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
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
- 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 100 and 101: 85August 2010 884811 IMPACT ASSESSM
- 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
- Page 150 and 151: 135August 2010 884812.1.1 Preferred
88August 2010 8848there<strong>for</strong>e 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 <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase will involve relatively shallowexcavations in order to prepare the various waste management areas, source suitable claymaterial, <strong>co</strong>nstruct 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 <strong>for</strong> the <strong>co</strong>llection of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated runoff fromthe site and <strong>co</strong>llection 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 <strong>for</strong> alternative 1 and 2 is a LOW negative impactand is there<strong>for</strong>e rated as above- Moderate impact that will definitely very likely in the studyarea.For alternative 3, the additional impact will be lower than <strong>for</strong> alternative 1 and 2 as thetopography will only be changed slightly as the footprint <strong>for</strong> alternative 3 is much smaller.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase remains as assessed above since theadditional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area. There<strong>for</strong>e the impact remainsas High impact. The same is applicable <strong>for</strong> the operational and rehabilitation phases.Mitigation MeasuresThe change in topography is essential <strong>for</strong> the proper functioning of the proposed <strong>Boitshepi</strong>Waste Disposal <strong>Site</strong> and no mitigation are available.Residual ImpactDue to the fact that the change <strong>for</strong> 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 <strong>co</strong>nstructionphase.Table 23: Impact Rating Matrix <strong>for</strong> topography during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction 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
Change language