 Social characteristics 4.1.1 Introduction

1.4.6 Important components of the affected environment 4.1.2 Arrangement of information

1.5 ALTERNATIVES 4.1.3 External sources

1.5.1 Description of methods used to identify alternatives 4.2 PRESENTATION

1.5.2 Description of analysis of range of alternatives 4.2.1 Presentation of information

1.5.3 Due consideration of no-go alternative 4.2.2 Presented as an integrated

whole

Review Area 2 - SCOPING 4.3 EMPHASIS

2.1 DEFINITION OF IMPACTS & METHODS USED 4.3.1 Prominence and emphasis

given to

2.1.1 Description of potential effects of project on environment 4.3.2 Scoping Report is unbiased

2.1.2 Description of methods used to identify potential impacts and issues 4.4 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS 4.4.1

Non-technical summary

including main findings and

conclusions

2.2.1 Assessing impact activities from four different phases 4.4.2 Scoping Report summary of

main issues

2.2.3 Impacts from non-standard operating procedure or deviation from baseline conditions

34

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Four different sets of research findings were obtained from this study. Firstly, the

quality of a limited sample of EIA Scoping Reports was evaluated, of which

satisfactory or unsatisfactory quality or grades in between these extremes are

highlighted. Secondly, the results identify strengths and weaknesses in scoping

procedures involved, of which such an assessment is vital for improving EIA

effectiveness and environmental decision-making. Thirdly, the results show and

demonstrate whether or not the scoping processes undertaken are complying with

existing and relevant environmental legislation, regulatory provisions and other

criteria of EIA effectiveness. Lastly, some recommendations for further study are

made.

The cumulative frequency stemming from waste management activity categories

associated with Scoping Reports reviewed in this research is provided below

(TABLE 7). Based on the table, it can be seen that the scope of the reports reviewed

is wide and varied. Moreover, each of the 20 Scoping Reports reviewed entailed

more than one waste management activity type as shown in the table.

TABLE 7: Frequency of Specific Waste-Management Activities in the EIRs

under Scrutiny.

Hazardous waste management activity No. of occurrences

Storage of hazardous waste 10

Treatment of hazardous waste 9

Recovery of hazardous waste 9

Hazardous waste recycling 1

Hazardous waste disposal to landfill 4

Decommissioning of hazardous waste management facility 2

35

The proposed locations of the various waste management activities linked to the

Scoping Reports being reviewed for EIA quality involved Gauteng (13), Mpumalanga

(2), Kwazulu-Natal (3), and Limpopo (2) provinces in South Africa. The sectors

specific to the proposed waste management activities included i) waste management

(9), ii) electricity generation (2), iii) mining/industrial (6), iv) paper/pulp (2) and v)

tertiary education (1).

4.2 REVIEW AREA 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED

ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

A description of the proposed hazardous waste management activities / facilities,

coupled with a description of the receiving environment (i.e. baseline environmental

description), is imperative toward developing an informed understanding of a

proposed project’s potential impacts on the receiving environment and visa versa. If

either the project or the receiving environment are poorly understood and described,

it may have negative ripple effects in the proper identification of potential impacts

and issues resulting from their proposed interactions.

Of the 20 Scoping Reports reviewed, 70% were generally satisfactorily performed

while 30% were unsatisfactorily conducted regarding Review Area 1. Review Area 1

entails the ‘Description of Activities and the Environment’ (FIGURE 4). Amongst the

satisfactory category, it was found out that 55% of these Scoping Reports were well

performed. On the other hand, 15% of them were poorly performed (FIGURE 4).

These research findings bear some resemblances with the quality review conducted

by Kruger (2012) who found out that 65% of EIA Reports evaluated according to this

criterion were of satisfactory quality level. By contrast, studies conducted by Van Der

Vyver (2008) and Mbhele (2009) revealed that all (100%) of the EIA Reports they

have assessed for quality considerations were generally satisfactorily carried out.

Eighty percent (80%) of the reports were performed satisfactorily in terms of

providing a description of baseline environmental conditions of the development site

(Review Category 1.4) (TABLE 8), as well as a description of the proposed waste

management activities (Review Category 1.1) (TABLE 8).

36

Nevertheless, it is noted with environmental management concern that 45% of the

Scoping Reports reviewed performed unsatisfactorily when it came to identifying and

describing alternatives to be considered and analysed further during the EIA phase

which involves a detailed assessment (Review Category 1.5) where this is a

requisite legal requirement (as with the criteria under Review Categories 1.1 to 1.4)

in terms of the current NEMA EIA Regulations. Unsatisfactory quality was also

observed with respect to the identification and description of waste and residuals

(Review Category 1.3,TABLE 8); where 35% of Scoping Reports were reviewed as

not complying with this specific criteria. Similarly, this is concerning given the

sectoral focus of this research. It can be argued that the ability for stakeholders to

participate meaningfully in the EIA process, as well as the quality of decisions taken

by competent authorities, may be compromised by a poor understanding of the

wastes and residuals involved in the waste management activities for which

environmental authorisation is being requested.

TABLE 8: Tabular Summary of Review Results for Review area 1 and

Associated review Categories.

Review area and category numbering / descriptions

Well performed

Satisfactory,

minor omission

s

Satisfactory,

omissions,

inadequacies

Unsatisfactory

Poorly attemp

ted

No attem

pt

Not applica

ble

SUMMARY OF REVIEW AREA 1 CATEGORY SCORES: 'Description of the activity(ies) and the environment’

A B C D E F G

1.1 Description of the development 0% 55% 25% 10% 10% 0% 0%

1.2 Site description 0% 30% 30% 20% 15% 5% 0%

1.3 Waste and residuals 25% 20% 20% 15% 5% 15% 0%

1.4 Environmental description / Baseline

50% 20% 10% 15% 5% 0% 0%

1.5 Alternatives 50% 5% 0% 30% 10% 5% 0%

FINAL GRADE REVIEW AREA 1 15% 40% 15% 15% 15% 0% 0%

37

FIGURE 4: Review Area 1 - Description of Project and Receiving Environment

TABLE 9: Review Area 1, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories.

