Microsoft Outlook - Memo Style - Amazon Web Services

55

Independent Audit of the Chloorkop Landfill Site January 2020

7.6 Land use, zoning and buffer

7.6.1 Description

The issues of land use and buffers around landfills are often a point of significant contention with neighbouring property owners. The Minimum Requirements documents provide some guidance in this regard. Taken from the Minimum requirements Appendix 4.3: In certain cases, it may also be possible to meet buffer zone requirements by progressively moving the operation away from future residential or other sensitive developments. In this way, the required set back distance can be maintained, as the operation moves away before the development occurs. Mitigatory measures, such as site screening, special operational measures and restricted operating times, can also be presented as motivation for reducing set back distances. These would, however, have to be agreed upon by all parties concerned. In considering buffer zones, the present and future land-use must be addressed. In general, a proclaimed buffer zone must comprise unpopulated land and no development may take place within it, during the operation of a landfill. At the discretion of the local authority and the relevant government departments, however, such land uses as agriculture or certain industrial developments may be permitted within a buffer zone. To ensure against encroachment and consequent conflicts of interest, measures to control future development and land-use within buffer zones should be implemented as soon as a candidate site is deemed feasible. In order to do this, the Permit Holder, who is usually the local authority, may acquire ownership of the land, or enter into a contractual agreement with the owner. For example, a servitude may be registered against the title deeds of the land, thus limiting the usage of the area to that stipulated in the permit. Throughout the operation of the landfill facility, agreed buffer zones must be maintained. Existing land-use and any developments must thus be carefully monitored and strictly controlled. The Chloorkop 1997 Site Permit states: The permit holder shall take all reasonable steps, such as suitable zoning and/or written agreements with adjacent landowners to prevent the development of further residential and/or light industrial areas closer to the site than any existing residential areas during the operative life of the Site. Heavy industries or industries which may create nuisance conditions may be permitted within the buffer zone.

56


Figure 1: Chloorkop site in 2003 showing lack of development in the buffer zone.

Figure 2: Chloorkop in 2019 showing the significant amount of residential and other development in the buffer zone. The respective Google Earth images clearly show the development which has occurred within the buffer zone since the original development of the site. The light industrial development was permitted on the basis that the site would be closed within 1-2 years of the development, with the developers accepting the impacts for the short term on the understanding that they would not be impacted after 2014 at the latest. The height extension was subsequently granted and waste volumes decreased, extending the life of the site significantly and resulting in complaints from the neighbouring land users and a lack of trust relating to promises made by EnviroServ.

57


7.6.2 Current and potential Impacts and issues

The buffer zone has never been clearly defined for the site, although EnviroServ stated in the audit meeting that they consider it to be 450m. The Gauteng Pollution Buffer Zones Guideline recommends a maximum buffer of 1000m for a Class B landfill. The drawing below – produced in 2012, shows a 500m buffer zone.

7.6.3 Audit Findings

There does not appear to be clarity on the size of the buffer zone which EnviroServ are claiming to manage in terms of their Permit. The 2016 EMPr states that the standard to be achieved through the management of air pollution is that: Pollutants emitted as a result of the site operations remain within acceptable limits so as to prevent health related impacts. There is no mention of nuisance related to dust and odour.

58


However the fenceline monitoring referred to in the Airshed report indicates that there could be health impacts for the neighbours. These reports are not included in or mentioned in the annual external audit reports. The odours from the site were at an unacceptable level in the proximity to the flare and along the Lords View boundary road on the day of the audit. Waste is clearly not being compacted and covered on a daily basis to reduce odours and the working face was not kept to the smallest possible area as required in terms of the 2016 EMPr for the site. There is no Air Quality Management Plan for the site and a dynamic Air Pathways Analysis System as required in the EMPr was not provided for review. Dust management on the site was adequate at the time of the audit, but there had been rain the previous day, so the site was damp, reducing dust emissions. There is no monitoring of air pollutants in the buffer zone and no indication that EnviroServ intend to undertake monitoring in these areas. PM10 monitors have only recently been erected and therefore the impacts on the buffer zone cannot therefore be determined. Environmental (boundary) noise pollution monitoring is also not currently undertaken. Permit non compliances which relate to impacts on neighbours within and beyond the buffer zone include:

• Cover material – Site Permit Clause 5.2 and Cell 5 and 6 Authorisation – Clauses 1.38 and 1.42),

• Waste reclamation – Site Permit 5.6, Cell 4 Authorisation Clause 3.2.12, • Minimisation of working face - Cell 5 and 6 Authorisation Clause 1.43, • Progressive rehabilitation – Cell 4 Authorisation Clause 3.2.13 and Cell 5 and 6 Clause 1.46 • Portable litter control - Cell 5 and 6 Authorisation Clause 1.36 and 1.42, • Nuisance prevention requirements - Site permit Clause 5.3 and • Landscaping – Height Extension Authorisation Clause 3.1.16.

It is possible that the dust and noise conditions (Site permit Clause 5.5, Cells 5 and 6 Authorisation Clause 1.34) are also not complied with, however there is no monitoring undertaken to be able to assess these impacts.

7.6.4 Non compliances in terms of the BAR EMPr which currently apply

The only mention of the buffer zone in the proposed expansion EMPr is: The adequacy of the buffer zone specified in the WML will be reviewed, by the application of appropriate dispersion modelling methods when operations change in a manner which could influence the extent of health impact risks. There is no mention of odour or nuisance and no specified size of the buffer zone. There are no provisions made to minimise the impacts of the landfill in the buffer zone or restrict future inappropriate development within the area. It should be noted that no Air modelling was undertaken for the proposed height increase application Cell 7 development or the relocation of the flare. Boundary noise monitoring is proposed as part of the expansion monitoring, however this is not currently being undertaken. The current air quality impacts will continue and be amplified by poor site management (lack of cover etc) and the additional waste on site as a result of the development of Cell 7 and the expansion should it occur.

59


7.7 Economic and Social issues The social and economic issues have been dealt with in detail in the specialist Urban Econ review report and will therefore not be repeated in detail here. The findings of the report can be summarised as:

• At the moment, 52% of the LVIP land is developed. In the last 18 months, no new deals on the sale of land or development of properties have been made due to the uncertainty about the future of the CLS operations. The approval of the CLS extended lifespan will further reduce the attractiveness of the LVIP and delay the developments by at least three years. While the 2021 CLS closure scenario projects the development of the LVIP to reach 100% by 2027, with the CLS operation beyond 2021, it will reach its full development potential only in 2030.

• The delays in the development of the LVIP would reduce the property value of the LVIP by R317 million, or 12% of its potential value, should the CLS not close in 2021.

• The economy of the CoE and the Province will also lose R2 252 million in GDP (2019 prices) and R940 million in household income (2019 prices).

• An opportunity to create 9 162 FTE employment, of which 2 084 person-years would have been created at the LVIP, would also be lost with the extended operations of the CLS beyond 2021.

• Aside from economy-wide impacts, the potential extension of the CLS operations would also be associated with the loss of R5 408 million of revenue for the CoE that could be earned through property rates and taxes. This equates to almost an entire year of the CoE revenue from property rates or 15.1% of the total city’s budget.

• With the potential losses mentioned above, the ability of the local government to achieve its developmental objectives related to re-industrialisation would be significantly delayed. The loss of opportunities could translate into other areas – outside the CoE – which would further jeopardise the local government’s agenda. More specifically: o The continued operations of the CLS pose a threat to the achievement of government’s

vision for the Chloorkop Industrial Area and specifically the successful development of the LVIP as one of the Mega Projects for the CoE, which are “of critical importance in building the City of Ekurhuleni as envisaged in GDS, IDP, MSDF and CIF” (City of Ekurhuleni, 2019).

o Simultaneously, with the release of the set targets, the continuous expansion and operation of landfill sites could “reduce” the urgency to act and jeopardise the achievement of the ambitious waste diversion targets set in the 2019 Revised and Updated Draft Waste Management Strategy for South Africa.

7.8 Site Design The engineering design situation has been explored by Jon Pass of Wilson Pass and Associates. He has produced a separate report with his findings. He found several shortcomings in the information provided for the proposed expansion, such as stability, lack of detailed water balance, detail on capping. He has concerns around the nature and timing of the final capping, liner interface etc with the existing site prior to commencement of the expansion. Without capping, or interim capping between the existing CLS and new cell interface ongoing and increased pollution will occur. He also states that the use of a PVC bladder for the leachate storage is of concern as leachate storage areas should be lined the same way as the landfill. There is also no defined criteria for ‘contaminated stormwater’. The inadequacy of the original low performance clay liner is noted with regard to its suitability to have more waste placed on it. This has particular relevance to the authorisation of Cell 7 and the portions of the expansion which will overly the existing landfill. The engineer notes the further risk of groundwater pollution as a result of placing more waste over this liner.

60


7.9 Socio-economics/Waste pickers The Site operating permit states: Waste disposed of on the site may be reclaimed. The reclamation activity shall not interfere with the daily operational activities of the site. The November 2015 audit report (carried out by Dr D Baldwin) stated that although attempts are made to minimise the impacts of the waste recovery activity, it still interferes with the operations of the site and is a major cause of wind-blown litter. The BAR includes Appendix 18: Chloorkop Landfill Waste Reclamation Plan - Proposed Formalisation of the Waste Reclamation Activities at the Chloorkop Landfill Site. Besides this appendix, waste picking / reclamation is not dealt with in the Basic Assessment Report. EnviroServ state that the plan is the finalised plan although titled ‘Proposed’. Several provisions of the Plan are not currently complied with on the site, and there is no evidence that the plan is audited either internally or as part of the external audit. The administrative provisions of the plan were not audited as part of this review process, however it was clear on site that the plan is not adequately implemented, for example: EnviroServ intends to construct a covered waste separation station at the CLS which will give unhindered access to reclaimers where waste can be sorted under controlled conditions. This has not been done. Reclaimed waste may not be stored on site for longer than 24 hours. Reclaimed bags at the working face after 16.00pm will be landfilled. This does not take place. The expansion EMPr makes reference to compliance with the Waste Reclamation Plan, but compliance is not currently achieved.

Photograph showing the lack of planning and organisation of recycling activities.

61


Photograph showing state of the recycling area

The 2016 Operational Plan makes reference to the waste pickers as follows – acknowledging that there are significant operational challenges with having the pickers on the site:

There is no reference to the reclamation plan. EnviroServ stated that the pickers are allowed 1 hour to pick through the newly deposited waste before it is covered.

62


A Toolbox Talk presented to the pickers by EnviroServ states:

It can clearly be seen therefore that there is contradiction between all of the operational documentation with regard to the picking operations, and this must result in confusion and operational challenges. Certainly compliance cannot be achieved with all of the varying documents.

Photograph showing recycled waste on the 22 January 2020. Clearly this is not removed or

landfilled on a daily basis (this area is approximately 6000m2 in size). The extensive storage area for recyclables on site is untidy, prevents cover from being placed in this area, represents a fire risk, is unsightly and will attract pests and other disease vectors.

63


Photograph showing the main working area on the 22nd January 2020 – no evidence of soil

‘beam’or barriers separating the waste pickers from the working area. It is clear that the Authorisation requirements which state that the reclamation activities may not interfere with the daily operational activities of the site are not complied with. (Site Permit 5.6, Cell 4 Authorisation Clause 3.2.12). The Reclamation management plan was required to be submitted to the Department for approval within 60 days of the Cell 4 Approval (Clause 3.2.12). No evidence was provided by EnviroServ to prove that this clause was complied with.

7.10 Water Quality Issues Water Quality Issues associated with the current status of the site and the proposed expansion in the Geomeasure Group Report (Ground water) undertaken as part of this assessment, together with the Surface Water, Wetland and Aquatic review Reports. The findings of those reports can be summarised as follows; Groundwater:

• Off-site boreholes located in the hydrocensus are not being monitored to determine if impacts are moving off site.

• The full range of determinants are not being monitored. Only annual monitoring is conducted, and monitoring should occur twice a year.

• The groundwater trend graphs show increasing trends in EC and COD concentrations. The trends are also evident in the up-gradient boreholes.

• The shallow and deep aquifers show impacts most likely as a result of landfill activities, since the impacts are seen in the vicinity of the leachate and stormwater dams (boreholes CHL07-42S and D), as well as in the down-gradient boreholes CHL16-49S and D and borehole CHL04-40S and D.

• An assessment of the historical leachate dam show an overall slight decrease in the EC concentrations, whilst there is an in the COD concentrations. The presence of EC is an indicator of pollution.

• An assessment of the historical subsoil seepage shows an overall increase in the EC concentrations, whilst the COD concentrations have remained fairly stable. The presence of COD is an indicator of pollution.

64


• An assessment of the historical Stormwater Dam B shows an overall slight decrease in both the EC and COD concentrations over time is noted. The levels still indicate the presence of pollution.

