FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za
FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za
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
- Page 50 and 51: August 2010 35 8848Construction of
- Page 52 and 53: August 2010 37 8848There are differ
- Page 54 and 55: August 2010 39 88486 TECHNOLOGY REV
- Page 56 and 57: August 2010 418848Figure 10: Boitsh
- Page 58 and 59: August 2010 4388487 BASELINE RECEIV
- Page 60 and 61: August 2010 458848• Soil depth;
- Page 62 and 63: 47August 2010 8848Figure 12: Soil T
- Page 64 and 65: August 2010 4988487.1.3 Drainage Fe
- Page 66 and 67: August 2010 518848Figure 15: Upper
- Page 68 and 69: 53August 2010 8848Figure 16: Topogr
- Page 70 and 71: August 2010 558848Soweto Highveld G
- Page 72 and 73: August 2010 578848Figure 18: Alien
- Page 74 and 75: 59August 2010 8848Species ListThe f
- Page 76 and 77: 61August 2010 8848Common Name Scien
- Page 78 and 79: 63August 2010 8848five decades ago
- Page 80 and 81: 65August 2010 8848steel industry, I
- Page 82 and 83: 67August 2010 88488 WASTE LICENSE A
- Page 84 and 85: 69August 2010 8848Waste disposal si
- Page 86 and 87: 71August 2010 8848Table 13 below il
- Page 88 and 89: 73August 2010 8848continue to monit
- Page 90 and 91: 75August 2010 88489 WASTE DISPOSAL
- Page 92 and 93: 77August 2010 88489.2.1 Extension o
- Page 94 and 95: 79August 2010 8848Figure 26: Site l
- Page 96 and 97: 81August 2010 884810 IMPACT ASSESSM
- Page 98 and 99: 83August 2010 884810.3 Duration Sca
- Page 102 and 103: 87August 2010 8848• Link the exte
- Page 104 and 105: 89August 2010 8848Type ofImpactCumu
- Page 106 and 107: 91August 2010 8848Figure 28: Piezom
- Page 108 and 109: 93August 2010 884811.1.4 Surface wa
- Page 110 and 111: 95August 2010 8848seepage of ground
- Page 112 and 113: 97August 2010 8848Table 29: Impact
- Page 114 and 115: 99August 2010 8848Table 30: Impact
- Page 116 and 117: 101August 2010 8848• As a minimum
- Page 118 and 119: 103August 2010 8848Table 32: Impact
- Page 120 and 121: 105August 2010 8848material. Not on
- Page 122 and 123: 107August 2010 8848Safety• Access
- Page 124 and 125: 109August 2010 8848Type ofImpactCum
- Page 126 and 127: 111August 2010 884811.2.2 Topograph
- Page 128 and 129: 113August 2010 8848It is understood
- Page 130 and 131: 115August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 132 and 133: 117August 2010 8848Cumulative Impac
- Page 134 and 135: 119August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 136 and 137: 121August 2010 8848TrafficDuring th
- Page 138 and 139: 123August 2010 884811.3 Decommissio
- Page 140 and 141: 125August 2010 884811.3.3 Groundwat
- Page 142 and 143: 127August 2010 884811.3.5 Geotechni
- Page 144 and 145: 129August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 146 and 147: 131August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 148 and 149: 133August 2010 8848Table 53: Impact
85August 2010 884811 IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe Impact Assessment highlights and describes the impact to the environment following theabove mentioned methodology and will assess the following <strong>co</strong>mponents:• Soils and Land Capability;• Topography;• Groundwater;• Surface water;• Geotechnical;• Terrestrial E<strong>co</strong>logy;• 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.There<strong>for</strong>e, <strong>for</strong> these reasons, alternative 3 is no longer deemed feasible as it cannot cater <strong>for</strong>the disposal needs of the area until the new site is <strong>co</strong>mmissioned.The impact assessment has there<strong>for</strong>e assessed the different <strong>co</strong>mponents as they arementioned in this section above <strong>for</strong> 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 <strong>Boitshepi</strong> WasteDisposal <strong>Site</strong> and its operations have impacted on all the soils on site to the point wherethere are no re<strong>co</strong>gnisable natural soil <strong>for</strong>ms remaining. As the waste disposal site wasestablished prior to the onset of detailed waste management regulations, there is no liner orZITHOLELE CONSULTING
Change language