Review areas and category numbering / descriptions Well

performed

Satisfactory, minor

omissions

Satisfactory, omissions,

inadequacies Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

No attempt

Not applicable

Review area 1: Description of the activity(ies) and the environment A B C D E F G

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY(IES)

1.1.1 Identification of Applicant 50% 5% 25% 20% 0% 0% 0%

1.1.2 Identification of EAP 85% 10% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%

1.1.3 Need and desirability of the Activity(ies) 50% 10% 10% 20% 5% 5% 0%

1.1.4 Description and nature of activity/development 40% 25% 10% 20% 5% 0% 0%

Review Area 1 Quality

38

1.1.5 Description of site 20% 50% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0%

1.1.6 Site plan: Sighting of project with respect to surrounding land uses and activities 35% 25% 20% 5% 10% 0% 5%

1.1.7 Description of waste management processes & technology employed 15% 40% 20% 5% 15% 5% 0%

1.1.8 Raw materials used during different phases 0% 30% 20% 0% 5% 45% 0%

1.1.9 Source and availability of water and materials 0% 35% 10% 0% 5% 50% 0%

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION: Description of onsite land requirements and duration of each land use

1.2.1 Site Plan 35% 10% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5%

1.2.2 Description and demarcation of land use areas 40% 20% 10% 5% 5% 15% 5%

1.2.3 Estimated duration of different phases 5% 0% 25% 0% 0% 45% 25%

1.2.4 Expected number of workers and visitors 0% 10% 5% 0% 0% 80% 5%

1.2.5 Access to site and likely means of transport 5% 40% 5% 0% 0% 45% 5%

1.2.6 Infrastructure required 20% 30% 20% 10% 5% 15% 0%

1.3 WASTE

1.3.1 Waste characterisation / classification (managed) 20% 15% 20% 25% 5% 15% 0%

1.3.2 Volumes managed 45% 20% 5% 15% 0% 15% 0%

1.3.3 Effluent generated from waste management activity 25% 15% 5% 15% 5% 25% 10%

1.3.4 Emissions generated from waste management activity(ies) 20% 20% 0% 5% 5% 40% 10%

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION: Area and location likely to be affected by development

1.4.1 Indication of likely area to be affected 65% 15% 0% 5% 10% 0% 5%

1.4.2 Biophysical description 80% 5% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0%

1.4.3 Biological description 70% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 15%

1.4.4 Social characteristics 30% 20% 20% 5% 5% 15% 5%

1.4.6 Important components of the affected environment 40% 30% 5% 10% 15% 0% 0%

1.5 ALTERNATIVES

1.5.1 Description of methods used to identify alternatives 35% 10% 20% 15% 5% 15% 0%

1.5.2 Description of analysis of range of alternatives 55% 0% 5% 10% 10% 20% 0%

1.5.3 Due consideration of no-go alternative 70% 0% 5% 5% 0% 20% 0%

39

Most notably, 95% of reports were well performed (symbol A and B) with respect to

providing details of the environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) who compiled

the Scoping Report, as well as their qualifications (Review Sub-Category 1.1.2,

TABLE 9). This was the best performing sub-category of all that were evaluated as

part of this study. The 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations require that the EAPs

undertaking the EIA demonstrate their competence through providing information on

relevant training and experience in undertaking EIAs. This aspect of the regulations

is in some instances taken by EAPs as an opportunity to market their respective

business consultancies, which goes beyond the intention of the regulations. This

level of self-promotion is undesirable and seemingly unnecessary in EIA practice.

The EAP’s description of a project’s ‘need and desirability’ was performed

unsatisfactorily in 30% of cases (Review Sub-category 1.1.2, (TABLE 9)), with the

‘estimations of the duration of different project phases’ (Review Sub-category 1.2.3)

and ‘number of workers / visitors’ (Review Sub-category 1.2.4) performing even

more poorly, with unsatisfactory quality appraisals in 45% and 85% of cases,

respectively.

Only 55% of the Scoping Reports reviewed were performed satisfactorily with

respect to describing the wastes and residues to be generated from-, or managed at,

the proposed facilities; with 35% and 20% performing well and poorly, respectively

(Review Category 1.3,(TABLE 8)).

This is worrying due to the hazardous nature of the wastes to be generated from-, or

managed at, the facilities that are currently seeking environmental authorization.

Contrary to the above, Hoffman (2007) reported this review category to have been

performed satisfactorily in 100% of the EIA reports reviewed concerning the quality

of EIA reports in the mining sector in South Africa. Furthermore, Van der Vyver

(2008) too assessed this review category to be satisfactorily performed in 100% of

EIA Reports reviewed; where the research focused on the quality of EIA reports for

the explosive industry projects in South Africa. Mbhele (2009) reported that

performance in this aspect for housing development EIRs was generally satisfactory;

where much of the waste generation in that sector could be inferred to be general

40

waste with less complexity than the hazardous waste to be managed at the

proposed facilities subject to the current research.

Also noteworthy is the observation that the EAPs ‘description and preliminary

analysis of alternatives’ was unsatisfactorily in 40% of the scoping reports (Review

Sub-category 1.5.2); with no alternatives being provided in 20% of the Scoping

Reports reviewed. The inclusion and assessment of alternatives (over and above the

mandatory ‘no-go’ alternative) is a requisite legal requirement in terms of the 2010

NEMA EIA Regulations. It is therefore disturbing that in 20% of cases this

requirement was not adequately complied with. The ‘no-go alternative’ was also

given no proper attention in 20% of the Scoping Reports reviewed, despite being a

legal requirement.

A 2005 study by Kruger and Chapman (2005) under the ECA Regulations indicated

that ‘alternatives’ were also given low priority by EAPs in the EIA reports reviewed as

part of their study. Hoffman (2007) reported similar deficiencies in the identification

and assessment of alternatives. Kruger and Chapman (2005) suggested that this

situation could be improved by stipulating regulations or guidelines for the

assessment of alternatives in EIA in South Africa. Despite the DEA’s publication of a

guideline to this effect in 2005, as well as the stipulation of clear requirements for the

assessment of alternatives in the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations, there appears to

have been little improvement in the quality dimension of this aspect in EIA practice

amongst the waste management Scoping Reports evaluated in this study.

4.3 REVIEW AREA 2: SCOPING

Review Area 2 relates to the definition and identification of potential impacts and

issues that could potentially result from a proposed project, as well as the translation

thereof into clear terms of reference (ToR) for undertaking the subsequent EIA

phase of the process (in the form of a plan of study for EIA or PoSEIA). The

identification of potential impacts, issues and matters of public concern, through

conducting stakeholder engagement, is viewed as an important aspect towards

satisfactory scoping, resulting impacts and issues of concern for a development

41

proposal. If not satisfactorily achieved, the scope and focus of the subsequent EIA

phase of the process would potentially be too broad, narrow or misdirected.