• An assessment of the historical Stormwater Dam C shows an overall increase in both the EC and COD concentrations.

• A piper plot was compiled to assess any impacts from the leachate on the groundwater and surface water, using the June 2018 monitoring results. The close proximity of the Leachate Dam (Leach Dam) sample and the Subsoil Seepage from Cell 1, 2 and 3 (Cell 1,2,3) sample suggests that the subsoil drain may have been impacted by leachate. The plotting of some of the down-gradient boreholes, namely CHL07-42S, CHL07-42D, CHL12-47S, CHL12-47D, CHL06-41D, CHL16-49S, CHL16-49D and CHL09-46D, in the “stagnant water” quadrant shows groundwater impacts.

• There is ongoing groundwater pollution. The fact that various parts of the landfill have not been capped as required and are currently being landfilled and not being covered daily with soil, as is required by the permit, is a concern as this increases the chance of contaminated runoff as well as increased infiltration. It is only capping that will cease the ongoing pollution.

Surface water, Aquatic Biotica and wetlands • No sampling of off site surface water has been done during the operation of the CLS. • Only one sampling event was undertaken for the BAR- the sampling shows elevated levels of

contaminants. • The surface water report in the BAR indicates significant elevated levels of determinates showing

that contaminated water may beescaping from the site. The system is not operating as a closed system.

• Mn concentrations exceeded both the RWQO guideline limit of 0.15 mg/L and the SANS 241 2015 guideline limit of 0.40 mg/L at offsite location Chloor WQ2.

• Other inorganic constituents that were highly elevated at both offsite and onsite locations included: Total dissolved solids (TDS), Chloride (Cl), Sulfate (SO4), Boron (B), Nitrate (NO3),Ammonia (N), Lead (Pb),Ortho-Phosphate (PO4) and Sodium (Na).

• At Chloor WQ2 traces of the following organic constituents were noted: Total Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected and exceeded the Dutch Intervention guideline limit of 600 μg/L. Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons were detected and exceeded the Dutch Intervention guideline limit of 0.05 μg/L.

• At Chloor WQ3 traces of the following organic constituents were noted: Total Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected and exceeded the Dutch Intervention guideline limit of 600 μg/L. Volatile halogenated hydrocarbons were detected and exceeded the USEPA guideline limit of 0.17 μg/L.

• As potentially one of the major pollution sources within this catchment (and as identified by DWS 2017), the more likely source of the contamination would be the CLS.

• The Aquatics report highlights that nitrates and orthophosphate concentrations exceeded Target Water Quality Requirements for Aquatic Ecosystems (DWAF 1996) - EC, inorganic nitrogen, orthophosphate, chloride, sulphate, sodium, and E.coli all exceeded the RWQOs. This suggests eutrophication which may be linked to a sewer pipe leaking - the same pipe into which industrial effluent is discharged.

• There has been little consideration given to the fact that the site is in close proximity to a number of wetlands, the closest being with 230 metres of Cell 7.

65


The site Operations Manual states that the site will have three drainage systems for water management on site:

However, currently, there is only one system as there is no cleanwater cutoff around the site (EnviroServ claims that this is not necessary) and the dirty stormwater dam has been removed to accommodate the construction of Cell 7. These issues will lead to challenges with water pollution and management on an ongoing basis. The 2016 Operations Manual states that water from the pollution control dams can be used for dust suppression on the unpaved roads (not limited to the lined landfill area). There is no mention of the quality of the water being tested prior to use. If the water is contaminated, this will result in off site surface water pollution. Obviously this does not currently apply as the stormwater control dam has been removed.

7.10.1 Audit Findings

The site inspection generated the following findings in regard to water management on site: • The dirty/clean water separation system is not adequately maintained, and polluted water will

be leaving the site (clear evidence of overtopping of the V drain along the road on the Marsala side of the site)

• Poor maintenance of clean and dirty water drains. • Silt deposition in clean water drains • Cutoff berm along the western edge of the waste not siled and vegetated resulting in

contamination running onto the ‘clean’ area • Erosion in the rehabilitated areas resulting in siltation • No regular monitoring of any off site surface water • No monitoring of ‘clean’ runoff leaving site • No formal contingency plan for leachate in the event of dam overtopping • Levels on the leachate dam appear to show past levels higher than the permitted freeboard • Two of the contaminated water management ponds have been removed for the construction

of Cell 7 – this presents a concern around dirty water containment capacity • Areas above the offices, below the V drain (which reportedly indicates the edge of the lined

area) had waste on them.

66


Photograph showing poor state of ‘clean’ stormwater cutoff drain close to Cell 7 construction

area

Photograph showing waste lying on the ‘clean’ side of the V drain

67


Photograph showing vegetation in a water channel, a road has been constructed across the

bottom of the channel. This is a ‘cleanwater’ channel on the western side of the site.

Photograph showing poor maintenance of the V drain (dirty water collection)

68


Photograph showing erosion where water has overtopped the V drain and run into the

adjacent ‘clean’ area

Photograph showing cover material stockpile - no containment or erosion control in place

69


Photograph showing the last remaining leachate dam. The spillway has silt/vegetation in it and

the leachate levels have clearly been much higher in the past.

Photograph showing poor maintenance of cutoff V drain

70


Photograph showing silt and vegetation in the V drain

The Height expansion decision required that there must be a mitigation plan to address the source of the groundwater pollution. When asked about this in the audit – EnviroServ stated that Jones and Wagener were still investigating, however, the August 2019 internal audit notes that this clause is ‘Not Applicable’’. See below:

Non compliances relating to water management on the site include:

• Water quality and legal discharge - Site permit Clause 3.9 • Water Monitoring - Site permit Clause 6 • Clean water diversion – Cells 5 and 6 Authorisation Clause 1.39

7.10.2 Non compliances in terms of the BAR EMPr which currently apply

The EMPr requires the following provisions in terms of water management – the provisions listed below are not currently complied with on the site:

• The outer berms of the non operational areas will be vegetated where practicably possible. • Progressive rehabilitation, in terms of appropriate capping designs, will be implemented over

completed areas of the waste body • The side slopes of the waste cells will be developed and operated to ensure that they remain

stable and without erosion • Exposed areas, soil stockpiles and rehabilitated areas will be protected from erosion • Stormwater controls will be implemented and maintained on a continuous basis for all areas

of the site to: o Divert clean water away from the site and o Drain and contain potentially contaminated storm water within the containment

structures at the site. • Drains for clean stormwater will be

o Maintained to be functional and free from obstructions

71


• All areas of the site, outside the lined waste disposal cells and where wastes are handled, will have an impermeable base and infrastructure to direct storm water runoff to containment facilities

• Contaminated storm water drains will be: o Sized for the estimated maximum precipitation rainfall events o Appropriately lined o Constructed of durable materials o Maintained to be functional and free of obstructions. o EnviroServ will maintain a dynamic climatic water balance for the site to demonstrate,

on a monthly basis, that the site has adequate storage capacity for contaminated stormwater and leachate.

With regard to the last point - there is a Water Balance calculation summary in the Surface Water Specialist Study Final Report ref (Report No.: JW090/19/6007-24 - Rev 1) but does not provide some detail such as the contaminated stormwater and leachate volumes need during the operational phase and justify the sizing of the containments proposed (several of 450m3 for leachate and 9 506m3 for stormwater) The limit assumptions on the open waste area (the “working face”) and an example of the actual calculations are not included. The other non compliances are presented under the Audit findings in 7.9.1 and illustrated in the photographs.

• If contamination of off site surface water is detected by monitoring, investigate and implement measures to prevent further release. No investigations have been undertaken with regard to the pollution identified during the expansion studies.

• Emergency overflow from the leachate containment works will be directed to a contaminated

stormwater dam - no provision currently made for overtopping.

• If contamination of groundwater is detected by monitoring, investigate and implement measures to capture contaminated groundwater before it can reach sensitive receptors. Groundwater contamination has been identified for a number of years, however EnviroServ stated in the audit that Jones and Wagener are still investigating the possible causes.

It should also be noted that the Hydrogeological investigation undertaken for the Expansion project is modelled based on calculated background levels. The report states: ‘The numerical model should be updated during operation of the CLS Northern Expansion by using the measured seepage volumes, water levels and drilling and pump test information to re-calibrate and refine the impact prediction.’

7.11 Monitoring Committee The Monitoring Committee has a Terms of Reference. These were reviewed and the following comments are made: • Membership includes representatives from relevant state, provincial, regional government

departments: there is no mention of local government. It also includes representation from the permit holder and the relevant I&APs.

• The quorate requirement is only one representative from the permit holder (EnviroServ) and any community representative: this is not as per the Minimum Requirements. A quorate should include one representative from the permit holder (EnviroServ), one representative from government and one I&AP.

72


The 2016 Operations Manual states:

The monitoring committee does not have representation from the majority of these stakeholders and routine communication does not include circulation of documentation for scrutiny and comments. April 2015 Ekurhuleni Metro present

• EnviroServ admitted to challenges with traffic pressure due to load volumes. • Fence between the landfill and Lords View had been repaired. • Issue regarding windblown litter was raised by Lords View.

June 2015 Ekurhuleni Metro present

• EnviroServ admitted to challenges with windblown litter and noise. • Various traffic related issues were raised.

September 2015 Ekurhuleni Metro present

• EnviroServ admitted to challenges with windblown litter. • It was noted that stormwater berms had been upgraded on the neighbouring property.

November 2015 No Authorities present. Auditor not present, no audit report presented.

• It was noted that the height extension had been refused and that the site therefore only had sufficient airspace for about 6 months.

• Audit issues related to o Windblown litter and storage of reclaimed waste on the site plateau o Groundwater impact from the historical recycling activities decreasing o Gas probe results showing elevated methane levels, but the flow levels are very low

(although the concentrations were relatively high) o Air quality results were awaited

• EnviroServ admitted to challenges with windblown litter. There was no section for Community Issues raised.

73


May 2016 Department of Environmental Affairs present

• EnviroServ announced the successful appeal against the rejection of the height extension • Eddie Horn (EH) - Laser Transport noted that they had been told that the site would be closed

by the time they moved in and that the company would benefit from the Waste to Energy Project (which is no longer going to happen).

• EH wanted to know if they could appeal the revised decision as they are concerned about visual impact, bird flocking, odours and security.

• EH asked how long the life of the site would be extended by as a result of the height increase. EnviroServ responded that it would be ‘not less than 3 years and up to 5 years or longer’.

• EnviroServ confirmed that there would be no night operations and that landfill gas emissions at the site boundary would be monitored on a regular basis.

• EH queried the methane levels, EnviroServ responded that the flow rates were very low, that landfill gas was being extracted and flared, that air quality monitoring reports were routinely submitted to the Authorities and that the Auditor would comment on air quality issues at the next meeting. There is no mention in the minutes of the following meeting to indicate that this took place.

• EnviroServ stated that the waste reclaimers were well controlled on the site. They stated that the numbers had been reduced due to limited airspace and that this would remain the same going forward.

There was no section for Community Issues raised. November 2016 No Authorities present, no auditor present, no discussion of audit.

• Deon Smith (DS) from Lazer Transport complained of significant odours. • DS stated that he and his staff are concerned about health impacts of the air pollution, some

staff were already complaining of headaches and sinus attacks. • Facilitator asked to be provided with the latest Air Quality Report for distribution to the

Committee. There is no indication in any of the minutes that this took place.

• It was suggested that the Report could also be given to an independent health risk expert for review. There is no evidence to show that this was followed through.

• Facilitator proposed that EnviroServ offer Lazer personnel a site tour. • Fence between Lords View and the site had been re-instated. • Windblown litter was cleared daily. • Discussions were held with regard to the current height of the site, as DS tabled a letter stating

that the landfill was already 32m above ground level on the northern boundary. There was no section for Community Issues raised. May 2017 Auditor present. No Authorities present, no discussion of audit.

• The Air Quality Report was to be made available to the Committee. There is no indication in subsequent minutes to indicate that this took place.

• It was decided that the health risk briefing for Lazer personnel was not required. It is not clear who made this decision.

• DS requested that a special effort was made to clear litter and exposed tyres from the western landfill face.

• EnviroServ confirmed that the permit for the height extension specified that the site must close when the additional 800 0003 waste had been deposited or 5 years from August 2016, whichever occurred first.

No minutes provided for November 2017

74


May 2018 Auditor present. No Authorities present

• Two incidents on site (no detail provided) It should be noted that specific requests were made about incidents in the 2020 audit but these incidents were not mentioned.

