FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za

August 2010Authorisation PhaseENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTASSESSMENTExtension with theview of Closure ofthe Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site,VanderbijlparkGDARD REF NO: GAUT 002/08-09/N0152Proponent: Emfuleni Local MunicipalityFINAL ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORTProject 8848

August 2010 ii 8848Overview of the Proposed ProjectEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe main purpose of this project is to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) and a WasteLicense for the proposed extension with view of closure for the Boitshepi Waste DisposalSite. The site is reaching capacity and as such needs to be extended and ultimately closed.The ELM has appointed Zitholele Consulting, an independent company, to undertake theaforementioned processes.The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed to meet thewaste disposal needs for the area. Kwezi V3 Engineers (KV3) in association with MasakheIsizwe Engineers (Pty) Ltd were appointed by the ELM on 12 February 2008 (3 yearcontract) to site, obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB + waste disposal site inthe ELM. Once operational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.Purpose of this ReportThis report constitutes the Final EIR, a key component of the EIA Process for the proposedextension with the view of closure, of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, in Vanderbijlpark.The report addresses the requirements for the Impact Assessment Phase for the EIA asoutlined in the National Environmental Management Act, (NEMA) (No 107 of 1998) EIAregulations. The aim of this Final EIR is to:• Provide information to the authorities as well as Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs)on the proposed project;• Provide information regarding alternatives that are being considered;• Indicate how I&APs have been afforded the opportunity to contribute to the project, verifythat the issues they have raised to date have been considered;• Describe the baseline receiving environment;• Provide information on the assessing and ranking of the alternatives;• Provide proposed mitigation measures in order to minimise negative impacts andenhance positive impacts; and• Present the findings of the Impact Assessment Phase in a manner that facilitatesdecision-making by the relevant authorities.Environmental Impact Assessment ProcessAn EIA for the proposed extension with the view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste DisposalSite is being undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations promulgated in terms ofSection 24 (5) of the NEMA.To ensure effective public participation in the EIA phase, the Public Participation Process(PPP) was implemented in stages. This process included the identification of, andZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 iii 8848consultation with all relevant stakeholders, as well as ongoing communication andnetworking with I&APs throughout the duration of the project. Issues and concerns raisedduring the process were compiled in an Issues and Response Report (IRR), and includedwithin the Scoping Report, and this Final EIR.Alternatives ConsideredThree different design alternatives were considered in the Scoping phase of the project(2008). The three alternatives were as follows:• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone(no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The site will havean additional 3,651,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan ofapproximately 9 years;• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone.The site would gain an extra 3,006,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan ofapproximately 7-8 years; and• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone.An addition of 1,140,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional lifeof the waste would be approximately 3 years.The EIA for the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site was initiated in January 2007. Theproject has been on-going for almost three years and throughout this period waste has beenand continues to be disposed of at Boitshepi. As a result some of the information that hasbeen provided in earlier phases of this project is outdated and no longer applicable,therefore certain capacity and lifespan calculations are no longer correct and out byapproximately two years and required re-evaluation.The approval letter received from the GDARD from the Scoping Phase stated thatAlternative 3 (100 metre buffer) was the preferred alternative, and at that stage alternative 3would allow for an additional 3 years airspace. This is no longer the situation and the threealternatives have been re-evaluated as follows:• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone(no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users), the site will havean additional 3,221,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan ofapproximately 8 years;• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zoneThe site would gain an extra 2,576,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan ofapproximately 6-7 years; and• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone.An addition of 710,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life ofthe waste would be approximately 1-2 years.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 vi 8848LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSB -B +BBEEBIDCCARACECOCMDEAEIREMPSRDWADWEAEEAEAdEAPEECECAECOEIAELMEMEMCEMPENPATGGAAGDARDGISWater deficit climate, resulting in only sporadic leachate generationWater surplus climate, resulting in significant leachate generationClimatic water balance measured in millimetersBlack Economic EmpowermentBackground Information DocumentCommunal Waste Disposal SiteConservation of Agricultural Resources ActContractor Environmental Control OfficerContract ManagerDepartment of Environmental AffairsEnvironmental Impact ReportEnvironmental Management PlanScoping ReportDepartment of Water AffairsDepartment of Water and Environmental AffairsEvaporation from soil surface in millimeters of soilEnvironmental AuthorisationEnvironmental AdvisorEnvironmental Assessment PractitionerEstimated Environmental ConcentrationEnvironmental Conservation ActEnvironmental Control OfficerEnvironmental Impact AssessmentEmfuleni Local MunicipalityEnvironmental ManagerEnvironmental Monitoring / Management CommitteeEnvironmental Management PlanEnvironmental Potential AtlasGeneral waste or waste disposal site for general wasteGolder Associates AfricaGauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentGeographic Information SystemZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 vii 8848GNRGPSHHDIH:hH:HI&APsIEMISCORJBALMMDMIGMRDNEMANEM:WANGOsNWAPACPMPPPRRARFPRoDSSAPSToRWRCZCGovernment Notice RegulationGeographic Positioning SystemHazardous waste or waste disposal site for hazardous wasteHistorically Disadvantaged IndividualHazardous waste disposal site that can receive wastes with a hazardrating of 3 and 4Hazardous waste disposal site that can receive wastes with a hazardrating of 1 and 2Interested and Affected PartiesIntegrated Environmental ManagementIron and Steel Corporation (now Mittal Steel)Jarrod Ball and AssociatesLargeMediumManaging DirectorMunicipal Infrastructure GrantMaximum Rate of DepositionNational Environmental Management ActNational Environmental Management Waste ActNon Governmental OrganisationsNational Water ActPan-African CongressProject ManagerPublic Participation ProcessRainfall in millimeters of waterRelevant AuthorityRequest for ProposalRecord of DecisionSmallSouth African Police ServicesTerms of ReferenceWater Research CouncilZitholele Consulting (Pty) LtdZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 viii 8848Adherence to Regulation 387 requirements for an EnvironmentalImpact ReportReferenceContents of an EIRSection (s) whereCovered in thisFinal EIR(2) (a) (i) and Details of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and relevant(ii)expertiseSection 1.5(2) (b) Detailed description of the proposed activity Section 5 and 6(2) (c )Detailed description of the property on which the proposed activity isto be undertakenSection 5, Appendix A2(2) (d)Description of the environment (physical, biological, social, economicand cultural) that may be affected by the activitySection 7(2) (e) Details of the PPPSection 3.1.2 and 3.2.2.Appendix B(2) (e) (i) Steps undertaken in accordance with the Plan of Study (PoS) Section 3,5,6,7, 10 and 11(2) (e) (ii)A list of persons, organisations and organs of state that wereregistered as Interested and affected parties (I&APs).Appendix B3(2) (e) (iii)A summary of comments received from, and a summary of issuesraised by I&APs, the date of receipt of these comments and the Section 4 and Appendix B4response from the EAP to those comments(2) (e) (iv)Copies of any representations, objections and comments receivedfrom registered I&APsSection 4 and Appendix B4(2) (f)Description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity andidentified potential alternatives to the proposed activity, includingadvantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity or Section 1 and 5.2alternatives may have on the environment and the community thatmay be affected by the activity(2) (g)An indication of the methodology used in determining the significanceof potential environmental impactsSection 10(2) (h)Description and comparative assessment of all alternatives identifiedduring the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processSection 11,12 and 13(2) (i)Summary of the findings and recommendations of any specialist Section 7, 11 and Appendixreport or report on a specialised processC(2) (j)Description of all the environmental issues that were identified duringthe EIA process, and assessment of the significance of each issueand an indication of the extent to which the issue could be addressedSection 11 and 12by the adoption of mitigation measures(2) (k) An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact Section 11(2) (k) (i) Cumulative impacts Section 11(2) (k) (ii) Nature of the impact Section 11(2) (k) (iii) Extent and duration of the impact Section 11(2) (k) (iv) Probability of the impact occurring Section 11(2) (k) (v) Degree to which the impact can be reversed Section 11(2) (k) (vi) Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources Section 11(2) (k) (vii) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated Section 11(2) (l) Assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge Section 11(2) (m)An opinion as to whether the activity should or should not beauthorised, and if authorised, any conditions that should apply to the Section 12 and 13authorisation(2) (n) An environmental impact statement Section 12(2) (n) (i) Summary of the key findings of the environmental Impact Assessment Section 12 and 13(2) (n) (ii)Comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications of Section 11, 12 and 13the proposed activity and identified alternatives(2) (o) Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Appendix E(2) (p) Copies of specialist reports Appendix CZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 ix 8848SECTIONTABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 11.1 Background Information.......................................................................... 11.2 Purpose and Overview of the Proposed Project...................................... 41.3 Context of this Report ............................................................................. 41.4 Objectives of the Impact Assessment Phase .......................................... 41.5 The Project Team ................................................................................... 51.6 Project Progress ..................................................................................... 82 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 92.1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) ......... 92.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) ................... 92.3 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) ....... 132.4 The Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989).......................... 142.5 Additional Legal Frameworks and Legislation ....................................... 143 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS ........................ 183.1 Scoping Phase ..................................................................................... 183.2 Impact Assessment Phase ................................................................... 244 ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED ........................................................ 284.1 Authorities ............................................................................................ 284.2 Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 285 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 295.1 Location ................................................................................................ 295.2 Need for the extension of the Waste Disposal Site with view ofclosure.................................................................................................. 295.3 Components for a Waste Disposal Site ................................................ 295.4 Services and Infrastructure ................................................................... 315.5 Major Activities of the Overall Waste Project ........................................ 325.6 Overall EIA Project Schedule................................................................ 335.7 Description of the Development Activities - Extension .......................... 335.8 Description of the Development Activities - Closure .............................. 386 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................... 396.1 Site Alternatives.................................................................................... 396.2 Design Alternatives ............................................................................... 396.3 The No Go Alternative .......................................................................... 427 BASELINE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 437.1 Bio-Physical Environment ..................................................................... 437.2 Cultural Environment ............................................................................ 627.3 Socio-Economic Environment ............................................................... 648 WASTE LICENSE APPLICATION ........................................................... 678.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 678.2 Site Classification ................................................................................. 678.3 Existing Footprint of the Site ................................................................. 728.4 Future of the Waste Disposal Site ........................................................ 728.5 Application requirements for extension with view of closure.................. 739 WASTE DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN .......................................................... 759.1 Constraints and factors affecting the design ......................................... 75ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 x 88489.2 General site layout ................................................................................ 7510 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................. 8110.1 Significance Assessment ...................................................................... 8110.2 Spatial Scale ........................................................................................ 8210.3 Duration Scale ...................................................................................... 8310.4 Degree of Probability ............................................................................ 8310.5 Degree of Certainty .............................................................................. 8310.6 Quantitative Description of Impacts ...................................................... 8410.7 Notation of Impacts ............................................................................... 8411 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 8511.1 Construction Phase .............................................................................. 8511.2 Operational Phase .............................................................................. 10911.3 Decommissioning Phase .................................................................... 12312 IMPACT SUMMARY ...............................................................................13413 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................137ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 xi 8848LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Location of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. ............................................................................................................. 3Figure 2: Environmental Assessment Practitioner. ....................................................................................................................... 6Figure 3: Technical and Public Participation Process and activities that comprise the Environmental ImpactAssessment for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. ................................................................................................................... 21Figure 4: Site notice boards were put up in the study area. ....................................................................................................... 22Figure 5: Waste Disposal Site Liner for a GLB + site as per the Minimum Requirements. ......................................................... 30Figure 6: Capping cross section for a GLB+ waste disposal site as per the Minimum Requirements. ..................................... 31Figure 7: Example of a Leakage Detection System. ................................................................................................................... 35Figure 8: Landfill Gas Management. ............................................................................................................................................ 36Figure 9: Existing site notice boards at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. .............................................................................. 37Figure 10: Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site with Alternative Buffer Zones. .................................................................................. 41Figure 11: Regional Surface Geology.......................................................................................................................................... 46Figure 12: Soil Type Delineation. ................................................................................................................................................. 47Figure 13: Site specific geology. .................................................................................................................................................. 48Figure 14: Conceptual Groundwater flow model for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. .......................................................... 50Figure 15: Upper Vaal Water Management Area. ....................................................................................................................... 51Figure 16: Topography of the site ................................................................................................................................................ 53Figure 17: Urban garden vegetation unit. .................................................................................................................................... 56Figure 18: Alien grassland vegetation unit. ................................................................................................................................. 57Figure 19: Barren areas with scattered aliens. ............................................................................................................................ 57Figure 20: Vegetation Map. .......................................................................................................................................................... 58Figure 21: Fauna on site. ............................................................................................................................................................. 61Figure 22: The location of the site in relation to the closest towns ............................................................................................. 65Figure 23: Boitshepi – Flow of waste during operations. ............................................................................................................ 74Figure 24: Existing site layout. ..................................................................................................................................................... 76Figure 25: Anchoring of the slope liner. ....................................................................................................................................... 77Figure 26: Site layout plan............................................................................................................................................................ 79Figure 27: Cross Section of the proposed extension of the site. ................................................................................................ 80Figure 28: Piezometric map for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. .......................................................................................... 91Figure 29: Existing screening around the site ............................................................................................................................. 98Figure 30: Windblown litter to the vlei to the south of the site. ................................................................................................. 114ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 xii 8848LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Newspapers in which the proposed project was announced. ...................................................................................... 22Table 2: A stakeholder meeting was advertised as part of the public review period of the Draft Scoping Report. .................. 22Table 3: Newspapers in which advertisements were placed for public review of the Draft Scoping Report. ........................... 23Table 4: List of public places where the Draft Scoping Report was made available. ................................................................ 24Table 5: Advertisements placed to announce the public review of the draft EIR and draft EMP. ............................................. 26Table 6: Major activities for the proposed project. ...................................................................................................................... 32Table 7: Primary milestones of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. ........................................................................................... 33Table 8: Endangered Plant Species. ........................................................................................................................................... 55Table 9: Species List. ................................................................................................................................................................... 59Table 10: Faunal Species List. ..................................................................................................................................................... 60Table 11: Types and estimated quantities of wastes received at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site during 1998. ................. 69Table 12: Estimated types and quantities of wastes in the next 7 years at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site from2008. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 70Table 13: Waste Disposal Site Size Classes (DWA, 2005). ....................................................................................................... 71Table 14: Quantitative Rating and Equivalent Descriptions for the Impact Assessment Criteria. ............................................. 81Table 15: Description of the Significance Rating Scale. ............................................................................................................. 82Table 16: Description of the Spatial Rating Scale. ...................................................................................................................... 82Table 17: Description of the Temporal Rating Scale................................................................................................................... 83Table 18: Description of the Degree of Probability of an Impact occurring. ............................................................................... 83Table 19: Description of the Degree of Certainty Rating Scale. ................................................................................................. 83Table 20: Example of Rating Scale.............................................................................................................................................. 84Table 21: Impact Risk Classes..................................................................................................................................................... 84Table 22: Impact Rating Matrix for soils and land capability during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3).......................... 87Table 23: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................................. 88Table 24: Deep aquifer hydraulic properties GCS (1996)........................................................................................................... 90Table 25: Hydrocensus data. ....................................................................................................................................................... 90Table 26: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ........................................... 92Table 27: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ......................................... 94Table 28: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ........................................... 95Table 29: Impact Rating Matrix for terrestrial ecology during construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ......................................... 97Table 30: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ...................................................... 99ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 xiii 8848Table 31: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................................. 101Table 32: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). ........................... 103Table 33: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3). .............................. 108Table 34: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils (Alternative 1-3). ....................................................................................................... 110Table 35: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................................. 111Table 36: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). ........................................... 113Table 37: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). ......................................... 114Table 38: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3)............................................ 115Table 39: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology (Alternative 1-3). .................................................................................................. 116Table 40: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the operational phase. ................................................................................. 117Table 41: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the operational phase. .......................................................................... 118Table 42: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the operational phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................. 119Table 43: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the operational phase. ........................................................... 121Table 44: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils during the Decommissioning Phase. ....................................................................... 123Table 45: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3).................................... 124Table 46: Impact Rating Matrix for ground water during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................... 126Table 47: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................... 126Table 48: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). ................................ 127Table 49: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology for the Decommissioning Phase (Alternative 1-3). ............................................. 128Table 50: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the decommissioning phase. ...................................................................... 129Table 51: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the decommissioning phase. ............................................................... 130Table 52: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the Decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3). .................. 131Table 53: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the Decommissioning phase (Alternative 1-3)...................... 133Table 54: Alternative Sensitivity Matrix. ..................................................................................................................................... 136Table 55: Alternative summary and preference. ....................................................................................................................... 137ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 xiv 8848LIST OF APPENDICESAPPENDIX A:Appendix A1:Appendix A2:Appendix A3:Appendix A4:Appendix A5:Appendix A6:Appendix A7EIA Application FormLocality MapSite Layout PlanBuffer Zone AlternativesEAP Curriculum VitaeLandowner Consent FormsGDARD LetterACTIVITY INFORMATIONAPPENDIX B:Appendix B1: Newspaper AdvertisementsAppendix B2: Site NoticesAppendix B3: Stakeholder databaseAppendix B4: Issues and Response Report (Version 3)Appendix B5: Correspondence with Authorities and I&APsAppendix B6: Background Information DocumentAppendix B7: Minutes from Public MeetingsPUBLIC PARTICIPATIONAPPENDIX C:Appendix C1:Appendix C2:Appendix C3:Appendix C4:Appendix C5:Appendix C6:Biophysical ReportSocial Impact Assessment ReportHeritage Impact Assessment ReportGeotechnical Investigation ReportGeohydrological Investigation ReportAir Quality AssessmentSPECIALIST REPORTSAPPENDIX D:Appendix D1:Appendix D2:Appendix D3:Appendix D4:Appendix D5:Appendix D6:Appendix D7:DETAILED WASTE INFORMATIONTotal Volumes of Waste DisposedEvaporation and Precipitation DataCalculation on Climatic Water BalanceAirspace SavingsClosure and After Care Plan and Site Emergency PlanWater Monitoring PlanWaste Disposal Facility DesignsAPPENDIX E:APPENDIX F:ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANOPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLANZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 1 88481 INTRODUCTIONAnthropogenic / human activities generate by-products which are seen as useless and arediscarded as waste. The increasing population growth accompanied by urbanisation andindustrialisation, have resulted in an increase in the volume of waste generated by society.Waste is associated with numerous environmental and social impacts as discussed in thisreport.It has been estimated that globally 95% of all urban waste is disposed of on land, either inopen trenches or in sanitary waste disposal sites. According to the Minimum Requirementsfor Disposal by Landfill, Second edition 3 (Department of Water Affairs 4 [DWA], 1998), everywaste disposal site must be licensed, designed, constructed, operated and closed accordingto the stipulated requirements. Furthermore, according to the National EnvironmentalManagement Waste Act (NEM:WA) of 2008 Section 26, (1) No person may—(a) dispose ofwaste, or knowingly or negligently cause or permit waste to be disposed of, in or on anyland, water body or at any facility unless the disposal of that waste is authorised by law.1.1 Background InformationThe Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is located in Vanderbijlpark. The site is situated to theeast of Boipatong and to the west of Tshepiso, hence the name Boitshepi (Figure 1). Thesite is owned by Emfuleni Local Municipality (ELM), managed by the Emfuleni LocalMunicipality (ELM) and is operated by Enviro-Fill.The site has been operational since the 1970s, prior to the Minimum Requirements forWaste Disposal by Landfill (DWA, 1998) and as a result Boitshepi was not developed oroperated in accordance with these requirements and has had a negative impact on thesurrounding environment.In February 1994, Jarrod Ball and Associates (JBA), specialist waste consultants, completeda Status Quo Analysis on the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. The study recommended someremedial measures, but these were not implemented and the situation at the sitedeteriorated.In September 1994, JBA was appointed, based on the recommendations of the Status QuoAnalysis, to proceed with the licensing, rehabilitation and closure of the waste disposal site.3 The Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, third edition (DWA 2005) has been compiled, buthas not yet been promulgated. For this reason and for the purpose of this report, the Minimum Requirements forWaste Disposal by Landfill, second edition have been cited and referenced (DWA, 1998),4 The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) was previously known as the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry(DWAF).ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 2 8848However, during this time it was recognised that the Boitshepi could be of prime strategicimportance within the region because of its central location within a large waste generationarea. The long-term use of the waste site was therefore viewed as potentially of great value,if the environmental problems could be remedied.In terms of the aforementioned appointment, JBA carried out, inter alia, a limitedgeohydrological investigation of the site to determine the extent of the impact of the wastesite on surface and groundwater pollution. The results of this investigation were used as thebasis for discussions with the DWA in February 1995, regarding the future of the BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site.During these discussions, various alternative waste disposal options were proposed and itwas recommended that these options be investigated by means of a Feasibility Study. Ofprime importance was the fact that the site, irrespective of the option chosen, would have tomeet the objectives of the Minimum Requirements, namely environmental and publicacceptability. The future of the waste disposal site would thus be decided, based on thefindings of that study. At this meeting, the urgency of addressing some priority remedialmeasures, such as proper storm water management and access control, was alsoemphasised.After 2005, JBA became part of Golder Associates Africa (GAA) and the members of JBAjoined GAA. The Boitshepi Project was put on hold due to the unrest and some violencewhich was taking place at that time. A man lost his life because of a shooting that took placeon site. The previous Lekoa Municipality (now ELM) withdrew all its resources. Thewithdrawal of the Municipality from site led to a number of issues, illegal dumpingcommenced as well as uncontrolled disposal of hazardous waste by industries in the area.After 1994, the local authorities were amalgamated and that led to the birth of new localgovernment. Western Vaal Metropolitan Local Municipality became ELM under the SedibengDistrict Municipality.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 3 8848Figure 1: Location of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 4 88481.2 Purpose and Overview of the Proposed ProjectThe main purpose of this project is to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) and a WasteLicense for the proposed extension with view of closure for the Boitshepi Waste DisposalSite. The site is reaching capacity and as such needs to be extended and ultimately closed.The ELM has appointed Zitholele Consulting, an independent company, to undertake theaforementioned processes.The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed in line withlegislative requirements. Kwezi V3 Engineers (KV3) in association with Masakhe IsizweEngineers (Pty) Ltd were appointed by the ELM in February 2008 (3 year contract) to site,obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB + waste disposal site in ELM. Onceoperational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.1.3 Context of this ReportThis report constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), a key componentof the EA Process for the extension with view of closure of the Boitshepi Waste DisposalSite.1.4 Objectives of the Impact Assessment PhaseThis report addresses the requirements for the Impact Assessment Phase for theEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as outlined in the regulations as promulgated inApril 2006 in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, (NEMA) (No 107 of1998) which became effective on 1 July 2006. The aim of this Final EIR is to:• Provide information to the authorities as well as Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs)on the proposed project; including details on the:- Alternatives that are being considered;- Receiving environment; and- Assessing and ranking methodology.• Indicate how I&APs have been afforded the opportunity to contribute to the project andverify that the issues they raised to date have been considered;• Provide proposed mitigation measures in order to minimise negative impacts andenhance positive impacts; and• Present the findings of the Impact Assessment Phase in a manner that facilitatesdecision-making by the relevant authorities.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 5 88481.5 The Project TeamThe project team for the proposed waste disposal site project is divided into various roleplayers as follows:• The Applicant / Proponent;• The Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP); and• The Decision Making Authority.1.5.1 The Applicant / ProponentThe ELM, the “proponent”, is applying for EA from the Gauteng Department of Agricultureand Rural Development (GDARD). As the owner and manager of the Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site; the ELM will remain the responsible legal entity and will carry theenvironmental liability for the proposed project.The ELM is one of three Local Municipalities comprising the Sedibeng District Municipality. Itis the western-most Local Municipality of the District, which covers the entire southern areaof the Gauteng Province extending along a 120 km axis from east to west. The Vaal Riverforms the southern boundary of the ELM and its strategic location affords it manyopportunities for tourism and other forms of economic development. The ELM sharesboundaries with Metsimaholo Local Municipality in the Free State Province to the south,Midvaal Local Municipality to the east, the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan area to thenorth and Westonaria and Potchefstroom (in North West Province) Local Municipalities tothe west (Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August2008).The municipality is strategically located with access to a well-maintained road networkconnecting to the N1 national route, which traverses the ELM and links Johannesburg andBloemfontein. The ELM has two main town centres, namely Vereeniging and Vanderbijlparkwithin the area and Sasolburg is only 10 km to the south, across the provincial boundary. Itforms the heartland of what was formerly known as the Vaal Triangle, renowned for itscontribution to the iron and steel industry in South Africa (Available online athttp://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August 2008).Emfuleni also contains the six large peri-urban townships of Evaton, Sebokeng, Sharpeville,Boipatong, Bophelong and Tshepiso. These six areas lack facilities normally associated withtowns of their size. The other approximately ten small settlements tend to be suburbansettlements within 6 km of the above towns; they are Bonanne, Steel Park, Duncanville,Unitas Park, Arcon Park, Sonlandpark, Waldrift, Rust-ter-Vaal, Roshnee and Debonairpark.(Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12th August 2008)ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 6 8848The area also comprises a number of large residential areas, all of which requireconsiderable investment in infrastructure and environmental upgrading. The ELM is rich inhistory as it encapsulates the Anglo Boer War, heritage assets such as the Sharpevillemonument and the liberation struggle epitomised by the signing of the Constitution in 1996 inSharpeville (Available online at http://www.emfuleni.gov.za/about.htm, cited on the 12thAugust 2008).Applicant/ Proponent Contact DetailsCompany:Emfuleni Local MunicipalityContact:Mr Thinus RedelinghuysAddress: P. O. Box 3, Vanderbijlpark, 1900Tel: (016) 986 8471 / 8442Fax: 086 555 6019Cell: 084 600 8744E-mailthinus@emfuleni.gov.zaFor more information regarding ELM please refer to their website at www.emfuleni.gov.za.1.5.2 The Environment Assessment PractitionerIn terms of the EIA Regulations promulgated in April 2006 within the NEMA (No 107 of 1998)which became effective on 1 July 2006, the proponent must appoint an EnvironmentalAssessment Practitioner (EAP) to undertake the environmental assessment of an activityregulated in terms of the aforementioned Act. In this regard, the ELM appointed ZitholeleConsulting to undertake the EIA for the proposed extension with view of closure for theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site.Zitholele Consulting is an empowerment company formed to provide specialist consultingservices primarily to the public sector in the fields of Water Engineering, Integrated WaterResource Management, Environmental and Waste Services, Communication (publicparticipation and awareness creation) and Livelihoods and Economic Development.Zitholele Consulting has no vested interest in the proposed project and hereby declares itsindependence as required by the EIA Regulations.Jacqui HexPO Box 6002, Halfway House, 1685Tel: +27 (11) 207 2078Fax: 086 676 9950email : jacquih@zitholele.co.zaFigure 2: Environmental Assessment Practitioner.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 7 8848EAP Contact DetailsCompanies: Zitholele Consulting (Pty) LtdContact:Jacqui HexAddress: P O Box 6002, Halfway House, 1685Cell: 082 560 8601Landline: 011 207 2078Fax: 086 676 9950E-mail:jacquih@zitholele.co.zaJacqui Hex, MSc (Env. Man.) (cum laude), BSc Hons (Geog), BSc Natural & EnvironmentalSciencesMrs. Jacqui Hex joined Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd in the January 2007 as anenvironmental scientist. She forms part of the Environment and Waste management sectorof the Environment and Waste division of the company. She was awarded the top mastersstudent award at the University of Johannesburg in 2006. She has also attended a course onEnvironmental Auditing, EIAs and International Association in Public Participation. She hasan in depth knowledge on EIAs, environmental law, strategic environmental assessment,integrated environmental management, social impact assessments, environmental auditing,environmental economics, environmental management frameworks and waste management.A Curriculum Vita of the EAP is provided in Appendix A5.1.5.3 The Decision Making AuthorityWaste LicenseThe Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of a province who is responsible for wastemanagement is the licensing authority in respect of all activities listed in both categories ofSchedule 1 of the NEM:WA pertaining to general waste. The application for a waste licencein terms of Section 45 of the NEM:WA for general waste activities must be submitted bylodging an application with the relevant provincial department. Therefore, in this regard, theGDARD is the licensing authority for a waste license.Environmental AuthorisationIn terms of the EIA: on 21 April 2006, the Minister of Environmental Affairs promulgatedregulations on terms of Chapter 5 on the NEMA, GNR, 385, 386 and 387 in GovernmentGazette No. 28753 of 21 April 2006. These regulations replaced the EIA regulations thatwere promulgated in term of the Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) (ECA)in 1997 and introduced new provisions regarding the EIA, The Competent Authority inrespect of the activities listed in GNR. 386 and 387 is the environmental authority in theprovince in which the activity is to be undertaken, unless it is an activity contemplated inZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 8 8848Section 24C (2) of the NEMA. GDARD is the relevant provincial department for lodging thisapplication for EA.1.6 Project ProgressThe Scoping Phase of this project has been completed, this included the following:• Pre-application consultation with relevant stakeholders and authorities;• Completion and submission of the relevant EIA Application documentation;• Compilation, submission, and approval of the Plan of Study (PoS) for Scoping;• Placement of advertisements;• Compilation and distribution of a Background Information Document (BID);• Hosting a public meeting;• Public review period and Issues and Response Report (IRR);• Compilation of a Draft Scoping Report (Draft SR); and• Compilation, submission and approval of the Final Scoping Report (Final SR) and PoSfor EIA.This phase of the project is the Impact Assessment Phase, where the following is required tobe undertaken:• Specialist Studies;• Compilation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Draft EnvironmentalManagement Plan (Draft EMP);• Compilation of waste related documentation as required for the waste licenseapplication;• Public review period and Issues and Response Report; and• Compilation, submission and approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FinalEIR) and Final Environmental Management Plan (Final EMP) for EIA.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 9 88482 LEGAL REQUIREMENTSEnvironmental legislation in South Africa was promulgated with the aim of, at the very least,minimising and at the most preventing environmental degradation. The following Acts andRegulations are applicable to the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site Project:2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996)Section 24 of the Constitution states that: Everyone has the right to(a) an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and(b) have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations,through reasonable legislative and other measures that-- prevent pollution and ecological degradation;- promote conservation; and- secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, whilepromoting justifiable economic and social development.The current environmental laws in South Africa concentrate on protecting, promoting, andfulfilling the Nation’s social, economic and environmental rights; while encouraging publicparticipation, implementing cultural and traditional knowledge and benefiting previouslydisadvantaged communities.2.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)The NEMA contains a set of principles that govern environmental management and againstwhich all Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and actions are measured. SustainableDevelopment requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the following:• Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of itsconcern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and socialinterests equitably;• The pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot bealtogether avoided are minimised and remedied;• Waste must be avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and reusedor recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner;• That a risk averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limitsof current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions;• Responsibility for the environmental, health and safety consequences of a policy,programme, project, product, process, service or activity exists throughout its life cycle;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 10 8848• The participation of I&APs in environmental governance must be promoted, and allpeople must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacitynecessary for achieving equitable and effective participation. In particular, participationby vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured;• Decision makers must take into account the interests, needs and values of all I&APs andthis includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including traditional and contemporaryknowledge;• Community well-being and empowerment must be promoted through environmentaleducation, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge andexperience and other appropriate means;• The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health or the environmentand to be informed of dangers, must be respected and protected;• Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to informationmust be provided in accordance with the law; and• The vital role of women and youth in environmental management and development mustbe recognised and their full participation therein must be promoted.The EIA for this project will be conducted in terms of the EIA Regulations of 2006 that werepromulgated in terms of Section 24 (5) of the NEMA. The Provincial GDARD is thecompetent authority responsible for issuing EA for the proposed project. The NEMA EIARegulations were promulgated on 21 April 2006 and became effective on 3 July 2006. TheNEMA regulations replaced the previous EIA Regulations under the ECA.A Basic Assessment must be applied to activities listed in Listing Notice 1 No. R386.Activities identified in terms of Section 24(2)(a) and (d) of the NEMA, which may notcommence without EA from the Competent Authority and in respect of which theinvestigation, assessment and communication of potential impacts of activities must followthe procedure as described in regulations 22 to 26 of the EIA regulations, 2006 of the NEMAGeneral Notice Regulation (GNR). 387, lists activities that have been identified in terms ofSection 24(2) (a) and (d) of the NEMA which may not commence without EA from theCompetent Authority and in respect of which the investigation, assessment andcommunication of potential impacts of activities must follow the procedure as described inregulations 22 to 26 of the EIA regulations, 2006 of the NEMA i.e. a full EIA comprising bothScoping and Impact Assessment is necessary for the proposed waste disposal siteextension, operation and closure.A full EIA is applicable to all projects likely to have significant environmental impacts due totheir nature or extent, activities associated with potentially high levels of environmentaldegradation, or activities for which the impacts cannot be easily predicted.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 11 8848On 1 May 2009, NEMA was again amended by the coming into effect of the NationalEnvironmental Management Amendment Act, 2008 (Act No. 62 of 2008) (NEMAA). On3 July 2009, certain listed activities were also removed from or amended in Listing Notice 1(GN No. R. 386) and Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R. 387). The amendments were made as partof the rationalisation of the regulation of waste management activities as outlined in theNational Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA) and itsregulations thereof.The project activities relating to waste management were listed as follows in the NEMA EIAregulations, 2006:GNR 386: Activity 23 (d):The decommissioning of existing facilities or infrastructure forthe disposal of waste.GNR 387: Activity 1 (o): The final disposal of general waste covering an area of 100square metres or more or 200 cubic metres or more ofairspace.Section 2.3 of this report contextualises on the NEM:WA and therefore can be referred to fora brief overview.As mentioned above, the listed activities that were removed from or amended in the Listing 1and Listing 2 of the NEMA Regulations, 2006, were published in a list of Waste ManagementActivities published in terms of section 19 of the NEM:WA., they are:Category A, Activity 20:Category B, Activity 10:The decommissioning of activities listed in the Schedule.The disposal of general waste to land covering an area inexcess of 200m 2 5 .The following activities have not been amended or repealed from NEMA Regulations, 2006,and are therefore still applicable to the proposed extension with view of closure of theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site:Activity 1(e): The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structuresor infrastructure, for: Any process or activity which requires a permit or licencein terms of legislation governing the generation or release of emissions,pollution, effluent or waste and which is not identified in GNR.386 of 2006.Activity 2:Any development activity, including associated structures and infrastructure,where the total area of the developed area is, or is intended to be 20 hectaresor more.5 Refer to Section 2.3 below for a brief overview of the NEM:WA.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 12 8848The NEMA can be regarded as the most important piece of general environmentallegislation. It provides a framework for environmental law reform and covers three areas,namely:• Land, planning and development;• Natural and cultural resources, use and conservation; and• Pollution control and waste management.The law is based on the concept of sustainable development. The objective of the NEMA isto provide for co-operative environmental governance through a series of principles relatingto:• The procedures for state decision-making on the environment; and• The institutions of state which make those decisions.The NEMA principles serve as:• A general framework for environmental planning;• Guidelines according to which the state must exercise its environmental functions; and• A guide to the interpretation of NEMA itself and of any other law relating to theenvironment.2.2.1 What are the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)principles?Some of the most important principles contained in NEMA are that:• Environmental management must put people and their needs first;• Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable;• There should be equal access to environmental resources, benefits and services to meetbasic human needs;• Government should promote public participation when making decisions about theenvironment;• Communities must be given environmental education;• Workers have the right to refuse to do work that is harmful to their health or to theenvironment;• Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner and there must be accessto information;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 13 8848• The role of youth and women in environmental management must be recognised;• The person or company who pollutes the environment must pay to clean it up;• The environment is held in trust by the state for the benefit of all South Africans; and• The utmost caution should be used when permission for new developments is granted.2.3 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008)A new era of an integrated waste management system in South Africa through the NEM:WAhas been established. The NEM:WA came into effect in July 2009. Provisions have beenmade in the form of legislative and regulatory tools to facilitate and ensure implementation ofthe Act by all spheres of government. To this end, the Minister of the Department of Waterand Environmental Affairs (DWEA) published a Waste Management Activity List in July 2009which has clear thresholds on waste activities that need authorisation prior tocommencement. The published Waste Management Activity List effectively replacesSchedule 1 of the NEMA and all waste related activities listed in EIA lists.All waste-related activities listed in terms of section 24(2) of the NEMA have been repealedat the same time that the Minister published the new list of waste management activities inorder to align the NEM:WA and the EIA regulations and to avoid the necessity to submit twoapplications for the same activity.Waste management activity means: any activity listed in Schedule 1 or published by noticein the Gazette under section 19 and includes inter alia the disposal of waste.2.3.1 Schedule 1 – Waste management activities in respect of which a wastemanagement licence is requiredThe Acting Minister of the DWEA, under section 19(1) of the NEM:WA, has published a Listof Waste Management Activities which has, or is likely to have a detrimental effect on theenvironment in GN No. 718 of 3 July 2009.The schedule has listed activities in two different categories, i.e. Category “A” and Category“B”.For Category “A” activities: a person who wishes to commence, undertake or conduct anactivity listed under this Category, must conduct a Basic Assessment process, as stipulatedin the EIA regulations under section 24 (5) of the NEMA as part of a Waste ManagementLicence Application.The applicable activity to the proposed project in Category “A”, is as follows:(18) The decommissioning of activities listed in the ScheduleZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 14 8848For Category “B” activities: a person who wishes to commence, undertake or conduct anactivity listed under this Category, must conduct a full EIA process, as stipulated in the EIAregulations under section 24(5) of the NEMA as part of a Waste Management LicenceApplication.The applicable activity to the proposed project falls under Category “B”, which is as follows:(10) The disposal of general waste to land covering an area in excess of 200m 2 .Therefore, it is imperative that a full EIA be conducted for the proposed project.2.4 The Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989)The ECA, Act No 73 of 1989 was previously applicable to waste facility establishment,operation and disposal as Section 20(1) states that ‘no person shall establish, provide oroperate any disposal site without a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs.Section 21(1c) The Construction, or upgrading of, transportation routes and structures, andmanufacturing, storage, handling or processing facilities for any substanceswhich are considered dangerous or hazardous, and is controlled by thenational legislation.The Minister would in such a permit indicate the control and management of disposal sites ingeneral, the control and management of certain disposal sites or disposal sites handlingparticular types of waste; and the procedure to be followed before any disposal site could bewithdrawn from use or utilised for another purpose.The promulgation of the NEMA and the subsequent NEM:WA have replaced the ECA, andtherefore its regulations.2.5 Additional Legal Frameworks and Legislation2.5.1 Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Second edition, 1998The project must comply with the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill,(Second edition 1998) and Minimum Requirements for the handling, classification anddisposal of hazardous waste (Second edition 1998):The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by landfill are:• To improve the standard of waste disposal in South Africa;• To improve guidelines for environmentally acceptable waste disposal for a spectrum ofsite sizes and types; andZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 15 8848• To provide a framework of minimum waste disposal standards within which to work andupon which to build.The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for the handling, classification and disposal ofhazardous waste are to:• Prevent water pollution and ensure sustained fitness for use of South Africa’s waterresources;• Attain and maintain minimum waste management standards in South Africa, so as toprotect human health and the environment from possible harmful effects caused by thehandling, treatment, storage and disposal of waste;• Effectively administer and provide a systematic and nationally uniform approach to thewaste disposal process; and• Endeavour to make South African waste management practices internationallyacceptable.2.5.2 The National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)The provision of water in South Africa is divided into public water and private water, and itsuse is regulated by the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA) (under the directorship ofthe DWA). It must be noted that, in terms of the NWA, it is an offence to pollute public and/orprivate water to render it unfit for the propagation of fish and aquatic life, including rainwater,seawater, and subterranean water.2.5.3 The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004)The objectives of this Act are-a) Within the framework of the NEMA, to provide for-• The management and conservation of biological diversity within the of Republic of SouthAfrica and of the components of such biological diversity;• The use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and• The fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprospectinginvolving indigenous biological resources.b) To give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which arebinding on the Republic of South Africa;c) To provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management andconservation; andZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 16 8848d) To provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) to assist inachieving the objectives of this Act.2.5.4 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004)The object of this Act is -• To protect the environment by providing reasonable measures for -- The protection and enhancement of the quality of air in the RSA;- The prevention of air pollution and ecological degradation; and- Securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economicand social development.• Generally to give effect to section 24(b) of the Constitution in order to enhance thequality of ambient air for the sake of securing an environment that is not harmful to thehealth and well-being of people.2.5.5 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Integrated EnvironmentalManagement Information SeriesThe Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 6 [DEAT, now referred to as theDepartment of Environmental Affairs (DEA)] Information Series 2002 - 2006 comprise 23information documents. The documents were drafted as sources of information aboutconcepts and approaches to Integrated Environmental Management (IEM). The IEM is a keyinstrument of NEMA and provides the overarching framework for the integration ofenvironmental assessment and management principles into environmental decision-making.The aim of the information series is to provide general guidance on techniques, tools andprocesses for environmental assessment and management.2.5.6 The National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)The objectives of this act are to:• Introduce an integrated and interactive system for the management of the nationalheritage resources; to promote good government at all levels, and empower civil societyto nurture and conserve their heritage resources so that they may be bequeathed tofuture generations;6 The Department of Environmental Affairs was previously known as the Department of Environmental Affairsand Tourism.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 17 8848• Lay down general principles for governing heritage resources management throughoutthe Republic;• Introduce an integrated system for the identification, assessment and management ofthe heritage resources of South Africa;• Establish the South African Heritage Resources Agency together with its Council to coordinateand promote the management of heritage resources at national level;• Set norms and maintain essential national standards for the management of heritageresources in the Republic and to protect heritage resources of national significance;• Control the export of nationally significant heritage objects and the import into theRepublic of cultural property illegally exported from foreign countries;• Enable the provinces to establish heritage authorities which must adopt powers toprotect and manage certain categories of heritage resources; and• Provide for the protection and management of conservation-worthy places and areas bylocal authorities; and to provide for matters connected therewith.2.5.7 Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993)The Occupation Health and Safety Act (OHSA) makes provisions that address the healthand safety of persons working on the site.The objectives of the act are to:• Provide for the health and safety of persons at work and for the health and safety ofpersons in connection with the use of plant and machinery;• Protect persons other than persons at work against hazards to health and safety arisingout of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;• Establish an advisory council for occupational health and safety; and• Provide for matters connected therewith.2.5.8 Provincial Gazette Extraordinary, 9 February 2005, No 43 109-Solid waste Bylawsfor the Emfuleni Local MunicipalityIn terms of chapter 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996,section 152(1) (b) lists as an object of Local Government to ensure the provision of servicesto communities in a sustainable manner and (d) to promote a safe and healthy environmentand to exercise the power and functions of municipalities as set out in section 156.The Sedibeng District Municipality has a duty to ensure that residents of the DistrictMunicipality have a safe and healthy environment by ensuring that waste is handled anddisposed of in a responsible and environmentally friendly manner. This can be achieved byregulating and controlling the generation, collection, processing, transfer and disposal ofsuch waste at appropriate waste processing and disposal sites.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 18 88483 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESSThe EIA Process being followed for this project complies with the NEMA EIA Regulations GNNo. R.385 to R. 387 as amended and administered by the DEA, and promulgated in April2006 in terms of the Section 24 (5) of the NEMA. The technical and Public ParticipationProcess (PPP) undertaken for this EIA is summarised below and schematically represented inFigure 3 below.The EIA process can be divided into the following phases:• The Scoping Phase;• The Impact Assessment Phase; and• The Environmental Authorisation Phase.Each of these phases is explained in detail below.3.1 Scoping Phase3.1.1 Technical ProcessFor the Scoping Phase of this EIA, the following technical process was followed:Pre-Application ConsultationSubsequent to ZC being appointed, a project kick-off meeting was held on 17 January 2007.The client described the proposed project and its scope. The Boitshepi Waste Disposal wasvisited by Messrs Mzu Tshem and Ken Bromfield of ZC.During this project kick-off meeting the following was discussed:• Project scope and requirements;• Project schedule;• Identification of key stakeholders and role players; and• Preliminary buffer zone alternatives for the extension of the site.Consultation with the AuthoritiesA pre-application consultation with Mr Leon Bredenhann, Given Mashiane and Karen deVilliers of the DEA and Mrs Eunice Rammbasa of the GDARD was conducted on14 September 2007. During this meeting the proposed project was presented to theauthorising authority and the project-specific requirements for the EIA were discussed andfinalised.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 19 8848Application Forms and Landowner consentThe EIA application form (Appendix A1) for the proposed project was submitted to theGDARD on 10 April 2008. (Refer to Appendix A6). Acknowledgement of receipt of theapplication form by the GDARD was received on 8 July 2008.Site VisitsMonthly site visits were conducted by Mrs Jacqui Hex from ZC and Mr Elias Barnard fromGAA from April 2007 to November 2009 in order to identify all environmental aspects to beassessed during the EIA phase.Draft Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIAThe Draft Scoping Report (SR) was prepared based on the information gathered and issuesidentified during the Scoping Phase activities. The PoS for EIA including the Terms ofReference (ToR) for the envisaged specialist studies were also included in the Final ScopingReportFinal Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIAThe Draft SR and PoS were updated based on comments obtained from I&APs and wereconsolidated into the Final Scoping Report and the PoS for the EIA. This report was submittedto the GDARD for acceptance and approval to proceed was received on the 9 April 2009(Appendix A7).3.1.2 Public Participation ProcessPublic participation is an essential and legislative requirement in an EIA processes. Theprinciples that demand communication with society at large are best embodied in theprinciples of the NEMA (Act 107 of 1998, Chapter 1), South Africa’s overarchingenvironmental law. In addition, Section 24 (5), Regulation 56 of GN R385 under the NEMA,guides the PPP that is required for an EIA. The NEM:WA, Part 2, Section 73 also makesprovision for public participation.The PPP for this project has been designed and undertaken to satisfy the requirements laiddown in the above legislation. Figure 3 below provides an overview of the EIA technical andPP processes, and shows how issues and concerns raised by the public are used to informthe technical investigations of the EIA at various milestones during the process. This sectionof the report highlights the key elements of the PPP to date.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 20 8848Objectives of public participation in an Environmental Impact AssessmentThe objectives of public participation in an EIA are to provide sufficient and accessibleinformation to I&APs in an objective manner to assist them:• During Scoping:- Encourage the I&APs to provide of issues of concern and suggestions forenhanced benefits and alternatives.- Contribute their local knowledge and experience.- Verify that their issues have been considered and to help define the scope of thetechnical studies to be undertaken during the Impact Assessment.The key objective of public participation is to ensure transparency throughout the process andpromote informed decision making.Identification of Interested and Affected PartiesThe identification of stakeholders is an ongoing process, refined throughout the process ason-the-ground understanding of affected stakeholders improves through interaction withvarious stakeholders in the area. The identification of key stakeholders and communityrepresentatives (landowners and occupiers) is important and was done in collaboration withthe local municipality and other organisations in the study area.Stakeholders’ details are captured on Maximiser 9, an electronic database managementsoftware programme that automatically categorises every mailing to stakeholders, thusproviding an ongoing record of communications - an important requirement by the authoritiesfor public participation. In addition, comments and contributions received from stakeholdersare recorded, linking each comment to the name of the person who made it.Announcement of opportunity to become involvedThe opportunity to participate in the EIA Process was announced in August 2008 as follows:• Distribution of a letter of invitation to become involved, addressed to individuals andorganisations by name, accompanied by a BID containing details of the proposed project,including maps of the project area, and a registration sheet (Appendix B6);• Advertisements were placed in the following newspapers (Appendix B1):According to the NEMA, Section 24 (5), EIA Regulations, Section 56 of GN R385, a register ofI&APs must be kept by the public participation practitioner. Such a register has been compiledand is being kept updated with the details of involved I&APs throughout the process (SeeAppendix B3).ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 21 8848APPLICATION /REGISTRATION OF EIAAND AUTHORITIES MEETINGINFORMATION GATHERINGCOLLATE BASELINE INFORMATIONPRIORITISE ISSUESCOMPILE STAKEHOLDER DATABASEANNOUNCE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENTPersonalised letterMediaand BackgroundInformation DocumentreleaseAdvertisementsPostersOn-sitePublicnoticesplacesWebFOCUS GROUP AND ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGSISSUES AND REPONSE REPORTPROGRESS FEEDBACK LETTER ANDANNOUNCEMENT OF DRAFT SCOPING REPORTSCOPINGDRAFT SCOPING REPORT AND TORS OF SPECIALIST STUDIES(Including Issues and Response Report )StakeholderworkshopsPublic placesACCESS FURTHER INFORMATION;REPRIORITISE ISSUES IF NECESSARYRECEIVE COMMENTS AND CONSOLIDATE IN ISSUESAND RESPONSE REPORTFINAL SCOPING REPORT AND EIA PLAN OF STUDYEND OF SCOPINGCOMMENCE SPECIALIST STUDIESFINALISE SPECIALIST STUDIESIMPACT ASSESSMENTPROGRESS FEEDBACK LETTER ANDINTEGRATE FINDINGSANNOUNCEMENT OF DRAFT EIRDRAFT EIR, summary draft EIR(Including Issues and Response Report; Specialist Reports)RE-ASSESS WHERE NECESSARYOPEN HOUSES / PUBLIC MEETINGSPROCEEDINGSFINAL EIR AND DRAFT EMP(as Issues/Response Report)DECISION-MAKINGSUBMIT FINAL EIR AND EMP TO AUTHORITIESPROGRESS FEEDBACK LETTERAUTHORITY DECISION AND CONDITIONS IFPOSITIVEAUTHORITY DECISION FEEDBACKPersonalised letterAdvertisementsFINALISE EMP AND IMPLEMENTFigure 3: Technical and Public Participation Process and activities that comprise theEnvironmental Impact Assessment for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 22 8848Table 1: Newspapers in which the proposed project was announced.PublicationPublication DateVaal Weekblad 27 August 2008Vaal Weekly 27 August 2008Vereeniging Ster 27 August 2008Vaal Vision 28 August 2008Vanderbijlpark Ster 27 August 2008Sasolburg Ster 27 August 2008• Notice boards were placed during August 2008 at conspicuous places (Figure 4), atvarious public places, and on Bakwena Road. Site notices were placed prominently toinvite stakeholder participation. (Appendix B2).Figure 4: Site notice boards were put up in the study area.Obtaining comments and contributionsThe following opportunities were provided during Scoping for I&APs to provide comment:• Completing and returning registration/comment sheets in which space was provided forcomment;• Providing comment telephonically or by email to the public participation office; and• Attending the stakeholder meeting of 13 November 2008 that was widely advertised (seetable below) and raising comments there.Issues relevant to the current project configuration were carried forward into this ImpactAssessment Phase.Table 2: A stakeholder meeting was advertised as part of the public review period of theDraft Scoping Report.DateThursday, 13 November 2008VenueVanderbijlpark LibraryThe minutes of the public meetings are attached to this Final EIR in the form of an IRR.Issues and Response Report and AcknowledgementsThe issues raised during the announcement, were captured in an IRR Version 1, which wasappended to the DSR. This report was updated to include additional I&AP contributions thatZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 23 8848were received as part of the scoping phase process. The issues and comments raised duringthe public review period of the Draft Scoping Report were added to the report as Version 2 ofthe IRR which was appended to the FSR. The contributions made by I&APs wereacknowledged in writing (Appendix B4).Draft Scoping ReportThe purpose of the review of the Draft SR was to enable I&APs to verify that theircontributions had been captured, understood and correctly interpreted, and to raise furtherissues. At the end of Scoping, the issues identified by I&APs and by the environmentaltechnical specialists, were used to define the ToR for the Specialist Studies that wereconducted during this Impact Assessment Phase of the EIA. A period of four weeks wasavailable for public review of the Draft SR (3 November 2008 to 28 November 2008).In addition to media advertisements and site notices to announce the opportunity to participatein the EIA, the opportunity for public review was announced as follows:• In newspaper advertisements published to advertise the public review period; and• In a letter sent out on 27 October 2008, and addressed personally to all individuals andorganisations on the stakeholder database (Appendix B5).Table 3: Newspapers in which advertisements were placed for public review of the DraftScoping Report.PublicationPublication DateVaal Weekblad 3 – 7 November 2008Vaal Weekly 3 – 7 November 2008Vereeniging Ster 3 – 7 November 2008Vaal Vision 3 – 7 November 2008Vanderbijlpark Ster 3 – 7 November 2008Sasolburg Ster 3 – 7 November 2008The Draft SR, including the IRR Version 1, was distributed for comment as follows:• Left in public places in the project area. The public places where documents were madeavailable are listed in Table 4 below;• Mailed to key stakeholders (Appendix B3);• Mailed to I&APs who requested the report;• Copies were made available at the public meeting.I&APs could comment on the report in various ways, such as completing the comment sheetthat accompanied the report, at the public meeting that was held on 13 November 2009 andsubmitting individual comments in writing or by email.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 24 8848Table 4: List of public places where the Draft Scoping Report was made available.Place Contact Person TelephoneVereeniging Public Library Ms Mabosego 016 – 450 3029Vanderbijlpark Public Library Mrs Marina van Wyk 016 – 950 5252Boipatong Public Library Mrs Maria Aphane 016 – 988 3738Final Scoping ReportThe Final SR was updated to include any additional issues raised by I&APs and thereforecontained any new information that was generated as a result of this EIA process. The FinalSR was distributed to the Authorities (GDARD) and key I&APs, and to those individuals whospecifically requested a copy. I&APs were notified of the availability of the Final SR.3.2 Impact Assessment PhaseAs with the Scoping Phase, the Impact Assessment Phase consists of a technical process anda public participation process. These processes are explained separately below.3.2.1 Technical ProcessSpecialist StudiesIn the Impact Assessment Phase of the EIA, specialist studies were conducted to assess thepotential positive and negative impacts of the proposed project, and to recommendappropriate measures to enhance positive impacts and avoid or reduce negative ones. Thespecialist reports are appended to this Final EIR as Appendix C.Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Management PlanThe Draft EIR was prepared with information and issues identified during the Scoping Phaseactivities, comments from the GDARD and other commenting authorities and the findings fromthe specialist studies. Appended to the Draft EIR was the Draft Environmental ManagementPlan (Appendix E).The Draft EIR included:• A detailed description of the proposed development;• A description of the need and desirability of the proposed development and the identifiedpotential alternatives to the proposed activity;• A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner inwhich physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment maybe affected by the proposed development;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 25 8848• A description of the methodology followed and being followed for the stakeholderengagement process;• The Issues and Response Report and Stakeholder Database;• A summary of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential impacts;• A description and comparative assessment of all alternatives identified during theenvironmental impact assessment process;• A summary of the findings of the specialist studies;• A detailed assessment of all identified potential impacts;• A list of the assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge;• An opinion by the consultant as to whether the development is suitable for approval withinthe proposed site;• An EMP that complies with regulation 34 of the NEMA ,Act 107 of 1998; and• Copies of all specialist reports appended to the EIR.Environmental Management PlanThe Environmental Management Plan highlights the most significant potential impacts andprovides mitigation measures for these impacts to ensure that the risk of impact is reducedand that the activity generating the impact is suitably managed. The EMP includes:• Recommended management plans and detailed measures for environmental objectivesidentified to manage impacts, in order to facilitate the monitoring and control of the activitygenerating the impact; and• The identification of the responsible person for the mitigation and monitoring of impacts.3.2.2 Public participation during the Impact AssessmentObjectives of Public Participation in the Impact Assessment PhaseThe objectives of public participation in an EIA are to provide sufficient and accessibleinformation to I&APs in an objective manner so as to:• During Impact Assessment:- Verify that their issues have been considered either by the EIA Specialist Studies, orelsewhere.- Comment on the findings of the EIA, including the measures that have been proposedto enhance positive impacts and reduce or avoid negative ones.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 26 8848Public participation during the impact assessment phase of the EIA mainly involves a reviewof the findings of the EIA, presented in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), theDraft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the specialist studies.Public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Management PlanA period of four weeks was made available for public review of the Draft EIR and Draft EMPfrom 10 May 2010 to 10 June 2010.The opportunity for public review of the Draft EIR and Draft EMP was announced as follows:• In advertisements published (see Table 5 below) to advertise the public review period ofthe Draft EIR and Draft EMP.Table 5: Advertisements placed to announce the public review of the draft EIR and draftEMP.PublicationVaal WeekbladVaal WeeklyVereeniging SterVision Sebokeng & EvatonVanderbijlpark SterVaal WeekbladPublication Date12 May12 May12 May13 May12 May12 May• In a letter distributed on 4 May 2010 and addressed personally to all individuals andorganisations on the stakeholder database.The Draft EIR and Draft EMP, including the IRR Version 2, were distributed for comment asfollows:• Left in public venues within the vicinity of the project area (these are listed in Table 4above – the same venues were used as during the scoping phase);• Mailed to key stakeholders; and• Mailed to I&APs who requested the report.I&APs could comment on the report in various ways, such as completing the comment sheetthat accompanied the report and submitting individual comments in writing or by email.A meeting was held on 15 July 2010 at Emfuleni Municipality to discuss timeframes withregards to the proposed extension and closure of Boitshepi and that of the proposedconstruction of the new regional landfill site. The meeting was attended by the Department ofWater Affairs (DWA) (Thya Pather), Gauteng Department of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment (GDARD) (TJ Malivha, L Sibiya and R Kutama), Emfuleni Municipality (ThinusRedelinghuys and Bernice Somo) and the consultants responsible for the two separate EIAsZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 27 8848(KV3 Engineers and Zitholele Consulting). At the meeting it was agreed by all parties that theFinal Environmental Impact Reports of both EIAs will be submitted to GDARD during midAugust 2010. The GDARD will then request comments from DWA on matters pertaining to thedepartment. The DWA expressed their satisfaction with the DEIR of this EIA as they havereceived a copy thereof during a meeting that was arranged between Zitholele Consulting andMr Pather to solicit DWA’s comments on the proposed project.Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Management PlanThe Final EIR and EMP has been updated with additional issues raised by I&APs and couldcontain new information that was generated as a result of the public review process. The FinalEIR and EMP is being submitted to the Authorities (GDARD) and key I&APs, and to thoseindividuals who specifically requested a copy. I&APs have been notified of the availability ofthe final reports in a letter that was distributed to all stakeholders.Announce authorities’ decisions on Environmental AuthorisationOnce the GDARD has made a decision for the proposed project, stakeholders will be notifiedaccording to the requirements set by the GDARD in their authorisation letter. A letter will befaxed and emailed to the list of stakeholders and those without email or fax facilities will becontacted telephonically.3.2.3 AppealA Notice of Intent to appeal on the EA can be lodged with the GDARD by either the proponentor a stakeholder within stipulated time period (within an EA) following the issue of the EA. Anappeal must be submitted to the relevant department within 30 days of lodging the Notice ofIntent to appeal. The appeal should describe the grounds for appeal and must besubstantiated with evidence.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 28 88484 ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISEDIssues and concerns raised during the EIA have been documented in the IRR (SeeAppendix B4).4.1 AuthoritiesTo date, the following Authorities have raised issues and concerns regarding the proposedextension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and the identified alternatives.• Emfuleni Local Municipality.4.2 StakeholdersThe issues and concerns documented to date have been tabulated in the IRR (AppendixB4) and have been summarised into the following board categories:• The type of materials being disposed;• Social Issues;• Illegal Dumping;• Ecological Issues;• Economic;• Access to the site; and• Air quality.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 29 88485 PROJECT DESCRIPTION5.1 LocationThe ELM consists of two main town centres, namely Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark withSasolburg 10 km to the south, across the provincial boundary. The Boitshepi Waste DisposalSite is located in Vanderbijlpark. The site is situated to the east of Boipatong and to the westof Tshepiso, hence the name Boitshepi (Figure 1).5.2 Need for the extension of the Waste Disposal Site with view of closureThe Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is reaching capacity and as such needs to be extendedand ultimately closed. The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is the only site that canaccommodate the waste disposal needs in the ELM for the time being. The site receives anaverage of 20,000 to 25,000 tons of waste per month from local residences and industries.The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed to meet thewaste disposal needs for the area. Kwezi V3 Engineers (KV3) in association with MasakheIsizwe Engineers (Pty) Ltd were appointed by the ELM on 12 February 2008 (3 yearcontract) to site, obtain EA, design, establish and license a new GLB + waste disposal site inthe ELM. Once operational, this new site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.5.3 Components for a Waste Disposal SiteThe following components of the waste disposal site were taken into considerationthroughout this EIA and the design of the site:• The lifespan of the site• Footprint of the facility (ground space);• Height of the facility (airspace);• Type of waste to be disposed as well as the volumes (waste stream analysis);• Geotechnical, hydrogeological conditions and liner design; and• Capping of the site.Lifespan of the facilityThe lifespan of the facility will be linked to the buffer zone alternative to be approved and isdependent on the new waste disposal site being established. It is estimated that the site willrequire at least an additional 3 years of operations.Footprint of the facilityThe existing waste disposal site has footprint of approximately 10 ha. The new facilityfootprint will depend on the alternative approved. The additional footprint will range between12 (0 metre buffer) and 3.5 ha (100 metre buffer).ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 30 8848The current use of the land adjacent to the waste disposal site and the property on which it issituated is of industrial, agricultural and a wetland. Major towns within the region areVereeniging (located to the north east of the site) Vanderbijlpark (south west of the site),Sasolburg (south of the site) and Meyerton (north east of the site). There are currentlyapproximately 500 salvagers on site. These salvagers depend on the Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site for their livelihood. The majority of the salvagers live in the ‘informalsettlements’ of Tshepiso (east of the site), Boipatong (west of the site), Bophelong (north ofthe site), Evaton (north of the site), Orange Farm, Sebokeng (north of the site), Sharpeville(east of the site) and Zamdela.The Vaal Triangle encompasses a mixture of commercial, agricultural, and residential landuse activities, all within close proximity to one another. Vanderbijlpark is home toVanderbijlpark Steel (previously part of ISCOR (Iron and Steel Corporation), now part of theglobal company Arcelor Mittal. Other Industrial activities within this region include coal-firedpower stations, chemical factories, petrochemical plants, metallurgical plants and multiplesmall industries.Height of the facilityThe present highest point of the waste disposal site is 1496 m above sea level. Theextension will be designed to this height across the approved footprint.Geotechnical Conditions and Foundation DesignThe current site is situated in an area dominated by clay soils and is unlined. It isrecommended that the extension of the site be lined as per the Minimum Requirements(Figure 5). A geotechnical investigation was undertaken (Appendix C4) in order to establishwhether the extension / new site can be constructed on the geological conditions that prevailon site. This in turn influenced the foundation design of the disposal facility.Figure 5: Waste Disposal Site Liner for a GLB + site as per the Minimum Requirements.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 31 8848Capping of the Waste Disposal SiteThere is no permit / licence for the existing waste site. However the cells of the existingwaste disposal site that have reached capacity must be capped during the same period thatthe extension is lined. The type of capping proposed for the site is in line with the MinimumRequirements for a GLB + waste disposal facility (Figure 6).As stated in the Minimum Requirements the design of covers is highly dependent on sitespecificcircumstances, e.g., nature of waste (wet, dry, putrescible). Although the primaryfunction of the cover is to keep water out of the waste body, the cover design will also beaffected by the containment and gas management philosophy adopted and the preferredmaterials and technology (e.g., clay, GCLs and FMLs) for the given situation. Cover designsshould be based on the figure below. However, at the discretion of the Competent Authority,components and configurations may be varied.Figure 6: Capping cross section for a GLB+ waste disposal site as per the MinimumRequirements.5.4 Services and InfrastructureThe waste disposal site already has the following auxiliary services and infrastructurespresent on site:• Access and Roads;• Weighbridge;• Fencing;• Water;• Electricity;• Staff facilities; and• Site office and fuel storage area.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 32 88485.5 Major Activities of the Overall Waste ProjectThe major activities for the proposed project (including the EIA), prior to and afterconstruction, are explained in the table below.ACTIVITYTable 6: Major activities for the proposed project.DETAILSScreeningEIAConsultation with privateproperty ownersPRE CONSTRUCTION PHASEAs part of the undertaking of an EIA, a technical team devised buffer zone alternatives for theproposed project. An environmental team was commissioned to undertake a screening exercisein the area to determine the most feasible alternative from an environmental perspective to takeinto the EIA.An EIA is being undertaken to ensure that all environmental, social and cultural impacts areidentified and to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to raise issues and concerns.This is necessary to obtain Environmental Authorisation from the competent authority in this casethe Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD).All stakeholders and property owners have been, and are being engaged in the EIA.StructureinvestigationlinerInvestigations will be undertaken to ensure that the liner specifications are in line with theunderlying geology.Approval from authoritiesRelocation of servicesStructuresIf any infrastructure needs to be relocated for the development, it must be undertaken prior tocommencement with construction.CONSTRUCTION PHASEFencing - Provide a safe and secured waste disposal area to restrict access and prevent injuriesto livestock – already in place, however needs to be maintainedFormation - Provide a ground formation compacted to the correct standard on which to extendthe waste disposal site.Drainage - Provide water drainage channels within the site and leachate management system.Rehabilitateconstruction areatheREHABILITATION PHASEThe area where construction activities have taken place must be rehabilitated to minimiseenvironmental degradation by following the EMP that is compiled in conjunction to the EIA.Commencement ofoperationsDecommissioning of thewaste site and itsinfrastructureOPERATIONAL PHASERehabilitation tasks have to take place progressively during operations.DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASEOnce the waste disposal site is no longer in use and is no longer required, a decommissioningprocess may commence including the capping of the waste body and rehabilitating the area.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 33 88485.6 Overall EIA Project ScheduleThe primary milestones for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site Project (prior and through topost construction) are described in Table 7 below.Table 7: Primary milestones of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.MILESTONESFinal Scoping Report 20 February 2009Undertake Specialist Studies January - March 2010Draft EIR and EMP April 2010Stakeholder Engagement on EIR / EMP May - June 2010Finalise EIR and EMP June 2010Submission to Relevant Authorities June / July 2010Environmental Authorisation October / November 2010Appeal PeriodConstruction (including EMP Auditing)DATETo be confirmed after the Environmental AuthorisationTo be confirmed after the Environmental Authorisation5.7 Description of the Development Activities - Extension5.7.1 The Pre-Construction PhaseEnvironmental Authorisation and Waste LicenceIf the competent authority decides to grant EA, then an EA will be issued complying withRegulation 38 of the NEMA Regulations, 2006 in the name of the applicant. Once an EA isissued, a Waste Licence can also be issued in order for the proposed project to proceed.Should both the EA and Waste License be received, and the appeal process lapses the ELMmay commence with construction towards extension.Appointment of ContractorAfter a tendering process, the ELM will appoint a construction contractor.Construction ScheduleThe primary milestones for the construction for the extension of Boitshepi Waste DisposalSite are described below.5.7.2 Construction PhaseOnce a positive EA and waste license is obtained, construction for the extension of theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site will be undertaken over a period to be determined by themunicipality. The construction phase of the development will involve the following aspects:ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 34 8848• Site preparation and vegetation clearance for contractor’s camp;• Erection of camp sites for the contractors;• Construction of surface drainage and storm water diversion drains;• Construction of the liner;• Construction of a leachate collection system;• Construction of a leakage detection system;• Construction of gas management systems (not applicable at this stage); and• Site preparation and commissioning.Site preparation and vegetation clearance is undertaken for contractor’s camp in order tofacilitate construction.An area will be cleared for the siting of a contractor’s camp to facilitate construction. Thisarea will be chosen to have the least environmental impacts which are easily mitigated andwill be rehabilitated as per the EMP requirements post construction.Erection of camp sites for the contractorsThe contractor’s camp will be located on the site within the palisade fencing and therefore noadditional fencing will be required. Site establishment shall take place in an orderly mannerand all amenities shall be installed at the camp site (if applicable) before the main workforcemoves onto site.Construction of surface drainage and storm water diversion drains.This includes the separation of unpolluted from polluted surface water and the containmentof polluted water on site in impoundments. Also where leachate is generated, it must becontained separately from water which is only slightly polluted through contact with thewaste.Construction of the linerThis is a layer of low permeability material placed beneath a waste disposal site anddesigned to direct leachate to a collection drain or sump, or to contain leachate. It maycomprise natural materials, synthetic materials, or a combination thereof (refer to Section5.3).ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 35 8848Construction of a leachate collection systemThe leachate collection system will be equipped with suitable drains or collection pipes thatdirect the gravity flow of leachate to defined collection points or sumps from which it can becollected for treatment.Construction of a leakage detection systemThe leakage detection system will be constructed to intercept any leachate that may passthe barrier of the liner. This leachate is then directed to separate leachate collection sumpsor sewer, where the quantity and quality can be monitored and from which accumulatedleakage can be removed or passed through to the sewer system. This system is designed tofulfil the requirements for the early warning monitoring of leakage given in Section 6 of theMinimum Requirements for Monitoring of Waste Management Facilities, Second Edition,1998.Figure 7: Example of a Leakage Detection System.Construction of gas management systemsA gas management system is constructed to extract gas by applying suction to a system ofperforated pipes within the waste site to reduce odour problems and the explosion hazard.When organic waste decomposes without the presence of oxygen, anaerobic fermentationslowly produces landfill gas. Landfill gas contains 40-60% methane, with the remainderbeing mostly carbon dioxide. Methane is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide when itcomes to its properties as a greenhouse gas, making it a key climate change gas to address.Burning methane produces energy, carbon dioxide and water. This is a very useful outcomeas besides being an energy source, the hugely potent methane is replaced by theconsiderably less potent CO 2 . A gas management system will therefore capture the methaneand combust it for energy. It can be used to produce electricity, or used directly for cookingand for space and water heating. When concentrated and compressed, it can also be usedas a vehicle fuel source.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 36 8848CEF (Pty) Ltd, a state owned entity, is proposing landfill gas (LFG) to electricity renewableenergy projects at landfill sites in the ELM. The proposed activities will consist of extractionand utilisation of landfill gas, and the use of the recovered gas to produce electricity.The proposed activities are regulated in terms of NEMA EIA Regulations and as such aresubject to the Scoping and EIA procedure. In order for the activities to proceed, they willrequire environmental authorisation.WSP Environment & Energy has been appointed by CEF to undertake the function ofindependent Environmental Assessment Practitioner to facilitate the Scoping and EIAprocedure in accordance with the EIA Regulations.Site preparation and commissioningFigure 8: Landfill Gas Management.This commences after all infrastructure has been established, in order to prepare the site toa state that is ready to receive waste and to operate as an environmentally acceptabledisposal facility for a pre- determined period. This would entail having all the above in place,installed and ready for the acceptance of waste.5.7.3 Operational PhaseThe objectives of the Minimum Requirements for waste disposal site operation are:• To ensure that all waste is disposed of in an environmentally and socially acceptablemanner; and• To ensure that the disposal operation is acceptable to those whom it affects.Waste disposal sites must be operated in accordance with the following sanitary wastedisposal site operating principles:- Waste must be compacted; and- Covered at the end of each day’s operation.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 37 8848There are different methods that should be applied for landfilling general waste:• Trench system (Only for communal and small sized waste disposal sites);• Standard cell operation;• Wet weather cell; and• Special cells for putrescible waste.Facilities and resources that the waste disposal site should have during its operation include:Sign posting and road access;Signs in the appropriate official languages must be erected in the vicinity of the waste site,indicating the route and the distance to the waste disposal site from the nearest main road.These traffic signs must conform to the requirements of the Road Ordinance. A generalnotice board must also be erected at the site entrance stating the class of the disposal siteand the types of waste that can be accepted as well as the correlated tariffs charged.Figure 9 is a depiction of such a notice board at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site that canonly be amended once EA has been granted by the GDARD to accommodate therequirements of the extended site.ControlsFigure 9: Existing site notice boards at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.Waste AcceptanceGeneral waste disposal sites may only receive general waste. Prior to waste being acceptedat the general waste disposal sites, it must be inspected by a suitably qualified staff and thetransporter must confirm that waste is indeed general waste.On entering a waste disposal site, all drivers are expected to go over a weighbridge. Aweighbridge is a piece of equipment that weighs both the vehicle and waste that it containsto accurately record the amount of waste being disposed. The driver then completes a formwhere the weight and type of waste is recorded as well as the identity of the driver andZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 38 8848registration number of the vehicle. A clerk in the weighbridge office then enters thisinformation into the computer. As indicated in Figure 9 above, disposable tariffs are payableas per the tonnes of waste disposed. Clean builders rubble, clean cover material, greens(excluding tree branches) and public domestic waste are all disposed free of charge,furthermore, mixed builder’s rubble, bulky tree stump, domestic waste, big blocks, delistedindustrial waste, are assigned a specific tariff to each of them.Access ControlIt is a Minimum Requirement that vehicle access to the site be limited to a single controlledentrance to prevent the unauthorised entry and illegal dumping. The site entrance shouldhave a lockable gate which should be managed during operation hours.Collection of disposal tariffsWaste disposal tariffs should be levied and collected at all waste disposal sites from mediumsize upward. The tariffs, as mentioned above should be displayed on the notice board(Figure 9 above).SecurityIt is a Minimum Requirement that unauthorised pedestrian access be strictly prohibited.Waste reclamation and squatting should be discouraged.Operational Management PlanThis is a plan that is a site specific document that has been developed as part of the wastelicense application procedure. It describes the way in which the site is to be operated,commencing at the level and detail of daily cell construction and continuing through to theprojected development of the site with time. Please refer to Appendix F for the OperationalManagement Plan.ResourcesAdequate facilities, equipment, and suitably trained staff are required in order to ensure anongoing environmentally acceptable waste disposal operation.5.8 Description of the Development Activities - Closure5.8.1 Rehabilitation PhaseThe progressive rehabilitation of waste sites by means of capping and the subsequentestablishment of vegetation is a Minimum Requirement. Capping should be implemented onall areas where no further waste deposition will take place, and re-vegetation shouldcommence as soon as possible. Screening berms are the first areas where vegetation mustbe established. This ensures that waste disposal operations take place behind vegetatedberms. These are extended upwards in advance of the disposal operation to ensurecontinued screening. This is referred to as the “rising green wall” approach. All final levelsand slopes must be in accordance with the waste site design and the end-use plan. Slopesshould not be steeper than 1:3 so as to minimise erosion.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 39 88486 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDThe Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) Guidelines (DEA) state that information onreasonable alternatives should be provided. The following alternatives have been consideredand are discussed in more detail below:• Site alternatives;• Design alternatives; and• “No-go” alternative.Alternatives are different means of meeting the general purpose and need of a proposedactivity. Alternatives may involve location (site), activity, process or technology, temporal orthe no-go alternatives. Alternatives relevant to the project have been detailed below.6.1 Site AlternativesThere are no site alternatives as the activity is for the extension and decommissioning of anexisting site. It is proposed that the current waste disposal site be upgraded and extendedwith the view to closure.6.2 Design AlternativesThree different design alternatives were considered in the Scoping Phase of the project(2008). The three alternatives were as follows:• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone(no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The site will havean additional 3,651,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan ofapproximately 9 years;• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone.The site would gain an extra 3,006,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan ofapproximately 7-8 years; and• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone.An addition of 1,140,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional lifeof the waste would be approximately 3 years.The EIA for the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site was initiated in January 2007. Theproject has been on-going for almost three years and throughout this period waste has beenand continues to be disposed of at Boitshepi. As a result some of the information that hasbeen provided in earlier phases of this project is outdated and no longer applicable,therefore certain capacity and lifespan calculations are no longer correct and out byapproximately two years and required re-evaluation.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 40 8848The approval letter received from the GDARD from the Scoping Phase stated thatAlternative 3 (100 metre buffer) was the preferred alternative, and at that stage alternative 3would allow for an additional 3 years airspace. This is no longer the situation and the threealternatives have been re-evaluated as follows:• Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone(no distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users), the site will havean additional 3,221,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespan ofapproximately 8 years;• Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zoneThe site would gain an extra 2,576,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan ofapproximately 6-7 years; and• Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone.An addition of 710,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life ofthe waste would be approximately 1-2 years.Alternative 3 initially seemed viable and preferable, with the smallest footprint for theproposed extension as an intermediate solution prior to the new waste disposal beingestablished. However, on evaluation of the recent calculations it is evident that thisalternative is no longer feasible since it will not accommodate the disposal requirements forthe area until the new site is commissioned and it is therefore no longer the preferredalternative but is fatally flawed. Regardless of this fatal flaw it is included in the impactassessment for consistency and information purposes.The three alternatives are illustrated in Figure 10.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 418848Figure 10: Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site with Alternative Buffer Zones.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 428848Alternative 1In the case of alternative 1, where there will be no buffer zone, the surrounding land userswill be highly affected and there will be a significant impact as a result of the activities, asthere will be no distance between the community and the waste disposal site. The site willhave an additional 3,221,113 m³ of airspace available with an additional estimated lifespanof approximately 8 years.Alternative 2In the case of Alternative 2, where there will be 50 meter buffer zone, the site would gain anextra 2,576,113 m³ of airspace and have an additional lifespan of approximately 6-7 years.Although the GDARD has approved the SR and PoS based on alternative 3, after carefulconsideration, Zitholele Consulting and the appointed specialists for the project collectivelysee alternative 2 as the most feasible (socially, economically and environmentally) andpreferred option.Alternative 3If the extension of the waste disposal site footprint is the 100 metre buffer zone, thecommunity would be less impacted on compared to a 0 m buffer zone. An addition of710,475 m³ airspace would be available and the expected additional life of the waste wouldbe approximately 1-2 years. A letter of approval of the SR and the PoS has been receivedfrom the GDARD. The report has been approved based on this alternative as the preferredalternative. This alternative is no longer feasible as it would not accommodate the disposalneeds in the area until the commissioning of the new site.Refer to Appendix D4 for the airspace calculations for all the aforementioned alternatives.6.3 The No Go AlternativeIn the case that none of the three design alternatives is suitable for the proposed extensionof the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, the recommendation would be that a new wastedisposal site be constructed immediately as there will be no further airspace available for thedisposal of waste in the region. However, the site will still require a closure waste license interms of the NEM:WA, 2008. It is a Listed Activity 20 in GN. No. 718, and falls withinCategory “A” of the Schedule.As described in detail in the Scoping Report, the Boitshepi Disposal Site is currentlyoperating without a waste license. It is currently accepting urban and industrial waste. Thereis a huge demand for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site extension as that would mean moreairspace for disposing of the waste, and therefore more lifespan to continue disposing. The‘no-go’ alternative is likely to result in the needs for extension not being met, withconcomitant potentially significant impacts from an economic and social perspective for siteusers. The site cannot be closed until a new site has been authorised and licensed to meetthe waste disposal needs for the area. Consultants have been appointed to site, obtain EA,design, establish and license a new GLB+ waste disposal site in ELM. Once operational, thisnew site will replace the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 4388487 BASELINE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENTThe regional environment is described in the section below. For the context of this report theregional environment refers to a 50 km radius around the study area.7.1 Bio-Physical Environment7.1.1 ClimateMethodology and Data SourcesThe climate information was obtained from the Climate of South Africa database.Airshed Planning Professionals (Pty) Ltd undertook a qualitative assessment addressingemissions from the construction, operational and closure phases of the waste disposal site.Since meteorological mechanisms govern the transport, dispersion and eventual removal ofpollutants in the atmosphere, the dispersion potential of the site was evaluated. Use wasmade of hourly average meteorological data from the South African Weather Servicesstation in Vereeniging. The prevailing wind field and wind velocities were analysed, togetherwith the stability classes, temperature and rainfall.The site falls within the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area. This area was declared a priorityarea based on the concern for elevated particulate concentrations. The DEA implementedsix ambient monitoring stations within the Vaal Triangle to measure ambient concentrationsof PM10, SO2, NO2, and CO. Two of these stations are located in the vicinity of the Boitshepisite, with one in Sebokeng and one at Three Rivers. The ambient concentrations from thesetwo stations were evaluated as part of the Airshed study (Refer to Appendix C6).Regional DescriptionThe study area displays a mild climate, characterised by warm moist summers and cool drywinters typical of the Highveld climate. The region falls within the summer rainfall region ofSouth Africa, rainfall occurs mainly as thunderstorms from October to March, with a meanannual precipitation (MAP) of 668mm. This varies from 900mm in the central higher lyingareas to 556mm in the lower lying northern and southern areas of the province. Mean annualtemperature varies from approximately 19.3°C in the north of the province to 16.0°C in thesouth. The eastern and central areas, however, experience a lower mean annualtemperature of around 15.0°C. There is large variation between summer and wintertemperatures, with Gauteng experiencing a daily mean temperature in January and July of21.2°C and 9.8°C, respectively (Schulze, 1997).Due to the long clear nights, mild wind and dry air in Gauteng in winter, the occurrence offrost is common in the region. The region experiences on average 30 days of frost per year(Schulze, 1997). Winter atmospheric conditions cause temperature inversions, which haveZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 448848the effect of keeping polluted air close to the surface, so that winter air quality over theHighveld is generally poor.Site DescriptionAll sources of atmospheric emissions near the site were identified with potential pollutantslisted. Domestic fuel burning from the informal settlements surrounding the site is likely to bethe main contributing sources in the area together with Cape Gate and Arcelor MittalVanderbijlpark.SensitivitiesThere are no foreseen climatic sensitivities associated with the site or the proposed activity.7.1.2 Geology and SoilsMethodology and Data SourcesGeologyA desktop screening assessment, using a GIS tool was undertaken of the geologicalenvironment. The geological data was taken from the Environmental Potential Atlas(ENPAT) data from the DEA.Seventeen test pits were excavated across the site for the proposed extension of theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site using a Cat 428 backactor supplied by Lichenry Constructionfrom Vereeniging. The test pits were entered by a registered professional engineeringgeologist who described the soil and bedrock formations in terms of the methods advocatedby Jennings et al (1973) namely, moisture condition, colour, soil consistency, soil structure,soil type and origin (MCCSSO). Disturbed representative soil samples were recovered fromthe test pits and submitted to SNALAB’s commercial soils laboratory in Pretoria for testingand identification, three water samples were submitted to RHC’s chemical laboratory inPretoria for analysis. The detailed descriptions of the test pit profiles are provided on theSoil Profile Sheets of the Geotechnical Report attached in Appendix C4.SoilsA site visit was conducted by the specialist on the 17 th of February 2010. Soils were augeredat 150m intervals where possible along the proposed extension alternatives using a 150 mmbucket auger, up to refusal or 1.2 m. Soils were identified according to the Soil Classification;a taxonomic system for South Africa (Memoirs on the Natural Resources of South Africa, no.15, 1991). The following soil characteristics were documented:• Soil horizons;• Soil colour;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 458848• Soil depth;• Soil texture (Field determination);• Wetness;• Occurrence of concretions or rocks; and• Underlying material (if possible).Regional DescriptionThe region is underlain by colluvial and alluvial soils overlying shale and sandstone bedrockof the Ecca Group, Karoo Super group (refer to Figure 11 for regional geology and Figure 12for regional soil type delineation). The Ecca group consists mainly of shales, with thicknessvarying from 1,500m in the south, to 600m in the north. Since shales are very dense, theyare often overlooked as significant sources of ground water.The Daspoort quartzite of the Pretoria Group outcrops to the north of the region. Topsoil inthe region essentially consists of brown and grey, loose to medium dense, clayey sandwhich extends to an average depth of 0.5m. Some portions of the region’s topsoil areunderlain by orange mottled light grey, firm sandy clay with occasional gravel, cobbles andboulders, while some areas are underlain by brown, clayey sand containing abundant gravel,cobbles and boulders of colluvial origin. On the other hand, a small portion of the region isunderlain by orange, very strongly cemented soft to hard rock, hardpan ferricrete. The clay isof alluvial origin. The transported alluvial and residual soils are underlain, at an averagedepth of 1.5m, by residual mudrock and sandstone over the portions and also by residualquartzite.Site DescriptionThe surface area of study area has been fairly extensively disturbed by the removal of soilfor use as cover for the solid waste. The study area is underlain by transported and residualsoils developed over shale bedrock belonging to the Vryheid Formation, Ecca Group, KarooSupergroup and by quartzite bedrock belonging to the Daspoort Formation, Pretoria Group,Transvaal Supergroup. No rock outcrops were encountered in the immediate vicinity of thesite.SensitivitiesSeventeen test pits were excavated across the site for the proposed extension of theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site using a Cat 428 backactor. The test pits were for thepurposes of describing the soil and bedrock formations.Minor to strong inflow of perched ground water seepage was encountered in some 80% ofthe test pits at depths ranging from 0,4m to 2,1m below surface. The design of undergroundstructures such as basements or buried tanks if not correctly implemented could affect theground water.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

