Presentation to the Public on the Environmental Impact Control Report for Valley 2 , Shongweni Landfill Site

1. Presentation to the Public on the Environmental Impact Control Reportfor Valley 2,Shongweni Landfill Site 11 February 2009 5:30pm Assagay Hotel

2. Agenda • Welcome, Introduction & Apologies: Facilitator (Mr. Pravin Singh) • Introduction and background to the project: Synergistics (Mr M. Hemming) 3. Valley 2 project design: Jones and Wagener (Mr J Shamrock) 4. The EICR: Key Issues and Mitigation: Synergistics (Mr. M. Hemming) 5. Air Quality Impacts: Airshed (Ms. N. Krause) 6. Summary: Synergistics (Mr. M. Hemming) 7. Discussion

3. Purpose of the Meeting • To present the results of the Environmental Impact Control Report (EICR) for Shongweni Valley 2 to the public • To receive feedback on the draft EICR

4. Background to Shongweni • The Shongweni Landfill Site is owned and operated by EnviroServ Waste Management. • The Site is permitted in terms of Section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act (73 of 1989). • The site is operated in terms of the permit conditions and the ‘Minimum Requirements’ for waste disposal. • The permit allows for waste disposal across the Shongweni Landfill Site property. • Although only Valley 1 was included in the plans, the permit did allow for further development at Shongweni, provided that design plans were approved by the Department.

5. Background to the Project • EnviroServ proposes to develop Valley 2 at Shongweni. • Valley 2 will be located within the permitted footprint of Shongweni. • Valley 2 will enable continued waste disposal at Shongweni for an additional 10 years. • Legislation regulating waste disposal and environmental authorisations in South Africa changed in 2006. • Environmental Conservation Act • National Environmental Management Act. • EnviroServ thus approached the KZN Department of Agriculture and Environment Affairs (DAEA) to determine the environmental authorisation requirements for Valley 2.

6. Why an EICR • The KZN DAEA required that an Environmental Impact Control Report be prepared for Valley 2. • The “duty of care” described in Section 28 of NEMA applies and requires that reasonable measures are taken to prevent significant environmental degradation → EICR. • The KZN DAEA did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) because: • Waste disposal at Shongweni is an authorised activity (permit), • that commenced before the introduction of the NEMA EIA regulations. • Valley 2 will form an indistinguishable part of the permitted site, • and will be developed within the permitted site boundaries.

7. The EICR • The EICR must: • Identify the various ways in which Valley 2 will affect the receiving environment; and • Indicate how the potential impacts can be eliminated or mitigated through proper design and operation, combined with ongoing monitoring. • Synergistics Environmental Services prepared the EICR for Valley 2. The approach was to: • Review and summarise all existing information, • Document the current environmental baseline and Valley 1 impacts, • Identify and assess the potential Valley 2 impacts, • Specialist Input • Determine design, operation and monitoring controls, and • Produce a comprehensive and up to date report.

8. EICR vs EIA • There has been concern over why an EICR and not an EIA: → KZN DAEA required an EICR. • The EICR has been undertaken in a thorough and comprehensive manner and largely replicates an EIA. • Both processes: • Describe the environmental baseline; • Consider the project scope; • Involve public opinion; • Identify and assess impacts; • Define measures to mitigate impacts. • There are procedural differences, but the outcome - sound environmental management - is the same.

9. Valley 2 Design Valley 2 Project Design Jonathan Shamrock

10. Valley 2 Location Text Area

11. Valley 2 Cell 1 Text Area

12. Valley 2 Cell 2 Text Area

13. Valley 2 Cell 3 Text Area

14. Valley 1 and valley 2 terrain model 3D here

15. Valley 2 Cell 1 andInfrastructure 3D here

16. Stability analysis Text Area

17. Basal Liner Text Area

18. Leachate Management Text Area

19. Stormwater Control Text Area

20. Site Monitoring • Regular monitoring is undertaken of: • surface water, • groundwater, • sub-surface gases; • on site and off-site ambient air quality, • dust levels, and • worker exposure. • Biannual site audit. • Monitoring data is compared against applicable guidelines and standards. Jones & Wagener Margot Saner & Associates En-Chem Consultants

21. Monitoring Results • Groundwater – electrical conductivity (SANS Class II = 370) • Ammonia, Flouride, Iron and Manganese elevated in BH05 12S • Low concentrations of tetrachlorene and trichlorethene

22. Monitoring Results • Surface water – electrical conductivity (SANS Class II = 370) • Groundwater daylights to surface because of steepness • No exceedances and no organic constituents detected

23. Monitoring Results • Ambient Air Quality On-site • NMOC, H2S, Ammonia all below guidelines • Aldehyde compounds elevated in certain periods - cane fires? • Non-cancer risks – Minimal to Low • Cancer risks – Low to Moderate • PM10 below limits Off-site(Walker, Bond & Develing Residences) • NMOC, H2S, Ammonia all below guidelines and odour thresholds • Aldehyde compounds elevated in certain periods - cane fires? • Non-cancer risks – Minimal to Low • Cancer risks – Low • 31 odour complaints

24. Assessing the Current Impacts • The assessment of current (Valley 1) impacts was based on monitoring data and environmental conditions. • Assessment combines scientific measurement and professional judgement to provide a rating of significance. • Considers the extent, severity, duration and probability. • Included design and mitigation measures.

25. Current Valley 1 Impacts

26. Assessment of Potential Impacts • The assessment of potential impacts (Valley 1 and 2) was based on specialist input. • Specialist work undertaken: • Vegetation study • Downstream catchment impacts • Air quality impact assessment • An environmental impact assessment was completed. • Impacts were considered in terms of the receiving environment and the proposed design and operational commitments. • Assessed the significance of the potential impacts • Documented required monitoring and mitigation measures.