• Windblown litter was a problem due to the high winds. • Estimated airspace completion – August 2021 • DS noted that they were no longer concerned about health impacts but were still experiencing

odours • Geozone presented the work undertaken on Air Quality Monitoring

o Geozone stated that they would like to have 5-6 monitoring stations but were unable to due to the price.

o Monitor impact on the neighbours o Monitor compounds including benzene, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur o They report quarterly

• The Auditor commented that the water monitoring report was not yet available. • The Auditor made a few general statements about site compliance (presumably his 2017 Audit

Report). There was no section for Community Issues raised. November 2018 Attendance not listed on the minutes – reference to an attached register (not available)

• Enviroserv stated that high volumes of waste being received could result in the site being full before the expected time.

• EnviroServ stated that they have a shortage of soil for cover material and daily cover was not being implemented.

• It was agreed that a letter should be sent to the Authorities requesting that they attend the meetings (no information on which Authorities were to be approached). There is no evidence provided that this was undertaken.

• One odour complaint had been received. • High traffic volumes were noted. • The issue of schoolchildren breaking the fences to access the site during school holidays was

raised. • A presentation was given on the Air Quality Report. Benzene levels were high, but this was

ascribed to the high traffic volumes and ammonia levels were high on the northern side of the site.

• The Auditor presented his (presumably 2018) report – he noted that he was still awaiting the water monitoring report.

May 2019 Attendance not listed on the minutes – reference to an attached register (not available). However the auditor was noted as absent.

• EnviroServ stated that they had approximately 9 months of airspace available, that the cover issue had been resolved and the issues relating to compaction and cover was ‘almost fully addressed’.

• A query was raised with regard to the rehabilitation plan, EnviroServ stated that there is a plan but it will only be implemented when the site is full.

• There was one odour complaint in December 2018. A second odour complaint was received but EnviroServ believe that it is not related to the landfill.

• Klipfontein Sands had complained about aesthetics – EnviroServ stated that this was due to lack of cover material.

November 2019 Attendance not listed on the minutes – reference to an attached register. No authorities were present.

• LVPOA queried the quorum, and EnviroServ stated that the terms of reference only require the permit holder and one community representative as a quorum.

• GDARD have stated that they do not have resources to attend monitoring meetings. • There was a discussion around airspace and Cell 7 (this was extremely brief according to Mr

Roets, not as presented in the minutes).

75


• EnviroServ stated that there are groundwater boreholes and gas probes around the site and stated that vehicles are being directed to enable a clean up of Marsala Road. They stated that they are spraying Posi-shell onto the site every afternoon to reduce litter.

• There was one odour complaint in the audit period. • Four dust buckets have been installed. • A brief presentation was given with regard to air quality monitoring undertaken and it was stated

that there is no requirement by the permit holder to undertake ambient monitoring. • Full compliance was reported in terms of the external audit. • Klipfontein Sands had complained about aesthetics – EnviroServ stated that this was due to

lack of cover material.

It should be noted that the audit report was not sent to the Committee members prior to the meeting in spite of requests by members of the committee, nor was it available at the meeting. Mr A Roets of LVPOA stated in a statement under oath that he requested information about the proposed expansion in the meeting and Mr N Brink of EnviroServ stated that this was not an operational issue and would therefore be dealt with separately by SLR. Mr Roets also noted that questions from the community about the specialist reports presented at the meeting were not entertained in the meeting. This is in contravention of permit conditions and the Minimum Requirements. The minutes incorrectly reflect what was stated in respect of Cell 7. The status of Cell 7 development remained unclear. NB: The auditor never has the water monitoring report – in spite of the fact that he uses the previous years report in his audit. Transparency and communication appear to be sub-optimal in these interactions. The issue of windblown litter has been raised consistently for the last 5 years, with no apparent resolution. Visual impacts and odour and the birds were first raised in 2016 and these issues have not been resolved, in fact the situation appears to have deteriorated in the last few years. Authorities do not attend the meetings and there is no evidence that any effort has been made to encourage them to attend the meetings or even provide feedback on the audit reports etc. Issues do not appear to be followed through from one meeting to the next or followed up between meetings, if they are, no evidence or documentation is provided to the members. Key issues such as the development of Cell 7 and the site expansion have not been raised at the meetings and key reports are not circulated to the Monitoring Committee for review. EnviroServ are non compliant with the Site Permit clause 5.1 which requires compliance with the Minimum Requirements.

8 KEY FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS AUDITS

8.1 Internal Audits Four internal audits were reviewed as part of this process. These were dated February, May, August and November 2019. In the February audit there was one partial compliance (Clause 6.1.2 with regard to methane and CO2 concentrations recorded by several probes) but no non compliances were recorded. Several non compliances were noted in the May report – Clauses 6.1.2 and 6.1.4 with regard to methane and CO2 concentrations recorded by several probes. No notification was sent to the Director as required. The audit is silent on the matter of the distribution of the Minutes of the meeting held on the 29 May 2019.

76


The annual air quality report had not been submitted to the Department, and it appears that only particulate monitoring had been undertaken. Clause 5.4 - Moveable fences is noted as compliant, when in fact EnviroServ does not use moveable fences. This was noted as an observation in the February Audit. It has been marked as Not Applicable in the August and November audits. No evidence of how these issues are being addressed was seen. The concentration exceedances in the LFG probes was raised as a non compliance in the August and November audits. The audit states that a letter was sent to the Department in this regard on the 10th May 2019. The audits state that there is a landscaping plan as required in terms of Clause 3.1.16 of the Height Extension Authorisation. However, the Landscaping plan provided by EnviroServ is dated 2 January 2020. The internal audits do not include an assessment of compliance with the EMPr or the LFG EMPr.

8.2 External Audits Annual external audits were reviewed from November 2014 to September 2019.

8.2.1 Historical findings

Table 1 Historical non compliances

Audit Date Undertaken by Number of partial compliances

Number of non compliances

November 2014 D Baldwin 2 0 November 2015 D Baldwin 5 0 October 2016 Dorean Environmental

Services 2 0

September 2017 Dorean Environmental Services

0 0


0 0


1 0

Table 2 Findings and Actions in Previous External Audits Clause number

Clause Finding Action taken

November 2014 Permit 5.4 The Permit Holder shall

make use of moveable fences to control wind-blown waste.

Mobile fences are not used. A request for a permit amendment was made.

Permit 5.6 Waste disposed of on the site may be reclaimed. The reclamation activity shall not interfere with the daily operational activities on the site.

The pickers interfere with the operations on site, increasing wind blown waste and litter by the increase in open area.

November 2015 Permit 4.5 The Permit Holder shall

ensure effective access control.

The entrance and exit to the site is currently crowded and is leading to some delays in processing of vehicles.

77


Permit 5.3 The Permit Holder shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Site is operated in a manner which shall prevent the creation of nuisance conditions or health

Dust control was adequate at the time of the audit with the water cart being used on dry areas, as required. But note that PM10 sampling during November/December 2014 showed significant levels of dust above the standards

Permit 5.4 The Permit Holder shall make use of moveable fences to control wind-blown waste.

Mobile fences are not used. A request for a permit amendment was made.

Permit 5.6 Waste disposed of on the site may be reclaimed. The reclamation activity shall not interfere with the daily operational activities on the site.

The pickers interfere with the operations on site, increasing wind blown waste and litter by the increase in open area.

Permit 6.1.2

The concentration, by volume in air at Standard Temperature and Pressure, of flammable gas and carbon dioxide shall not exceed 1% and 0.5% respectively in gas monitoring boreholes or other monitoring devices surrounding the waste body within the Site.

A number of probes exceed the permitted concentration limits for methane and carbon dioxide but the rates of release are very low.

October 2016 Report refers to 2 partial compliances, but the summary tables and report show none. Non compliance with Permit 6.1.2 stated as full compliance Assume no mobile fences but this is not mentioned. Report refers to and appends July 2015 Jones and Wagener Water Quality Report (over 1 year out of date by the time of the audit). No reference to an air quality monitoring report but states full compliance. Reference to the Geozone report – this is only LFG monitoring in the probes. September 2017 Non compliance with Permit 6.1.2 stated as full compliance Assume no mobile fences but this is not mentioned. Report refers to and appends July 2016 Jones and Wagener Water Quality Report (over 1 year out of date by the time of the audit). No reference to an air quality monitoring report but states full compliance. Reference to the Geozone report – this is only LFG monitoring in the probes. September 2018 Report refers to, but does not append, or discuss the findings of the Jones and Wagener July 2017 report. Mention is made of the lack of mobile fences but this is stated as full compliance.

78


Non- compliance at 5.4 stated as full compliance in respect of soil cover. The minutes of the monitoring committee states for the same period that there was no cover from November 2018, and that there was an odour complaint (two non-compliances) Non-compliance at 5.8 stated as full compliance- no reporting to GDARD of no soil cover. Non-compliance at 6.4 stated as full compliance- the monitoring committee is not functioning as per the Minimum Requirements- no quorum, no authorities Misrepresentation at 6.5 water quality- noted as full compliance with elevated readings. Non compliance at 8.5- keeping working face to a minimum. Non compliance at 9.1- minimising smell- no daily cover to effect this. Non compliance at 9.6 with reference to the landscaping plan. Non-compliance with Permit 6.1.2 stated as full compliance. No reference to an air quality monitoring report but states full compliance. Reference to the Geozone report – this is only LFG monitoring in the probes. This list is not exhaustive, and is indicative of the shortfalls in previous and subsequent audits. There are potentially 10 partial or non-compliances, or at least instances where the shortcomings should be noted, Yet the audit notes full compliance. September 2019 The non compliance is not referenced in the summary tables of findings. Report states compliance with the buffer zone provisions. Report refers to, but does not append, the Jones and Wagener July 2018 report. Mention is made of the lack of mobile fences but this is stated as full compliance. Non compliance with Permit 6.1.2 stated as full compliance No reference to an air quality monitoring report but states full compliance. Reference to the Geozone report – this is only LFG monitoring in the probes. Cell 5 and 6 EA

1.19 states that the results of all monitoring undertaken onsite must be compiled into a single report and submitted to the Department Bi-annually.

Condition 1.19 contradicts condition 3.2.26 of the Authorization for Cell 4 which require annual reporting. Currently it is done annually so the site is not compliant with this specific requirement.

Authorisation needs to be varied in order align with the other authorizations and the permit.

79


8.2.2 Audit Compliance

Extract from the Environmental Authorisation for Cells 5 and 6 dated 2008:

There is no evidence in any of the audit reports that the provisions of the EMPr have been audited in any detail, although all audits indicate compliance. It is clear from the audit undertaken by Metamorphosis that there are ongoing non compliances with the provisions of the various Authorisations, as well as the EMPr but these are not noted in any internal or external site audits. As mentioned previously, these audit mention non compliances but then award 100% compliance for the site. The discussions with regard to the findings of the monitoring undertaken are insufficiently detailed and many of the monitoring reports are not mentioned in the audit. There is no discussion of ambient air quality monitoring in the audit reports – but this is referred to in the Air Impact Assessment undertaken by Airshed for the expansion project. The audit reports do not include detailed discussion of the monitoring reports or append these reports, this significantly reduces the ability of a reviewer to assess the performance of the site. The audit makes reference to compliance with the provisions of the Landfill Gas RoD, but the detailed reporting required in terms of flare efficiency, breakdowns etc is not summarised or included in the audits.

In terms of the Expansion EMPR, EnviroServ commits to, in the audits ‘provide verifiable findings on the level of performance against, and compliance with, the WML and EMPr and the adequacy of the EMPr actions to provide for the avoidance, management and mitigation of environmental impacts associated with the undertaking of the activity’ The current audits do not comply with this provision, indicating that future compliance cannot be guaranteed. EnviroServ is also required, in terms of the Expansion EMPr, to submit the external audit report to the relevant authorities and the Monitoring Committee. EnviroServ stated at the audit that they make a copy of the audit available at the site for interested parties to review. This does not comply with the requirements of the EMPr. The audits do not comply with Clause 3.2.29 of the Cell 4 Authorisation or Clause 1.24 of the Cell 5 and 6 Authorisation. The audits are repetitive and do not identify inter alia ongoing pollution, non compliances or trends as required.