46August 2010 8848Figure 11: Regional Surface Geology.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

47August 2010 8848Figure 12: Soil Type Delineation.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

48August 2010 8848Figure 13: Site specific geology.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 4988487.1.3 Drainage Features (Surface and Ground water)Methodology and Data SourcesSurface waterA desktop screening assessment using a GIS tool was undertaken on the surface waterenvironment. The surface water data was taken from the WR90 data supplied by the DWA.Ground waterA total of seven boreholes were located by Golder Associates Africa around the BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site. Data was recorded in each borehole, collar plinths condition, staticwater level, casing information and borehole depth. The measurements of field parameters(Electrical conductivity (EC), Temperature and pH), were carried out at each site with aportable calibrated pH meter (pH/Conductivity EC500).Regional DescriptionThe Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is located in the Upper Vaal River Catchment (DWA)Catchment C22F (Figure 15).Surface waters comprise flowing rivers and lakes or dams, with many of the smallertributaries being seasonal in nature (i.e. dry in the winter). Such rivers include the Klip River,which flows south east of the site towards the Vaal River south of Vanderbijlpark and theSuikerbosrant, which flows east of the site into the Vaal River.The Vaal Dam is located on the Vaal River some 56km south of Johannesburg, close toVereeniging. The catchment area of the dam is approximately 38 500 km 2 . The catchmentarea has a MAP of approximately 700mm.The aquifers found in the region are diverse due to the varied and complex geology. Theaquifers can be grouped into four hydrogeological types (DWA), 1999A) namely:intergranular (alluvial – found in valley bottoms); fractured aquifers; karstic (dolomitic)aquifers; and intergranular and fractured aquifers (in the weathered zone). The quality ofwater in these resources is highly variable depending on the geology, ecological setting andinfluence of man.Site DescriptionSurface waterTo the south-east of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, there is a large wetland and dam,fed by the local stream.Ground waterThe underlying lithology is not uniform across the site. The northern area is underlain byoverburden and sandstone, whereas the southern area is underlain by overburden, clay,ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 508848siltstone, mudstone, sandstone, quartzite and shale. This implies that the site is underlain bydifferent hydrogeological compartments and therefore could be impacted differently.SensitivitiesSurface waterThere are drainage sensitivities posed upon the drainage features surrounding the site(identified wetland and the dam). All the surface water bodies are considered to be sensitivefeatures, and should be avoided as far as possible.Ground waterIn areas underlain by sandstone; waste disposal site leachate is most likely to seep directlyto groundwater. However; in the southern area, the site is underlain by a clay rich horizonand seepage is most likely to flow along this clay layer and could discharge directly into thestream (Please refer to Figure 14).Two aquifers have been identified at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site; namely, shallow anddeep aquifers.Shallow aquiferThis is a perched aquifer (at depth between 0 and 10m) present in the south of the wastedisposal site.Deep aquiferThe deep aquifer is present on the contact between the red mudstone and greyish shale.The deep aquifer is highly permeable.Figure 14: Conceptual Groundwater flow model for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 518848Figure 15: Upper Vaal Water Management Area.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 5288487.1.4 Topography and Land UseMethodology and Data SourcesThe topography of the area was taken from the Surveyor General 1:50 000 topocadastralmap sheet of the area (2627 DB). Land Use was determined utilising a GIS desktop study,the data was obtained from the DWA’s database. Information was also taken from GDARD’sHydrology and Water Research Commission (WR90).Regional DescriptionThe topography of the region is characterised by moderate relief. Small, scattered wetlandsand pans occur in the area, rocky outcrops and ridges also form part of the significantlandscape features in the area. Altitude ranges from 1,450 to 1,600 metres above sea level(masl).Site DescriptionFor all three alternative sites, the area’s land use is characterised predominantly byresidential areas (including informal settlements). There are industries such as Cape Gate tothe north of the waste disposal site, and there are residential areas in all directions from thesite. The topography is not mountainous as it is within a residential area (refer to Figure 16).SensitivitiesA wetland is present on the southern border of the site, however there appears to be noother foreseen topographical and land use sensitivities posed upon the site or the proposedactivity. The current surrounding land use is mostly residential and industrial, the wastedisposal site’s existence is appropriate and therefore, topographical and land usesensitivities are not foreseen.Wetlands provide important ecosystem services such as flood attenuation, regulating waterflow, recharging ground water and purifying and removing pollutants from water. Wetlandsalso provide for a large number of species, many of which those are economically important.An ecological investigation has been undertaken to determine if any further terrestrialsensitivity is present in the study area and to assess its significance.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

53August 2010 8848Figure 16: Topography of the siteZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 5488487.1.5 Terrestrial Ecology (Flora)Methodology and Data SourcesThe floral study involved extensive fieldwork, a literature review and a desktop study utilisingGIS. The site was investigated during two site visits conducted on 14 January 2010 and 17February 2010 by Mr Konrad Kruger. All species within the waste disposal site wereidentified, photographed and their occurrence noted.• The floral data below is taken from the Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho andSwaziland (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). Also, while on site, the following field guideswere used:- Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa (Frits van Oudtshoorn, 1999);- Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa (Braam van Wyk and Piet van Wyk, 1997);- Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld (Braam van Wyk and Sasa Malan,1998);- Problem Plants of South Africa (Clive Bromilow, 2001); and- Medicinal Plants of South Africa (Ben-Erik van Wyk, Bosch van Oudtshoorn andNigel Gericke, 2002).The occurrence of the species was described as either:• Very common (>50 % coverage);• Common (10 – 50 % coverage);• Sparse (5 – 10 % coverage); and• Individuals (< 5 % coverage)..Regional DescriptionAccording to the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), the study area fallswithin the Grassland Biome, where most of the country’s maize production occurs. The mainvegetation types found in the region are the Soweto Highveld Grassland and Central FreeState Grassland vegetation units as classified by Mucina and Rutherford 7 . As the study areaonly falls within the Soweto Highveld Grassland, this unit is described in more detail below.7 The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Mucina and Rutherford 2006. GERMISHUIZEN, G. &MEYER, N.L. (eds) 2003. Plants of southern Africa: an annotated checklist. Strelitzia 14. National BotanicalInstitute, Pretoria.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 558848Soweto Highveld GrasslandThe Soweto Highveld Grassland is found in the Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces in abroad band roughly delineated by the N17 Highway in the north, Perdekop in the southeastand the Vaal River in the south. The landscape is typical of the gently undulating Highveldplateau which supports dense tufted grassland dominated by Themeda triandra, Elionurusmuticus, Eragrostis racemosa, Heteropogon contortus and Tristachya leucothrix. Thisgrassland is only interrupted by wetlands, occasional ridges and agricultural activities.This vegetation type is endangered as almost no conservation of the vegetation type occurs.An estimated 45% of the vegetation type has already been transformed by cultivation, urbansprawl and mining.Endangered SpeciesAccording to the PRECIS database, there are six plant species of concern in the quarterdegree grid. These are listed in Table 8 below.Table 8: Endangered Plant Species.Family Species Threat Status Growth FormsAMARYLLIDACEAE Boophone disticha (L.f.) Herb. Declining Geophyte, succulentAMARYLLIDACEAECrinum bulbispermum (Burm.f.) Declining Geophyte, hydrophyteMilne-Redh. & Schweick.HYPOXIDACEAE Hypoxis hemerocallidea Fisch., Declining GeophyteC.A.Mey. & Avé-Lall.APOCYNACEAEStapelia paniculata Willd. subsp. Near Threatened SucculentpaniculataMESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. Near Threatened Succulentsubsp. leslieiASTERACEAE Gnaphalium nelsonii Burtt Davy Rare HerbSite DescriptionThe vegetation on site has been significantly disturbed by the waste disposal activities to thepoint where very little natural grassland remains on the site. Large sections of the wastedisposal site that are no longer operational have been covered by vegetation ranging fromindigenous grasses to alien invasive plants. Three main vegetation types could be identifiedon site, but all of them are significantly disturbed. The following vegetation types identified onsite are shown in Figure 17 below:• Urban garden;• Alien grassland; and• Barren land with scattered aliens.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 568848In addition to the vegetation units identified above, there is an area that is currently beingused for the composting of garden waste that has piles of plant material on the ground. Thisarea is shown in the map but not classified as a vegetation type.Urban GardenThe urban garden unit comprises the area surrounding the administration buildings and theweigh bridge. In this area, several typical garden plants have been established and there issome form of vegetation management. There are also planted trees present in this area thatinclude Rhus lancea (Karree) and Combretum erythrophyllum (River Bushwillow). Gardenplants include Kikuju, Agave and some flower beds as shown below.Figure 17: Urban garden vegetation unit.Alien grassland and Barren Area with scattered AliensThe alien grassland and the barren area with scattered aliens are very similar vegetationtypes, as they are both dominated by alien plants. In the case of the alien grassland, there issome form of natural grassland vegetation returning to the habitat. The typical species aregiven in Table 9 below and shows the high number of weeds present on site.The barren area is created by the large number of salvagers / re-claimers and theiroperations on the site. Also there is very little substrate for vegetation to grow on as largeparts of the site have slag material at or near the surface. Both of these vegetation types areillustrated in Figure 18 and Figure 19 below.One species in particular is indicative of the slag in the waste body, namely Smelter’s bush.Smelter’s bush (Flaveria bidentis) is a plant that thrives on high metal content soils and inthis case the slag from nearby smelters is providing that habitat.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 578848Figure 18: Alien grassland vegetation unit.Figure 19: Barren areas with scattered aliens.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

58August 2010 8848Figure 20: Vegetation Map.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

59August 2010 8848Species ListThe floral species identified on site are listed in the Table 9 below. Refer to Appendix C1 forthe Biophysical Report.HerbsTable 9: Species List.Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence StatusCurly Dock Rumex crispus Individuals WeedBlackjack Bidens pinosa Sparse WeedSpanish Blackjack Bidens bipinnata Individuals WeedGallant Soldier Galinsoga parviflora Sparse WeedKhaki Bush Tagetes minuta Common WeedSmelter's Bush Flaveria bidentis Dominant WeedBlack Nightshade Solanum retroflexum Individuals WeedFennel Foeniculum vulgare Individuals WeedMilkweed Asclepias fruticosa Sparse WeedThorn-apple Datura stramonium Sparse WeedSunflower Helianthus annuus Individuals WeedVerbena Verbena bonariensis Individuals WeedPumpkin Cucurbita pepo Individuals CropFlax-leaved Fleabane Conyza bonariensis Individuals WeedBachalor's Button Gomphrena celesioides Individuals WeedStarvation Senecio Senecio consanguineus Individuals IndigenousCanary Weed Senecio inaequidens Individuals IndigenousPlantain Plantago lanceolata Individuals WeedMorning Glory Ipomoea purpurea Individuals WeedDubbeltjie Tribulus terrestris Common WeedFine-leaved Verbena Verbena tenuisecta Sparse WeedScottish Thistle Cirsium vulgare Individuals WeedBur Bristle Grass Setaria verticillata Sparse IndigenousNine-awned Grass Enneapogon cenchroides Individuals IndigenousRed Dropseed Sporobolus Festivus Sparse IndigenousKikiuyu Pennisetum clandestinum Sparse DomesticCouch Grass Cynodon dactylon Common IndigenousCommon Reed Phragmited australis Sparse IndigenousWireleaf Daba Grass Mishanthus junceus Individuals IndigenousSedge Mariscus congestus Individuals IndigenousGrasses Stiburus Stiburus alopecuroides Individuals IndigenousThimble Grass Fingerhuthia africana Individuals IndigenousCommon Signal Grass Brachiaria brizantha Individuals IndigenousGarden Urochloa Urochloa panicoides Common IndigenousNatal Red-top Melenis repens Individuals IndigenousCommon Thatching Grass Hyparrhenia hirta Sparse IndigenousAnnual Three-awn Sristida adscensionis Sparse IndigenousCommon Russet Grass Loudetia simplex Sparse IndigenousDallis Grass Paspalum dilatatum Sparse WeedSucculents Agave Agave americana Sparse WeedCombretumTreesRiver Bushwillowerythrophyllum Sparse IndigenousKarree Rhus lancea Individuals IndigenousSweet Thorn Acacia karroo Individuals IndigenousZITHOLELE CONSULTING

60August 2010 8848SensitivitiesA detailed ecological assessment (Terrestrial Ecology Assessment has been undertaken onsite). Please refer to Appendix C1.7.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology (Fauna)Methodology and Data SourcesDue to the disturbed nature of the waste disposal site, and the lack of decent habitat, thefaunal survey was conducted by simply spending time on site and documenting all thespecies observed. No traps were used during the survey.Regional DescriptionOf the fauna, bird species are the most prolific. Mainly water birds, such as herons,flamingos, ducks and egrets, are found in the region. Various species of weavers are alsoevident. Some weaver species feed on vegetation on the site, and could thus be exposed tothe effects of pollutants from the activities taking place in the area.Insect species such as mosquito larvae are dominant in the region. Frogs are also abundantin the area. Mammal species include mice and rats. These appear to inhabit mostly themarshes. No Red Data List species of mammals have been recorded in the area.Site DescriptionThe habitat on site is severely degraded and provides limited opportunities for natural faunalspecies occurring in the area. A waste disposal site does however offer excellent habitat foropportunistic species such as rats and numerous birds that scavenge on the site. In additionseveral domestic animals from the adjacent township found their way onto the site.To the south-east of the site there is a wetland and dam, fed by the local stream. This areahas numerous birds which often frequent the grassed parts of the waste disposal site. Inaddition shallow pools on site were providing habitat for tadpoles as shown in Figure 21below.Table 10: Faunal Species List.Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence StatusLadybug Family Coccinellidae Individuals IndigenousInsects and Wolfspinnekop Family Lycosidae Individuals IndigenousArachnids Purple Emperor Butterfly Family Nymphalidae Individuals IndigenousJewel Bug Family Buprestidae Individuals IndigenousAmphibians Guttoral Toad Bufo gutturalis Common IndigenousBirdsGolden Bishop Euplectes afer Common IndigenousBlackeyed Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus Common IndigenousZITHOLELE CONSULTING

61August 2010 8848Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence StatusYellowbilled Egret Egretta intermedia Common IndigenousHadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash Common IndigenousSacred IbisThreskiornisaethiopicus Common IndigenousCrowned Plower(Lapwing) Vanellus coronatus Common IndigenousFeral Pigeon Columba livia CommonLaughing DoveStreptopeliasenegalensis Common IndigenousRedcapped Lark Calandrella cinerea Common IndigenousOlive Trush Turdus olivaceus Common IndigenousDomestic GooseAnser anserdomesticusDomesticFamiliar Chat Cercomela familiaris Common IndigenousAfrican Marsh WarblerAcrocephalusbaeticatus Common IndigenousCape Wagtail Motacilla capensis Common IndigenousHouse Sparrow Passer domesticus Common IndigenousDomestic Fowl (chicken)Gallus gallusdomesticus Common DomesticRed Bishop Euplectes orix Common IndigenousMammals Brown Rat Rattus rattus Individuals PestFigure 21: Fauna on site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

62August 2010 8848SensitivitiesSensitive features such as the wetland was assessed by walking randomly through the areaconcerned an identifying all species within the area. A detailed ecological assessment(Terrestrial Ecology Assessment has been undertaken on site). Please refer toAppendix C1 for the Biophysical Report.7.2 Cultural Environment7.2.1 Cultural and Historical FeaturesMethodology and Data SourcesThe Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) study was conducted to determine thebaseline conditions of the cultural and heritage resources by means of the followingactivities:• Surveying the project area, focusing on sensitive areas which were thoroughly surveyedon foot.• Briefly reviewing literature relating to the pre-historical and historical context of theproject area.• Consulting maps of the project area as well as of peripheral areas adjoining the projectarea.• Consulting archaeological (heritage) data bases, such as the ones kept at the GautengProvincial Heritage Resources Agency as well as at Museum Africa in Pretoria(Tshwane).• Synthesising all information obtained from the literature review, maps and data baseswith the evidence derived from the fieldwork.Regional DescriptionAccording to archaeological research, the earliest ancestors of modern humans emergedsome two to three million years ago. The remains of Australopithecine and Homo habilishave been found in dolomite caves and underground dwellings in the Bankeveld at placessuch as Sterkfontein and Swartkrans near Krugersdorp. Homo habilis, one of the EarlyStone Age hominids, is associated with Oldowan artefacts, which include crude implementsmanufactured from large pebbles.The Acheulian industrial complex replaced the Oldowan industrial complex during the EarlyStone Age. This phase of human existence was widely distributed across South Africa and isassociated with Homo Erectus, who manufactured hand axes and cleavers from as early asone and a half million years ago. Oldowan and Acheulian artefacts were also found four toZITHOLELE CONSULTING

63August 2010 8848five decades ago in some of the older gravels (ancient river beds and terraces) of the VaalRiver and the Klip River in Vereeniging. The earliest ancestors of modern man may thereforehave roamed the Vaal valley at the same time that their contemporaries occupied some ofthe dolomite caves near Krugersdorp.Middle Stone Age sites dating from as early as two hundred thousand years ago have beenfound all over South Africa. Middle Stone Age hunter-gatherer bands also lived and huntedin the Orange and Vaal River valleys. These people, who probably looked like modernhumans, occupied campsites near water but also used caves as dwellings. Theymanufactured a wide range of stone tools, including blades and points that may have hadlong wooden sticks as hafts and were used as spears.The Late Stone Age commenced twenty thousand years ago or somewhat earlier. Thevarious types of Stone Age industries scattered across the country are associated with thehistorical San and Khoi-Khoi people. The San were renowned as formidable huntergatherers,while the Khoi-Khoi herded cattle and small stock during the last two thousandyears. Late Stone Age people manufactured tools that were small but highly effective, suchas arrow heads and knives.The Late Iron Age people were also known for their rock art skills. At least one rockengraving site exists near Vereeniging, at Redan.Early Iron Age farming communities practised a mixed economy, consisting of plantcultivation and stock herding, in the interior of South Africa during the first half of the firstmillennium A.D. These Bantu-Negroid people, who interbred with the local San and Khoi-Khoi, were ironworkers of some repute and they established the first permanent villagessouth of the Limpopo River. These communities occupied the savanna of the LimpopoProvince as well as the Eastern Lowveld and coastal regions of South Africa. No traces oftheir existence have as yet been found on the Highveld.During the Late Iron Age, farming was practised in the northern, central and eastern parts ofthe country. These farming communities built numerous stone walled settlements throughoutthe southern Highveld of the Orange Free State, on the Witwatersrand, in the Bankeveld andnumerous other places in South Africa from the 17th century onwards. These sites areassociated with the predecessors of the black ethnic groups living in South Africa. Some ofthese sites are also situated near the Vaal valley, but eastwards of Vereeniging and outsidethe Vaal Triangle. Stone walled sites are also spread out along the range of hills runningfrom Randfontein in the west through Johannesburg to Heidelberg in the east. These sitesare associated with the ancestors of the Sotho-Tswana peoples.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