Of the 20 Scoping Reports reviewed, 70% were satisfactorily performed, 30% were

unsatisfactorily performed. In fact, only 5% of Scoping Reports were well performed

(FIGURE 5). If the identification of impacts is the cornerstone of a ‘scoping’ process

in EIA practice (Sandham et al., 2010), it is perturbing that only 60% of the reports

reviewed scored satisfactorily with respect to the corresponding review category

(Review Category 2.2); with only half being performed well in this respect (50% A

and B symbols). Sandham et al. (2010) described similar weaknesses in their study

with regard to ‘impact identification and scoping’, which they describe as being at the

heart of any EIA, as did Sandham et al. (2008) and Van der Vyver (2008).

Stakeholder engagement was generally performed satisfactorily (85%), with the

remaining 15% of Scoping Reports performing poorly in this respect (Review

Category 2.3, TABLE 10). Of the 20 Scoping Reports reviewed, 80% failed to

provide clear definitions of the type of impacts that could result from such projects

(e.g. positive/negative, cumulative, direct, indirect, reversible/irreversible) (Review

Sub-category 2.1.1; with 70% of the reports performing unsatisfactorily in providing

an indication of the methods used by the EAP / specialist(s) to actually identify

potential impacts (Review Sub-category 2.1.2).

TABLE 10: Summary of Review Results for Review Area 2 and Associated

Review Categories.

Review area and category numbering / descriptions

Well performed

Satisfactory,

minor omissio

ns

Satisfactory,

omissions,

inadequacies

Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

No attempt

Not applicable

SUMMARY OF REVIEW AREA 2 CATEGORY SCORES: 'Scoping'

A B C D E F G

2.1

Definition of impacts& methods used for identification thereof

0% 0% 20% 40% 20% 20% 0%

2.2

Identification of impacts 0% 30% 30% 10% 30% 0% 0%

2.3

Stakeholder engagement 45% 25% 15% 0% 5% 10% 0%

2.4

Plan of study for EIA 35% 15% 25% 20% 5% 0% 0%

FINAL GRADE: REVIEW AREA 2 0% 50% 20% 25% 5% 0% 0%

42

FIGURE 5: Review Area 2 - 'Scoping and Impact Identification'.

43

TABLE 11: Review Area 2, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories.

Review areas and category numbering / descriptions Well

performed

Satisfactory, minor

omissions

Satisfactory,

omissions, inadequaci

es

Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempt

ed

No attem

pt

Not applica

ble

Review Area 2: SCOPING A B C D E F G

2.1 DEFINITION OF IMPACTS & METHODS USED

2.1.1 Description of potential effects of project on environment 0% 5% 15% 10% 5% 65% 0%

2.1.2 Description of methods used to identify potential impacts and issues 0% 15% 15% 20% 25% 25% 0%

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS

2.2.1 Assessing impact activities from four different phases 5% 25% 5% 5% 5% 50% 5%

2.2.2 All possible impacts must be identified 45% 20% 20% 10% 5% 0% 0%

2.2.3 Impacts from non-standard operating procedure or deviation from baseline conditions

15% 5% 5% 0% 0% 75% 0%

2.2.4 Impacts identified for alternatives under consideration 5% 25% 15% 0% 0% 15% 40%

2.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

2.3.1 Example of notice published in media 60% 25% 5% 0% 0% 10% 0%

2.3.2 On-site notice 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0%

2.3.3 Identify affected people 85% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0%

2.3.4 Identify people that have an interest in 85% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0%

2.3.5 Procedure whereby interested and affected parties can participate 55% 15% 0% 15% 0% 15% 0%

2.3.6 Provision for interested and affected parties to express their views 55% 10% 0% 20% 0% 15% 0%

2.3.7 List of issues identified 35% 15% 0% 0% 5% 40% 5%

2.3.8 Notification criteria which entails 40% 25% 5% 10% 5% 15% 0%

2.3.9 Record of all views as an addendum 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 10%

2.3.10

Evidence that interested and affected parties were approached 85% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 0%

2.3.11

Key impacts / issues raised 35% 15% 5% 5% 0% 35% 5%

2.4 PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA

2.4.1 Method of impact significance assessment 50% 15% 10% 10% 5% 10% 0%

2.4.2 Specialist assessment(s) 45% 0% 10% 30% 0% 15% 0%

2.4.3 Public participation for EIA phase 50% 25% 10% 15% 0% 0% 0%

44

Again, if the identification of potential impacts and issues resulting from the proposed

projects is regarded as another cornerstone of scoping, it is alarming that only 35%

and 25% of reports performed satisfactorily in assessing potential impacts through

the full project lifecycle (Review Sub-category 2.2.1) and for non-standard operating

conditions satisfactorily (Review Sub-category 2.2.3), respectively.

Of the Scoping Reports reviewed, 75% of them performed satisfactorily with respect

to providing a comprehensive plan of study for the remaining EIA study (PoSEIA)

(Review Category 2.4, TABLE 11). The poorest performed criterion in this regard

was, however, Review Sub-category 2.4.2 (‘Specialist Assessments’); because 45%

of Scoping Reports failed to provide a clear indication of the terms of reference set

for specialist assessments to be undertaken during the EIA phase, or the anticipated

deliverables / outputs of such specialist assessments.

One aspect of stakeholder engagement which markedly came out as being poorly

performed (45%) was the lack of inclusion of a summary of issues raised by

interested and affected parties within the body of the Scoping Report (Review Sub-

category 2.3.7); whereby it could have been authentically attested that IAPs were in

fact legitimately approached for comment.

4.4 REVIEW AREA 3: COMPLIANCE TO LEGISLATIVE,

GUIDELINE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Review area 3 was the most poorly performed review area of the four evaluated in

this study. This review area performed unsatisfactorily in 55% of the Scoping

Reports reviewed (TABLE 12, FIGURE 6). In most instances, the EAP simply

provided a long list of ‘other’ legislation with potential environmental relevance, but

with little or no attempt to relate or integrate their specific relevance to the specific

project proposal, or aspect(s) thereof. By way of example, the EAPs simply provided

a blanket listing of all ‘Section 21’ water uses under the National Water Act (Act No.

36 of 1998) [NWA] requiring a water use licence form the Department of Water

Affairs, with no genuine attempt to single out the specific uses therein (a-k) that are

triggered by one or another aspects of the project proposal.