80


9 COMMENTS AND FINDINGS

It was found that the documentation in place for the operation of the EnviroServ Chloorkop landfill was, in general adequate for the operation of a GLB- landfill site. EnviroServ has an ISO14001 system in place on the site and most activities are governed by procedures and management plans. There were however gaps identified and some information which was not provided for this audit. The specialists used for the specialist reports were generally recognised in their fields. Some issues were evident in the BAR with regard to the main report not necessarily reflecting all of the data in the specialist reports and their being some inconsistencies between the specialist reports and BAR. The EMPr associated with the BAR is deemed to be lacking in detail with regard to specific management activities to be undertaken, and this will make auditing and proof of compliance difficult. The main findings in this report relate to the lack of implementation of conditions of permits, the various environmental management documents and procedures available on the site. The findings point to many instances of mismanagement on the site. The findings also point to inadequate measures in place to prevent pollution which measures will continue to be relied upon for the expansion and operation of cell 7. There is evidence of water pollution on and around the site. The groundwater pollution can be attributed to the landfill activities. The surface water monitoring is inadequate to determine the trends, however the Surface water report and the reviews indicate that the landfill could be one source of contamination. Visual impacts are significant, as a result of the height increase, the extent of the working face and working methodology, lack of planting and screening as well as the lack of soil cover on the site. The plateau and working face have not been kept to a minimum as required by the permits. LFG levels in the monitoring probes have exceeded limits for over 5 years, and ambient air quality monitoring and dust monitoring have only been initiated recently. No dust monitoring information is yet available and the first ambient air quality monitoring indicates both health and odour impacts. Housekeeping on the site is poor, erosion is evident, the re-vegetated areas are not maintained and have large bare areas, there is alien vegetation on site and no landscaping or screening (with the exception of some Acacia trees along Marsala Road in 2012) has been undertaken on the site. No daily soil cover has been implemented in approximately 18 monhts. The waste pickers operate under several different management procedures and do not comply with the key requirements (removal of waste on a daily basis, keeping the working area tidy etc). The internal and external audits do not include the provisions of the site EMPr in detail or the landfill Gas EMPr. There are non compliances with the permits, but these are avoided or ignored in the audits and the audits and monitoring reports are not always supplied to the monitoring committee, making meaningful engagement impossible. It has been shown in this report that the Impact management outcomes for Visual impacts and Land use, Groundwater, and Air as specified in the EMPr are not currently being realised.

81


Taken from the 2016 SLR Chloorkop Landfill EMPr: Affected aspect Standard to be achieved Groundwater To prevent groundwater pollution Air To ensure that any pollutants emitted as a result

of the site operations remain within acceptable limits so as to prevent health related impacts To limit occupational health and safety gaseous and particulate levels within specified regulatory parameters

Visual To limit the perception of visual intrusion of the on site activities where reasonably possible

Land use To co-exist with existing land uses and to prevent unacceptable impacts on adjacent land users. To minimise nuisance factors and communicate frequently with affected stakeholders to ensure that they have information about activities that will generate nuisance factors.

There is insufficient evidence to establish whether the Surface Water, Dust and Noise provisions are being met. The objectives of the Expansion EMPr are similar to the current EMPr, and currently, compliance is not achieved with the desired outcomes for Biodiversity, Water and Aquatics, Air Quality and Public Health, Public Nuisance, Visual, Local Aesthetics or Stakeholders. Only two of the proposed environmental outcomes could currently be considered to be achieved, these are Public Safety and Socio-economics (relating only to the waste pickers), due to the wording of the objectives which are quite specific and limited. EnviroServ cannot therefore be considered to be adequately implementing their proposed environmental management activities currently and this is resulting in significant environmental issues, and social, economic and nuisance impacts on their neighbours. It seems highly unlikely that this situation would change should the expansion be approved, when the area of the landfill will increase and the volume of waste on the site will increase significantly. This will generate significant cumulative impacts associated inter alia with air pollution, visual impact and increased impact on water quality in the short and long term.

Vicki King PrSciNat, LLM, BSc. Disclaimer Please note that this assessment was based upon the information supplied by Lord’s View Property Association and EnviroServ at the time of the audit. The assessment involved an overview of the site activities and review of a sample of the statements provided by the Company. The report reflects the opinions of the consultant (who is not an attorney and cannot therefore provide legal opinion) based on information reviewed. The report cannot be considered to incorporate every legal provision and the consultant may not be liable for any loss or damage (consequential or otherwise) resulting from any incorrect information or interpretation in this report.

to: Metamorphosis Environmental Consultants by: Wilson & Pass Inc PROPOSED CHLOORKOP LANDFILL NORTHERN EXPANSION : EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING ASPECTS –

01 February 2020 page 1 of 8

PROPOSED CHLOORKOP LANDFILL NORTHERN EXPANSION

EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING ASPECTS: Design Concept Report Land

This evaluation has been made from the information provided and, at this stage, without communication with any of the designers or authors. This report summarises the aspects seen as marginal or possibly missing subjects in the reporting and requiring clarification.

Subject Position summary Assessment & recommendation

Height increase approval

Approved with 10/08/16 by Gauteng ARD with specific conditions including water monitoring and rehabilitation. 3.1.13 and 3.1.14 require that this be done with a “double dimple cuspate composite within the soil cover”. This is a requirement to mitigate leakage through the “low performance clay only liner and leachate collection system” noted in the DWS letter dated 2014/10/08 and 13.. The approval (and DWS requirements) requires that this must be implemented by August 2021, or when the airspace is depleted, due to pollution issues. The SLR Updated Environmental Management Programme (752.05018.00011 Report No. 1 dated August 2016) states that “The plateau must be shaped to 1v:10h and capped with a soil cover incorporating a double dimpled cuspated composite drain” on p18.

There is no evidence that this capping condition has been adhered to or implemented, or that closure has been applied for. Notwithstanding the expansion application the side slopes and plateau should be capped, as per an approved capping design. In the event of the expansion being approved the areas into which the expansion will be integrated should be covered with at least an interim lining system. Approval of Cell 7 should be conditional on the balance of the site being capped, or a “piggyback” liner installed under Cell 7 in order that pollution through the existing liner is limited.

The leachate pipes (and drainage system) should be installed before any waste is placed in the height extension in order to facilitate drainage of the leachate from well above the existing liner in order to limit pollution through this liner.




Cell 7 From the J& W report JW130/19/6007-21 - Rev 0 dated September 2019 and for the proposed Northern Expansion, Cell 7 as being in “ the design approval stage” The report notes that its development will require a new leachate tank to be built (J&W Drg 6007-12-005).

Placement of Cell 7 waste essentially on the original and marginally adequate (refer DWS letters) liner, risks further pollution of the groundwater. There is no indication as to how the loss of the leachate dam, and the contaminated stormwater dam, will be mitigated until the new ones are constructed, or calculation to show that the new and proposed containment structures will be adequate. There is no detail of the liner system for Cell 7. There is no detail of the implications of it covering leachate and stormwater dam. The capping recommended by Gauteng GRD, DWS, J&W and SLR should be implemented as required by the height extension permit to limit the leachate leaking through the original marginal liner system. Should any further development be contemplated, the capping should be implemented prior to this. Cell 7 is shown in the sections as being developed on a slope. The stability of this development needs to be assessed, particularly if any elevated leachate levels could develop.



Cell 7 is proposed to be landfilled (and presumably capped) at a maximum final level of 1652m. Proposed waste in Cell 3 of the Northern Expansion will be placed over part of Cell 7 (extract as shown from J&W Drg 6007-12-004)) and extend to the same elevation (1652m).




Existing liner Waste placement in Phase 1A of Cell 1 (of the proposed Northern Expansion) also appears to extend south across and above the existing Cell 4 of the CLS landfill west of Cell 7 (J&W Drg. Drg 6007-12-003) although this is not shown in section The DWS comments dated 13 October 2014 indicated that “the site is generating pollution of the groundwater” (Gauteng GRD Amendment to permit dated 31/08/2015). The DWS letter dated 2014/10/08 refers to existing lining as “low performance clay only liner and leachate collection system”.

The design of the lining for the expansion outside of the present landfilling area is considered adequate for the base of the cell However, placement of cells 1,2 and 3 for the proposed expansion and cell 7 is essentially on existing waste which is on the original and marginally adequate (refer DWS letters) liner. This risks further pollution of the groundwater. The capping recommended by Gauteng GRD, DWS, J&W and SLR should be implemented to limit leachate leakage through the original liner, ideally prior to any additional waste being placed on the existing waste. Until such time that the “pollution issues” are dealt with, waste disposal on the existing lined area should not be allowed.



COMMENT ON THE ENGINEERING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT

Below are comments on the Chloorkop Landfill Northern Expansion Basic Assessment

Engineering Report, Concept Design Report, Report No.: JW130/19/6007-21 - Rev 0 dated September 2019 by Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants.

The project will be assessed by DWS for technical design compliance.

The lining system proposed is assessed as satisfactory for a Class B landfill and a possible alternative is also detailed.

Specific sections commented on are summarised below:


Stability Section A J&W Drg 6007-12-004 indicates that Cell 1 is to be positioned with a relatively steeply sloping base and at least part of the Cell 2 base is also sloping. The stability aspects of the lining system and the waste body are not addressed in any detail in the report.

Based on the slopes proposed, the stability of the site, the lining system and the waste has not been evaluated under varying liquid levels and the possibility of seismic events..

Contaminated Stormwater / Leachate

The report (JW090/19/6007-24 - Rev 0) for the contaminated storm water dam is referenced but is not available. This design report (Section 1.2.8) assumes that a permit will be in place to pump “industrial effluent” and “contaminated storm water” to municipal sewer from the landfill development. No permit is actually in place at this time. There is a Water Balance calculation summary in the Surface Water Specialist Study Final Report ref (Report No.: JW090/19/6007-24 - Rev 1) but does not provide detail such as the contaminated stormwater and leachate volumes during the operational phase and justify the sizing of the containments proposed (several of 450m3 for leachate and 9 506m3 for stormwater). The limit assumptions on the open waste area (the “working face”) and the actual calculations are not included. It has been “assumed that the area south of the Cell 7 development has been fully rehabilitated and that the storm water runoff from these areas is diverted to the clean storm water systems” (p18 of the J&W report)

The criteria for contaminated stormwater is not defined. A permit to pump contaminated stormwater to the municipal sewer is needed, ideally before any work that will generate such stormwater is continued. There is no detailed Water Balance calculation that is needed to justify the sizing of the contaminated stormwater and leachate containments. The size of the “working face” where waste is disposed of as used in the water balance calculations should be stated. The assumptions made around areas that will be capped need to be stated, the capping detail approved by the regulatory authorities and capping construction undertaken before further development is allowed. This is needed to validate the assumptions in the report.




It is assumed that by the time the CSWD is required, the original landfill area (Cell 1 to 7; the eastern side of CLS is fully rehabilitated, p18 of the J&W report) has been “rehabilitated” and only Phase 1A Cells have exposed waste areas providing a catchment for the contaminated stormwater. The detail of the “rehabilitation” is assumed to be the “Capping Details” provided by J&W Drg No.’s 6007-08-003 and 004, Rev B. It would seem that this capping system should be completely approved by the regulatory authority and constructed before the assumptions for the contaminated stormwater system sizing are valid, and before expansion of the landfill is considered, The “Final Capping Details” shown on Drg 004 for the side slopes and plateau areas incorporate a cap layer of 300mm thickness of clay. The available guidelines, the Minimum Requirements, indicate that a 450mm thick cap layer is required.

Leachate Storage

No detail as to how any landfill leachate collected in the three proposed new 450m3 capacity lined tank will be managed could be located in the report. As above, calculations and assumptions for the sizing of the leachate storage tanks was not located in the documentation assessed. The 1997 Operational Plan by J&W does not provide details of the area of the exposed waste. The leachate storage tank/s is/are proposed to be lined with a PVC bladder (ref section 1.2.9). This would appear marginally adequate and it is usually taken that a leachate storage facility should be lined in the same way as the landfill (i.e. with a Class B liner having an HDPE geomembrane but excluding the leachate drainage layer).

A detailed Water Balance calculation needs to be provided to justify the sizing of the contaminated stormwater and leachate containments. The size of the “working face” where waste is disposed of as used in the water balance calculations needs to be stated. The use of a PVC bladder for leachate containment has not been justified in terms of performance when subjected to the leachate chemicals. HDPE may be a more suitable lining.




Leak detection There is no mention of leak detection survey (Electrical Leak Location) being specified for the HDPE geomembrane liner after construction. This is an omission, particularly noting the sensitive nature of the proposed development.

Electrical Leak Location is not specified for the HDPE geomembrane liner.

CQA The design report and lining specification would usually incorporate a Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) plan but there is no mention of this in the report.

A CQA plan has not been provided for assessment.

Detail of interface with ex lining

Phase 1A of the Northern Expansion proposed will interface with the existing lining of Cells 4, 5 and the proposed Cell 7. The detail of the interface with the lining systems is not provided to be assessed. This interface does have the potential to be a source of leakage through the lining system.

No detail for the interface is provided.

Gas extraction The site has an active gas extraction system (Section 1.3.2.3) and the report indicates that horizontal gas wells are proposed to be extended into the northern expansion Phase 1A Cell 1, 2 and 3 at 10m spacing. This extension should reduce odour risk from high to medium.

Temperature The service life of geosynthetic materials, specifically the HDPE geomembrane liner when subjected to possible elevated temperatures under a landfill where “general waste”, (Type 2 Waste) is addressed relatively comprehensively. But the report indicates that “elevated temperatures” below the waste are not anticipated.