27. Potential Air Quality ImpactsNicolette Krause & Lucian Burger Pollutants Impacts Planning Gasses Health Buffer Zone Odour Fugitive Dust Nuisance Mitigation Dustfall CO2 40–45% CH4 50–55% Dust Greenhouse Gasses Other (>200 Compounds) 0.2-0.5 % Odour Health

28. Stage 1 Data Input Stage 3 Modelling Stage 4 Model Output Stage 5 Planning Stage 2 Emission Estimation Weather Data Landfill Gas & Fugitive Dust Atmospheric Dispersion Model Assessment of Potential Environmental and Health Impacts Buffer Zone Delineation and Mitigation Recommend-ations Topography and Land-Use Source and Emissions Data Background Pollutant Concentrations Assumptions & Limitations Air Quality Impact Assessment:Process

29. Air Quality Impact Assessment:Limitations and Assumptions Well operated and managed site (e.g. no “day-lighting”) No open leachate storage areas Waste categorized into domestic waste (J. Ball) and industrial (Enviroserv) On-site sub surface monitoring results were assumed to be uniform and representative of Valley 1 and 2 Valley 1, capping at closure & Valley 2, progressive capping Dust suppression on unpaved road surfaces 50% control efficiency based on 2 l/m²/h watering On site meteorological data incomplete and necessitated supplementary meteorological modelling The assessment focused on compliance. It did not include a comprehensive site specific health risk assessment

30. Air Quality Impact Assessment:Investigation Scenarios Scenario 1: Valley 2, prior to closure, unmitigated Scenario 2: Valley 2, prior to closure, gas extraction (e.g. flare) Scenario 3: Valley 1 (post closure) and Valley 2 prior to closure, unmitigated Scenario 3: Valley 1 (post closure) and Valley 2 prior to closure, gas extraction (e.g. flare)

31. Air Quality Impact Assessment:LFG Emission Estimation

32. Air Quality Impact Assessment:LFG Emission Estimation

33. Air Quality Impact Assessment:Impact Assessment Criteria • Health: • PM10 Impacts: Proposed South African Air Quality Standards • Proposed South African daily average standard - 75µg/m³ • Proposed South African annual average standard - 40µg/m³ • Non-carcinogenic: • World Health Organisation (WHO) • Inhalation reference concentrations, effect screening levels, reference exposure levels, minimal risk levels and unit risk factors published internationally • Carcinogenic • WHO Unit Risk Factors • Acceptable Cancer Risk (1 in a million – very low risk, 1 in 100 thousand – low risk) • Nuisance: • Odours: • New South Wales (NSW) EPA odour evaluation approach • Acceptable Odour Units – 3OU/m³ for areas with a population of 500 to 2000 people • Dustfall: • South African National Standards (SANS) dustfall band - 600 mg/m²/day, permissible for residential and light commercial areas

34. Air Quality Impact Assessment:Results • Health: • PM10 Impacts: Exceedances of proposed South African PM10 daily average standard (75µg/m³) at facility fence-line but no exceedances at sensitive receptors • Non-carcinogenic Impacts: No exceedances of any of the health risk thresholds predicted • Carcinogenic Impacts: • Maximum cancer risk at facility fence-line was 1 in 124 thousand i.e. low risk (cumulative unmitigated scenario) • Predicted off-site cancer risk at the sensitive receptors were less than 1 in 1 million i.e. very low risk • Nuisance: • Odour Impacts: • Maximum odour threshold exceedances associated with hydrogen sulphide (H2S) • Maximum odour unit at facility fence-line was 14 (cumulative unmitigated scenario) • Predicted odour units at sensitive receptors below 2, the criteria for urban areas • Dustfall: Less than 600 mg/m²/day at all sensitive receptors

35. Air Quality Impact Assessment:Buffer Zone Projection

36. Air Quality Impact Assessment:Odour Management Zone Projection

37. Other Studies • Vegetation • Remnant patches of Scarp forest and Sourveld grassland • Many alien invasive species • Occurrence of a few protected species • Should relocate these and obtain permits from DWAF • Patches are small and isolated, irrespective of landfill development, are unlikely to persist without substantial management intervention • Downstream Catchment Impacts • Despite flaws in Valley 1 downstream impacts are negligible • Improvements in Valley 2 likely to reduce impacts • Engineering options are feasible to contain impacts

38. Valley 1 and 2 Impacts

39. No-go Alternative

40. Impact Control Measures • Key mitigation measures: • Cover leachate sources • Implement rehabilitation on Valley 1 • Extract and combust landfill gas • Establish and maintain the required buffer zone • Expand monitoring network • Permit Conditions • DWAF Minimum Requirements • Shongweni Operations Manual

41. Summary of the EICR • Despite public concerns, monitoring data indicates that landfilling operations at Shongweni have had a limited impact on the social and biophysical environment. • Investigations into potential Valley 2 impacts concluded that the impacts will be of a similar nature and severity. • The implementation of leachate cover, rehabilitation and gas extraction projects will be key to prevent impacts. • Site control measures, as required in the permit, must be maintained. • Monitoring is crucial to inform management actions. • The EICR concluded that there are no fatal flaws that should prevent the development and operation of Valley 2 at the Shongweni Landfill Site.

42. Discussion

43. Way Forward • Deadline for comment on EICR - 20 Feb ‘09 • Final EICR to KZN DAEA - 27 Feb ‘09 • Design Approval – ? • Commence Construction - ?? • Commence Landfilling - ??