45

The poor results obtained for Review Area 3 again raise environmental management

concerns as to the limited extent to which the Scoping Reports reviewed appear to

achieve the minimum requirements stated in the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations;

where Regulation 28 (1) (f) of GNR. 543 (18th June 2010:35) specifically requires

that Scoping Reports should include, “the identification of all legislation and

guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of the scoping report.”

TABLE 12: Summary of Review Results for Review area 3 and Associated

Review Categories.

Review area and category numbering / descriptions

Well performed

Satisfactory,

minor omission

s

Satisfactory,

omissions,

inadequacies

Unsatisfactory

Poorly attemp

ted

No attem

pt

Not applica

ble

SUMMARY OF REVIEW AREA 3 CATEGORY SCORES: 'Legislative, Guideline and Policy Review'

A B C D E F G

3.1 Legal 45% 10% 15% 25% 5% 0% 0%

3.2 Policy / Guidelines 15% 15% 10% 5% 5% 50% 0%

FINAL GRADE REVIEW AREA 3 25% 20% 0% 25% 30% 0% 0%

46

FIGURE 6: Review Area 3 – ‘Legislative and Policy Framework’.

47

TABLE 13: Review Area 3, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories.

Review areas and category numbering / descriptions

Well performed

Satisfactory,

minor omissio

ns

Satisfactory,

omissions,

inadequacies

Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

No attempt

Not applicable

Review Area 3: Legislative, Guideline and Policy Review

A B C D E F G

3.1 LEGAL

3.1.1 Trigger Legislation / Regulations 60% 10% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0%

3.1.2 Other Relevant Legislation 40% 5% 5% 35% 5% 10% 0%

3.2 POLICIES / GUIDELINES

3.2.1 Policy / Guidelines 15% 15% 15% 0% 5% 50% 0%

3.2.2 Spatial Development and Sectoral Plans / Frameworks

5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 55% 30%

The biggest contributor to the poor review area appraisal was in 55% of cases (as

denoted by quality symbols E and F), a lack of consideration by the EAPs regarding

existing policies / guidelines (Review Sub-category 3.2.1; (TABLE 13)) and spatial

development plans / frameworks (Review Sub-category 3.2.2) with potential

relevance to the specific projects being considered (Review Category 3.2,

On a positive note, though, the legislative trigger(s) for having to undertake the EIA,

as well as the requirements of the associated EIA process and licensing

requirements (Review Sub-category 3.1.1) were satisfactorily described in 80% of

Scoping Reports. However, the associated description of other relevant legislation

(Review Sub-category 3.1.2) was poorly performed, with this aspect performed

satisfactorily only in 50% of the review cases.

4.5 REVIEW AREA 4: COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS

A well administered and technically sound scoping process (as guided by the EIA

Regulations under NEMA) needs to be concise, well-directed and unambiguous with

respect to the communication of the results obtained from the scoping process.

Given that the primary aim of performing an EIA is to allow for informed decision-

making regarding the sustainability of a development proposal, the communication of

48

the results obtained from the administrative/ technical scoping process (in the form of

a Scoping Report) is as important as the process itself.

The ‘communication of results’ (Review Area 4) was generally satisfactorily

undertaken (80%), with 40% of reports assigned a quality rating described as well

performed (FIGURE 7). This result corresponds well with results obtained by Kruger

(2012), Van der Vyver (2008) and Sandham (2008) in EIR quality appraisals using

the South African Review Package; with results of 80%, 80% and 100% satisfactory

quality, respectively.

The poorest performing review category was encountered in appraising the quality of

the presentation of a ‘non-technical summary’ (Review Category 4.4, (TABLE 14));

whereby only 55% of reports were found to have been satisfactorily performed in this

instance.

However, the ‘presentation of information’ in the reports (Review Category 4.2,

(TABLE 14)) was satisfactorily performed in 85% of the review cases. Similarly, the

extent to which the ‘prominence of emphasis’ was directed to the key impacts and

issues of concerns for each project was observed to be satisfactorily performed in

85% of the reports analysed.

49

TABLE 14: Summary of Review results for review Are 4 and associated Review Categories.

Review area and category numbering / descriptions Well performed Satisfactory,

minor omissions

Satisfactory, omissions,

inadequacies Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

No attempt Not

applicable

SUMMARY OF REVIEW AREA 4 CATEGORY SCORES: 'Communication of results'

A B C D E F G

4.1 Layout 30% 40% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0%

4.2 Presentation 10% 40% 35% 15% 0% 0% 0%

4.3 Emphasis 40% 15% 30% 15% 0% 0% 0%

4.4 Non-technical summary 30% 0% 25% 5% 0% 40% 0%

FINAL GRADE REVIEW AREA 4 20% 20% 40% 20% 0% 0% 0%

FIGURE 7: Review Area 4 - 'Communication of Results’.

50

TABLE 15: Review Area 4, Scoring of Quality Level for Sub-categories.

Review areas and category numbering / descriptions Well

performed

Satisfactory, minor

omissions

Satisfactory, omissions,

inadequacies Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

No attempt

Not applicable

Review Area 4 - Review Category Summary: Communication of results A B C D E F G

4.1 LAYOUT

4.1.1 Introduction 55% 20% 5% 20% 0% 0% 0%

4.1.2 Arrangement of information 25% 40% 5% 30% 0% 0% 0%

4.1.3 External sources 10% 50% 15% 10% 10% 5% 0%

4.2 PRESENTATION

4.2.1 Presentation of information 15% 40% 20% 15% 5% 0% 0%

4.2.2 Presented as an integrated whole 10% 50% 25% 15% 0% 0% 0%

4.3 EMPHASIS

4.3.1 Prominence and emphasis given to 30% 25% 25% 15% 5% 0% 0%

4.3.2 Scoping Report is unbiased 35% 30% 15% 15% 5% 0% 0%

4.4 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

4.4.1 Non-technical summary including main findings and conclusions 40% 5% 10% 5% 0% 40% 0%

4.4.2 Scoping Report summary of main issues 30% 0% 10% 10% 0% 50% 0%

51

The inclusion of a non-technical summary (Review Sub-category 4.4.1, (TABLE 15))

or Scoping Report conclusion (Review Category 4.4.2) are not an explicit

requirement under the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations, but are generally considered as

best practice in compiling a Scoping Report (Glasson et al., 2012). An interesting

observation in this regard, although not expressly quantified, is that review sub-

categories that are not legal requirements are generally less well performed than

those which are regulatory requirements in respect of the 2010 NEMA EIA

Regulations. Review Category 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 in the current study were performed to

a satisfactory level in 55% and 40% of the review cases, respectively.