64August 2010 8848Site DescriptionThe Phase I HIA study for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Siterevealed none of the types and ranges of heritage resources as outlined in Section 3 of theNational heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999).7.3 Socio-Economic EnvironmentMethodology and Data SourcesA literature review of the socio-economics in ELM was conducted. A detailed socioeconomicImpact Assessment has been undertaken.Regional DescriptionSedibeng District Municipality consists of the three local municipalities, namely Lesedi,Midvaal and Emfuleni. Emfuleni is approximately 1276 km² comprising of 27.6% of theSedibeng District. Emfuleni has a population of approximately 700,000 people (83% ofSedibeng population) (Available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Emfuleni_Local_Municipality, cited on the 14 thAugust 2008).In terms of the economy, the district is dominated by manufacturing, which contributed ±32% to the local economy during 2001. Manufacturing in the district is dominated by thefabricated metal and the chemical sectors (Mittal Steel Company (previously ISCOR) andSasol). The manufacturing sector will remain the dominant economic sector in the district inthe near future. The local economy has been stagnating for a number of years, with a netloss in formal job opportunities. Economic sectors which do present opportunities for furtherlocal development and economic growth include agriculture and tourism (2001, Census).Site DescriptionThe Boipatong residential area is separated from the site by Eskom power lines, anupgraded surface water drain and a berm. To the north, the site is bounded by a developedtownship, to the south by the Leeuspruit and to the east by an informal settlement. Figure 22below shows the location of the proposed site within the context of the Vaal Triangle, a majorindustrial region of South Africa that is formed by the towns of Vanderbijlpark, Vereenigingand Sasolburg. Although the space around the site seems vacant, it is surrounded bydeveloped townships and informal settlements.The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site is situated in Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng, South Africa. Thetownships surrounding this waste disposal site were established in 1955 to house blackresidents who worked in Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging e.g. Boipatong was establishedbetween 1955 and 1956. These surrounding townships were a pool of cheap labour for theZITHOLELE CONSULTING

65August 2010 8848steel industry, ISCOR. ISCOR was built mainly as part of job creation and povertyeradication for the white working class. The Boipatong falls under Ward 3 and Ward 8 withinthe ELM. The Tshepiso Township falls under Ward 11 and 22 of the ELM.SensitivitiesFigure 22: The location of the site in relation to the closest townsThere are currently over 500 salvagers on the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. Thesesalvagers depend on the site for their livelihood. Closing the waste disposal site will havesocio-economic effects on these people. As mentioned above, a detailed socio-economicImpact Assessment has been undertaken.7.3.1 InfrastructureInfrastructure was identified using the 1:50 000 topocadastral maps of the area, informationprovided by the ELM and the specialists regarding existing services. A site visit to the areawas undertaken to verify this information.Regional DescriptionIn the ELM, 40% of households have water supply within their yards. 7% of the populationare relying on community taps that are ± 200m away from their buildings. There is a marginof people who are still relying on spring, dams/pool/stagnant water, river/stream and watervendor.Electricity is widely used within the municipality with 81% of the total population using it. 13%are using paraffin for one reason or the other; meanwhile 2% are using coal. Meanwhile81%are using electricity for cooking, 89% are using electricity for lighting. This implies thatZITHOLELE CONSULTING

66August 2010 88488% of the population are not using their electricity for cooking. A total of 9% are usingcandles for lighting, this means that these houses are not connected.Site DescriptionVanderbijlpark is home to Vanderbijlpark Steel (previously part of ISCOR (Iron and SteelCorporation), now part of the global company Arcelor Mittal), situated north west of the site.Vanderbijlpark is also home to Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd, a major player in the wire industry, alsolocated to the immediate north west of the site. The site is surrounded by power lines in alldirections. A railway line is visible north west of the site.Water, Power and SanitationAll these services are currently available at the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and theproposed development will not make any additional demands on the existing capacity of theservice infrastructure.Roads and Railway linesAccess to the waste disposal site by trucks and other vehicles is via the Nobel Boulevard.The primary infrastructure within the study area is:• The N1 national road between Gauteng (from Pretoria) and Bloemfontein (Free State);• The R 28 road (also referred to as the Boy Louw) east of the waste disposal site;• The R54 road, north of the waste disposal site;• The R553 (the Golden Highway), west of the waste disposal site from which the site isaccessible from;• R 57 road south east of the disposal site, and joins with the N1 national road to the northeast of the waste disposal site;• The R 42 road (Barrage road) south of the waste disposal site running towards theVereeniging;• The existing railway lines north, east and south of the proposed waste disposal site;• Existing power line between the Boipatong township and the waste disposal site; and• The current Boitshepi waste disposal site.SensitivitiesDue to the urban nature of the area, many roads are available to travellers, residents andvehicles travelling to the waste disposal site. If any of these roads becomes non-accessibleor are damaged as a result of vehicles travelling to the waste disposal site for disposal,access in the area would be limited. At this stage, the proposed project will therefore notrequire any additional roads to be constructed as the existing road infrastructure is efficientand accessible from the main roads.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

67August 2010 88488 WASTE LICENSE APPLICATION8.1 IntroductionA new era of an integrated waste management system in South Africa through the NationalEnvironmental Management Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA) has beenestablished. The NEM:WA came into effect on 01 July 2009. Provisions have been made inthe form of legislative and regulatory tools to facilitate and ensure implementation of the Actby all spheres of government. To this end, the Minister of the DWEA has published a WasteManagement Activity List on 03 July 2009 which has clear thresholds on waste activities thatneed authorisation before they are undertaken. The published Waste Management ActivityList effectively replaces Schedule 1 of the Waste Act and all waste related activities listed inEIA Regulations promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of the NEMA.All waste-related activities listed in terms of section 24(2) of the NEMA have been repealedat the same time that the Minister published the new list of waste management activities inorder to align the NEM:WA and the EIA regulations to avoid the necessity to submit twoapplications for the same activity. An application for a waste licence in terms of Section 45 ofthe NEM:WA for general waste activities must be submitted by lodging an application withthe relevant provincial department. Therefore, in this regard, GDARD is the licensingauthority for a waste licence.The main aim of this project is to obtain a Waste License and Environmental Authorisationfor the extension with view of closure of the Waste Disposal Site in a sustainable manner. Tolicense a Waste Disposal Site, an EIA must be conducted under the EIA Regulations underSection 24 (5) of the NEMA. Some details on the waste license are provided in this Section.8.2 Site ClassificationThe Classification of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site in terms of the DWA MinimumRequirements is necessary to determine the technical and operational standards with whichthe waste disposal site has to comply. The waste disposal classification system defines thedisposal situation and classifies the type of site according to:• Waste types involved (G=General; H=Hazardous);• Size of the waste stream or site operation (C=Communal; S=Small; M=Medium;L=Large); and• Potential for significant leachate generation and the need for leachate management(B + =positive climate balance; B - =negative climate balance).Each of these is described in more detail in the sections below.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

68August 2010 88488.2.1 Waste TypeTable 11 below is indicative of the types and volumes of wastes disposed of at the BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site in the past (data from 1998). The Western Vaal Metropolitan LocalCouncil and industries supplied historical information, for classification purposes.Approximately 50% of the waste stream on a mass basis comprised non-delisted, industrialwastes. In terms of the DWAs "Minimum Requirements for the Handling and Disposal ofHazardous Waste", a large proportion of these wastes can be classified as Hazardous (H)on the grounds of the industrial group (metal manufacture, metal goods and engineering), aswell as the process of manufacture (ferrous metallurgy) (Table 11).From initial visual assessments by the Consultants it appeared that, although the wastecould be classified as Hazardous, it is mostly of a high volume, but of low hazard content,which would probably place it in the low to moderate Hazard Rating.The results of chemical analyses on the wastes received from Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd 8 (a localsteel producer) historically indicate that the slag, the fume plant dust and the iron hydroxidesludge are, in terms of the Department's classification system, either highly hazardous orextremely hazardous (Table 11). The sludge water, also disposed of on the site, is of a lowhazard rating in terms of its Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC). It is howevernoted that Cape Gate only disposes of electric arc furnace slag, general waste and builderswaste at Boitshepi as of the last few years.Table 11 below reflects the types and volumes of wastes currently disposed of at theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site (2008). The following assumptions were made in thecalculations:• Cover ratio 1:5 (assumed available);• Initial Rate of Deposition = 2,737,351 tonnes per annum;• Annual growth rate = 2%; and• Add 1,032 households @ 1.39 kg/S-Pan/ day added in at year 2.Approximately 29% of the current waste stream on a mass basis comprises delistedindustrial wastes, approximately half of the previous disposal rates as shown in the Table 11below.8 Please note that Cape Gate has for years disposed of it demetalised electric arc furnace slag atBoitshepi at the request of the municipality who has used the slag for daily cover. A hazard rating forthe EAF slag was undertaken and it has subsequently been de-listed for disposal at a GLB + site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

69August 2010 8848Waste disposal sites that receive highly hazardous or extremely hazardous wastes aretermed H:H waste disposal sites, and because they receive wastes with Hazard Ratings 1and 2, they should be designed, engineered and operated to the most stringent standards.Boitshepi is, however, an existing waste disposal site that was established well before theselegislative requirements, and historically it was not designed, engineered and operated to therequired standards. Based on the waste classification of Cape Gate’s waste types, theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site could be classified as an H:H waste disposal sites, butbecause the slag is delisted 9 before disposal, the new proposed extension will be classifiedas a GLB+.Table 11: Types and estimated quantities of wastes received at the Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site during 1998.SourceGeneral(Residential andcommercial)Descriptionof WasteWasteTypeTonnesperAnnum% of total ona massbasisAssumed insitu wastedisposal sitedensity intonnes/mAirspaceutilised - inm 3Household G 50,400 72.41 % 1,25 40,400BuildingrubbleG 18,000 25.86 % 2,00 9,000Garden 10 G 1,200 1.72 % 1,20 1,000Sub-totalIndustrial- 69,600 46.93 % - 50,400Iron HR 2 8,800 11.18 % 1,00 8,800HydroxidesludgeFume plant HR 2 7,400 9.40 % 1,20 6,200dustMill scale Unknown 12,200 15.50 % 2,10 5,800Slag HR 1 43,400 55.15 % 1,85 23,500Foundry Unknown 6,400 8.13 % 1,85 3,500sandSludge water HR 3 500 0.64 % 1,00 5009 Delisted waste is hazardous waste that has been delisted for certain applications such as for roadconstruction purposes., etc. If a waste is delisted it does not mean that it is no longer hazardous butmeans that a hazardous waste can be used for applications it has been delisted for.10 A shredder has been purchased that shreds “greens” and even big trees into very small pieces. It isa mobile unit that can be used anywhere in the municipality where needed and is currentlyoperational. The idea is to take greens out of disposal sites and spread it all over the municipality forcompost and groundcover.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

70August 2010 8848Sub-totalTOTAL- 78,700 53.01 % - 48,300- 148,300 100 % - 98,7008.2.2 Size of Waste StreamThe size of the waste disposal site can be determined by the population served and/or bythe amount of waste disposed of in tonnes per day, or the amount of waste that accumulatedover a given period of time. Although the classification of Hazardous waste disposal sitesdoes not take size into account, as it is based solely on the Hazard Rating, it is nonethelessimportant to establish the present rate of deposition, in order to calculate airspace utilisationand volumes of cover material needed. This information is necessary for consideration in theDevelopment and End-use Plan. The present rate of deposition is approximately 22,758tonnes per month, that is, 1,035 tonnes per day (273,091 tonnes /annum).The volume of waste disposed per month amounts to an estimated 26,941 m 3 (323,293m 3 /annum), and that disposed per day amounts to 1,225 m 3 / day. Therefore, the site istypically classified as an L site, therefore once again GLB + .Table 12: Estimated types and quantities of wastes in the next 7 years at the BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site from 2008.YearTotal wastevolumes(m3)DomesticWasteVolumes(m3)Volumeswithcover(m3)Coveronly (m3)CapeGateWaste(m3)AdditionalCape Gatevolumes(m3)Totalvolume ofairspacerequired(m3)1 304,168 179,723 215,668 35,945 56,000 20,055 235,7232 310,833 183,900 220,680 36,780 57,120 20,340 241,0203 317,050 188,160 225,792 37,632 58,262 20,630 246,4234 323,391 192,506 231,007 38,501 59,428 20,927 251,9335 329,859 196,938 236,326 39,388 60,616 21,229 257,5546 336,456 201,459 241,751 40,292 61,829 21,537 263,2887 343,185 206,070 247,284 41,214 63,065 21,851 269,135(Refer to .Appendix D1 for the total volumes of waste being disposed on site currently.)The site receives an average of 20,000 to 25,000 tons of domestic and industrial waste permonth from local residences and industries. These quantities of waste are indicative of alarge (L) site, i.e. a site that on average receives more than 500 tons of waste per day,considering a 22 days working month.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

71August 2010 8848Table 13 below illustrates the manner in which waste disposal sites are classified inaccordance with the maximum rate of deposition (MRD).Table 13: Waste Disposal Site Size Classes (DWA, 2005).Waste Disposal Site size classMaximum Rate of Deposition (MRD) (Tons per day)Communal (C) < 25Small (S) 150 > MRD > 25Medium (M) 500 > MRD > 150Large (L) > 5008.2.3 Climatic Water BalanceTo determine whether the site falls within a water deficit or a water surplus environment, aclimatic water balance needs to be determined. A water deficit environment is anenvironment in which the evaporation rate exceeds the rainfall, i.e. water is scarce. ClimaticWater Balance is a simple calculation that assists in deciding whether leachate managementis required or not, it therefore provides a conservative means of determining whether or notsignificant leachate generation will occur.The Climatic Water Balance over a period of time (B) is calculated using only the twoclimatic components of the full water balance, namely(R) and (E)The Climatic Water Balance is defined by:B = R – EWhere:Bis the Climatic Water Balance in millimetres of waterRis the rainfall in millimetres of waterEis the evaporation from soil surface in millimetres of water.The value of B has been calculated for the wet season, which for the Highveld region fallswithin the period October to March (summer rainfall). Data was available for the periodOctober 1931 to September 1996. (Refer to Appendix D2).From the available data in Appendix D3 , B was positive 5 times in 65 years (or once in 13years), which is considerably less than once in 5 years. This must therefore be regarded asa "Water Deficit Area".ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

72August 2010 88488.3 Existing Footprint of the SiteThe site consists of four disposal phases:• Phases 1 and 4: Currently operational and due to close in 1-2 years (only acceptsgeneral waste);• Phase 2: Closed (accepted mixed industrial, not delisted and general waste); and• Phase 3: Operational and estimated to close in 1-2 years (Industrial delisted waste only).The years stipulated above will depend on the choice of the buffer zone alternative approvedby the GDARD (alternatives are outlined in Section 6 above).8.4 Future of the Waste Disposal Site8.4.1 Closure Report and After Care PlanClosure is the act of terminating the operation of a waste disposal site. Closure is precededby rehabilitation and followed by end-use and post-closure monitoring.End-use sets out the purpose for which the area of the rehabilitated and closed wastedisposal site is used. This may be as a park, playing fields, or other suitable land-use.The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site does not hold a permit; therefore, it must be permittedwith a view to closure, hence the project title. In this case, the emphasis of the permitapplication is on closure design and rehabilitation.The site must be investigated before rehabilitation and closure can commence, so as toidentify any closure requirements that must be implemented. Such investigations will beundertaken by specialists appointed by the ELM. Based on the results of the investigations,a closure or upgrade design may be drawn up and presented in a Closure Report. Also inthis report, the current status of the waste disposal site is compared with the identified enduseand closure requirements, and recommendations are made regarding requiredrehabilitation.The Closure Report (which includes the closure/ remedial designs) must be approved byGDARD and the I&APs before rehabilitation can commence. Once the waste disposal sitehas been rehabilitated in accordance with the Closure Report, ELM must notify the GDARDin writing of the intended closure of the site, at least 60 days prior to the event. Should theGDARD approve the condition of the waste disposal site, the ELM will be provided withwritten permission to close the site.The site may then be closed and the End-Use Plan may be implemented. Thereafter, thesite must be monitored on an ongoing basis. After closure, the Monitoring Committee shouldZITHOLELE CONSULTING

73August 2010 8848continue to monitor the integrity of cover, drainage systems, subsidence, fire, vegetation andsecurity. See Appendix D5 for the Closure and After Care Report and Site Emergency Plan.8.5 Application requirements for extension with view of closure8.5.1 Operational Management PlanAn Operational Management Plan (OMP) is a site specific document that has beendeveloped as part of the waste disposal site license application procedure. It describes theway in which the waste disposal site is to be operated, commencing at the level and detail ofdaily cell construction and continuing through to the projected development of the wastedisposal site with time. Everything pertaining to the operation of a waste disposal site shouldtherefore be included in the OMP, which is subject to regular update.The complexity of the OMP varies with the class of site; this varies from a very simple plan,in the case of a G:S site, to a very detailed and sophisticated document for an H:H site. TheOMP includes, inter alia, the phasing, the excavation sequence, the provision of wet weathercells, site access and drainage. It also includes all operation monitoring procedures and aplan for mitigatory actions in response to problems detected by monitoring. When drawingup the OMP, cognisance was taken of the input of I&APs during the Feasibility Study andLicense Application Procedure.In addressing the monitoring of operation, the OMP has made reference to the role of theMonitoring Committee, which includes I&APs. See Appendix F for the OMP.8.5.2 Monitoring PlanWater quality monitoring will be carried out in terms of the Minimum Requirements and thepermit conditions. Records of monitoring results must be maintained and should be availableto the I&APs or Monitoring Committee, if required.The ground and surface water quality results from the pre-extension monitoring, togetherwith the annotated designs of the monitoring systems, must be submitted to the GDARD aspart of the license application report, i.e. the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. SeeAppendix D6.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

74August 2010 8848Figure 23: Boitshepi – Flow of waste during operations.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

75August 2010 88489 WASTE DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN9.1 Constraints and factors affecting the designTaking into consideration the waste disposal need, the physical conditions of the site, anddiscussions with various ELM project personnel, there are several factors that affect thedesign philosophy adopted. These are as follows:• The Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and the proposed extension need to comply with theMinimum Requirements for a G:L:B + waste disposal site.• The design of the waste disposal site needs to cater for waste disposal needs until thenew site has been commissioned and is operational – approximately 4 – 5 years.• The northern boundary of the site is defined by a vlei area, whilst the southern boundaryis the only area available around the site for the proposed extension. The existing wastedisposal site defines the northern boundary for the proposed extension. The existing sitepalisade fence and storm water drain define the southern boundary of the site, and this isthe ultimate extent that the site can be extended.• The existing waste body does not have a liner however this portion of the site isunderlain by clay soils. The soils on the site for the proposed extension however are notsuitable for use in the waste disposal site liner construction. The liner design is thereforebased on a geocomposite waste disposal site liner.• The design of extension of the site must be integrated with the closure and capping ofthe existing waste disposal site in terms of liner and drainage.• The design must make provision for the sequential phased development of the wastedisposal site, such that leachate flows from the lowest point of the waste disposal sitecell can discharge into the sewer under gravity.9.2 General site layoutBased on the aforementioned constraints and factors, the overall layout of the BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site has been developed as shown in the Figure 26. The arrangement of thevarious facilities (already existing) is also illustrated in the drawings. The designs providedfor in this section are based on the preferred alternative, that is, alternative 2 with a 50 metrebuffer zone.The entrance to the site would remain in its current position at the north western corner ofthe existing waste disposal site throughout operations. The existing gravel access roadwould continue to be used for waste disposal to the site. The existing site office andweighbridge would also continue to be used for operations.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

76August 2010 8848Figure 24: Existing site layout.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

77August 2010 88489.2.1 Extension of the existing siteInitially a strip of land adjacent to the northern toe of the existing waste body is to bedeveloped together with the shaping and capping of the existing waste body. The area to belined consists of the area north of the existing waste body up to the 50 metre buffer zonefrom the adjacent land users or concrete palisade fence (approximately 8.5 ha). The footprintof the extension needs to be prepared prior to the capping of the existing waste body inorder to ensure that disposal needs are not interrupted during construction.The footprint of the extension will be lined with a GLB + liner as per the MinimumRequirements. The only discrepancy between the Minimum Requirements and the designsprovided is that the 600mm clay liner will be replaced by a GCL. The reason for this is thatthere are no clay soils available in the area and it would be more costly to import soil fromanother source. The liner will be placed along the slope of the existing waste body and alongthe foot of the site. The liner will be anchored on the slopes approximately 1.5 metresupslope of the top of the existing was body. The anchor will comprise of concrete (Figure25).1.5 mLinerConcreteFigure 25: Anchoring of the slope liner.Once the liner is in place the construction of the capping of the existing waste body can takeplace.9.2.2 Capping of the existing waste bodyOnce the extended portion of the waste site has been lined the capping of the existing wastebody can be undertaken. The portion of the waste site that will be capped once the liner is inplace is approximately 19 ha to a maximum height of 1495m.9.2.3 Leachate collection and detectionThe waste disposal cells are to be developed adjacent to the northern side of the existingsite with the contaminated water and leachate collection draining downslope to the southZITHOLELE CONSULTING

78August 2010 8848east of the site to facilitate gravity drainage of contaminated run-off and leachate to thesewer.The waste disposal cells are to be developed generally according to the footprint shapesshown on the drawings. The initial development of the strip alongside the northern toe of theexisting waste site and the shaping of the surface of the existing waste disposal site up to itsmaximum height of 1495 metres above sea level would provide approximately 6 years ofoperational life.The development sequence would be from south to north. A starter berm is to beconstructed around the perimeter of the waste site by means of a cut-to-fill operation. At thelower end of the site, on the south eastern side, the contaminated water and leachate wouldcollect into the sewer.Please refer to Appendix D7 for the current waste disposal facility and the proposed designof the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

79August 2010 8848Figure 26: Site layout plan.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

80August 2010 8848Figure 27: Cross Section of the proposed extension of the site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

81August 2010 884810 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGYIn order to ensure uniformity, a standard Impact Assessment methodology has been utilisedso that a wide range of impacts can be compared. The Impact Assessment methodologymakes provision for the assessment of impacts against the following criteria:• Significance;• Spatial scale;• Temporal scale;• Probability; and• Degree of certainty.A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was used to describe impacts for eachof the aforementioned assessment criteria. A summary of each of the qualitative descriptorsalong with the equivalent quantitative rating scale for each of the aforementioned criteria isgiven in Table 14.Table 14: Quantitative Rating and Equivalent Descriptions for the Impact AssessmentCriteria.Rating Significance Extent Scale Temporal Scale1 VERY LOW Isolated route / proposed route Incidental2 LOW Study area Short-term3 MODERATE Local Medium-term4 HIGH Regional / Provincial Long-term5 VERY HIGH Global / National PermanentA more detailed description of each of the assessment criteria is given in the followingsections.10.1 Significance AssessmentSignificance rating (importance) of the associated impacts embraces the notion of extent andmagnitude, but does not always clearly define these since their importance in the ratingscale is very relative. For example, the magnitude (i.e. the size) of area affected byatmospheric pollution may be extremely large (1000 km 2 ) but the significance of this effect isdependent on the concentration or level of pollution. If the concentration is great, thesignificance of the impact would be HIGH or VERY HIGH, but if it is diluted it would be VERYLOW or LOW. Similarly, if 60 ha of a grassland type are destroyed the impact would beVERY HIGH if only 100 ha of that grassland type were known. The impact would be VERYLOW if the grassland type was common. A more detailed description of the impactsignificance rating scale is given in Table 15 below.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

82August 2010 8848Table 15: Description of the Significance Rating Scale.RatingDescription5 VERY HIGH Of the highest order possible within the bounds of impacts which couldoccur. In the case of adverse impacts: there is no possible mitigation and/orremedial activity which could offset the impact. In the case of beneficialimpacts, there is no real alternative to achieving this benefit.4 HIGH Impact is of substantial order within the bounds of impacts, which couldoccur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity isfeasible but difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination ofthese. In the case of beneficial impacts, other means of achieving thisbenefit are feasible but they are more difficult, expensive, time-consuming orsome combination of these.3 MODERATE Impact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts, which mighttake effect within the bounds of those which could occur. In the case ofadverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity are both feasible andfairly easily possible. In the case of beneficial impacts: other means ofachieving this benefit are about equal in time, cost, effort, etc.2 LOW Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have little real effect. In thecase of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is either easilyachieved or little will be required, or both. In the case of beneficial impacts,alternative means for achieving this benefit are likely to be easier, cheaper,more effective, less time consuming, or some combination of these.1 VERY LOW Impact is negligible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In thecase of adverse impacts, almost no mitigation and/or remedial activity isneeded, and any minor step which might be needed are easy, cheap, andsimple. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means are almost alllikely to be better, in one or a number of ways, than this means of achievingthe benefit. Three additional categories must also be used where relevant.They are in addition to the category represented on the scale, and if used,will replace the scale.0 NO IMPACT There is no impact at all - not even a very low impact on a party or system.10.2 Spatial ScaleThe spatial scale refers to the extent of the impact i.e. will the impact be felt at the local,regional, or global scale. The spatial assessment scale is described in more detail in Table16.Table 16: Description of the Spatial Rating Scale.RatingDescription5 Global/National The maximum extent of any impact.4 Regional/Provincial The spatial scale is moderate within the bounds of impacts possible, andwill be felt at a regional scale (District Municipality to Provincial Level).3 Local The impact will affect an area up to 5 km from the proposed waste disposalsite.2 Study Area The impact will affect the area not exceeding the Boundary of the wastedisposal site.1 Isolated Sites / The impact will affect an area no bigger than the site.proposed siteZITHOLELE CONSULTING