The assumption that elevated temperatures below the waste will not occur seems contrary to experience and published details and should possibly be re-evaluated. A typical reference is “On – Line Measurements of Temperature of Landfill Liners and Waste in Landfill Cells by L Moodley, J McCall, L J Strachan & A J Bowers where temperatures approaching 50ºC were recorded by thermocouples under municipal solid waste.



Subject Position summary Assessment & recommendation No temperature monitoring has been undertaken but it is proposed for Cell 7.

COMMENT ON THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

The geotechnical investigation report titled Chloorkop Expansion, Landfill Site Expansion

Geotechnical Investigation, Report No.: 6007-23-19-JW070 – Rev 1 dated May 2019 by Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants provides recommendations for specific aspects of the landfill construction.

The report details the investigation, results, analysis, and recommendations for the specific aspects of the landfill development considered.

It is considered an omission from the report that the stability of the underlying soils, both the natural materials, and when the landfill is constructed, is not addressed. The extent of the earthworks is not clear from the information provided.

Also, the overall and specific suitability of the site as regards the geotechnical conditions and possible flaws (faulting) relating to the proposed landfill development is not dealt with.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Based on the DWS comment in 2013/2014 regarding a “limited drainage barrier of questionable performance” and a “rudimentary leachate collection system without filter” at least some leachate could readily percolate into the groundwater undetected noting that there is no leakage detection system in the original liner. In order to limit pollution, capping of the existing landfill areas not covered by Cell 7 or the expansion proposed, and/ or a “piggyback” liner should be constructed before further waste disposal is undertaken.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 23:27To: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; Neil Brink

Subject: RE: Objection against the Expansion of Chloorkop Landfill, Ekurhuleni Municipality

Good day Aldine I confirm receipt of your email and attached objection letter. I have tried to access Dropbox via the link provided but receive the message in Dropbox that the “folder does not exist”. Please could you check and confirm that the link is accessible. Regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826

[email protected] - SLR Consulting SLR Consulting (Johannesburg office) Suite1 - Building D, Monte Circle 178 Montecasino Boulevard Fourways, Johannesburg, Gauteng, 2191-

Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 02:57 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Neil Brink <[email protected]> Subject: Objection against the Expansion of Chloorkop Landfill, Ekurhuleni Municipality Dear Sir Kindly find the objection to the Expansion of Chloorkop Landfill, Ekurhuleni Municipality in the dropbox link below. For ease of reference I have attached the appeal statement without the annexures. https://www.dropbox.com/home/Chloorkop%20expansion%20objection Kind regards Aldine Armstrong

2

ALDINE ARMSTRONG ATTORNEYS Environmental and Development Law 2 Gowrie Lane, Dunkirk Estate Salt Rock 4420 [email protected] 0828281520

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 23:21To: Rammbuda, Eunice (GPHEALTH)Subject: RE: Complain about Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Eunice Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated.

From: Rammbuda, Eunice (GPHEALTH) <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 12:51 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Complain about Chloorkop Landfill UID09duf63i2bd Good day I am Eunice Rammbuda , from house number 683 Waterfall view Estate. I have been made aware of the land fill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7

2

3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions, the extention will worsen condition( unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution , rodents , dust and litter blown in our direction )

4. This poses a serious health hazard to us , We have constitutional rights to live in an environment that does endanger our health

Regards Ms Eunice Rammbuda Cell:082 944 3617 / 082 610 4768

Disclaimer: The Gauteng Provincial Government does not take responsibility for Gauteng Provincial Government users' personal views. Gauteng Provincial Government services available online at www.gauteng.gov.za - The information contained in this communication from [email protected] sent at 2020-02-06 12:53:36 is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for use by [email protected] and others authorized to receive it. If you are not [email protected] you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Powered by Afrovation.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 23:20To: Lerato ManndeSubject: RE: Fwd:

Good day Lerato Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Lerato Mannde <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 12:49 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd:

Good day, I am (_Lerato Maande__), from (__Waterfall__view/ muskie view) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7

2

3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 14:04To: Zenzile MaphangaSubject: RE: Chloorkop - Landfill - Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust

Good day Zenzile, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Zenzile Maphanga <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 10:51 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]>; Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Cc: Zenzile Maphanga <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop - Landfill - Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust Importance: High Good day, I reside at Waterfall View Estate on Allandale Road. Most of our evenings have turned to be a sticking smuggling experience due to the landfill site in Chloorkop. This is totally unbearable and embarrassing to our visitors because this stink is unpleasant even during the day. This is a health hazard to all of us as a community and kids and schools as well. The 2021 closure extension will bring nothing but discomfort and all this comes with anger and unnecessary reaction may occur from the community. It is within our constitutional right to live in an environment that provides good health and comfort. As a community we edge you to close down this landfill.

Regards, Zenzile Maphanga Business Sales Consultant

T: +27 12 670 4600 M: +27 82 778 1609 ___________________________________________

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:32To: zeldah Tshifhiwa MadibaSubject: RE: Petition

Good day Zeldah, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: zeldah Tshifhiwa Madiba <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 21:17 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]>; Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Petition Good day, I am Zeldah Tshifhiwa Madiba, from Waterfall View Estate , 646 Roller Street, Jukskei View Ext 17 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Zeldah

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Zikona GumedeSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Zikona Gumede <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:51 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (__Zikona Gumede__), from (614 flycatcher street Juskei Waterfall View__) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Zikona Sent from my Huawei Mobile

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:58To: Zweli DlaminiSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Zweli, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Zweli Dlamini <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:23 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I am Zweli Dlamini, from 332 Plover Street, Jukskei View Ext. 17, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health -- Regards Zweli Dlamini Cell: +2783 739 0680

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:12To: [email protected]: vhonani vhonani; [email protected]: RE: Chloorkop landrefill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: vhonani vhonani <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:09 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: vhonani vhonani <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Chloorkop landrefill

Good day, I am Vhonani Mafukaduvha, from stand 150,16 canary street,juskeiview ext 17,midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Warm Regards Vhonani mafukaduvha Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: unita fungileSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: unita fungile <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:24 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill Good day, I am Unita Fungile, from 316 Black Eagle Avenue, Waterfall view, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site is supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions, the extensions will worsen conditions. ( unpleasant

odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health.

Regards, Unita Fungile Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 14:58To: Tintswalo OlgaSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill: An Environmental and Health hazard

Good day Tintswalo, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Tintswalo Olga <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:20 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill: An Environmental and Health hazard Good Morning I trust this e-mail finds you well. I am a resident of Waterfall View Estate at house number 696 and i am hereby object to the expansion of Chloorkop Landfill base on the following: 1. We were not consultant or made aware of the development of cell 7 and as a result our health as communities leaving closer or in the vicinity of the waste disposal sites are at risk. 2. We are living in unpleasant odors, nuisances and air pollution especially in the evenings that is coming from that site. Regards, Tintswalo Mabasa 083 711 6076

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Tryphosa NxumaloSubject: RE: Landfill objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Tryphosa Nxumalo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:51 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill objection Good day, I am (__Tryphosa Nxumalo_), from (_251 Plover street Waterfalview__) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: Tsholofelo NCUBESubject: RE: Landfill site in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Tsholofelo NCUBE <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:15 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site in Chloorkop Good day, I am Tsholofelo Ncube, from Waterfall view estates, Allandale road. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021. 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7. 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction). 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards, T Ncube

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:33To: thato.moipolaiSubject: RE: Landfill site expansion

Good day Thato, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: thato.moipolai <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 21:37 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site expansion Good day, I am Thato Moipolai, from 76 bateleur dr waterfall view midrand I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: Thikhathali MamanyuhaSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Thikhathali Mamanyuha <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:10 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day As a resident of Waterfall view estate Erf 517, I woul like to object with the following reasons: 1.Unpleasant odours 2.Air pollution 3.Dust 4.Litter blown in our direction 5.Nuisances We have a constitutional rights to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards T.E. Mamanyowa.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Thabo MakhoroleSubject: RE: Objection of Landfill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Thabo Makhorole <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 16:45 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection of Landfill site Good day, I am Thabo Samuel Makhorole, from Unit 317 Waterfall View estate, Jukskie view ext 17, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Thabo Makhorole

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: thesh makhambaSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: thesh makhamba <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:21 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (__Thembakazi__), from (__stand 700__) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Sent from my iPhone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Tshepo mafatleSubject: RE: Landfill Objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Tshepo mafatle <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 19:04 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill Objection Oh. Let me send that. Good day, I am Tshepo Mafatle, from 402 Osprey str Waterfall view. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sent from my Huawei Mobile

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Tintswalo Olga <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:20To: Edwynn LouwSubject: Chloorkop Landfill: An Environmental and Health hazardAttachments: Waste 2.jpg; Waste 5.jpg

Good Morning I trust this e-mail finds you well. I am a resident of Waterfall View Estate at house number 696 and i am hereby object to the expansion of Chloorkop Landfill base on the following: 1. We were not consultant or made aware of the development of cell 7 and as a result our health as communities leaving closer or in the vicinity of the waste disposal sites are at risk. 2. We are living in unpleasant odors, nuisances and air pollution especially in the evenings that is coming from that site. Regards, Tintswalo Mabasa 083 711 6076

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:15To: Thato Terry KoenaSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Thato Terry Koena <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 15:19 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Thato Terry Koena , from 535 bateleur street, waterfall view. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Thato

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:22To: Tinyiku Chabalala (GPEDU)Subject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Tinyiku Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Tinyiku Chabalala (GPEDU) <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 09:04 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Chloorkop Landfill UID09duf63i2bd

Good day,

2

I am Tinyiku Chesters Chabalala staying at Waterfall View Estate, House number 112. I have been made aware of landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons : 1. Site was supposed to have been closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021. 2. We had no prior knowledge of development of cell 7. 3. The current side leaves us with unpleasant leaving conditions, and the extension will worsen condition.( Unpleasant odours, Nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust , and litter blown in our direction). 4. We have constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards, Tinyiku Chabalala Mr Assistant Director: IT Support Services Gauteng Department of Education Cell: 0832893571 Hotline: 0800 000 789 I www.education.gpg.gov.za I


1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Tinyiku Chabalala (GPEDU)Cc: Isabel Mawila(GPEDU)Subject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Tinyiku Chabalala (GPEDU) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 16:45 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Isabel Mawila(GPEDU) <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Importance: High UID09duf63i2bd Good day, I am Tinyiku Chesters Chabalala staying at Waterfall View Estate, House number 112. I have been made aware of landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons :

1. Site was supposed to have been closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021. 2. We had no prior knowledge of development of cell 7. 3. The current side leaves us with unpleasant leaving conditions, and the extension will worsen condition.(

Unpleasant odours, Nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust , and litter blown in our direction). 4. We have constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health.

Regards, Tinyiku Chabalala Mr Assistant Director: IT Support Services Gauteng Department of Education Cell: 0832893571 Hotline: 0800 000 789 I www.education.gpg.gov.za I

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:24To: Shela TsoloSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Shela Tsolo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:36 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Shela Tsolo, from 79 Bateleur drive, cnr allandale and kappa, waterfall view. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Shela Tsolo

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Sedie Edith ThebeSubject: RE: Objections towards Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Sedie Edith Thebe <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:42 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objections towards Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I am ( Sedie Thebe), from ( 432 Sunbird street, Waterfall View X17, Allandale road, Midrand ) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sedie Sent from my Huawei Mobile

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:52To: Pam LemmenSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill objection

Good day Siphokazi, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Pam Lemmen <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:07 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill objection Good day, I am Siphokazi Siwela, from 391 Black eagle road, Waterfall view Midrand I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Siphokazi.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Sithole, SiboneloSubject: RE: Chloorkop Dumping site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Sithole, Sibonelo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:19 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Dumping site

Sent from my iPhone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:20To: SandisoSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill - Objection

Good day Sandiso Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Sandiso <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 09:32 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill - Objection Good day, I am Sandiso Radebe from WaterfallView, Unit 643 Bateleur Street, Jukskeiview Ext 18

I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction)

2

4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Sandiso Radebe Sent from Radebeinc

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Samkeloso NgwenyaSubject: RE: Waterfall Juskei View - Objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Samkeloso Ngwenya <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:43 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Waterfall Juskei View - Objection I am Sammy Ngwenya, from Waterfall (Juskei View) Stand 390 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for the expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Sammy Ngwenya Waterfall View ( Juskei View)

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:11To: Thando MsizaCc: [email protected]: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Thando Msiza <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:17 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Chloorkop landfill Good day, I am Siphumelele Thando Msiza, from unit 658, Waterfall view. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021. 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7. 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction). 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards, Siphumelele Thando Msiza 0814672754

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:23To: slindile mkhwanaziSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: slindile mkhwanazi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:32 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Slindile Ndou and love at 295 drongo street, waterfall view ect 17 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:11To: Sfiso MalindiSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Sfiso Malindi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:13 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I am Sifiso Malindi , from ERF 540 Waterfall View Estate . I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Thabo mahlaseSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Thabo mahlase <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 18:07 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Selele Thabo Mahlase, from 761 Batelleur street,Jukskei view,Midrand,1685 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, T Mahlase

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Sejabaledi Keystar Mashitisho (ZA)Subject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Sejabaledi Keystar Mashitisho (ZA) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:20 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day I Sejabaledi Keystar Lerumo from 200 Woodpecker Street, Waterfall View. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021. 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7. 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. The extension will worsen conditions (unpleasant

odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust and litter blown in our direction). 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health.