In a related quality study, Mbhele (2009) reported that only 66% of EIR reports

reviewed, for example, contained an executive summary, which is not a clear

regulatory requirement, which compares favourably with this study; where only 60%

of the reports reviewed contained an executive summary.

It is disconcerting that bias, in favour of the project proposal, was noted in 20% of the

Scoping Reports reviewed as part of this study (Review Sub-category 4.3.2). This is

approximately double that noted by Sandham and Pretorius (2008). This bias is well

associated with those reports that performed poorly in respect of their overall quality

appraisal, as well as the review areas, categories and sub-categories. It is not clear,

however, whether the poor performance of such reports is reflective of an intentional

omission of material information in favour of the applicant (i.e. information that may

potentially jeopardise the granting of a waste management licence), or whether the

EAPs responsible were simply lacking requisite analytical skills and were unaware of

the bias that filters through in their writing style, whether intentionally or not.

4.6 OVERALL SCOPING REPORT QUALITY

A summary of results obtained for the study are presented in table 16, figure 9, 10

and 11. The quality appraisal of the 20 EIA Scoping Reports dealing with the

management of hazardous waste has shown that these reports have been

satisfactorily (assessment symbols A-C) conducted and prepared in 75% of the

cases involved (TABLE 16). However, only 40% of Scoping Reports were well

performed (assessment symbols A and B), with 10% being poorly performed

52

(assessment symbols E and F). Of environmental management concern is that 35%

of the Scoping Reports reviewed (just over one third), although ‘satisfactory’, were

presented with significant omissions and inadequacies (FIGURE 9: Scoping Report

Quality Appraisal.), thus constraining the quality of the decisions being made.

These research findings (i.e. 75% overall satisfactory performance) are comparable

to the outcome of other EIR quality appraisals using the adapted South African Lee

and Colley Review Package. For instance, according to a quality evaluation

conducted by Mbhele (2009), 73% of EIRs in the housing sector were performed

satisfactorily meanwhile Kruger (2012) found a 67% level of satisfactory performance

amongst EIRs compiled for proposed filling stations in South Africa, which is in

agreement with the findings of international EIR quality appraisals, which revealed

higher levels (from 67% and above) of satisfactory quality. Hoffman (2007) found out

that the overall quality amongst EIRs in the mining sector was 85% compliant in

terms of the level of satisfactoriness and were also congruent with results obtained

by both Moloto (2005) and Pretorius (2006).

The worst performing review area in this study was noted to be Review Area 3,

‘Legislative, Guideline and Policy Review’; with the minority of reports (45%) having

been performed satisfactorily in this respect (FIGURE 11: Review Area Quality

Appraisal Comparison Summary. and FIGURE 12). Review Areas 1 and 2,

‘Description of the Development and Receiving Environment’ and ‘Scoping’

respectively, were equally well performed; where 70% of reports in both instances

were satisfactorily conducted regarding these review areas (FIGURE 11: Review

Area Quality Appraisal Comparison Summary.). The best performed review area was

Review Area 4, ‘Communication of Results’; with 80% of reports being well prepared

in this instance (FIGURE 11: Review Area Quality Appraisal Comparison Summary.).

Furthermore, another best performed review area in the study (i.e. as a percentage

of reports ‘well performed’ per review area) was Review Area 3, ‘Legislative,

Guideline and Policy Review’; which was also ironically the worst performed review

area in the current study, with scores of 25% and 35%, respectively (FIGURE 10:

Review Area Quality Appraisal Comparism., TABLE 16). The opposite trend (i.e.

opposite to that noted for Review Area 3 above) was observed in the results

53

obtained for Review Area 2, ‘Scoping’; where only 5% of the reports reviewed were

‘poorly attempted’, and none were ‘well performed’ in this respect (FIGURE 8:

Trends Analysis of Results for Review Area 2 and 3.). The majority of reports (70%)

were performed simply ‘satisfactorily’ in this respect (TABLE 16).

FIGURE 8: Trends Analysis of Results for Review Area 2 and 3.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wellperformed

Satisfactory,minor

omissions

Satisfactory,omissions,

inadequacies

Unsatisfactory PoorlyattemptedP

erc

en

tage

of

Rep

ort

s R

evie

we

d

Scoping &ImpactIdentification

Legislative,Guideline andPolicy Review

54

TABLE 16: Tabular Summary of Overall Review Results and Associated Review Areas.

Review areas and category numbering / descriptions Well

performed

Satisfactory, minor

omissions

Satisfactory, omissions,

inadequacies Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

No attempt

Not applicable

SUMMARY OF REVIEW AREA AND OVERALL SCORES A B C D E F G

1 Description of the development and receiving environment 20% 35% 15% 15% 15% 0% 0%

2 Scoping / Impact identification 0% 50% 20% 25% 5% 0% 0%

3 Legislative, Guideline and Policy review 25% 20% 0% 20% 35% 0% 0%

4 Communication of results 20% 20% 40% 20% 0% 0% 0%

FINAL GRADE SCOPING REPORT 10% 30% 35% 15% 10% 0% 0%

FIGURE 9: Scoping Report Quality Appraisal.

55

FIGURE 10: Review Area Quality Appraisal Comparism.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Well performed

Satisfactory, minor omissions

Satisfactory, omissions,…

Unsatisfactory

Poorly attempted

Pe

rcen

tage

of

Sco

pin

g R

ep

ort

s R

evie

we

d

Description of the development and receivingenvironment

Scoping / Impact identification

Legislative, Guideline and Policy review

Communication of results

: Review Area 3

: Review Area 2

: Review Area 4

: Review Area 1

56

FIGURE 11: Review Area Quality Appraisal Comparison Summary.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Description of thedevelopment and

receivingenvironment

Scoping / Impactidentification Legislative,

Guideline andPolicy review

Communicationof results

Well / SatisfactorilyPreformed

Pe

rcen

tage

of

Scop

ing R

ep

ort

s R

evie

we

d

Poorly / Unsatisfactorily Performed

57

4.7 MINIMUM CONTENT OF A SCOPING REPORT

The minimum content requirements for a Scoping Report in South Africa are

specified under Regulation 28 (1) of the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations (GNR. 543 of

18 June 2010:35); which states that, “a Scoping Report must contain all the

information that is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of issues

identified during scoping”, and must include, as a minimum, all the information

included in the table that follows (TABLE 17).

