Presentation on theme: "Presentation to the Public on the Environmental Impact Control Report for Valley 2, Shongweni Landfill Site 11 February 2009 5:30pm Assagay Hotel."— Presentation transcript:
Presentation to the Public on the Environmental Impact Control Report for Valley 2, Shongweni Landfill Site 11 February :30pm Assagay Hotel
Agenda 1.Welcome, Introduction & Apologies: Facilitator (Mr. Pravin Singh) 2.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
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
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.
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 – 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.
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.
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.
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.
Valley 2 Project Design Jonathan Shamrock Valley 2 Design
Valley 2 Location Text Area
Valley 2 Cell 1 Text Area
Valley 2 Cell 2 Text Area
Valley 2 Cell 3 Text Area
Valley 1 and valley 2 terrain model 3D here
Valley 2 Cell 1 and Infrastructure 3D here
Stability analysis Text Area
Basal Liner Text Area
Leachate Management Text Area
Stormwater Control Text Area
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
Monitoring Results Groundwater – electrical conductivity (SANS Class II = 370) – Ammonia, Flouride, Iron and Manganese elevated in BH05 12S – Low concentrations of tetrachlorene and trichlorethene
Monitoring Results Surface water – electrical conductivity (SANS Class II = 370) – Groundwater daylights to surface because of steepness – No exceedances and no organic constituents detected
Monitoring Results Ambient Air Quality On-site – NMOC, H 2 S, 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, H 2 S, 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
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. Neg Very highimpact is of the highest order possible -potential fatal flaw Neg Highimpact is substantial Neg Moderateimpact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts Neg LowImpact is of a low order NeutralImpact is negligible Pos LowImpact is of a low order Pos Moderateimpact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts Pos Highimpact is substantial Pos Very highimpact is of the highest order possible
Current Valley 1 Impacts ImpactImpact SignificanceStakeholder Interest Restriction of the land use of the site and surroundsNeg Low Change in the local aestheticsNeg Moderate Emissions of GHGNeg ModerateNeutral Contamination of surface waterNeg Low Contamination of groundwaterNeg Low Heavy vehicle traffic on access roadsNeg Moderate Economic benefits through employmentPos ModerateNeutral Legal and managed disposal of wastePos Very HighNeutral Nuisance from TSP dustfallNeg Low Nuisance from odoursNeg High Occupational health risk from elevated emissionsNeg LowNeutral Health risk from PM10Neg LowNeg Moderate Non-carcinogenic health risk from exceedance of chronic health thresholds Neg LowNeg Very High Carcinogenic health risk from exceedance of chronic health thresholds Neg LowNeg Very High
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.
Potential Air Quality Impacts Nicolette Krause & Lucian Burger Dust Impacts Health Nuisance Odour Dustfall Pollutants Gasses Fugitive Dust Planning Buffer Zone Mitigation CO 2 40–45% CH 4 50–55% Greenhouse Gasses Other (>200 Compounds) % Odour Health
Stage 1 Data Input Stage 3 Modelling Stage 4 Model Output Stage 5 Planning Background Pollutant Concentrations Weather Data Source and Emissions Data Topography and Land-Use Atmospheric Dispersion Model Assessment of Potential Environmental and Health Impacts Buffer Zone Delineation and Mitigation Recommend- ations Stage 2 Emission Estimation Landfill Gas & Fugitive Dust Assumptions & Limitations Air Quality Impact Assessment: Process
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
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)
Air Quality Impact Assessment: LFG Emission Estimation
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 mg/m²/day, permissible for residential and light commercial areas
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 (H 2 S) 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
Air Quality Impact Assessment: Buffer Zone Projection
Air Quality Impact Assessment: Odour Management Zone Projection
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
Valley 1 and 2 Impacts Impact Impact Significance Stakeholder Interest Enlargement of buffer zoneNeg ModerateNeg High Loss of habitat and biodiversityNeg LowNeutral Contamination of surface waterNeg Low Contamination of groundwaterNeg Low Heavy vehicle traffic on access roadsNeg Moderate Continued legal and managed disposal of wastePos Very HighNeutral Nuisance from TSP dustfallNeg Low Nuisance from odoursNeg ModerateNeg High Occupational health risk from elevated emissionsNeg LowNeutral Health risk from PM10Neg LowNeg Moderate Non-carcinogenic health risk from exceedance of chronic health thresholds Neg LowNeg Very High Carcinogenic health risk from exceedance of chronic health thresholds Neg LowNeg Very High
No-go Alternative Impact Impact Significance Stakeholder Interest No-go - Loss of employmentNeg Moderate No-go - Reduced traffic on access roadsPos Moderate No-go - Fewer H:h facilities for legal waste disposal in KZNNeg Very High No-go - Reduction in dustfall, odour and health concernsPos Low
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
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.
Way Forward Deadline for comment on EICR - 20 Feb ‘09 Final EICR to KZN DAEA - 27 Feb ‘09 Design Approval – ? Commence Construction - ?? Commence Landfilling - ??