83August 2010 884810.3 Duration ScaleIn order to accurately describe the impact it is necessary to understand the duration andpersistence of an impact in the environment. The temporal scale is rated according tocriteria set out in Table 17.Table 17: Description of the Temporal Rating Scale.RatingDescription1 Incidental The impact will be limited to isolated incidences that are expected tooccur very sporadically.2 Short-term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of theconstruction phase or a period of less than 5 years, whichever is thegreater.3 Medium term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of lifeof the waste disposal site.4 Long term The environmental impact identified will operate beyond the life ofoperation.5 Permanent The environmental impact will be permanent.10.4 Degree of ProbabilityProbability or likelihood of an impact occurring will be described as shown in Table 18 below.Table 18: Description of the Degree of Probability of an Impact occurring.RatingDescription1 Practically impossible2 Unlikely3 Could happen4 Very Likely5 It’s going to happen / has occurred10.5 Degree of CertaintyAs with all studies it is not possible to be 100% certain of all facts, and for this reason astandard “degree of certainty” scale is used as discussed in Table 19. The level of detail forSpecialist Studies is determined according to the degree of certainty required for decisionmaking.The impacts are discussed in terms of affected parties or environmentalcomponents.RatingDefiniteProbablePossibleUnsureCan’t knowTable 19: Description of the Degree of Certainty Rating Scale.DescriptionMore than 90% sure of a particular fact.Between 70 and 90% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impactoccurring.Between 40 and 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impactoccurring.Less than 40% sure of a particular fact or the likelihood of an impact occurring.The consultant believes an assessment is not possible even with additional research.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

84August 2010 884810.6 Quantitative Description of ImpactsTo allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner in addition to the qualitativedescription given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 was used for each of theassessment criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described as the function ofsignificance, spatial and temporal scale as described below:Impact Risk = (SIGNIFICANCE + Spatial + Temporal) X Probability3 5An example of how this rating scale is applied is shown below:Table 20: Example of Rating Scale.Impact Significance Spatial Scale Temporal Scale Probability RatingLOW Local Medium Term Could HappenImpact to air2 3 3 3 1.6Note: The significance, spatial and temporal scales are added to give a total of 8, that is divided by 3 to give acriteria rating of 2, 67. The probability (3) is divided by 5 to give a probability rating of 0, 6. The criteriarating of 2, 67 is then multiplied by the probability rating (0,6) to give the final rating of 1,6.The impact risk is classified according to 5 classes as described in the table below.Table 21: Impact Risk Classes.Rating Impact Class Description0.1 – 1.0 1 Very Low1.1 – 2.0 2 Low2.1 – 3.0 3 Moderate3.1 – 4.0 4 High4.1 – 5.0 5 Very HighTherefore with reference to the example used for air quality above, an impact rating of 1.6will fall in the Impact Class 2, which will be considered to be a low impact.10.7 Notation of ImpactsIn order to make the report easier to read the following notation format is used to highlightthe various components of the assessment:Significance or magnitude- IN CAPITALSDuration – in underlineProbability – in italics and underlined.Degree of certainty - in boldSpatial Scale – in italicsZITHOLELE CONSULTING

85August 2010 884811 IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe Impact Assessment highlights and describes the impact to the environment following theabove mentioned methodology and will assess the following components:• Soils and Land Capability;• Topography;• Groundwater;• Surface water;• Geotechnical;• Terrestrial Ecology;• Visual Impact;• Air Quality;• Heritage resources; and• Social Environment.As mentioned a letter of approval of the SR and the PoS has been received from theGDARD. The report was approved based on alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. It isalmost three (3) years since the EIA was initiated. The provided airspace estimations werebased on the state of the waste disposal site during that time.After careful estimation of the possible sizes and lifespan of the different buffer zonealternatives, the three alternatives were re-assessed Section 6.2 above.Therefore, for these reasons, alternative 3 is no longer deemed feasible as it cannot cater forthe disposal needs of the area until the new site is commissioned.The impact assessment has therefore assessed the different components as they arementioned in this section above for the proposed/modified alternatives.11.1 Construction Phase11.1.1 Soils and Land CapabilityInitial ImpactThe site currently has an operating waste disposal facility on site. The Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site and its operations have impacted on all the soils on site to the point wherethere are no recognisable natural soil forms remaining. As the waste disposal site wasestablished prior to the onset of detailed waste management regulations, there is no liner orZITHOLELE CONSULTING

86August 2010 8848pollution prevention layer present underneath the site. There is however a leachatecollection system adjacent to the site which collects the drainage water by means of a cut-offtrench to a central point before discharging into the local sewer network.The waste present on site includes domestic waste, building rubble, garden waste and slag.These materials, especially the slag, have the potential to significantly pollute the underlyingsoils by generating leachate with high metal content.The initial impact to soils and land capability is therefore rated as a VERY HIGH negativeimpact occurring in the study area and acting in the long-term. This impact is occurring andas such is rated as a High impact.Additional ImpactThe additional impacts to soils and land capability during construction for the extension ofthe waste disposal site include the clearing of vegetation in the area of the extension of thesite, compaction and levelling of the soil. The clearing of the vegetation could potentiallyresult in erosion as the vegetation is removed, exposing the soil to the elements.Furthermore the construction vehicles have the potential to compact the soil by theirmovements or pollute the soil by spilling hydrocarbons. Both of these impacts reduce theagricultural potential / land capability of the soils. The placing of the waste disposal site onthe soil creates a long term impact that renders the underlying soil sterile and useless interms of agriculture.In addition, the area surrounding the site has been transformed into an informal settlementand a heavy industrial area. These land uses have also contributed to the impacts to thesoils.The additional impact to soils and land capability during the construction phase is a HIGHnegative impact occurring in the study area and acting in the short term. This impact willoccur and as such is rated as a Moderate. This impact rating will be the same for all threealternatives but due to the smaller footprint from Alternative 3, this is the preferredalternative.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsa High impact. The same is applicable for the operational and rehabilitation phases.Mitigation Measures• Ensure that the extension is designed according to the Minimum Requirements forWaste Disposal 2 nd Edition and ensure that the site is lined accordingly;• Ensure that the waste body has a storm water drainage system that prevents dirty waterfrom contaminating the adjacent soil;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

87August 2010 8848• Link the extension to the existing leachate collection system;• Ensure that the existing leachate collection system is in good working order andmonitored;• Ensure that all machinery on site is in a good working order;• Limit all activities to the proposed extended waste disposal site;• Ensure that adequate storm water control measures are in place to prevent erosion;• Spread absorbent sand on areas where oil spills are likely to occur, such as therefuelling area in the hard park (if present);• Oil-contaminated soils are to be removed to a contained storage area and bioremediatedor disposed of at a licensed facility;• If soils are excavated for the levelling operations, ensure that the soil is utilisedelsewhere for cover material in the waste disposal site;• Ensure that soil is stockpiled in such a way as to prevent erosion from storm water;• When closing the site, ensure that the site is properly capped to prevent the infiltration ofwater into the waste body.Residual ImpactThe residual impact with the successful implementation of the mitigation measuresmentioned above will be slightly less significant as the probability reduces. Therefore therating reduces to Moderate.The table below provides a summary of the impact on soils and land capability in theconstruction phase.Table 22: Impact Rating Matrix for soils and land capability during the constructionphase (Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial VERY HIGH Study site Long Term Is Occurring 3.7- HighAdditional HIGH Study site Short Term Will occur 2.7- ModerateCumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- HighResidual HIGH Study site Long Term Very Likely 2.7- Moderate11.1.2 TopographyInitial ImpactThe study site is within the existing fenced off existing waste disposal site; therefore thetopography of the study area is already disturbed. The initial impact to topography isZITHOLELE CONSULTING

88August 2010 8848therefore rated as a MODERATE negative impact occurring in the study area and will bepermanent. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact.Additional ImpactFor the proposed extension, the construction phase will involve relatively shallowexcavations in order to prepare the various waste management areas, source suitable claymaterial, construct the liners and develop the on-site infrastructure, including the upslopeberm to divert clean runoff around the site. Preparation of the waste management areas willinvolve profiling to ensure suitable gradients for the collection of contaminated runoff fromthe site and collection of leachate from the waste management cells.These activities will result in minor, but permanent changes to the existing topography of thesite. The additional impact to topography for alternative 1 and 2 is a LOW negative impactand is therefore rated as above- Moderate impact that will definitely very likely in the studyarea.For alternative 3, the additional impact will be lower than for alternative 1 and 2 as thetopography will only be changed slightly as the footprint for alternative 3 is much smaller.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsas High impact. The same is applicable for the operational and rehabilitation phases.Mitigation MeasuresThe change in topography is essential for the proper functioning of the proposed BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site and no mitigation are available.Residual ImpactDue to the fact that the change for the proposed extension is essential, and no mitigationmeasure is required, the residual impact without the implementation of the mitigationmeasures will remain as High impact.The table below provides a summary of the impact on topography during the constructionphase.Table 23: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Alternative Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial1-3StudyMODERATEsitePermanent Is Occurring 3.3.- HighAdditional1 and 2Isolated2.6 -LOWPermanent Will occursiteModerateZITHOLELE CONSULTING

89August 2010 8848Type ofImpactCumulativeResidualAlternative Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating31-31-3LOWMODERATEMODERATEIsolatedsitesStudysiteStudysitePermanent Very Likely 1.9 - LowPermanent Will occur 3.3- HighPermanent Will occur 3.3- High11.1.3 GroundwaterGroundwater Consulting Services (GCS) (1996) identified deep and shallow aquifersseparated by a less permeable clay layer. This was confirmed by EnviroXcellence (2008)during the drilling of boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH3.According to GCS (1996) report, boreholes BH2, BH3 and BH4 are probably covered by thewaste body. Borehole BH3 is reported as BH1 in the GCS report. However; for currentreporting, by the GAA specialist the numbering observed onsite as reported byEnviroXcellence is used.Shallow aquiferThis is a perched aquifer (at depth between 0 and 10m) reported to be present in boreholesBH1, BH2, B4a and B4b drilled in the south of the waste disposal site . This aquifer was notobserved in borehole BH3, drilled in the north of the waste site. The recorded blow out yieldof 0.1l/s was considered insufficient for test pumping by EnviroXcellence, 2008. According tothe GCS (1996) report, the shallow boreholes reported as BH1a, BH2a, BH3a and BH4a(

90August 2010 8848ran for 8.5 minutes. These aquifer parameters should be used with caution and it could beadvisable to confirm these parameters by means of slug testing.BoreholeIDTable 24: Deep aquifer hydraulic properties GCS (1996)Test Analysis Boreholeduration Method yields (l/sec)(minutes)Static waterlevel (mbgl)Transmissivity(m2/day)BH1 3.085 18 Cooper Jacob

91August 2010 8848Figure 28: Piezometric map for the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

92August 2010 8848Additional ImpactThe site preparation and liner construction activities will involve the use of earth movingequipment and vehicles to strip the topsoil, excavate the clay to be used for lining material,shape and profile the site to achieve the required drainage of leachate from the individualcells to the leachate ponds and to install the storm water control systems and otherinfrastructure. Such activities have the potential for the contamination of the soil with fuels,lubricants and hydraulic fluids from the machinery and from cement during the constructionof the infrastructure, but would not compromise use of the aquifer, since there are no knowngroundwater users within proposed site. All seven boreholes where analysed, and however,the water quality in Borehole B4A is poor with Manganese.During the construction phase, the additional impact will remain of MODERATE significanceimpacting at isolated sites in the short term and could occur, and will therefore result in aLow impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsas Moderate impact.Mitigation MeasuresMitigation measures include the refuelling of vehicles off-site, servicing them in properlyequipped workshops, placing drip trays under parked vehicles, cleaning up any spillsimmediately, discharging water from cleaning of cement mixing equipment to sewer, andexcavating any contaminated soil immediately, followed by proper disposal at a licensed site.Residual ImpactThe residual impact will be reduced if proper mitigation measures are followed. The impactwill be reduced from MODERATE to LOW.The table below provides a summary of groundwater impact during the construction phase.Table 26: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial MODERATE Study area Long Term Very Likely2.4 –ModerateAdditional MODERATE Isolated sites Short Term Could occur 1.2 LowCumulative MODERATE Study area Long Term Very Likely2.4 –ModerateResidual MODERATE Isolated SitesShort –TermCould Occur 1.2- LowZITHOLELE CONSULTING

93August 2010 884811.1.4 Surface waterInitial ImpactThe initial impact to surface water was investigated visually and no surface water sampleswere taken. An impact to surface water would have a HIGH significance locally in the shortterm and therefore the initial impact is rated as Moderate.Additional ImpactDuring construction vegetation clearing will take place exposing the soil to erosion elementsthat could potentially be washed into local surface water bodies resulting in an increase inturbidity and sedmentation of local resources, particularly the vlei to the south of the site.Additionally heavy vehicles will be present on site with the potential for hydrocarbon spillageand leakeage. The impact is therefore of a HIGH significance that could occur duringconstruction in the short-term, therefore the impact is rated as a Moderate impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact will remain as assessed in the initial and additional sections.Mitigation MeasuresThe following mitigation measures are proposed during construction:• Divert storm water through sediment traps and then divert all water with cut-off drainstowards established trenches.• Ensure that all machinery on site is in a good working order and does not have leaks;• Hydro-carbons should be stored in a bunded storage area or in designated facilities atthe Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site;• No efueling shall take place on site;• No maintenance of machinery to be done on site, but to be done at the site’s demarcatedarea for this;• Spill-sorb or a similar type of product must be used to absorb hydrocarbon spills in theevent that such spills should occur;• Care must be taken to ensure that in removing vegetation adequate erosion controlmeasures are implemented;• Ensure that storm water control measures are incorporated into the waste disposal sitedesigns prior to the start of construction;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

94August 2010 8848• A storm water management plan, including sufficient erosion-control measures, must becompiled in consultation with a suitably qualified environmental practitioner / controlofficer during the detailed design phase prior to the commencement of construction;• Limit all activities to the proposed waste disposal site;• Extend the current surface water monitoring plan to include turbidity monitoring duringthe construction phase of the disposal site;• Ensure that the operational storm water system is maintained and monitored;• Ensure that soil is stockpiled in such a way as to prevent erosion from storm water.Residual ImpactShould all the mitigation measures be implemented the impact on surface water will bedecreased and the significance lowered to MODERATE in the study area in the short term,the impact is therefore assessed as a Low impact.Table 27: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateAdditional HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateCumulative HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateResidual MODERATE Study site Short –Term Could happen 1.4- Low11.1.5 GeotechnicalSeventeen test pits were excavated across the site for the proposed extension of theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site using a Cat 428 backactor. The test pits were entered by aregistered professional engineering geologist who described the soil and bedrock formationsin terms of the methods advocated by Jennings et al (1973) namely, moisture condition,colour, soil consistency, soil structure, soil type and origin (MCCSSO). Disturbedrepresentative soil samples were recovered from the test pits and submitted to SNALAB’scommercial soils laboratory in Pretoria for testing and identification, three water sampleswere submitted to RHC’s chemical laboratory in Pretoria for analysis.Soil samples were taken from the seventeen test pits and were subjected to various tests todetermine their geotechnical properties.Initial ImpactGradual to abrupt refusal of the backactor was experienced from below 2,0m in Zone “A”and at depths ranging from 0,3m to 3,1m below surface in Zone “B”. Moderate to strongZITHOLELE CONSULTING

95August 2010 8848seepage of groundwater was encountered from shallow depth in some 80% of the test pitsduring the investigation that was carried out during the latter part of the wet season.The initial impact is therefore of MODERATE significance that could happen in the study siteand the impact would be permanent therefore the impact is rated as a Low impact.Additional ImpactThe current natural state of the geology on the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site willbe slightly disturbed during the construction of the waste liner. The significance of the impactis rated as MODERATE at isolated sites that could happen and would result in a permanentimpact the impact is therefore rated as a Low impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsas Low impact.Mitigation MeasuresThis is unavoidable and no mitigation measures are possible.Residual ImpactDue to the fact that the change for the proposed extension is essential, and no mitigationmeasures are applicable, the residual impact without the implementation of the mitigationmeasures will remain as Low impact.Table 28: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- LowAdditional MODERATEIsolatedsitesPermanent Could happen 1.8 – LowCumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- LowResidual MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low11.1.6 Terrestrial EcologyInitial ImpactAs mentioned above in the soil section, the site is heavily impacted and no natural habitatremains on the site. The floral species on site are dominated by alien weeds and pioneergrasses. The fauna on site is indicative of a disturbed environment with opportunistic anddomestic animals present. An exception is the avifauna on site which remains relativelyZITHOLELE CONSULTING

96August 2010 8848indicative of the surrounding environment, mostly due to the large reed bed and wetland tothe south of the site. In addition, the surrounding informal settlements and heavy industrialdevelopments have also contributed to this impact to the fauna and flora.The initial impact to ecology is therefore rated as a HIGH negative impact occurring in thestudy area and acting in the long term. This impact has already occurred and as such israted as a High impact.Additional ImpactThe additional impact during the construction phase of the development of the extended sitewill be mostly from the earthworks and earth-moving equipment. This will clear the littlevegetation that is left. Due to the highly impacted nature of the site the additional impact toecology during the construction phase is a LOW negative impact occurring in the study areaand acting in the short term. This impact could occur and as such is rated as a Low impact.The rating same is relevant during the operational and closure phases. Due to the lack ofhabitat on site, the impact to ecology is anticipated to remain Low as indicated in the tablebelow.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction and operational phases remains as assessedin the initial impact assessment above. Therefore the impact remains a High impact duringconstruction phase.Mitigation Measures• All construction areas should be demarcated prior to construction to ensure that thefootprint of the impacts are limited (including areas where vehicles may traverse);• All alien invasive species on site should be removed and follow up monitoring andremoval programmes should be initiated once construction is complete; and• Ensure that natural grasses are used as part of the site rehabilitation and closure phase.Residual ImpactThe residual impact will remain as assessed in the cumulative impact assessment for all thedevelopment phases. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the existingimpact is so large that the additional impact will barely be noticed. This impact rating will bethe same for all three alternatives.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

97August 2010 8848Table 29: Impact Rating Matrix for terrestrial ecology during construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitial HIGH Study site Long TermHas alreadyoccurred3.3- HighAdditional LOW Study site Short Term Could Occur 1.3- LowCumulativeHas alreadyHIGH Study site Long Termoccurred3.3- HighResidualHas alreadyHIGH Study site Long Termoccurred3.3- High11.1.7 Visual ImpactThe visual simulations prepared by Zitholele illustrate the extent to which the waste disposalsite will be visible from key observation points (static and dynamic views). The verticalform/dimensions of the waste disposal site would be hidden by its location among existingbuildings and within a well vegetated area. The visual contrast is increased by the shape andscale of the site, which generally will not be viewed along the skyline.Initial ImpactIn the case of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, it is pertinent to mention the existingimpacts found on site. In this case, there is a waste disposal site, the Boipatong, Tshepisoand Sharpeville communities as well as the heavy industries to the north.The proposed waste disposal site is potentially visible from the surrounding communities aswell as the industrial areas. The potential number of viewers from this area is high as thecommunities are densely populated but the views vary greatly depending on site specificconditions like the orientation of the homes as well as the location of other buildings, fences,vegetation and localized landforms. However, the large number of viewers in the viewshedmeans that the proposed extension has a High impact. This impact rating will be the samefor all three alternatives but due to the smaller visible area from Alternative 3, this is thepreferred alternative.The concrete fence that is present on the waste disposal site reduces the visibility of theactivities taking place on sight, significantly to the dynamic viewers (travelling along theimmediate roads, west, north and east of the waste disposal site), and also the immediatesurrounding dwellers.The initial impact to the visual aspect is therefore rated as a HIGH negative impact occurringin the study area and will be permanent as even prior to rehabilitation; the waste body wouldstill be as steep, at least at 1:3. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a Highimpact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

98August 2010 8848Additional ImpactThe erection of camp sites for the contractors, surface drainage and storm water diversiondrains, lining system, leachate collection system, gas management systems and the leakagedetection system are all part of the proposed construction activities for the proposedextension of the waste disposal site.The construction activities that are being proposed for the waste disposal site will have aLOW significance, occurring in the study area. The impact will definitely occur. The impactwill be during the construction phase.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above for allthree alternatives since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area.MitigationThere are several methods of screening the visual impact of a development like a wastedisposal site and any of these can be utilised to reduce the visual impact:• Screening vegetation or fences can be erected along the roads (in this case a concretefence has already been erected around the site (see Figure 29 below); andResidual ImpactFigure 29: Existing screening around the siteIt would be difficult to mitigate the visual impacts associated with the construction phase forwaste disposal facilities. There is a concrete fence that currently surrounds the site, andreduces the visual impact. The residual impact is as per the initial impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

99August 2010 8848Table 30: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the construction phase (Alternative 1-3).Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitial HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 – HighAdditional LOW Study site Short Term Will occur 2.0- LowCumulative HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 – HighResidual HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 – High11.1.8 Air QualityInitial ImpactThe contribution of various sources of emission to ambient particulate and gaseousconcentrations within the study area is of interest given the potential for elevatedconcentrations in the area. The most significant sources located in close proximity to theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site include:• Stack, vent and fugitive emissions from industrial operations – industrial emissionsinclude various criteria pollutants (as SO2, Nox, CO and particulates), greenhouse gases(CO2 and CH4), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds(SVOCs), various heavy metals and other toxins. The closest industrial activities to theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site are Cape Gate (directly to the northwest) and ArcelorMittal Vanderbijlpark Steel (~1.5 km to the west). Sources of emission at theseoperations typically include stack emissions (i.e. particulates, Nox, SO2, VOCs, CO andCO2), and fugitive emissions from materials handling operations and crushing,windblown sources (i.e. waste dumps) and vehicle entrainment.• Fugitive emissions from mining operations – comprising mainly dust releases, with smallamounts of Nox, CO, SO2, methane, CO2 being released during blasting operations andvehicle exhaust. The closest mining operation to the Boitshepi site is New Vaal Colliery(~8.5 km to the southeast).• Vehicle tailpipe emissions – significant primary pollutants emitted by motor vehiclesinclude CO2, CO, hydrocarbons (HCs), SO2, Nox, particulate matter and lead. Theregional roads R57, R42 and R59 run to the east, south and west of the waste disposalsite respectively.• Household fuel combustion (coal, wood) – coal burning emits a large amount of gaseousand particulate pollutants including SO2, heavy metals, total and respirable particulatesincluding heavy metals and inorganic ash, CO, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), NO2 and various toxins such as benzo(a)pyrene. Pollutants from wood burninginclude respirable particulates, NO2, CO, PAHs, particulate benzo(a)pyrene andformaldehyde. Particulate emissions from wood burning have been found to containabout 50% elemental carbon and about 50% condensed hydrocarbons. Low incomesettlements where domestic fuel burning is prevalent are all around the Boitshepi WasteZITHOLELE CONSULTING

100August 2010 8848Disposal Site, including Boipatong, Tshepiso, Sharpeville and Sebokeng. The VaalTriangle Airshed Priority Area – Air Quality Management Plan, identified domestic fuelburning as one of the main sources of particulate emissions within the region.• Biomass burning – major pollutants from veld fires are particulates, CO and VOCs. Theextent of Nox emissions depends on combustion temperatures, with minor sulphur oxidesbeing released.• Various miscellaneous fugitive dust sources, including: agricultural activities, winderosion of open areas, vehicle-entrainment of dust along paved and unpaved roads.The pollutants listed above are released directly by sources and are therefore termed‘primary pollutants’. ‘Secondary pollutants’ which form in the atmosphere as a result ofchemical transformations and reactions between various compounds include: NO2, variousphotochemical oxidants (e.g. ozone), hydrocarbon compounds, sulphur acid, sulphates,nitric acid and nitrate aerosols.Therefore, from the aforementioned the impact is of an existing HIGH significance that isoccurring the long term as a result of both the site and the industries in the area. Thereforethe initial impact is rated as a High impact.Additional ImpactOnly particulate impacts due to wind erosion on open surfaces, materials handling due toearthworks to shape the floor to an even grade and vehicle entrainment are predicted to berelated to construction phase. Possible air quality impacts associated with these emissionsare health risks associated with predicted inhalable particulate matter and nuisance impactsas a result of predicted dustfall levels. The impact is therefore rated as a low impact.Alternative 1 has been rated separately to alternative 2 and 3 as a result of the severity of nobuffer zone from the public and therefore an increase in the significance to adjacent landoccupiers. It is in the opinion of the specialist that Alternative 1 is not acceptable.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact will remain as assessed for the initial impact, therefore a high impact.Mitigation MeasuresGiven the close proximity to residential areas and the exceedance of the general 500 mrecommended buffer zone, the following recommendations are made:• Dust suppression measures should be undertaken on a daily basis throughoutconstruction;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