Regards

Keystar Mashitisho Credit Analyst Commercial Gauteng Region T +27 11 225 8596 Absa: Cnr Christiaan De Wet & Millennium Boulevard: Groud Floor: Building 4: Clearwater Office Park www.absa.africa INTERNAL ONLY

2

( Brave. Passionate. Ready.) CONFIDENTIAL Absa Bank Limited is a subsidiary of Absa Group Limited and is an Authorised Financial Services Provider and Registered Credit Provider, registration number: NCRCP7. Absa Bank Limited provides services to Absa Group Limited and its subsidiaries. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this e-mail or its attachments. Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. We do not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. We may monitor replies to this e-mail for operational or business reasons. Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to our business is personal to the sender and we do not endorse it.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: sophiekkmpeteSubject: RE: Landfill in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: sophiekkmpete <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:48 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill in Chloorkop Good day, I am Sophie, from Waterfall view. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Sophie Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:51To: [email protected]: RE:

Good day Sandy, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Sandy Morgan <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:44 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (Sandy Dube_), from (__555 Batelluer street Waterfall view Estate __) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:20To: Rammusi TsoaiSubject: RE: Objection to extension of Dumping site (Klipfontein)

Good day Rammusi Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Rammusi Tsoai <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 11:01 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to extension of Dumping site (Klipfontein) Hi

I am a resident in waterfall view estate and I am completely against the proposed expansion of the dumping site in Klipfontein because of the following reasons:

1. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions(air pollutions, dust and rodents). 2. We had no prior knowleged of the development of cell 7 3. The current site was supposed to be closed in 2014 and was extended to 2021.

Our health is at risk and we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards

2

Rammusi

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:21To: Rose MadavhaSubject: RE: Objection to landfill site in Chlookop

Good day Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Rose Madavha <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 09:07 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to landfill site in Chlookop Good day, I am Nyawasedza Rose Madavha, from 155 Waterfall View, I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction)

2

4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Rose

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:21To: Persely NtumbaSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill Objection

Good day Persely Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Persely Ntumba <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 09:06 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Chloorkop Landfill Objection

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Persely Ntumba <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020, 17:07 Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Objection To: <[email protected]>

Good day,

2

I am Persely Ntumba, from Unit 610 Waterfall View Estate, Corner Kappa and Allandale Road. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction). The smell is unbearable. 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Persely Ntumba 082 8152 884

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Persely NtumbaSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill Objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Persely Ntumba <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:08 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Objection Good day, I am Persely Ntumba, from Unit 610 Waterfall View Estate, Corner Kappa and Allandale Road. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction). The smell is unbearable. 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Persely Ntumba 082 8152 884

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Palesa Mochochonono <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 14:15To: Edwynn LouwSubject: Objection towards chloorkop landfill

Good day, I am Palesa Mochochonono from waterfall view I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Kind regards Palesa

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:24To: Pesh MangenaSubject: RE: Landfill Site in Chloorkop that has Applied for an Expansion.. . . !

Good day Pesh Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Pesh Mangena <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 08:39 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Landfill Site in Chloorkop that has Applied for an Expansion.. . . ! Good day, I am Pesh Mangena, from 669 Waterfall View, c/n Allandale Rd and Mastiff Rd, Midrand, 1685. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions

2

The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. 5. There’re health risk from the smell coming from the site n this is a serious health hazards to all people living around. Regards, Pesh Mangena

-- BR// Pesh The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the addressee. This email (and any attachments or hyperlinks within it) may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, we hereby notify you that we strictly prohibit any use, disclosure, printing, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete the communication and all copies. -- BR// Pesh The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the addressee. This email (and any attachments or hyperlinks within it) may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, we hereby notify you that we strictly prohibit any use, disclosure, printing, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete the communication and all copies.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:33To: Ntokozo TshabalalaSubject: RE: Landfill stench

Good day Ntokozo, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Ntokozo Tshabalala <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 21:36 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill stench Evening The stench is really unbearable It is a warm evening but we cannot keep our windows open because of this awful stench Regards, Ntokozo Tshabalala

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:34To: Ntokozo TshabalalaSubject: RE: Petition against the expansion of the chloorkop landfill

Good day Ntokozo, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Ntokozo Tshabalala <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 03:46 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Petition against the expansion of the chloorkop landfill Good day, I am Ntokozo Tshabalala from Waterfall View I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unhygienic living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Ntokozo Tshabalala

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:11To: Nthabiseng SeganyeSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Nthabiseng Seganye <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:34 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I (Nthqbiseng Seganye ), from (__339 Waterfall view, 1685__) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Nonhlanhla NkabindeSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Nonhlanhla Nkabinde <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:24 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (__Nonhlanhla Nkabinde __), from (__297 Drongo Street__) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, -- Nonni

Disclaimer

Please Note: This email and its contents are subject to our email legal notice which can be viewed at http://www.sars.gov.za/Pages/Email-disclaimer.aspx

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:24To: [email protected]: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Nkosana Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Nkosana Ngwenya <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 08:28 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I would like to submit a petition from residents of Klipfontein View and Waterfall View Estate. The petition is rejecting the proposed expansion of the Chloorkop Landfill site. We have attached the following: 1. Document outlining the reasons for our objections 2. Signed petition from residents

Regards,

2

Nkosana Ngwenya Waterfall View Estate Resident C: 071 873 8132

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Nthati MokhachaneSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Nthati Mokhachane <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 18:23 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (Nthati Mokhachane), from (__47Waterfall view_) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:15To: Ntebu MailaSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Ntebu Maila <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 15:18 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I am Ntebu Maila, a resident in Waterfall view estate I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Ntebu Maila

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 14:02To: Nompumelelo DlaminiSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Nompumelelo, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Nompumelelo Dlamini <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 10:14 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I am Nompumelelo Dlamini, from 332 Plover Street, Jukskei View Ext. 17, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Nompumelelo Dlamini Computershare Plan Officer> Plan Managers > Investor Services P +27 11 370 5032 (Ext 8217) F +27 11 688 5223 Rosebank Towers 15 Biermann Avenue Rosebank 2196 South Africa PO Box 61051 Marshalltown 2107 South Africa www.computershare.com | CERTAINTY | INGENUITY | ADVANTAGE |

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:34To: [email protected]: RE: Chloorkop Landfill site

Good day Nthabiseng, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Nthabiseng Semono <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 03:58 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill site Good day, I am Nthabiseng Semono Bizure from 534 Bateleur Str Jukskei View. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Nthabiseng Bizure Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Makgabo Van Niekerk <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 11:42To: Edwynn Louw; 'Matthew Hemming'Cc: Esme Gombault; Charmaine Mitchell; Neil Brink; Alison Sparke; Kamohelo LetloleSubject: Final Chloorkop numbers in support of the expansionAttachments: Chloorkop motivation forms - November 2019.xlsx; Letter of support from Bertha

Gxowa.docx

Morning Messrs Louw and Hemming Attached is a spreadsheet with the final verified numbers in support of the Chloorkop expansion. I am also attaching the only letter which I had not forwarded through to you yet and it’s from the Bertha Gxowa Foundation, a stakeholder who does community development work in the area. Regards, Makgabo Van Niekerk Public Affairs Manager t +27 11 456 5400 m +27 82 969 5120 e [email protected]

Customer Care 0800 192 783

This e-mail as well as any files transmitted with it is confidential and may well contain information which is legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby on notice of this status. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, dissemination or publication of the information contained therein is strictly prohibited, unless you have been permitted thereto by the sender, and might be a breach of confidence. If you are not the intended recipient, please return this e-mail immediately to the sender and then delete this message from your system. The sender is not liable for the proper transmission of this information nor for any delay in its receipt. Unauthorized disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

www.berthagxowafoundation.org.za

27 January 2020

To whom it may concern,

SUBJECT: EnviroServ’s Chloorkop expansion permit

Regards,

Living the legacy of Mama Bertha Gxowa through advocacy, continuous community development, women empowerment and service excellence is at the heart of what we do.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: Moloko SibandzeSubject: RE: Land fill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Moloko Sibandze <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:10 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Land fill site Importance: High

Good day, I am (Mabyalwa Sibandze ), from (201, woodpecker street, waterfall view ) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Mokgadi SelepeSubject: RE: Objection of land expansjon

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Mokgadi Selepe <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:00 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection of land expansjon Good day, I am Mokgadi Selepe from 558 Batelleur drive, Juskei View, Midrand, 1682. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Mokgadi

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Glen SeabaSubject: RE: landfill in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Glen Seaba <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:38 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: landfill in Chloorkop Good day, I am Matsobane Glen Seaba, from Waterfall View Estate Erf 740. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Glen

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Matshidiso PhororoSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Matshidiso Phororo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:43 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (__Matshidiso Phororo__), from (__171 Waterfall View Estate, Midrand_) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: mpfuneni InnocentSubject: RE: Objection of the landfill in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: mpfuneni Innocent <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 18:23 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection of the landfill in Chloorkop Good day, I am Mpfuneni Innocent Munyai, from Waterfall view x17. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. The site was supposed to be closed in 2014 and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Mpfuneni Munyai

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:19To: Matabole MothapoSubject: RE: Objection to Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Matabole Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Matabole Mothapo <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 07:32 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to Chloorkop Landfill Hi Matthew Hemming My name is Matabole Mothapo, from Stand no.: 395 Waterfall (Jukskei) View X17, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object the expansion for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. 4. The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction)

2

5. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Kind Regards, Matabole Mothapo

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:11To: Mo MokoenaSubject: RE: Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Mo Mokoena <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:26 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill Good day, I am Monica Mokoena , from no. 448 Waterfall View on Allandale. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards, Monica Mokoena

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Melina Mantsibile MojapeloSubject: RE: Landfill side in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Melina Mantsibile Mojapelo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:30 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill side in Chloorkop Good day, I am Melina Mojapelo, from 690 Fish Eagle Street, Waterfall View, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Melina Mojapelo Sent from my Huawei phone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:35To: Maletsha MasiloSubject: RE: landfill site in Chloorkop

Good day Maletsha Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Maletsha Masilo <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 09:01 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: landfill site in Chloorkop Good day, I am Maletsha Masilo, from 347 Plover street, Jukskei View ext 17, Midrand I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our

2

direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Maletsha Masilo

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:32To: Mpho MasikhwaSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day Mpho, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Mpho Masikhwa <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 21:04 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill Good day I am Mpho Masikhwa, from House# 468 Waterfall View Estate. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. The site was supposed to be closed in 2014 and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Mpho Masikhwa

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: mashudu manndeSubject: RE: Objection to the Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: mashudu mannde <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:08 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to the Landfill Hi,

I am a resident in Jukskeiview(Waterfall view).

The purpose of my email is to indicate my dissatisfaction with regards to the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction). In light of the above, I am hereby rejecting the proposal for the extension as it has some health concern to our family and more especially our Kids who might have a permanent suffering from all this. Regards Mashudu Regards, Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Mpumelelo Richwell MalindaSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Mpumelelo Richwell Malinda <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:25 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Mpumelelo Richwell Malinda, from 69 Bateleur drive Waterfall View / Jukskei View Midrand 1685. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. The site was supposed to be closed in 2014 and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: DocuSign Via DocuSignSubject: RE: Object landfill site in chloorokop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: DocuSign Via DocuSign <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 16:44 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Object landfill site in chloorokop I am matridge mpho khoele from Erf 645 Roller street ext 18 Waterfall view midrand I have been made aware of the landfill site in chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1.Site was supposed to be closed in 2014,and was extended to 2021. 2.we had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7. 3.the current site leaves us with unpleasant odour,dust and nuisances rodents, litter blown in our direction. 4.we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards M.Khoele

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:20To: Mendy KahlariSubject: RE: Landfill site in Chloorkop

Good day Mendy Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Mendy Kahlari <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 09:32 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Landfill site in Chloorkop ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mendy Kahlari <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 at 14:08 Subject: Landfill site in Chloorkop To: <[email protected]>

Good day, I am Angella Kahlari, from House 623 Jukslei View Estate. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion.

2

I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen our living conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

Angella M Kahlari Cell: +27 78 920 0151 Skype: mendy.kahlari1 --

Angella M Kahlari Cell: +27 78 920 0151 Skype: mendy.kahlari1

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:12To: lekgotla MothupiSubject: RE: Landfill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: lekgotla Mothupi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:04 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site Good day, I am LP Mothupi, from 309 Juskei View, Midrand around waterfall area. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions(horrible smell in this hot weather, one can't even open windows at night). The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction). 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health and this is definately in violation of my rights, the air pollution must stop and this company must migrate elsewhere as this is killing us slowly but surely. Regards, LP Mothupi

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: Lerato ManndeSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Lerato Mannde <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:14 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (_Lerato Maande__), from (__Waterfall__view/ muskie view) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Lungile NtumbaSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Lungile Ntumba <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:30 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Lungile Ntumba, from Unit 610 Flycatcher street I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:23To: lisa vuyoSubject: RE: Resident objection

Good day Leonidas Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager - +27 82 940 8274 +27 33 343 5826 [email protected] - SLR Consulting SLR Consulting (Johannesburg office) Suite1 - Building D, Monte Circle 178 Montecasino Boulevard Fourways, Johannesburg, Gauteng, 2191 - Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. -----Original Message----- From: lisa vuyo <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 09:00 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Resident objection

2

I am Leonidas Ndlovu,from 729 Juskei View,Midrand,1682 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Lee NapoSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Napo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 18:49 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill Good day, I am Lehlohonolo Napo from 564 Waterfall View. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards L. Napo

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:36To: Lerato Lee LithekoSubject: RE: Landfill concern

Good day Lerato, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Lerato Lee Litheko <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 07:29 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]>; Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill concern Good day, I am Lerato Maphanga, from Waterfall view Estate I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, L Maphanga

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 23:20To: Lerato ManndeSubject: RE: Fwd:

Good day Lerato Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Lerato Mannde <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 12:49 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd:

Good day, I am (_Lerato Maande__), from (__Waterfall__view/ muskie view) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7

2

3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:41To: Molatelo MaupyeSubject: RE:

Good day Lorraine, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Molatelo Maupye <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:20 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]>; Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (Lorraine Lesesa), from (556 Bateluer street waterfall view) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:34To: Sejabaledi Keystar Mashitisho (ZA)Subject: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day Sejabaledi Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Sejabaledi Keystar Mashitisho (ZA) <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 09:03 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill

Good day

I Sejabaledi Keystar Lerumo from 200 Woodpecker Street, Waterfall View. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021. 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7.

2

3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. The extension will worsen conditions (unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust and litter blown in our direction).

4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Regards Keystar Mashitisho Credit Analyst Commercial Gauteng Region T +27 11 225 8596 Absa: Cnr Christiaan De Wet & Millennium Boulevard: Groud Floor: Building 4: Clearwater Office Park www.absa.africa INTERNAL ONLY

( Brave. Passionate. Ready.) CONFIDENTIAL Absa Bank Limited is a subsidiary of Absa Group Limited and is an Authorised Financial Services Provider and Registered Credit Provider, registration number: NCRCP7. Absa Bank Limited provides services to Absa Group Limited and its subsidiaries. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this e-mail or its attachments. Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. We do not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. We may monitor replies to this e-mail for operational or business reasons. Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to our business is personal to the sender and we do not endorse it.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:18To: Moloko BolokaCc: Lesiba Lesley SetatiSubject: RE: Polluted air irritants

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Moloko Boloka <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:15 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Lesiba Lesley Setati <[email protected]> Subject: Polluted air irritants Oh. Let me send that. Good day, I am Leaiba and Moloko Setati, from 686 swallow str, Waterfallview estate I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:35To: Khona McingaSubject: RE: Chloorkop - Landfill Objection

Good day Khona Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Khona Mcinga <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 08:25 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop - Landfill Objection Good morning, I am Khona Mcinga, from 152 Canary Street, Juskei View, Midrand have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction)

2

4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Khona Mcinga

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:27To: Daddym MahalefaSubject: RE: Landfill dispute

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Daddym Mahalefa <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:47 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill dispute > > I am kealeboga daddy mahalefa, from 535 bateleur street, waterfall view. > > I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. > > I would like to object for the following reasons: > > 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. > We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current > site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will > worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, > rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a > constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger > our health > > Regards > Daddy > > >

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Karabo LegotseSubject: RE: Objection _Landfill Site in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Karabo Legotse <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:19 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection _Landfill Site in Chloorkop Good day, I am Karabo Legotse, from 172 Osprey Street, Jukskei view, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Karabo Legotse

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:15To: Keitumetse MokwenaSubject: RE: Objection to landfill site in Chloorkop expansion

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Keitumetse Mokwena <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 16:27 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to landfill site in Chloorkop expansion Good Afternoon I am Keitumetse Dladla from 483 Ibis Street in Waterfall View. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Keitumetse Dladla

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:15To: MissJ RamushiSubject: RE: Objection for landfill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: MissJ Ramushi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 16:08 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection for landfill site Good day, I am Johanna, from Jukskei/Waterfall View. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Johanna

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:24To: Jonas NdouSubject: RE: Landfill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Jonas Ndou <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:35 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site Good day, I am Jonas Ndou full from 295 Drongo Street I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:14To: Jacqueline ModibaneSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Jacqueline Modibane <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:29 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Oh. Let me send that. Good day, I am (_Jacqueline Modibane _), from (247 Plover street, Waterfall View _). I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,acqueline Modibane P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: Johanna LetsatsiSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Johanna Letsatsi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 18:15 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (Johanna Letsatsi ), from (561 Bateleur drive, Waterfall View ) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:12To: JENNIFER DIEDRICKSSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: JENNIFER DIEDRICKS <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:41 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill objection ood day, I am Jennifer Diedricks, from 619 Waterfall view Estate , Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. I have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger my health. Regards, Jennifer

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: itumeleng manneCc: Itumeleng ManneSubject: RE: Objection of Landfill site in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: itumeleng manne <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 16:51 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Itumeleng Manne <[email protected]> Subject: Objection of Landfill site in Chloorkop Good day, I am Itumeleng Manne from house no 345, Fish Eagle street, Waterfall View Estate. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to OBJECT for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger health. Kindly assist. Thank you Regards

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:23To: [email protected]: RE: Landfill site

Good day Itumeleng Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 05 February 2020 08:54 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site Importance: High

Good day, I am Itumeleng Kekana from Waterfall View estate erf 138. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons:

2

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Itumeleng Sent from my Huawei phone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:18To: [email protected]: RE: Landfill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:23 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site Importance: High Oh. Let me send that. Good day, I am Itumeleng Kekana from Waterfall View estate erf 138. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Itumeleng Sent from my Huawei phone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: Maphanga, JabsileSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Maphanga, Jabsile <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:18 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day I am Happygirl Maphanga, from 738 Drongo str Juskei View,midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for expansion . I would like to object for the following reason. 1.Site was supposed to be closed in 2014 ,and was extended to 2021. 2.We had no prior knowledge of the developmentof cell 07 3.The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. The extension will worsen condition.(Unpleasant odours , nuisances ,air pollution, rodents ,dust and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. Kind Regards ***************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose the e-mail or any part of its contents or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please e-mail the sender by replying to this message. All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail and the sender cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. If you regard this message as spam, please inform us immediately by sending an email to [email protected]. *****************************************************************************

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:34To: Glen SeabaSubject: RE: landfill in Chloorkop

Good day Glen Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Glen Seaba <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 09:24 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: landfill in Chloorkop Good day, I am Matsobane Glen Seaba, from Waterfall View Estate Erf 740.

I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction)

2

4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Glen

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:18To: Fatima Petunia malulekeSubject: RE: Objection to Landfill site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Fatima Petunia maluleke <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 19:35 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to Landfill site Good day, I am Fatima Petunia Maluleke , from house number 588 ,2 chat street in Jukskei view , Midrand . I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, -- Kind Regards Fatima Petunia Maluleke 078 834 5578

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:36To: Masindi ThangavhueleloSubject: RE:

Good day Elemunah, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Masindi Thangavhuelelo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:22 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (Elemunah Thangavhuelelo __), from (103 Juskei view. Bateleur street .midrand 1672 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sent from my iPhone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:15To: Rammbuda, Eunice (GPHEALTH)Subject: RE: Complain about Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Rammbuda, Eunice (GPHEALTH) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 15:47 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Complain about Chloorkop Landfill UID09duf63i2bd Good day I am Eunice Rammbuda , from house number 683 Waterfall view Estate. I have been made aware of the land fill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions, the extention will worsen condition( unpleasant

odours, nuisances, air pollution , rodents , dust and litter blown in our direction ) 4. This poses a serious health hazard to us , We have constitutional rights to live in an environment that does

endanger our health Regards Ms Eunice Rammbuda Cell:082 944 3617 / 082 610 4768

Disclaimer: The Gauteng Provincial Government does not take responsibility for Gauteng Provincial Government users' personal views. Gauteng Provincial

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 23:21To: Rammbuda, Eunice (GPHEALTH)Subject: RE: Complain about Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Eunice Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Rammbuda, Eunice (GPHEALTH) <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 12:51 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Complain about Chloorkop Landfill UID09duf63i2bd Good day

I am Eunice Rammbuda , from house number 683 Waterfall view Estate. I have been made aware of the land fill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7

2

3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions, the extention will worsen condition( unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution , rodents , dust and litter blown in our direction )

4. This poses a serious health hazard to us , We have constitutional rights to live in an environment that does endanger our health

Regards Ms Eunice Rammbuda Cell:082 944 3617 / 082 610 4768


1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:11To: Mmoloke Egar MokonyaneSubject: RE: Objection of a landfill site in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Mmoloke Egar Mokonyane <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:14 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Objection of a landfill site in Chloorkop Good day, I am Egar Mokonyane, from Unit 458 Bunting street, Ext 17 Waterfallview, Midrand). I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, -- Mmoloke Egar Mokonyane 33 Fifty Pty Ltd Cell 1: 083 760 7254 Cell 2: 078 877 7817 Fax mail: 086 511 4906 email: [email protected]

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:35To: Dani MofokengSubject: RE:

Good day Danisile, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Dani Mofokeng <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 06:20 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am Danisile Mofokeng, from Waterfallview Estate I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sent from my Huawei phone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:16To: Dzunisani GlorySubject: RE: Request for extension of site objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Dzunisani Glory <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 17:08 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Request for extension of site objection Good day, I am Dzunisani Glory Khosa, from House number 67 Bateleur Dr, Waterfall View I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Kind Regards, Dzunisani Glory Khosa Cell: 0782831668

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:17To: CAROLINE RASEROKASubject: RE: Opposition to Chloorkop landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: CAROLINE RASEROKA <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 18:50 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Chloorkop landfill Good day, I am Caroline Raseroka, from 671 Lourie street Waterfall complex (Jukskei complex) Midrand I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:11To: Cate Maluleke (MEA)Subject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Cate Maluleke (MEA) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:30 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, I am Cate Maluleke of Waterall View Estate Erf 156 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Thank You Kind Regards Cate Maluleke This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer: "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer"

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:28To: Barbara RadiseSubject: RE: Landfill objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Barbara Radise <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:50 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill objection Good day, I am (Barbara Radise__), from (746 Sandpiper Road Waterfall View) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:52To: [email protected]: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day Boward, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 08:49 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, As a resident of Waterfall View Estate Erf 407, I hereby object to the approval of the expansion of the Chloorkop Landfill due to the following reasons:

1. The frequent odor that is emitted from the site, rodent infestation, dust, litter blown our direction. 2. Site was supposed to have been closed in 2014, but was extended to 2021 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant leaving conditions and the expansion with worsen this. 4. It is our constitutional right to live in a healthy environment.