‘Legally motivated sub-categories’ (Kruger, 2012) in the adapted review package are

also indicated in TABLE 17 and are listed together with their corresponding sub-

regulations. In some instances, there are a few sub-categories contributing to a

single regulatory requirement. Given that the requirements listed in TABLE 17 are

legal imperatives in respect of an EAP’s compilation of a Scoping Report, should any

aspect be performed in a less than satisfactory manner, such reports should not in

practice be accepted by the competent authority for environmental authorization.

It is noted with environmental management concern that certain sub-categories that

are clear legal requirements were performed in a less than satisfactory manner

(scoring D, E or F) in as many as 55% of the Scoping Reports reviewed. These are

highlighted in TABLE 17. The poorest performing legally motivated sub-categories in

this respect relate to i) the description of the proposed activity, ii) an identification of

all legislation and guidelines that were considered in the preparation of the Scoping

Report, as well as iii) identification of tasks to be undertaken in the EIA phase of the

study (i.e. the plan of study for EIA).

It is evident that the Scoping Reports reviewed for this study conform poorly to

relevant South African legislation given the lower percentages of the total number of

relevant Review Sub-categories, as depicted in TABLE 18. This trend was also

observed in other related studies that appraised the quality of EIRs in the South

African context (Kruger and Chapman, 2005; Kruger, 2012). The strictest legal

interpretation of Regulation 28 (1) of the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations by the DEA

would see nearly 55% of all hazardous waste related Scoping Reports submitted by

EAPs being rejected due to significant inadequacies and/or omissions. Alternatively,

58

the DEA could apply some discretion and adopt a holistic view of the overall quality

of the Scoping Report itself, ignoring legal inadequacies. Unless the quality of

Scoping Reports within this industry sector is improved and minimum legal

requirements are strictly adhered to, the DEA’s resources could be unnecessarily

wasted in having to repeatedly review and reject reports on legal technicalities, even

if the remainder of the report is well performed.

TABLE 17: Regulatory Requirements for Sub-category Scoring.

Requirements (Regulation 28) Review sub-category Satisfactory

Details of —

the EAP who prepared the report; and 1.1.2 95%

the expertise of the EAP to carry out scoping

procedures.

1.1.2 95%

A description of the proposed activity. 1.1.3 75%

1.1.6 75%

1.1.7 50%

1.1.8 45%

1.3.1 55%

1.3.2 70%

1.3.3 45%

1.3.4 40%

A description of any feasible and reasonable

alternatives that have been identified.

1.5.2 60%

1.5.3 75%

A description of the property on which the activity is to

be undertaken and the location of the activity on the

property….

1.2.1 60%

1.1.4 85%

1.1.5 80%

A description of the environment that may be affected

by the activity and the manner in which activity may be

affected by the environment;

1.4.1 80%

1.4.2 90%

1.4.3 80%

1.4.4 70%

An identification of all legislation and guidelines that

have been considered in the preparation of the scoping

report;

3.1.1 80%

3.1.2 50%

3.2.1 45%

A description of environmental issues and potential

impacts, including cumulative impacts, that have been

identified;

2.2.2 85%

the steps that were taken to notify potentially

interested and affected parties of the application;

2.3.10 85%

proof that notice boards, advertisements and

notices notifying potentially interested and affected

2.3.2 90%

59

parties of the application have been displayed,

placed or given;

a list of all persons or organisations that were

identified and registered in terms of regulation 55

as interested and affected parties in relation to the

application; and

2.3.3 85%

2.3.4 85%

a summary of the issues raised by interested and

affected parties, the date of receipt of and the

response of the EAP to those issues.

2.3.7 90%

A description of the need and desirability of the

proposed activity.

1.1.3 70%

A description of identified potential alternatives to the

proposed activity, including advantages and

disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives

may have on the environment and the community that

may be affected by the activity.

1.5.2 60%

1.5.3 75%

Copies of any representations, and comments received

in connection with the application or the scoping report

from interested and affected parties.

2.3.9 75%

a description of the tasks that will be undertaken as

part of the environmental impact assessment

process, including any specialist reports or

specialised processes, and the manner in which

such tasks will be undertaken;

2.4.2 55%

a description of the proposed method of assessing

the environmental issues and alternatives, including

the option of not proceeding with the activity; and

2.4.1 75%

particulars of the public participation process that

will be conducted during the environmental impact

assessment process.

2.4.3 85%

Source: Adapted from Kruger (2012).

60

TABLE 18: Tabular Summary of Performance Against Regulatory

Requirements.

Percentage of

Scoping Reports

with satisfactory

performance *

Relevant sub-categories

Percentage of total

No. of relevant sub-

categories

90 – 100 % 1.1.2, 1.4.2, 2.3.2 and 2.3.7 12.5%

80 – 89 % 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 3.1.1, 2.2.2,

2.3.10, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.4.3

31.25%

70 – 79 % 1.1.3, 1.1.6, 1.3.2, 1.5.3, 1.4.4, 1.5.3,

2.3.9 and 2.4.1

25%

60 – 69 % 1.5.2 and 1.2.1 6.25%

50 – 59 % 1.1.7, 1.3.1, 3.1.2 and 2.4.2 12.5%

40 – 49 % 1.1.8, 1.3.3, 1.3.4 and 3.2.1 12.5%

* Expressed as a percentage of the total number of reports reviewed that were found to be of a

satisfactory quality in respect of the indicated review sub-categories.

4.8 AREAS OF WEAKNESS

Key areas of weakness in scoping procedures / reports identified in this study are as

follows:

A lack of comprehensive description of the proposed projects and ancillary

structures and infrastructure supportive thereof, and absence of site plans,

process flows / mass balances and supportive graphics;

No systematic consideration and analyses of alternatives (i.e. other than the

no-go alternative; which was generally well performed). These observations

are in line with the findings of studies undertaken by Hoffman (2007), as well

as Chapman and Kruger (2005);

Poor identification of potential impacts and issues across the full lifecycle of

the proposed development, as well as estimates of the anticipated duration of

each phase;

Poor consideration and identification of raw materials (i.e. source and

demand) to be used;

61

Inadequate characterization of hazardous wastes, effluents and emissions to

atmosphere;

Insufficient identification of methods used to identify potential project impacts,

as well as the provision of descriptions of the types of impacts that can

reasonably be anticipated to occur;

Poor identification of impacts that may potentially arise from non-

standard/upset operating conditions;

Too little description and consideration of guidelines, policies and spatial

development tools potentially applicable to the project;

Deficient inclusion of comprehensive terms of reference for specialist studies

proposed in terms of the plan of study for EIA; and

Potential bias by EAPs in favor of the development proposals.