101August 2010 8848• As a minimum, dust fallout measurements should be undertaken in the vicinity of theBoitshepi site to establish dust fallout levels around the site. These dust fallout levels willprovide an indication of nuisance dust impacts; and• The site operator should control on-site fugitive dust emissions by effective managementand mitigation due to the potential cumulative impacts of this pollutant in the study area.Residual ImpactOn successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures the impact will be lesssignificant and will be minimised to a Moderate (alternative 2 and 3) to High impact(alternative 1).Table 31: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitial HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 – HighAdditionalAlternative 1UnacceptableAlternative 2and 3LOW Study site Short Term Could happen 1.2 – LowCumulative HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 – HighResidualAlternative 1UnacceptableAlternative 2and 3HIGH Study site Short Term Very Likely2.1 –Moderate11.1.9 Cultural EnvironmentInitial ImpactThe Phase I HIA study for the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Siterevealed none of the types and ranges of heritage resources as outlined in Section 3 of theNational heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999).Therefore, there is no initial impact at all on the current state of heritage/ cultural resources(NO IMPACT). This is applicable to all alternatives that have been considered for theproposed project.Additional ImpactIt is possible that the Phase I HIA study that was undertaken might have failed to noticepossible heritage resources in the project area as heritage remains may occur beneath theexisting Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site and could only be exposed if the waste disposal siteZITHOLELE CONSULTING

102August 2010 8848is to be developed in some way that may involve excavations of the underlying soils strata inthe future.The significance of the additional impact will therefore be VERY LOW at isolated sites thatwould occur incidentally, the impact is therefore rated as Very Low.Cumulative ImpactThe site is currently being operated, and therefore disposal of waste is currently occurring.The construction cumulative impacts of the proposed extension of the Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site with the activities already taking place on site (disposal of waste) and theconstruction activities associated with a waste disposal site will be rated Very Low.Since there is no initial impact, the cumulative impact is rated as per the additional impact.Mitigation MeasuresIf any heritage resources of significance are exposed during the construction phase of theproject, following are measures that should be taken in cognisance:• All construction activities must cease;• The South African Heritage Resources Authority Agency (SAHRA) shall be notifiedimmediately; and• An archaeologist accredited by the Association for Southern African ProfessionalArchaeologists (ASAPA) shall be notified in order to determine appropriate mitigationmeasures for the discovered finds.This may include obtaining the necessary authorisation (s) (permit (s)) from SAHRA toimplement the appropriate mitigation measures.Residual ImpactIn cases where heritage resources in the project area are exposed/found beneath theexisting Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site during the construction activities, and the abovemitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, the residual impact on the heritageresources will have be VERY LOW,ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

103August 2010 8848Table 32: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the constructionphase (Alternative 1-3).Type ofImpactInitialAdditionalCumulativeResidualSignificance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingVERY LOWVERY LOWVERY LOWIsolatedSitesIsolatedSitesIsolatedsitesNO IMPACTIncidental Unlikely 0.4- Very LowIncidental Unlikely 0.4- Very LowIncidental Practically impossible 0.2- Very Low11.1.10 Social EnvironmentInitial ImpactRe-claimers livelihoodThe re-claimers’ means of making a living is by salvaging recyclable refuse at the wastedisposal site in search of materials such as glass, plastic, paper, tins and pieces of metalthat could be sold for recycling. It is estimated that the average income from reclaiming isabout R200.00 per month. This is a positive impact that the current Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site has brought. The impact has a LOW significance that is occurring the mediumterm and is therefore a Moderate Positive impact.Health and NuisanceThe waste disposal site is too close to surrounding houses and the associated odoursemanating from the site are felt by the surrounding communities, which is a negative impact.Another concern is that the site is accessible to children from the surrounding communitiesand as such poses a danger to the children. Additionally the reclaiming of waste on site isinformal and PPE is not worn by re-claimers. This has a high health and safety impact. Theimpact has a VERY HIGH significance and is currently occurring and is therefore rated as aHigh impact.TrafficThe roads around the site are already in a very poor condition and the area is alreadyaffected by traffic. This impact is therefore rated as per the health and nuisance impact as aHigh impact.CrimeThe area is also currently characterised by criminal activities, even on the site itself, such astheft and assault. Although a palisade fence has been erected, there is very little accesscontrol on the site and it is easy to access the site from points other than the gate. The initialimpact is therefore rated as a VERY HIGH negative impact occurring in the study area andacting in the medium term. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a High impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

104August 2010 8848Additional ImpactRe-claimers livelihoodThere are limited economic activities in the immediate area, and unemployment rates arevery high. In this context, job creation is a positive impact, even though it will only providerelief in the short term. Recruitment is likely to be a sensitive issue, and must be handledcarefully, since it could lead to social unrest if the processes were deemed as unfair orexclusive. The site being extended will have a positive impact on the financial well-being ofthe existing re-claimers (Alternative 1 and 2 to a larger extent than alternative 3).It is recommended that local contractors be used where possible to enhance the benefits tothe local economy. The construction phase will have a socio-economic impact ofMODERATE positive significance.Health and NuisanceDuring the construction phase, an increase in noise and traffic will be experienced which willbe a nuisance to residents living close by, and therefore represent a cumulative impact. Anincrease in traffic volume can lead to delays for travellers making use of public transport ortheir own motor vehicles. The drivers may become impatient and more accidents and roadrage may take place. Additionally, depending on the approved alternative there will be anincrease in nuisance to the surrounding land users. The extent of the nuisance is dependenton the alternative approved. Should alternative 1 be approved there will be no bufferdistance between the surround land users and the site construction activities and thereforethere will be a high impact. Should alternative 3 be approved there will be minimal changeduring construction as opposed to the existing operations and therefore the additional impactwill be low.TrafficDuring the construction phase there will be an increase in the presence of heavyconstruction vehicles. This is likely to lead to the further deterioration of roads around thesite. The roads around the site are currently in a very poor condition and additional heavytraffic will increase the problem. An increase in traffic poses a risk for the safety ofpedestrians. Most people in the area around the site travel by foot and some of theyoungsters are in the habit of jumping on the vehicles going to the waste disposal site. Sincethere is already traffic in the area, this will be a cumulative impact.There will be a moderate impact to the roads as a result of an increase in heavy vehiclesand an increased impact to pedestrians.CrimeDuring the construction phase there is likely to be construction material on the site and therewill be construction activities in progress at the end of each day. The material used will bedesirable for some sections of the community and they are likely to steal the constructionZITHOLELE CONSULTING

105August 2010 8848material. Not only material that may be lying around on the site, but also material that hasalready been used in the construction process.UncertaintyThis impact is already occurring. Projects often generate uncertainty or fear and sometimesthe impacts perceived in anticipation of the planned intervention can be greater than theimpacts ultimately resulting from the intervention. These impacts include uncertainty,annoyance (a feeling/experience due to disruption of life, but which is not necessarilydirected at the intervention itself), dissatisfaction due to a failure of the project to deliverpromised benefits, and an experience of moral outrage (such as when a project leads toviolation of deeply held moral or religious beliefs). This impact is magnified by the earlierattempts of the ELM to license the site that were never realised. Businesses are unsure howlong they will still be able to use the site, where the alternative site post closure will be, andat what stage they will need alternative solutions. All this has a direct impact on operatingcosts. Re-claimers are not sure how long they will still be able to make a living from the siteor how they will be able to make a living once the site has been decommissioned. Theseuncertainties place additional stress and psychological strain on them.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact for re-claimer livelihoods, health and nuisance traffic and crime willremain as assessed in the additional and initial phase as the impacts are occurring in thesame area.Mitigation MeasuresRe-claimer livelihoods• The registered re-claimers should be given preferential recruitment and reclaiming needsto be formalised;• Local people should be given the opportunity to apply for the available jobs. Local peopleshould be defined as people living in the directly adjacent townships, most of which areunskilled. This process should be administered in conjunction with the ELM andcommunity leaders (not necessarily political leaders). Given the recent service-deliveryprotests, it may be necessary for an outside party like the site management to fulfil thistask.Health and Nuisance• Construction vehicles should travel outside of peak traffic times. For taxi commuterspeak times are earlier than for self driven cars.• Construction activities should be limited to day-times (no construction should take placebetween 16h00-8h00).ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

106August 2010 8848Traffic• There are two access routes to the site. For construction purposes the route via FrikkieMeyer Boulevard should be utilised.• The access route should be upgraded (potholes fixed/filled in) before constructioncommences.• Speed limitations should be enforced on construction vehicles.• Access to the waste disposal site should be restricted. Trucks should be made to stopbefore the gates, and then be allowed in through a gate that can be closed behind them.The gatekeeper should ensure nobody jumps on the moving vehicles.Crime• Access control is imperative. Although a palisade fence has been erected, this measureis not sufficient in controlling access since there are various pedestrian gates around thesite. In addition, the concrete has been broken in order to gain access to the site. Unlessaccess is controlled and security measures are in place it will be almost impossible tocontrol crime. It is likely that initial community resistance will result if access is limited,but this should be weighed against the criminal activities currently taking place on thesite.• There should be two points of access for pedestrians as well as for vehicles providedthat twenty four hour security guards are employed. This would make access control tothe site much easier. In addition, the palisade fence should be fixed and the municipalityshould consider erecting an electrical fence inside the site as a further deterrent.Alternatively a solid wall with security spikes should be constructed around the site. Itwould also be worthwhile to consult with security experts on the best way of securing thesite.• Twenty four hour security guards should be employed. Given the fact that criminalactivity on site is already rife, adequate resources should be used. Only one guard wouldbe vulnerable to criminals. Frequent patrols from outside should be done, especially atnight.• Only people with access permits should be allowed on site. Checks for criminal recordsshould be done on individuals before access permits are issued.Uncertainty• Communication with stakeholders is imperative. A working group with the re-claimersshould be established for the duration of the project, with the ELM as the responsibleparty to drive the workgroup.• An industrial forum consisting of all the affected businesses should be established toensure that everybody is aware of the way forward, and communal planning can occur.The ELM is not seen as a trusted role player, therefore this may be challenging. Should itsucceed it can assist in repairing the reputation of the ELM.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

107August 2010 8848Safety• Access control and improving the fencing and security of the site are critical. This mayalleviate many of the current challenges.• Road safety talks should be held in the community and posters should be erected invisible places. This should be done in conjunction with the traffic department.• Site management should be improved to manage health impacts.• Registered re-claimers should be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)such as gumboots, gloves, safety vests and masks to protect their health. They shouldnot be allowed on site without their PPE. The principle of no PPE no work should applyand be enforced.• The public should not have free access to the site in order to protect them against healthrisks.Residual ImpactRe-claimer LivelihoodThis is a positive impact and the residual impact will remain as assessed with additionalimpact.Health and NuisanceThere will be a MODERATE impact experienced, especially by the residents within a 500mradius. (i.e. Boipatong, 60 metres to the immediate east of the site, Boipatong, 240 metres tothe immediate south east of the site and Tshepiso 70 m away). They would experience adaytime noise at a level typical of an urban district with commercial premises and mainroads.Mitigation measures prescribe that access control and fence improvement and security etcbe imperatively attended. Due to the mitigation measures implementation, safety impacts willbe reduced, and therefore the community will be at ease. The impact shall therefore have aLOW significance, occurring in the long-term. After proper implementation of mitigationmeasures, the reduction of the safety impact will happen.Because the increase will occur only during the daytime, this will affect only a few residents,and last for the relatively short- term period only, the significance of the noise-nuisanceimpact is rated as MODERATE to LOW.TrafficPrior to the mitigation measures being implemented, there will be no further deterioration ofroads due to the absence of heavy construction vehicles; therefore, the probability is that theimpact on traffic will be reduced. The impact will be reduced from MODERATE to LOW. Theimpact on safety risk for pedestrians will be reduced, as the most concern is of youngstersbeing of habit of jumping on the vehicles going to the waste disposal site, and therefore, theZITHOLELE CONSULTING

108August 2010 8848impact will be LOW and of short-term. All the drivers of the construction vehicles will bewarned of such incidences, therefore chances of incurring such incidence is unlikely tohappen. The impact is rated as very low impact.CrimeGiven the fact that there has been failure to controlling access into the site, despite of all thecontrol measures implemented, chances of crime will remain HIGH. With goodimplementation of the mitigation measures, the impact on crime will become Moderate andare very likely.UncertaintyPrior to communication with stakeholders and the development of a working group with there-claimers, the impact on uncertainties of the surrounding dwellers and businesses will bereduced as they will have a better understanding of the way forward and therefore can planfor their future disposal and alternatively look for jobs elsewhere. An industrial forumconsisting of all the affected businesses will also help.The impact will therefore, prior to the implementation of the mitigation measures- for futurebusinesses, be of LOW significance, and the probability of uncertainty being felt couldhappen, even prior to mitigation measures. On the other hand, re-claimers will still beuncertain about the proposed project. The impact shall therefore be of MODERATEsignificance even after communication has been facilitated for their understanding.Table 33: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type ofImpactImpact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingRe-claimerslivelihoods LOWIs occurringInitialAdditionalHealth andNuisanceTrafficCrimeVERY HIGHVERY HIGHVERY HIGHStudysiteStudysiteStudysiteStudysiteMediumTermMediumTermMediumTermMediumTermIs occurringIs occurringIs occurring2.33-Moderate –POSITIVE3.33 – High3.33 – High3.33 – HighVery Likely 2.7 –ModeratePositiveVery Likely 1.6 – LowPositiveRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1and 2MODERATE Local MediumtermAlternative 3 LOW StudyareaShort-TermHealth and NuisanceAlternative 1 VERY HIGH Local Short-term Will happen 3.3- HighAlternative 2 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 –ModerateAlternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 – LowDeteriorationof roadsMODERATE Local Short-term Very likely2.1ModerateZITHOLELE CONSULTING

109August 2010 8848Type ofImpactCumulativeResidualImpact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Ratingfrom heavyconstructionvehiclesSafety riskforpedestriansTheft ofconstruction HIGHmaterialRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1and 2Alternative 3Health andNuisanceTrafficCrimeLOW Local Short-termMODERATELOWVERY HIGHVERY HIGHVERY HIGHStudyareaLocalStudyareaStudysiteStudysiteStudysiteShort-termMediumtermShort-TermMediumTermMediumTermMediumTermCouldhappenVery LikelyVery LikelyVery LikelyIs occurringIs occurringIs occurring1.4- Low2.1-Moderate2.7 –ModeratePositive1.6 – LowPositive3.33 – High3.33 – High3.33 – HighVery Likely 2.7 –ModeratePositiveVery Likely 1.6 – LowPositiveRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1and 2MODERATE Local MediumtermAlternative 3 LOW StudyareaShort-TermHealth and NuisanceAlternative 1and 2Alternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 – LowDeteriorationof roadsfrom heavyconstructionvehiclesSafety riskforpedestriansCrimeMODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 –ModerateLOW Local Short-termCouldhappen1.4- LowLOW Local Short-term Unlikely 0.9-Very lowHIGHStudyareaShort termVery Likely2.1-Moderate11.2 Operational Phase11.2.1 Soils and Land CapabilityInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.1, a High impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

110August 2010 8848Additional ImpactDuring the operational phase the impacts described in section 11.1.1 will persist, but theconstruction vehicles will be replaced with the vehicles transporting the waste to the site withthe potential to generate hydrocarbon spillages. In addition, an increasing volume of wastewill be placed on the waste disposal site. An indirect impact from the waste disposal site willbe the formation of leachate that will pollute the underlying soils. It should be noted that thisimpact describes the unmitigated scenario. All these impacts are rated as a HIGH negativeimpact occurring in the study area and acting in the long term. This impact will occur and istherefore rated as a High impact. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternativesbut due to the smaller footprint from Alternative 3, this is the preferred alternative.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed in the constructionphase since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Thereforethe impact remains a High impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures remain as assessed and recommended in Section 11.1.1 above.Residual ImpactThe residual impact with the successful implementation of the mitigation measuresmentioned above will be slightly less significant as the probability reduces. Therefore therating reduces to Moderate. This is relevant for all the phases. This impact rating will be thesame for all three alternatives but due to the smaller footprint from Alternative 3, this is thepreferred alternative.Table 34: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils (Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial VERY HIGH Study site Long Term Is Occurring 3.7- HighAdditional HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- HighCumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- HighResidual HIGH Study site Long Term Very Likely 2.7- ModerateZITHOLELE CONSULTING

111August 2010 884811.2.2 TopographyInitial ImpactThe initial impact to topography is a MODERATE negative impact which will occur in thestudy area and will be permanent. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a Highimpact as in the construction phase.Additional ImpactThe additional impact remains as assessed in the construction phase.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsas High impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe change in topography is essential for the proper functioning of the proposed BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site and no mitigation is required.Residual ImpactDue to the fact that the change for the proposed extension is essential, and no mitigationmeasure is required, the residual impact without the implementation of the mitigationmeasures will remain as High impact.Table 35: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the operational phase(Alternative 1-3).InitialType ofImpactAdditionalCumulativeResidualAlternative Significance Spatial Temporal Probability Rating1-31 and 231-31-3MODERATELOWLOWMODERATEMODERATEStudysiteIsolatedsiteIsolatedsitesStudysiteStudysitePermanent Is Occurring 3.3.- HighPermanentWill occur2.6 –ModeratePermanent Very Likely 1.9 - LowPermanent Will occur 3.3- HighPermanent Will occur 3.3- HighZITHOLELE CONSULTING

112August 2010 884811.2.3 GroundwaterInitial ImpactThere is no evidence of significant groundwater contamination emanating from the site,although it is noted that BH4A has elevated TDS. During operational phase, the groundwatermanagement systems would have been installed, and therefore, there will be a reduction inthe impact of groundwater.During operational phase, the following would have been installed for the operation of thewaste disposal site, leachate collection system which will be equipped with suitable drains orcollection pipes that direct the gravity flow of leachate or leakage to defined collection pointsor sumps from which it can be collected for treatment and leakage detection systemconstructed to intercept any leachate that may pass the barrier of the liner. This leakage isthen directed to separate leakage collection sumps, where the quantity and quality can bemonitored and from which accumulated leakage can be removed or passed through to thesewer system. The potential for ground water contamination for the proposed waste disposalsite will be MODERATE.Additional ImpactThe additional impact during the operational phase remains as assessed Therefore theimpact remains as Moderate impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsas Moderate impact.Mitigation MeasuresRegular (six-monthly) sampling of groundwater levels and quality should be conducted toassess whether seepage/leaching from the proposed Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site isimpacting on the groundwater.In the event of such impacts being identified, appropriate engineering interventions must bedevised and implemented.It is recommended that any extension, including a liner system, is restricted to the areaconfirmed to be underlain by clay, i.e., the southern area.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

113August 2010 8848It is understood that extension is planned towards the north and north east, therefore it willbe necessary to line the footprint unless the extent of the clay layer is confirmed by test pitsand mappingWith respect to closure, from the groundwater perspective, it is important to minimizeseepage from the waste disposal site and, accordingly, ponding and infiltration of rain watermust be minimized by either:• landscaping (final shape and topography of the site), and / or• capping (prevention of infiltration from the surface), and / or• grassing (to limit infiltration and minimise erosion of the final shape of the site).Residual ImpactThe residual impact with the successful implementation of the mitigation measuresmentioned above will be slightly less significant as the probability reduces and therefore be alow impact.Table 36: Impact Rating Matrix for groundwater during the operational phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 2.1- ModerateAdditional MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 2.1- ModerateCumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 2.1- ModerateResidual MODERATE Study site Permanent Unlikely 1.3- Low11.2.4 Surface WaterInitial ImpactThe initial impact will remain as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.4, as aModerate impact.Additional ImpactDuring the operational phase if waste is not covered on a daily basis windblown litter anddust will be blown into the vlei to the north of the site, as currently experienced with theexisting site (Figure 30). Additionally if the mitigation measures proposed in the constructionphase are not implemented run-off from the waste body will potentially polluted all surfacewater bodies downstream of the site. Therefore the impact is rated as HIGH significance,locally in the short-term and is therefore a Moderate impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

114August 2010 8848Cumulative ImpactFigure 30: Windblown litter to the vlei to the south of the site.The cumulative impact will remain as assessed in the additional impact section, that is aModerate impact.Mitigation MeasuresAdditionally to the mitigation measures proposed in the construction phase, waste must becovered on a daily basis, storm water infrastructure must be maintained and monitored aslitter pickers must be deployed to pick up windblown litter around the site.Residual ImpactShould the mitigation measures proposed for construction and operation be successfullyimplemented the impact will be lowered to a MODERATE significance in the study area andtherefore be a Low impact.Table 37: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the operational phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateAdditional HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateCumulative HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateResidual MODERATE Study site Short –Term Could happen 1.4- Low11.2.5 GeotechnicalInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in 11.1.5, a Low impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

115August 2010 8848Additional ImpactThere should be no further geological impact during operation as the liner will be in place.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the operational phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impact remainsas Low impact.Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation measures are proposed.Residual ImpactThe residual impact during the operational phase remains as assessed in the constructionphase.Table 38: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the operational phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- LowAdditionalNO IMPACTCumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- LowResidual MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low11.2.6 Terrestrial EcologyInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a High impact.Additional ImpactThe additional impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a Low impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact operational phase remains as assessed in 11.1.6 High impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

116August 2010 8848Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures remain as assessed and recommended in Section 11.1.6 above.Residual ImpactThe residual impact remains as assessed and recommended in Section 11.1.6 above.Table 39: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology (Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Study site Long Term Has already occurred 3.3 – HighAdditional LOW Study site Short Term Could Occur 1.3 LowCumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Has already occurred 3.3- HighResidual HIGH Study site Long Term Has already occurred 3.3- High11.2.7 Visual ImpactInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in the construction phase in Section 11.1.7.Additional ImpactFor the proposed extension of the waste disposal site, the visual appearance of theBoitshepi Waste Disposal Site will undergo gradual change over the months as the variouswaste cells take shape. The height of each cell at any given point in time will depend on therelative rates at which material is deposited and removed for beneficial use.The worst case scenario would develop if:• No beneficial uses are developed for any of the materials and all the cells continuegrowing in height until the design storage capacity of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Siteis reached and the facility has to be closed due to a lack of storage space for additionalmaterial.Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (nodistance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The significance of thevisual impact without mitigation is assessed as high for alternative 1.Alternative 2 and 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre or 100metre buffer zone. The impact will therefore be MODERATE to LOW and will be in the longterm.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

117August 2010 8848Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact in the operational phase remains as assessed above for all threealternatives.Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation measures are taken to reduce the visual impact, though there is a palisadefence that has been erected.Residual ImpactAll impacts remain as assessed above as there will be no mitigation to reduce the visualimpact.Table 40: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the operational phase.Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 – HighAdditional – HIGH Local Long-Term It is going to 3.6- HighAlternative 1happenAdditional –Alternative 2,3MODERATE– LOWLocal Long- term It is going tohappen2.6 –ModerateCumulative HIGH Study site Permanent Is occurring 3.3 – HighResidual – HIGH Local Long-Term It is going to 3.6- HighAlternative 1happenResidual –Alternative 2,3MODERATE– LOWLocal Long- term It is going tohappen2.6 –Moderate11.2.8 Air QualityInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8, a Highimpact.Additional ImpactThis impact assessment addressed emissions from the operational phase of the wastedisposal site. Emissions associated with the operational phase of the site include thefollowing:• Fugitive dust emissions from vehicle entrainment; andZITHOLELE CONSULTING

118August 2010 8848• Landfill gas emissions.Possible air quality impacts associated with these emissions are:• Health risks associated with predicted inhalable particulate and landfill gasconcentrations;• Cancer risks associated with predicted landfill gas concentrations;• Odour impacts associated with predicted landfill gas concentrations; and• Nuisance impacts as a result of predicted dustfall levels.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact on air quality remains as assessed in the construction phase, Section11.1.8, a High impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures remains as proposed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8.Residual ImpactThe residual impacts remain as assessed in the construction phase, a High (alternative 1) toModerate (alternative 2-3) impact.Table 41: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the operational phase.Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 – HighAdditional –UnacceptableAlternative 1Additional – HIGH Study site Medium- It’s going to 3 – HighAlternative 2,3term happenCumulative HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 – HighResidual –Alternative 1UnacceptableResidual –2.1 –HIGH Study site Short Term Very LikelyAlternative 2,3Moderate11.2.9 Cultural EnvironmentInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.9, as NO IMPACT.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

119August 2010 8848Additional ImpactDuring the operation of the proposed extension of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site,excavation will be one of the activities taking place as part of the operation of the wastedisposal site.It is possible that the Phase I HIA study that was undertaken might have failed to noticepossible heritage resources in the project area as heritage remains may occur beneath theexisting Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site. The proposed project will involve excavations of theunderlying soils strata and therefore, the significance of the additional impact will thereforebe VERY LOW, as rated in Section 11.1.9.Cumulative ImpactThe impact significance is VERY LOW. This impact could happen, if during excavations asthe area (Vanderbijlpark) is characterised by heritage sites. The additional impact remainsas assessed in Section 11.1.9, a VERY LOW impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures will remain the same as in Section 11.1.9 for all three alternatives.Residual ImpactIf the above mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, then there will be noresidual impact on cultural/ heritage resources in the study area.Table 42: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the operational phase(Alternative 1-3).Type ofImpactInitialAdditionalCumulativeResidualSignificance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingVERY LOWVERY LOWVERY LOWIsolatedSitesIsolatedSitesIsolatedsitesNO IMPACTIncidental Unlikely 0.4- Very LowIncidental Unlikely 0.4- Very LowIncidental Practically impossible 0.2- Very LowZITHOLELE CONSULTING