Regards,

DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately. If you are not the named addressee you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or its attachments. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Vukheta Risk Services (Pty) Ltd. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses or malicious code as Vukheta Risk Services (Pty) Ltd accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Vukheta Risk Services (Pty) Ltd accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed by Vukheta Risk Services (Pty) Ltd in writing.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:15To: ALLWIN SegooaSubject: RE: Concerned Citizen

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: ALLWIN Segooa <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 15:36 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Concerned Citizen Good day, I am (Allwin Segooa), from (Waterfall view/Jukskei View). I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Allwin

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 09:35To: Cleopatra Khona McingaSubject: RE: Chloorkop - Landfill Objection

Good day Aphelele Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: Cleopatra Khona Mcinga <[email protected]> Sent: 06 February 2020 08:45 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop - Landfill Objection Good day, I am Aphelele Mcinga, from 152 Canary Street, Juskei View, Midrand have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction)

2

4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Aphelele Mcinga

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:12To: Amanda OlwethuSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Amanda Olwethu <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 13:39 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Oh. Let me send that. I am (Amanda Xatalaza Mashilo, 726 Lark Street Waterfall View Ext 17 Midrand I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Mashilo

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:13To: Anie GxowaSubject: RE:

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Anie Gxowa <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:16 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Good day, I am (__Anela Kgowa__), from (__268 waterfall view midrand 1686__) I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sent from my Huawei phone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:12To: Mendy KahlariSubject: RE: Landfill site in Chloorkop

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Mendy Kahlari <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:08 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill site in Chloorkop Good day, I am Angella Kahlari, from House 623 Jukslei View Estate. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen our living conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

Angella M Kahlari Cell: +27 78 920 0151 Skype: mendy.kahlari1

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 13:12To: [email protected]: RE: CHLOORKOP LANDFILL

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 14:02 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: CHLOORKOP LANDFILL Afternoon I am AMOS CHOMA from 98 BATELEUR STREET WATERFALL VIEW ESTATE ERF 407 . I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons:

1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014 and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions the extensions will worse conditions. (unpleasant

odours , nuisances , air pollution, rodents , dust and litter blown in our directions) 4. We have a constitution right to live in environment that does not endanger our health

Kind regards AMOS CHOMA

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: Thuli NdebeleSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Thuli Ndebele <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:16 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, I am Thulisile Ndebele), from (285 Waterfall View). I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards,

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: SandisoSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill Site

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: Sandiso <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:13 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Site Good day, I am Sandiso Radebe from WaterfallView, Unit 643 Bateleur Street, Jukskeiview Ext 18 I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Sandiso Radebe Sent from Radebeinc

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: Pesh MangenaSubject: RE: Landfill Site in Chloorkop that has Applied for an Expansion.

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Pesh Mangena <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:33 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Landfill Site in Chloorkop that has Applied for an Expansion. Good day, I am Pesh Mangena, from 669 Waterfall View, c/n Allandale Rd and Mastiff Rd, Midrand, 1685. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health. 5. There’re health risk from the smell coming from the site n this is a serious health hazards to all people living around. Regards, Pesh Mangena

-- BR// Pesh The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the addressee. This email (and any attachments or hyperlinks within it) may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, we hereby notify you that we strictly prohibit any use, disclosure, printing, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete the communication and all copies.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Nkosana Ngwenya <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 20:28To: Matthew HemmingSubject: Chloorkop LandfillAttachments: Notes_200205_201405_e91.pdf

Good day, I would like to submit a petition from residents of Klipfontein View and Waterfall View Estate. The petition is rejecting the proposed expansion of the Chloorkop Landfill site. We have attached the following: 1. Document outlining the reasons for our objections 2. Signed petition from residents

Regards, Nkosana Ngwenya Waterfall View Estate Resident C: 071 873 8132

OObjection: Expansion of Chloorkop landfill site

Please see the below reasons, and not limited to, as the reasons for us objecting to theexpansion of the Chloorkop Landfill Site.

-The residents have been told for many years that the site would initially close in 2014 , and thenin 2021. We were promised that it would be closed and revegetated resulting in a more pleasantenvironment.

-It has also come to our attention that a further cell on the existing site, Cell 7, has beenapproved and is being developed. The community has no knowledge of this.

- The expansion will continue resulting in, and add to, very unpleasant living conditions withunacceptable odours, nuisances, air pollution, dust, water pollution and windblown litterand uncontrolled litter being spread around and throughout our community as a result of theproximity of the Landfill site.

- It contravenes our constitutional right to be able to live in an environment that is not harmful toour health oor well-being.

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 10:03To: [email protected]: RE: Further docsAttachments: DWAFapprovalFLF1998.pdf

Good day Aldine I attach a 1998 DWAF letter from the original approval that specifies the “reference elevation” used to assess the height of the Chloorkop Landfill Site. EnviroServ does not have a copy of the DHSWS letter to GDARD for the Cell 7 designs. As indicated this is an internal ROD between the Departments.

Kind regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 26 January 2020 11:44 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Further docs Hi Mtthew Please provide documentation relating to the reference elevation from the first permit. I am still waiting for the DWS letters for Cell 7 and the expansion. Kind regards Aldine Armstrong ALDINE ARMSTRONG ATTORNEYS

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Friday, 31 January 2020 16:27To: [email protected]; Neil BrinkSubject: RE: cell & and Outstanding docsAttachments: 2019-09-17_Chloorkop Expansion Pre-app meeting with DWS.pdf; 2019-09-17

_Attendance Register DWS Pre-app meeting.pdf

Good day Aldine Cell 7 responses are detailed in my previous email. I attach a copy of the presentation made to the DHSWS at the pre-application meeting for the Chloorkop Expansion Project. As previously indicated the DHSWS personnel indicated to us at the meeting that 1) they are not licensing disposal facilities as the NEM:WA provides that the DHSWS must approve designs (cell and SW dams) and the NWA provides for dispensing with licensing if the water resource is protected by other permits. 2) The project was likely to require authorisation for c and i uses as it is located within the ‘regulated area of a watercourse’. The risk assessment indicated low risks and thus the GA could likely be applied. The DHSWS personnel promised written confirmation of the DHSWS position, but despite multiple follow ups, we are yet to receive this. EnviroServ maintains a closure provision for the Chloorkop site in their books of account. The volumes of leachate from the CLS are recorded monthly and reported to the GDARD quarterly. Temperature monitoring is not done. Regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 24 January 2020 10:18 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: cell & and Outstanding docs

2

Hi Matthew Hopefully getting to last requests I urgently need the DHSWS letter in support of Cell 7, and the expansion project. Was a presentation made to DWS in respect of the expansion. If so please send, or advise where I can find it. I also need details of the rehabilitation fund for the closure of the site. The permit for cell 4 refers to a bank gurantee and not just a provisions in the books of account. Are the leachate temperatures and actual volumes of leachate being removed being reported to the Director General on a quarterly basis- sorry, you may have answered this before. Kind regards Aldine Armstrong ALDINE ARMSTRONG ATTORNEYS Environmental and Development Law 2 Gowrie Lane, Dunkirk Estate Salt Rock 4420 [email protected] 0828281520

•

•

•

••

••

•

••

••

•

•

•

•

••

–

•––––

•

••••••

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•–

•

•

–•

•

•

•

•

•••

•

•

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:46To: Matabole MothapoSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Matabole Mothapo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:05 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Good day, My name is Matabole Mothapo, from Stand no.: 395 Waterfall (Jukskei) View X17, Midrand. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object the expansion for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions. The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. We have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Kind Regards, Matabole Mothapo

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: masingita manganyiSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: masingita manganyi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:14 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill Good day, I am Masingita Manganyi from 323 waterfall view estate. I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Masingita Manganyi 0740318325

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 11:35To: Martin Tlhantshu MakintaSubject: RE: Opposition of landfill

Good morning Martin, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Martin Tlhantshu Makinta <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 09:09 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition of landfill Hi Edwynn As the owner and resident of Waterfall view, i would like to add to the concerns raised about the landfill near our residence. This is a high health risk not just for us at Waterfall view but all surrounding areas such Klipwfontein. I am sending you an email as your email address was shared with resistants to pursue the opposition of this landfill. Thanks Martin

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: Onkgopotse Leonard LetsatsiSubject: RE: Landfill Site expansion

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Onkgopotse Leonard Letsatsi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:19 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Landfill Site expansion

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:46To: Koena PhahoSubject: RE: Chloorkop landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Koena Phaho <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:00 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop landfill Good day, I am (Mmakoena Malven Phaho), from (Jukskiew View estate Midrand ). I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Mmakoena Phaho

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: Khona McingaSubject: RE: Chloorkop - Landfill Objection

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. From: Khona Mcinga <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:17 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop - Landfill Objection Good day, I am Khona Mcinga, from 152 Canary Street, Juskei View, Midrand have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen conditions. (Unpleasant odors, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards Khona Mcinga

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Edwynn LouwSent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:47To: [email protected]: Mfundo khumaloSubject: RE: Chloorkop Landfill

Good day, Thank you for your comment. This will be included with the Basic Assessment Report that will be submitted to the GDARD for decision-making. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 05 February 2020 12:32 To: Edwynn Louw <[email protected]> Cc: Mfundo khumalo <[email protected]> Subject: Chloorkop Landfill Oh. Let me send that. Good day, I am (Amanda & Mfundo Khumalo ), from (559 Waterfall View Estate). I have been made aware of the landfill site in Chloorkop that has applied for an expansion. I would like to object for the following reasons: 1. Site was supposed to be closed in 2014, and was extended to 2021 2. We had no prior knowledge of the development of cell 7 3. The current site leaves us with unpleasant living conditions The extension will worsen coditions. (Unpleasant odours, nuisances, air pollution, rodents, dust, and litter blown in our direction) 4. we have a constitutional right to live in an environment that does not endanger our health Regards, Sent from my iPhone

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Tuesday, 04 February 2020 20:31To: [email protected]: RE: Cell 7

Good day Aldine Designs for Cell 6 have not been provided as the Chloorkop Expansion would not connect to Cell 6 (nor would Cells 1, 2 , 3). Regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 30 January 2020 02:59 PM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Cell 7 Thanks Matthew- I also don’t seem to have the designs for cell 6. Kind regards Aldine Armstrong ALDINE ARMSTRONG ATTORNEYS Environmental and Development Law 2 Gowrie Lane, Dunkirk Estate Salt Rock 4420 [email protected] 0828281520

2

From: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2020 14:54 To: [email protected]; Neil Brink <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Cell 7 Good day Aldine SLR was not involved in the Cell 7 process. As far as I know there was not any public participation as the application was in terms of the Condition 3.3 of the Permit. From my understanding the Cell 7 ‘application’ was the JAWs cover letter and design report as provided in the MFT. I will follow up with EnviroServ to see if there was an actual application form. Similarly, I will follow up for the DHSWS letter. Although that is an internal ROD between GDARD and DHSWS. This is generally not provided to applicants. Regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 28 January 2020 03:10 PM To: Neil Brink <[email protected]>; Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: Cell 7 Kindly advise if any public participation was done for Cell 7, and the details. Please supply the actual application. I am still waiting for the DWS letter of July 2019 in support of the application. Kind regards Aldine Armstrong

ALDINE ARMSTRONG ATTORNEYS Environmental and Development Law 2 Gowrie Lane, Dunkirk Estate Salt Rock 4420

1

Edwynn Louw

From: Matthew HemmingSent: Friday, 31 January 2020 16:27To: [email protected]; Neil BrinkSubject: RE: cell & and Outstanding docsAttachments: 2019-09-17_Chloorkop Expansion Pre-app meeting with DWS.pdf; 2019-09-17

_Attendance Register DWS Pre-app meeting.pdf

Good day Aldine Cell 7 responses are detailed in my previous email. I attach a copy of the presentation made to the DHSWS at the pre-application meeting for the Chloorkop Expansion Project. As previously indicated the DHSWS personnel indicated to us at the meeting that 1) they are not licensing disposal facilities as the NEM:WA provides that the DHSWS must approve designs (cell and SW dams) and the NWA provides for dispensing with licensing if the water resource is protected by other permits. 2) The project was likely to require authorisation for c and i uses as it is located within the ‘regulated area of a watercourse’. The risk assessment indicated low risks and thus the GA could likely be applied. The DHSWS personnel promised written confirmation of the DHSWS position, but despite multiple follow ups, we are yet to receive this. EnviroServ maintains a closure provision for the Chloorkop site in their books of account. The volumes of leachate from the CLS are recorded monthly and reported to the GDARD quarterly. Temperature monitoring is not done. Regards Matthew Hemming African ESIA Technical Discipline Manager-

+27 82 940 8274

+27 33 343 5826


Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 24 January 2020 10:18 AM To: Matthew Hemming <[email protected]> Subject: cell & and Outstanding docs

2

Hi Matthew Hopefully getting to last requests I urgently need the DHSWS letter in support of Cell 7, and the expansion project. Was a presentation made to DWS in respect of the expansion. If so please send, or advise where I can find it. I also need details of the rehabilitation fund for the closure of the site. The permit for cell 4 refers to a bank gurantee and not just a provisions in the books of account. Are the leachate temperatures and actual volumes of leachate being removed being reported to the Director General on a quarterly basis- sorry, you may have answered this before. Kind regards Aldine Armstrong ALDINE ARMSTRONG ATTORNEYS Environmental and Development Law 2 Gowrie Lane, Dunkirk Estate Salt Rock 4420 [email protected] 0828281520

•

•

•

••

••

•

••

••

•

•

•

•

Documents

Microsoft Outlook - Memo Style - Amazon Web Services