4.9 AREAS OF STRENGTH

Key areas of strength in the scoping procedures / reports identified in this study are

as follows:

Stakeholder engagement was generally satisfactorily performed, with obvious

deficiencies observed in only 15% of Scoping Reports reviewed;

The descriptions provided for biophysical and biological site elements were

well performed in 85% and 75% of cases;

Good identification of the EAP and expertise and experience in undertaking

EIAs; and

The communication of results was performed satisfactorily by EAPs in 80% of

reports, which in the broader sense can be considered an area of strength in

practice, although distinct sub-categories were substantively deficient.

62

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The main research goal in this study was to evaluate the quality aspects of

hazardous waste related Scoping Reports that were submitted to the DEA for

environmental authorisation subsequent to the promulgation of the 2010 NEMA EIA

Regulations (GNR. 543, 544, 545 and 546 of 18 June 2010). Firstly, conclusions

arising from the research results are provided. Secondly, some recommendations

are made for further studies.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS

Only 75% of Scoping Reports reviewed performed satisfactorily in respect of their

overall quality. This is somewhat concerning regarding the sectoral focus (hazardous

waste management) of this research. More disturbingly, of the 25% reports that were

identified as being of ‘unsatisfactory’ quality, 10% of them were very poorly

attempted and deficient in many material respects. It is clear that despite the high

level of technical competency required by EAPs to undertake EIAs in respect of

hazardous waste management license applications in particular, there appears to be

a level of incompetence that filters through into the assessment tasks involved;

where this is likely to result in wasted time and effort for both project applicants and

the regulator (DEA) alike.

The poor overall quality noted in this study, as well as the identification of key areas

of weakness that follows, is not inferred to be a consequence of a poorly defined or

implemented EIA system in South Africa, but rather possibly due to a concerning low

level of competence amongst a handful of EAPs. This statement is made in the light

of the fact that many of the deficiencies and omissions observed are clear legal

requirements in terms of the prescribed legal environment for EIA in South Africa

(often with associated guidelines), yet such requirements are still poorly adhered to.

63

It is hoped that with the expected and compulsory professional registration of

environmental assessment practitioners, the quality of environmental impact reports

will improve in South Africa since the only people with the required skills set will be

those registered by the new Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of

South Africa (EAPASA), thus preventing ill-prepared and under qualified people from

practicing environmental assessment.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT / STUDY

Based on the scope and the research findings stemming from this study, the

following recommendations are made for possible future studies aimed at ultimately

assisting in improving the quality of EIA processes in South Africa.

Firstly, a quality appraisal of the entire EIRs produced subsequent to the scoping

processes that resulted in the generation of the 20 Scoping Reports reviewed as part

of this study is highly recommended. This research would allow for direct comparison

between the overall quality of reviewed Scoping Reports and the proposed EIRs,

further providing indications of the extent to which weaknesses identified in the

Scoping Reports continue further as shortcomings in the finalized EIRs. Such

research would also provide an indication of the extent to which the Department of

Environmental Affairs’ ultimate review and decision-making (i.e. if in respect of the

Scoping Reports reviewed as part of this assessment) deals with inherent

weaknesses identified in the Scoping Reports.

With the promulgation of the Waste Classification and Management Regulations

under NEM:WA on 23rd August 2013, it is recommended that a comparative

assessment be undertaken in future in respect of the number of proposed hazardous

waste treatment, recovery, reuse and recycling facility EIAs conducted in South

Africa pre- and past- the promulgation of the aforementioned regulations. This would

provide a base of comparison of the extent to which the DEA’s landfill prohibitions for

certain waste types have in fact promoted a diversion of hazardous waste from

landfill towards other management options further up along the waste hierarchy (i.e.

reuse, recovery recycling and treatment). Should the number of such applications

indeed have increased significantly, the study could also provide insight into the

64

Regulator’s (DEA) readiness to deal with such, in terms of available technical and

resource capacity.

The requirements for environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) in South Africa

to be registered / certified by an independent, professional, industry body is not yet in

force. Interim certification is, however, awarded at present through the environmental

assessment practitioner association of South Africa (EAPASA). This body operates

independently of-, but in collaboration with, the National Department of

Environmental Affairs, and has its own board and constitution. The certification

process entails prospective candidates having to solicit the support of two sponsors

and undergo a process of peer review toward becoming a certified EAP.

Certification with EAPASA has been voluntary to date, and is not a legal requirement

for EAPs undertaking EIAs or compiling EIRs in South Africa. The interim

certification of EAPs is, however, seen as a move toward ensuring better quality and

professionalism in the assessment tasks undertaken by EAPs. By comparing the

outcomes of the quality appraisal of the 20 Scoping Reports involved in the current

research against another 20 randomly selected hazardous Waste related Scoping

Reports compiled by registered EAPs (i.e. once the registration process becomes a

legal pre-requisite in South Africa for practitioners) in the future, further research

could help in evaluating the effectiveness of the newly proposed system of formal

EAP registration.

65

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aucamp, P.J. (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide for the

Discerning Practitioner. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Baker, D. and E. Rapaport. (2005). The Science of Assessment: Identifying and Predicting

Environmental Impacts. In: Hanna, K.S. (Ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment:

Practice and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 1996). (1996). Pretoria:

Government Printers.

Crous, H. and B. K. Thorpe. (2012). Waste Classification and Management Regulations:

Overview of New Approach and Legal Requirements for the Classification of Waste,

Conference Paper, Wastecon 2012. Institute for Waste Management in Southern

Africa.

DEA. (2011). National Waste Management Strategy. Department of Environmental Affairs

(DEA), South African Government.

DEAT. (2004). Environmental Impact Reporting, Integrated Environmental Management,

Information Series 15, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).

Pretoria, South Africa.

DEAT. (2007). Strategic Environmental Assessment Guideline, Integrated Environmental

Guidelines Series 4. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).

Pretoria, South Africa.

Democratic Alliance (DA). (2009). Discussion Document: Addressing problems in the

medical waste sector. Democratic Alliance.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). (1998). Waste Management Series.

Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous

Waste, Edition 2, 1998. Pretoria: DWAF

Du Pisani, J.A. and L.A. Sandham. (2006). Assessing the Performance of SIA in the EIA

66

Context: A Case Study of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review

26: 707–724.

Environment Conservation Act (ECA) (Act No. 73 of 1989). (1989). Pretoria: Government

Printers

Fuggle, R.F. and M.A. Rabie. (2009). Environmental Management in South Africa, (2nd

Edition). Cape Town: Juta.

George, C. (2000). Comparative review of environmental assessment procedures and

practice. In Lee, N & C. Clive (eds). 2000. Environmental Assessment in Developing

and Transitional Countries. London: Wiley.

Glasson, J., R. Therivel. and A. Chadwick. (2012). Introduction to Environmental Impact

Assessment, (4th Edition). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Glasson, J., R. Therivel. and A. Chadwick. (2005). Introduction to environmental impact

assessment, (3rd Edition). New York: UCL Press.

Gregory, R., Keeney, R. and D. von Winterfeldt. (1992). Adapting the Environmental Impact

Statement Process to inform Decision Makers. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management 11: 58–75.

Hoffman, A. R. (2007). An Appraisal of the Quality of Mining EIA Reports. MSc Dissertation.

Potchefstroom: North-West University.

Kabir, S. M. Z, S. Momtaz and W. Gladstone. (2010). The Quality of Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) in Bangladesh. Paper represented at the International Association

for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Conference, Conference Papers and Notes. Geneva,

Switzerland.

Kruger, E. and O. A. Chapman. (2005). Quality Aspects of Environmental Impact

Assessment Reports in the Free State Province, South Africa. South African

Geographical Journal 87(1): 52-57

67

Kruger, R. A. (2012). A critical analysis of the quality of EIA reports for filling stations in

South Africa. Mini-Dissertation, University of the North-West.

Lee, N. and R. Colley. (1992). Reviewing the Quality of Environmental statements,

Occasional Paper Number 24, EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape,

University of Manchester.

Lee, N. and C. George. (2000). Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional

Countries. John Wiley & Sons, 290p.

Lee, N., R. Colley, J. Bonde and J. Simpson. (1999). Reviewing the Quality of

Environmental Statements and Environmental Appraisals, Occasional Paper Number

55, EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.

Leu, W., W. P. Williams and A. W. Bark. (1996). Development of an Environmental Impact

Assessment Evaluation Model and its Application: Taiwan Case Study.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 115-133.

Macintosh, A. (2010). Best Practice Environmental Impact Assessment: A Model

Framework for Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration 69(4): 401-407.

Mbhele, M. P. (2009). The Quality of EIA Reports for Housing Developments in the

Nkangala District of the Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Mini-Dissertation,

University of the North West.

Morris, P. and R. Therivel. (2010). Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, (3rd

Edition). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Mulvihill, P. R. and P. Jacobs. (1998). Using Scoping as a Design Process. Environmental

Impact Assessment Review 18: 351-369.

National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998). (2010).

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations GNR. 543 18th June 2010. Pretoria:

Government Printers.

68

National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998). (2006).

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations GN. R. 385 of 21st April 2006.

Pretoria: Government Printers.

National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEM:WA) (Act No. 59 of 2008). (2008).

Pretoria: Government Printers.

National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 2012/13. (2013). Department

of Environmental Affairs, Directorate: Compliance and Enforcement Services.

National Water Act (NWA) (Act No. 36 of 1998). (1998). Pretoria: Government Printers.

Papu-Zamxaka, V., T., Harpman and A. Mathee. (2010). Environmental Legislation and

Contamination: The Gap between Theory and Reality in South Africa. Journal of

Environmental Management 91: 2275-2280.

Peterson, K. (2010). Quality of Environmental Impact Statements and Variability of Scrutiny

by Reviewers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 169-176.

Pinho, P., R. Maia and A. Monterroso. (2007). The Quality of Portuguese Environmental

Impact Studies: The Case of Small Hydropower Projects. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 27: 189-205.

Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) (Act No. 2 of 2000). (2000). Pretoria:

Government Printers.

Retief, F., C.N.J. Welman. and L. Sandham. (2011). Performance of environmental impact

assessment (EIA) screening in South Africa: a comparative analysis between the

1997 and 2006 EIA regimes. South African Geographical Journal 93(2): 154–171.

Sandham, L. A. and H. M. Pretorius. (2008). A Review of EIA Report Quality in the North

West Province of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 229-

240.

69

Sandham, L. A., T. H. Carroll and F. P. Retief. (2010). The Contribution of Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) to Decision Making for Biological Pest Control in South

Africa – The Case of Lantana camara. Biological Control 55: 141–149

Sandham, L. A., M. J. Moloto. and F. P. Retief. (2008). The Quality of Environmental Impact

Reports for Projects with the Potential of affecting Wetlands in South Africa. Water

SA 34 (2): 155-162.

Sandham, L. A., van Heerden A. J., Jones C. E., Retief F. P. and A.N. Morrison-Saunders.

(2013). Does enhanced Regulation improve EIA Report Quality? Lessons from

South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 155-162.

Simpson, J. (2001). Developing a Review Package to assess the Quality of EA Reports of

Local Authority Structure and Local Plans in the UK. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 21: 83-95.

SANS 10234-2. (2010). Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of

Chemicals (GHS). South African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria, South Africa.

South African National Standard for the Assessment of Waste for Disposal to Landfill.

Government Notice No. 635 of 23rd August 2013. (2013). National Department of

Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.

South African National Standard for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill. Government Notice

No. 635 of 23rd August 2013. (2013). National Department of Environmental Affairs,

Pretoria, South Africa.

Talime, L. A. (2010). A critical review of the quality of environmental impact assessment

reports in Lesotho. MSc. Dissertation (Geography), University of the Free State,

Bloemfontein.

Thorpe, B. K., H Crous and D. Baldwin. (2012). National Waste Classification and

Management Regulations: New Approach and Legal Requirements for the

Assessment and Disposal of Waste to Landfill, Conference Paper, Wastecon 2012.

Institute for Waste Management in Southern Africa.

70

University of Pretoria (UP). (2012). EIA Administration and Review Training Manual.

National Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.

Van der Vyver, F. (2008). The Quality of Environmental Impact Reports for Explosives

Industry Projects. Mini-Dissertation (Environmental Management Studies), University

of the North West.

Waste Classification and Management Regulations. Government Notice No. 634 of 23

August 2013. (2013). National Department of Environmental Affairs. Pretoria, South

Africa

Wood, C. (2000). Screening and scoping. In Lee, N and C. Clive (Eds). 2000.

Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries. London: Wiley.

Wood, G., J. Glasson and J. Becker. (2006). EIA Scoping in England and Wales:

Practitioner Approaches, Perspectives and Constraints. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 26: 221-241.