120August 2010 884811.2.10 Social EnvironmentInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.10, a Moderate Positive Impact forre-claimer livelihoods and a High Negative Impact for health and nuisance for all threealternatives.Additional ImpactRe-claimer livelihoodCurrently, there are 500 re-claimers on site. With the proposed extension of the wastedisposal site for different alternatives, the impacts of job creation for each are assesseddifferently.Alternative 1 and 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 or 50 metrebuffer zone (none to 50m distance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users).There will be an increased in the number of years the site is operational and hence reclaimerswill earn a living for a longer period of time. Therefore, for this alternative, theimpact on increased employment opportunities will be MODERATE positive impact for reclaimers.This will be of medium term as the estimated lifespan of the waste disposal site.Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone.The site will then operate for a very short period of time and therefore there will be lessairspace for disposal, and therefore less waste to be disposed on the proposed site. Theimpact will be LOW, acting on a short-term period. Increased employment opportunitiescould occur.Health and NuisanceThe community are concerned about the odours emanating from the site that is not only anuisance, but may pose a health risk to them. This impact will persist for the life of the wastedisposal site, prior to rehabilitation. This impact is assessed for all different alternatives.Alternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (nodistance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The only time that thiswill be reduced or eliminated will be through rehabilitation and subsequently closure. Theimpact is of VERY HIGH significance and will be of short-term. It is definite that the odourswill emanate for the life of the waste disposal site.Alternative 2: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 metre buffer zone. Theimpact will be HIGH – MODERATE and will be of medium- term.Alternative 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 100 metre buffer zone.The impact will be MODERATE to LOW, acting on a short-term period.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

121August 2010 8848TrafficDuring the operational phase, there will be a decrease in the presence of heavy vehicles asthose are only used during the construction phase. The only vehicles that will be coming onsite will be those that will be bringing waste into the waste site for disposal. Deterioration ofroads around the site will be reduced however still persist. The roads around the site arecurrently in a very poor condition and therefore, less heavy traffic will lower the problem,however the initial impact will persist The lesser the heavy construction vehicles, the lesserthe safety risk to pedestrians as well. The impact will therefore remain as assessed in theconstruction phase.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impacts during the operational phase for all three alternatives remain asassessed above since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area.Mitigation MeasuresRe-claimer livelihoods and health and nuisanceThe re-claimers earning a living is a positive impact and therefore no mitigation measuresare proposed. However, the manner in which the work can be addressed by:• Formalising the manner in which re-claiming is performed;• Using PPE to all those present on site;• Ensuring access control; and• Ensure that re-claiming is in line with the Minimum Requirements.TrafficFor this aspect, there is no mitigation required as these vehicles have to take waste to thewaste disposal site.For all other social aspects, the mitigation measures remain as assessed in Section 11.1.10for all three alternatives.Residual ImpactFor traffic and employment aspects of the social environment, they will remain the same asbeing assessed for the cumulative impact above.Table 43: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the operational phase.Type ofImpactInitialImpact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingRe-claimerslivelihoodsLOWStudysiteMediumTermIs occurring2.33-Moderate –ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

122August 2010 8848Type ofImpactAdditionalCumulativeResidualImpact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingHealth andNuisanceTrafficVERY HIGHVERY HIGHStudysiteStudysiteMediumTermMediumTermIs occurringIs occurringPOSITIVE3.33 – High3.33 – HighVery Likely 2.7 –ModeratePositiveVery Likely 1.6 – LowPositiveRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1and 2MODERATE Local MediumtermAlternative 3 LOW StudyareaShort-TermHealth and NuisanceAlternative 1 VERY HIGH Local Short-term Will happen 3.3- HighAlternative 2 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 –ModerateAlternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 – LowDeteriorationof roadsfrom heavyconstructionvehiclesMODERATE Local Short-term Very likelySafety riskforpedestriansLOW Local Short-termRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1and 2Alternative 3 LOW StudyareaHealth andStudyVERY HIGHNuisancesiteTrafficStudyVERY HIGHsiteRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1and 2MODERATE Local MediumtermShort-TermMediumTermMediumTermCouldhappen2.1Moderate1.4- LowVery Likely 2.7 –ModeratePositiveVery Likely 1.6 – LowPositiveIs occurringIs occurring3.33 – High3.33 – HighVery Likely 2.7 –ModeratePositiveVery Likely 1.6 – LowPositiveMODERATE Local MediumtermAlternative 3 LOW StudyareaShort-TermHealth and NuisanceAlternative 1 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 –and 2ModerateAlternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 – LowDeterioration LOW Local Short-term Could 1.4- Lowof roadshappenfrom heavyconstructionvehiclesSafety riskforpedestriansLOW Local Short-term Unlikely 0.9-Very lowZITHOLELE CONSULTING

123August 2010 884811.3 Decommissioning Phase11.3.1 Soils and Land CapabilityInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.1, a High impact.Additional ImpactDuring the rehabilitation and closure phase the waste disposal site will be capped. Even withproper rehabilitation, the soils will never completely recover unless the waste material isremoved from the site. However the additional impact at this stage is a Low – Positiveimpact. This impact rating will be the same for all three alternatives but due to the smallerfootprint from Alternative 3, this alternative will have the least impact on soil. Soils will beimported to the site and the site will be re-vegetated.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed in section11.1.1 since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Thereforethe impact remains a High impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures remain as assessed in Section 11.1.1 for all three alternatives.Residual ImpactThe residual impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed in 11.1.1.Therefore the impact remains a Moderate impact.Table 44: Impact Rating Matrix for Soils during the Decommissioning Phase.Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial VERY HIGH Study site Long Term Is Occurring 3.7- HighAdditional LOW IsolatedsitesLong Term Could occur 1.3- Low –PositiveCumulative HIGH Study site Long Term Will occur 3.3- HighResidual HIGH Study site Long Term Very Likely 2.7- ModerateZITHOLELE CONSULTING

124August 2010 884811.3.2 TopographyWaste disposal site operations continue until all the available permitted airspace has beenfilled. Once this happens, the site is closed and capped with a layer of impermeable clay anda layer of top soil. Grass and other suitable vegetation types are planted to stabilise the soiland improve the appearance.Initial ImpactThe initial impact to topography will remain a HIGH impact, and will be occurring in the studyarea and will be permanent. This impact is rated as a High impact.Additional ImpactThe study site is within a residential area; therefore the waste body will be shaped to suit thelocal topography of the study area and the site will be rehabilitated so that grass and anyother flora will vegetate on the waste body capping layer. The additional impact totopography is of LOW positive significance and is therefore rated as Low positive impactthat will definitely occur in the study area.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed above sincethe additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impactremains as High impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures remain as assessed in Section 11.1.2 for all three alternatives,however the closure and capping are mitigation measures.Residual ImpactThe residual impact remains as assessed in the additional section.Table 45: Impact Rating Matrix for topography during the decommissioning phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Study site Permanent Will occur 4-HighAdditional VERY LOWIsolatedsitesPermanent Very Likely 1.9- Low positiveCumulative HIGH Study site Permanent Will occur 4-HighResidual VERY LOWIsolatedsitesPermanent Very Likely 1.9- Low positiveZITHOLELE CONSULTING

125August 2010 884811.3.3 GroundwaterInitial ImpactThe geohydrological impact will be of HIGH significance and will remain rated as aModerate impact as per the construction and operational phases.Additional ImpactDecommissioning and closure of the waste disposal site will involve covering the remainingwastes with impermeable liners satisfying the requirements of the DWA, followed by a layerof topsoil, vegetating the topsoil layer with hardy, but locally indigenous varieties of grassesand shrubs, demolishing unwanted infrastructure, removing contaminated soil, ripping andvegetating compacted areas. No further waste will be disposed on site. No water will be ableto infiltrate through the capping and percolate as leachate. Should water penetrate thecapping layer, it will be collected in the leachate collection system and be diverted to thesewer.The additional impact to groundwater is LOW impact and the site will be capped and noadditional waste will be accepted. It is therefore rated as above- Low impact that willdefinitely occur in the study area.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the decommissioning phase remains as assessed above sincethe additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. Therefore the impactremains as Moderate impact.Mitigation MeasuresMitigation measures proposed during the construction phase for the liner and associatedinfrastructure on the site are applicable during the construction and rehabilitation for closure.All mitigation measures proposed for the liner are applicable for the capping construction.Residual ImpactWith proper execution of the above closure measures, the probability of an impact ongroundwater would be unlikely and therefore remains as assessed for the additional impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

126August 2010 8848Table 46: Impact Rating Matrix for ground water during the decommissioning phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Local Long TermCouldhappen2.2- ModerateAdditional MODERATE Study site Long Term Unlikely 1.2 – LowCumulative HIGH Local Long TermCouldhappen2.2- ModerateResidual MODERATE Study site Long Term Unlikely 1.2 – Low11.3.4 Surface waterInitial ImpactThe initial impact will remain as assessed in the construction and operational phases, that isa Moderate impact.Additional ImpactDuring the closure / decommissioning and rehabilitation phase, construction activities willtake place for the capping liner. Once the capping layer is installed on site and the site hasbeen re-vegetated the potential for polluted run-off from site will be minimal. However duringthe construction of the capping layer the impact will remain as assessed in the constructionphase as a Moderate impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact will remain as assessed in the additional phase, a Moderate impact.Mitigation measuresThe mitigation measures as proposed in the construction phase are applicable.Residual ImpactThe residual impact will remain as per the construction phase, a Low impact.Table 47: Impact Rating Matrix for surface water during the decommissioning phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateAdditional HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateCumulative HIGH Local Short –Term Could happen 2- ModerateResidual MODERATE Study site Short –Term Could happen 1.4- LowZITHOLELE CONSULTING

127August 2010 884811.3.5 GeotechnicalSince no further contact will be made with the underlying geology, the geotechnical impactremains as assessed in the operational phase.Table 48: Impact Rating Matrix for geotechnical during the decommissioning phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- LowAdditionalNO IMPACTCumulative MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- LowResidual MODERATE Study site Permanent Could happen 1.9- Low11.3.6 Terrestrial EcologyInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a High impact.Additional ImpactThe additional impact during the closure phase will involve the capping of the site and the revegetationof the capping layer. This process will ensure that the cap remains intact andprevents erosion. The re-introduction of grasses to the site will allow the site to rehabilitatenaturally and it could reach a self sustaining state. Avifauna, arthropods, small mammals,amphibians and reptiles can all return to the site, as the adjacent wetland provides a sourcepopulation for these animals and plants. The impact to ecology is rated as a MODERATEpositive impact, occurring in the study area and acting in the long-term. The additionalimpact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.6, a Low positive impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact of the closure phase will result in the re-establishment of vegetationon site and it will provide the opportunity to fauna to move back onto the site as well. Due tothe disturbance on and around the site, it is however anticipated that the main rehabilitationwill be in the form of the re-establishment of the grass layer. The cumulative impact toecology is rated as a LOW impact, occurring in the study area and acting in the long-term.This impact could occur and is therefore rated as a Low positive impact.Mitigation Measures• All alien invasive species on site should be removed and follow up monitoring andremoval programmes should be initiated once closure is complete;ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

128August 2010 8848• Ensure that the rehabilitated waste site is not used as grazing for the local livestock; and• Ensure that natural grasses are used as part of the site rehabilitation and closure phase.Residual ImpactThe residual impact will remain as assessed in the cumulative impact assessment for all thedevelopment phases. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impactremains the same. The mitigation measure will however ensure that the impact is positive.Table 49: Impact Rating Matrix for Ecology for the Decommissioning Phase(Alternative 1-3).Impact Type Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitial HIGH Study site Long TermHas alreadyoccurred3.3 – HighAdditional MODERATE Study site Long Term Could Occur 1.8 – LowPositiveCumulative LOW Study site Long Term Could Occur 1.6 – LowPositiveResidual LOW Study site Long Term Could Occur 1.6 – LowPositive11.3.7 Visual ImpactWith the closure of the site, the visual impact will remain. The rehabilitation will howeverprovide a natural look to the waste body and to the uninformed by-passer to the site will notbe that obvious. However, due to the size and especially the height of the closed facility, thestructure will remain visible from the surrounding landscape as assessed for the expansion.This is however only relevant if the re-vegetation of the site is successful with no alieninvasive plants and no erosion visible on the site.The vegetation screen described will be firmly established and most of the trees will be ofmature height. Provided the screen is maintained and significant gaps are not allowed todevelop, any subsequent closure activities will be well screened.The progressive rehabilitation of waste sites by means of capping and the subsequentestablishment of vegetation is a Minimum Requirement. Capping will be implemented on allareas where no further waste deposition will take place, and re-vegetation should commenceas soon as possible. Screening berms are the first areas where vegetation must beestablished.Initial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed for the residual impact during the operational phase(Section 11.2.7), a High (Alternative 1) to Moderate (Alternative 2 and 3) impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

129August 2010 8848Additional ImpactAlternative 1: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 0 metre buffer zone (nodistance between waste disposal site and surrounding land users). The significance of thevisual impact without mitigation is assessed as low positive for alternative 1 as it has thelargest footprint and the potential for the largest volume of waste therefore this alternativewill be the most visible to the surrounding community. However, should the waste body bereshaped, capped and vegetated to look like a natural hill, the impact will be lessened.Alternative 2 and 3: Extension of the waste disposal site footprint with a 50 – 100 metrebuffer zone. The impact will therefore be a moderate positive impact and will be ofpermanent. Either alternative will have smaller footprint and waste capacity then alternative1 and would therefore blend in with the surrounding environment easier.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact remains as assessed for the additional impact above for allalternatives.MitigationThe mitigation measures remain as assessed in 11.1.7 above.Residual ImpactThe residual impact for all the alternatives is the same as with the additional impact as this isthe closure phase.Table 50: Impact Rating Matrix for Visual during the decommissioning phase.Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitialAlternative 1 HIGH Local Long-Term It is going to happen 3.6- HighAlternative 2,3 MODERATE– LOWLocal Long- term It is going to happen 2.6 – ModerateAdditionalAlternative 1 LOW Local Permanent Could happen (tolook like a naturalfeature)1.9 – LowpositiveAlternative 2,3 MODERATE Local Permanent Very likely 2.9- ModeratepositiveCumulative As per additional impactResidualAs per additional impactZITHOLELE CONSULTING

130August 2010 884811.3.8 Air QualityInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed in the construction phase, Section 11.1.8Additional ImpactIt is anticipated that the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site will be compacted and capped withsoil material in order to cover the waste and to allow vegetation to re-establish on the site.The potential for impacts during this phase will depend on the extent of rehabilitation effortsduring closure. This will result in a Moderate impact in the long-term.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact will remain a High impact as assessed for the initial impact.Mitigation MeasuresIt is recommended that a Gas Extraction Project be implemented at the site, however this ispending the investigation currently being undertaken by WSP, refer to Section 5.7.2.Residual ImpactShould the mitigation measures be implemented, the impact for all three alternatives wouldbe a Moderate impact.Table 51: Impact Rating Matrix for Air Quality during the decommissioning phase.Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 – HighAdditional MODERATE Local Long-Term Very Likely2.6 –ModerateCumulative HIGH Local Long Term Is occurring 3.66 – HighResidual MODERATE Local Long-Term Very Likely2.6 –Moderate11.3.9 Cultural EnvironmentInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as NO IMPACT as the area would have already been disturbedand there would be no potential for heritage remains to be present.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

131August 2010 8848Additional ImpactThe Additional impact remains as assessed in Section 11.1.9, a VERY LOW impact.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact will be the same as the additional impact i.e. VERY LOW impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe mitigation measures will remain the same as in Section 11.1.9 for all three alternatives.It is however recommended as part of the closure of the site that a memorial or statue orother artefact of historical significance is erected at the sight in memory of the SharpevilleMassacre.Residual ImpactIf the above mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to, then there will be aVERY LOW residual impact on cultural/ heritage resources in the study area.Table 52: Impact Rating Matrix for Cultural Environment during the Decommissioningphase (Alternative 1-3).Type of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactInitial impactNO IMPACTAdditional VERY LOW Study Area Incidental Unlikely 0.5-Very lowCumulative VERY LOW Study Area Incidental Unlikely 0.5 Very lowResidual VERY LOW Study Area Incidental Unlikely 0.5- Very low11.3.10 Social EnvironmentInitial ImpactThe initial impact remains as assessed for the residual impact during operations for all threealternatives.Additional ImpactJob Creation / LoseAll the re-claimers that have been employed or are working on the site will lose their sourceof income. The initial impact to the social environment is rated as a HIGH negative impactoccurring in the study area and acting permanently. This impact is going to happen and assuch is rated as a high negative impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

132August 2010 8848Nuisance and HealthWaste disposal will cease and the site will be capped. There will be no dust or PM10 impactsonce the site has been rehabilitated therefore there will be a positive impact to thesurrounding land users.TrafficDuring the decommissioning phase, there will be construction vehicles present in the shortterm however no waste vehicles will be coming to site. This decrease in heavy vehicles willlessen the local traffic impact and the safety risk to pedestrians.CrimeDuring the decommissioning phase, there will be material on site that could be stolen.Therefore, there will be NO IMPACT. It is important to note that this is specific to the wastedisposal site. Crime in the area could increase as a result of loss of income.Cumulative ImpactAll social impacts will remain as assessed as per the additional impact.Mitigation MeasuresThe following mitigation measures are proposed:Crime• Security is to be present on site throughout the construction component of the closure,that is, during capping.Job Creation / Lose• The re-claimers must be informed of the new waste disposal site that will replace theBoitshepi site and salvaging at the new site should be formalised.Residual ImpactThe residual impact will remain as assessed for the cumulative impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

133August 2010 8848Table 53: Impact Rating Matrix for Social Environment during the Decommissioningphase (Alternative 1-3).Type of Source of Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingImpactImpactRe-claimers livelihoodsAlternative 1 and2MODERATE Local MediumtermVery Likely 2.7 –ModeratePositiveAlternative 3 LOW StudyareaShort-Term Very Likely 1.6 – LowPositiveInitial impact Health and NuisanceAlternative 1 VERY HIGH Local Short-term Will happen 3.3- HighAlternative 2 MODERATE Local Short-term Will happen 2.6 –ModerateAlternative 3 VERY LOW Local Short-term Will happen 1.9 – LowAdditionalimpactCumulativeimpactResidualImpactTrafficTrafficLess traffic onroads andtherefore lessdeterioration ofroadsDecreased safetyriskforpedestrians dueto the decreaseof heavy vehiclesJob Creation /LoseCrimeNuisanceHealthandVERY HIGHHIGHAs per additional impactAs per additional impactStudysiteMediumTermIs occurring3.33 – HighLOW Local Permanent Very Likely 2.6 –Moderate –POSITIVELOWLOWHIGHStudysiteStudysiteStudyareaStudyareaPermanent Very Likely 2.4 –ModeratePOSITIVEPermanent Will occur 3.6- HighIncidental Couldhappen0.9- Very lowPermanent Very Likely 2.9 –Moderate –POSITIVEZITHOLELE CONSULTING

134August 2010 884812 IMPACT SUMMARYThe environmental impacts for each alternative for the proposed extension with view ofclosure of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site have been summarised below. The followingbroad conclusions can be drawn from the impact assessment.• The current baseline environment in the study area is highly impacted upon from anenvironmental and social perspective;• The receiving environment is not of a sensitive nature with the exception of a wetlandsouth east of the site.• There are no sensitive features on site as most of the environmental aspects are alreadyhighly disturbed and therefore, the ecosystems found on site have adapted to theconditions of a waste disposal site.• The most significantly impacted baseline elements in the area are soils and landcapability, topography, terrestrial ecology, visual aesthetics, air quality, health andnuisance. These elements have already been highly impacted by the existing waste siteoperations.• During the construction phase for the extension of the site, the impacts will range fromVERY LOW to HIGH. The most significant impacts will be to air quality and health andnuisance the significance of these impacts is dependent on the preferred buffer zonealternative. Mitigation measures employed will adequately reduce the significance ofimpacts that may be sustained by the construction activities with the exception of airquality for the 0 metre buffer zone (alternative 1) as the specialist has indicated that thisis unacceptable.• During the operational phase, the impacts range from VERY LOW to HIGH. The mostsignificant impacts will be to visual aesthetics, air quality and health and nuisance.Mitigation measures together with the OMP for the site will reduce the significance of theimpacts during operations significantly;• It is important to note that all three alternatives are adjacent to each other and as suchhave the same or similar potential impacts. The alternative with the smaller footprintnaturally has a smaller impact than the other alternatives however the differences of thefootprint sizes is so small that it is hardly evident in the assessment with the exception ofsocial and health issues relating to the distance of the site from the surrounding landusers. As such the difference in ranking of the alternatives is insignificant with theexception of the 0 metre buffer (alternative 1).• From a size of impact perspective only the smaller footprint, that is Alternative 3, 100metre buffer zone would be the preferred alternative, however as mentioned thisalternative is no longer feasible as it would not accommodate the waste disposal needsof the area for the full period until the new waste disposal site is commissioned.Therefore the preferred alternative is Alternative 2 – the 50 metre buffer zone.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

135August 2010 884812.1.1 Preferred AlternativeOn the basis of the findings in this report, it is suggested that alternative 2 (two) be utilisedas the preferred alternative for the proposed extension with view of closure of the BoitshepiWaste Disposal Site as it has the least sensitive features associated with it whilst be feasibleto meet the disposal needs of the community.This section provides a short sensitivity matrix, which compares the three differentalternatives and their associated environmental sensitivities.On the basis of the matrix presented below and the points listed above, it is suggested thatalternative two be utilised as the preferred alternative for the proposed Boitshepi WasteDisposal Site as it is the least sensitive of the feasible alternatives. Although Alternativethree has the smallest footprint and is the greater distance from the adjacent / surroundingland users it is cannot accommodate the disposal needs in the area until the new wastedisposal site is commissioned.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

136August 2010 8848BIO-PHYSICALSOCIALCULTURALSensitivityAlternative 1:0m bufferzoneCONSTRUCTION PHASEAlternative2: 50mbufferzoneTable 54: Alternative Sensitivity Matrix.Alternative3: 100mbufferzoneAlternative 1:0m bufferzoneOPERATIONAL PHASEAlternative2: 50mbufferzoneAlternative3: 100mbufferzoneCLOSURE AND DECOMMISSIONINGPHASEAlternative AlternativeAlternative1: 0m 2: 50m3: 100mbuffer bufferbuffer zonezone zoneSOILS AND LAND CAPABILITYInitial Impact High High HighAdditionalModerate High Low – POSITIVE þImpact CumulativeHigh High HighImpact ResidualModerate Moderate ModerateImpact TOPOGRAPHYInitial Impact High High HighAdditionalModerate Low Moderate Low Low – POSITIVE þImpact CumulativeHigh High HighImpact ResidualHigh High Low – POSITIVE þImpact GROUNDWATERInitial Impact Moderate Moderate ModerateAdditionalLow Moderate LowImpact CumulativeModerate Moderate ModerateImpact ResidualLow Low LowImpact SURFACE WATERInitial Impact Moderate Moderate ModerateAdditionalModerate Moderate ModerateImpact CumulativeModerate Moderate ModerateImpact ResidualLow Low LowImpact GEOTECHNICALInitial Impact Low Low LowAdditionalLow NO IMPACT NO IMPACTImpact CumulativeLow Low LowImpact ResidualLow Low LowImpact TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGYInitial Impact High High HighAdditionalLow Low Low –POSITIVE þImpact CumulativeHigh High Low – POSITIVE þImpact ResidualHigh High Low – POSITIVE þImpact VISUAL IMPACTInitial Impact High High High ModerateAdditionalImpactCumulativeImpactResidualImpactLow –Low High ModeratePositive þHigh Low –HighPositive þHigh High ModerateLow –Positive þModerate – Positive þModerate – Positive þModerate – Positive þAIR QUALITYInitial Impact High High HighAdditional Unacceptable High Unacceptable High ModerateImpact CumulativeHigh High HighImpact Residual Unacceptable Moderate Unacceptable Moderate ModerateImpact SOCIAL – RE-CLAIMER LIVELIHOODSInitial Impact Moderate – POSITIVE þ Moderate – POSITIVE þ Moderate LowAdditionalImpactCumulativeImpactResidualImpactModerate – POSITIVE þ Low –POSITIVEþModerate – POSITIVE þ Low –POSITIVEþModerate – POSITIVE þ Low –POSITIVEþModerate – POSITIVE Low –POSITIVEþModerate – POSITIVE Low –POSITIVEþModerate – POSITIVE Low –POSITIVEþHighHighModerateSOCIAL – HEALTH AND NUISANCEInitial Impact High High High Moderate LowAdditionalHigh Moderate Low High Moderate Low Moderate – POSITIVE þImpact CumulativeHigh High Moderate – POSITIVE þImpact ResidualModerate Low Moderate Low High – POSITIVE þImpact HERITAGEInitial ImpactNO IMPACTAdditionalVery Low Very Low Very LowImpact CumulativeVery Low Very Low Very LowImpact ResidualVery Low Very Low Very LowImpactTotalSensitivities11.5 9.5 9.5 11.5 8.5 8.5 1.5 0.5 0.5NEGATIVE IMPACT Very low = 0 Low = 0.5 Moderate = 1 High = 2 Very High = 3POSITIVE IMPACT Very low = 0 Low = -0.5 Moderate = -1 High = -2 Very High = -3ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

August 2010 137884813 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSFrom the evaluation in Section 12 the various sensitivities have been added and Table 55below represents the summary of the impacts each alternative would pose on the study areaduring construction, operation and closure.Table 55: Alternative summary and preference.SENSITIVITIESAlternative 1:0m buffer zoneAlternative 2:50m buffer zoneAlternative 3:100m buffer zoneDuring Construction 11.5 9.5 9.5During Operations 11.5 8.5 8.5During Closure 1 0.5 0.5TOTAL 24 18.5 18.5Preference 3 1 1The way forward recommended by this study is as follows:• The Final EIR and EMP have been compiled and submitted to the Gauteng Departmentof Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) for approval;• Once the GDARD has reached a decision, an Environmental Authorisation (EA) will beissued; and• Upon receipt of the Environmental Authorisation (EA), Zitholele will notify all I&Aps onthe stakeholder database of the GDARD’s decision by means of letters.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING