Many of you have been wondering where your objections have gone and why you have not received any acknowledgment of submitting them.

At this stage it is anyone’s guess, although we have been given a few clues as to what is going on behind the scenes. In fact, if you were to hazard a guess that EThekwini dumped them in valley 2 on one of its cozy site visits to Shongweni, you may be right.

Where to start…….

Well EThekwini stated under oath in the review application that 732 objections and 99 596 submissions in support, had been received in response to EnviroServ’s application for a Scheduled Trade Permit.

It also stated that it has at all times “conducted itself responsibly” and that there is “no basis to contend EThekwini will not adjudicate the pending application properly with due regard to the conditions on the site at the time and in compliance with procedural fairness…”.

Attached to an affidavit delivered by EnviroServ on 23 August 2018, was the schedule in the link below (UHA have blanked out addresses and cell numbers), provided to it by EThekwini, containing the list of objectors.

EnviroServ also stated that it had “received” submissions in support and sent them to EThekwini.

From the list attached there are only 556 objectors including duplications. Notably UHA’s substantive objections on 22 June 2018 and on 27 July 2018 are not recorded but our attorney’s correspondence raising various irregularities on our behalf regarding the process being followed, are listed as objections by her. Clearly they never bothered to read UHAs objection or the correspondence from our attorney confirming she was acting on UHA’s behalf otherwise this blunder would not have been made.

Our attorney in fact did not lodge an objection in her personal capacity and we have placed EThekwini on terms to provide her objection if they contend she did, and to explain why UHA’s objections have not been included and its attorneys’ communications regarding the gross irregularities have not been considered or addressed.

EnviroServ claims (no doubt on advice from EThekwini) that only 103 objections are valid, because people objected before publication of the application and never included their full names and addresses even though the advertisement provided that objectors only had to provide names and “contact details”. UHA have raised these issues with EThekwini and its attorneys. We await confirmation they will be.

What is despicable and incredulous is that EnviroServ first made its application in February 2018, which it has now “updated”, but EThekwini has refused to provide it to the community in order for them to amplify any objections, based on a material part of the application made by EnviroServ.

EThekwini only told EnviroServ to publish the application in terms of the Bylaws after UHA threatened them with action on 22 June 2018 as a result of their failure to require EnviroServ to advertise the application and where they were poised to grant the application even though nuisance conditions persist (as last week has shown).

EThekwini were merrily going to adjudicate the application without publication.

Now it is contended by EnviroServ that objections lodged before publication of the notice are not going to be taken into account, so they and EThekwini profit from EThekwini’s failure to publish notice of the application in the first place. Clearly a ridiculous suggestion, but we fear this will not stop them from excluding these objections. How can one hide the application by not requiring publication and then when someone finds out and objects, as they are entitled to do, say your objections are not valid because we planned to do this behind closed doors?

Please check the list attached, and mail UHA if your name is not on the list and also mail EThekwini and your local councillor to raise your objections to being excluded from the process. If your name is not one where we have had to blank out an address or cell number then you also know according to EnviroServ and probably Ethekwini, these are not considered valid. Please also take this up with Ethekwini.

What is also clear is that EThekwini have not yet provided any objections to EnviroServ for its response as it alleged it would in its affidavit. Have they then just decided to ignore the objections regardless? EnviroServ does not need to respond? There is no objection deserving of a response?

Interestingly, Neil Larat, Deputy Head: Pollution Control and Risk Management in the Health Unit at EThekwini is listed as an objector!

EnviroServ may be onto something….someone else also stinks in the Upper Highway area – EThekwini.

When will Government be held to account? When will your rates and taxes be used to benefit the community not polluters?

The post Something STINKS and it’s not just Enviroserv appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

• The civil action has been instituted and EnviroServ is yet to plead to UHA NPC’s claim. Preliminary skirmishes raised by EnviroServ have delayed this action.
• On 26 April 2017 UHA NPC obtained an urgent interdict against EnviroServ interdicting them from accepting, treating and disposing of any new waste at Shongweni. The order also stops EnviroServ from disposing of the leachate generated by the waste already on site, back into the waste pile at the Shongweni.
• EnviroServ was given permission by the Honourable Judge Kruger to deliver a supplementary affidavit dealing with the mystery polluter EnviroServ claimed was also responsible for the odour impacts.
• EnviroServ has asked UHA NPC to agree that EnviroServ can delay filing any further papers including who the mystery polluter is, until EnviroServ’s appeal against the Minister’s suspension of its license has been determined. UHA NPC has not agreed to this.
• The interdict remains in place until the papers above have been filed, UHA NPC have responded on oath and the matter been finally argued again. No date has been set for this.

EnviroServ Appeal against the DEA’s decision to suspend its license

• On 12 June 2017 EnviroServ substituted its whole appeal against the Minister’s decision.
• On 12 July 2017 UHA NPC filed its opposing submissions.
• On 2 August 2017 EnviroServ filed responding submissions. EnviroServ claims that its revised stance is that it is accepting the suspension of trading at the Shongweni landfill site until its “contributions” to the odour impacts have been addressed and the success or otherwise thereof have been verified.
• EnviroServ still want to be able to dispose of excess leachate, brine and contaminated storm water back into the waste body instead of transporting it to Holfontein or any other disposal facility.
• UHA has filed a short reply to this.
• The Minister will then determine whether to convene an appeal panel or just determine the appeal on the papers filed to date.

Criminal Matter against Enviroserv by DEA

• This matter is back in the Durban Magistrates’ court on 17 August 2017.
• On the last occasion, the prosecutor indicated the state could be adding accused and additional charges. We now know that additional charges and additional accused have been added. It has been reported that Clive Kidd is one of the additional accused.
• We expect we will be informed of the remainder when the matter is next in Court on 17 August 2017 or if the NPA make a statement prior thereto.
• On 17 August 2017 we expect further dates to be set for the hearing of the trial or if the additional accused or EnviroServ want an opportunity to request particulars to the charge sheet / new charges the matter will be adjourned for that purpose. We will only know on the date what will happen as this matter is run by the State.
• UHA NPC are watching this matter with interest and are heartened by any steps the State takes to ensure that any contraventions of the law are addressed by all involved.

Remediation of the site

EnviroServ is still implementing remedial actions as approved by the DEA from time to time. The DEA approved the trial flare on condition that the DEA can modify or rescind the approval at any time and subject to the DEA being given access to the online monitoring by EnviroServ to assess the results of the trial flare. A final flare design will depend on the results of the trial flare. Flaring is the most practical and feasible remedial action and so the impacts will logically still occur until such time as the flare has been successfully implemented, if possible given they are retrofitting it as opposed to having implemented it before tipping started in valley 2 as recommended in their own Environmental Impact Control Report.

The progressive capping of the site has also been approved and construction is underway.

Air Pollution:

Given the levels of pollution WSP have requested and been mandated to do further testing. The H2S levels according to admissions by EnviroServ on 7 June 2017 are at levels which they admit will cause nausea and headaches (at least).

The community believes the health effects are as reported by the community.

The long-term health impacts of this level of exposure (even at that admitted by EnviroServ) is not certain and clarity is being sought in this regard. EnviroServ also admit long periods of odour impacts (i.e. nuisance).

The post Update – August 2017 appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

Children don’t develop phantom or psychosomatic health issues; when your child is sick, it’s real and scary and heartbreaking.

So, so many of our community are ill. Our pets and children and elderly are suffering.

We will find resolution in this terrifying landfill dilemma.

Let’s Hug our Children Today. Our Future is literally in our Hands.

*Permission has been granted by the parents of the minors in the below images and the photographs were submitted by the parents*

The post Let’s Hug our Children Today. Our Future is Literally in our Hands appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

The results will be used as part of the television show’s investigation into air pollution allegations being made about the EnviroServ Shongweni landfill site.

Click here to participate in the survey.

The post 50/50 on SABC2 asks people to please take part in a 10 question “snapshot” health survey appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

Note their own admissions concerning health impacts but are now claiming that there is no evidence. Will they accept for starters the opinion of their own expert?

Links to the full response to our memorandum, and EnviroServs Dr Schoonraads representations as to why Dolphin Coast Landfill in Stanger should not be issued with their HH license are below.

Below is our response.

To view EnviroServ’s response to our memorandum, click here

To view EnviroServ’s Dr Schoonraads representations, click here

The post EnviroServ vs. EnviroServ appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

Approximately 1,500-2,000 residents of both the urban and rural communities came together in a display of unity. The running theme of most protest boards was that of a basic human right, “I have the right to breathe clean air.”

Local businesses and restaurants supported the cause by supplying food and beverages at the event. South Durban Community Environmental Alliance also marched with residents in a show of support.

Upper Highway Air would like to thank our very generous sponsors, volunteers and each person that took the time to participate in this momentous occasion, together we have made history and will regain our fresh air.

The post Upper Highway Community Unites for “Toxic Trek” appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

The post Department of Environmental Affairs issues notice of intention to suspend EnviroServ’s waste management Licence appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

“I am emailing with regards to the video posted by Upper Highway Air NPO on their Facebook page on January 13, please find two photos which EnviroServ would like to request are posted along with a retraction and explanation of the “smoke plumes”.

 From the smaller picture, in which the landfill face is clearly visible as the grey sections with a truck to the left and a compactor and excavator in the centre of the image, you can see that white “plumes” are rising from behind the Shongweni Landfill boundary. Two electricity pylons are visible to the right of the picture, these are outside of the landfill boundary.  Staff at the landfill will attest to these “plumes” being a regular occurrence, and they do not originate at the site.”

The second image, 3MB in size, shows the landfill parking lot at the entrance, with a clear boundary fence. The white “plumes” are rising from behind our property, and clearly from across the sugar cane fields.

 Please can you amend the post to this effect. It is extremely irresponsible of the NPO to post content as fact without checking its veracity.”

Posted here below are the photos which EnviroServ have requested be posted.

In response to the above demand to post the retraction and pictures provided, a request for clarity was sought as to when the photos which EnviroServ required us to post were taken, by who and at what time together with clarification that the plumes in their photos were taken depicting from where the “smoke” emanated as opposed to where it had drifted.

The response received was that the photos were taken by two EnviroServ staff members. No dates or times were provided and no names given. The response further stated that EnviroServ “was absolutely 100% certain that the smoke in the video does not emanate from EnviroServ.”

Insofar as the retraction is concerned, Upper Highway Air NPC does not enjoy being accused by EnviroServ, or its mandatories, of being irresponsible by posting “content as fact without checking its veracity”.

The NPC cannot base any decision to retract the video, on two photos clearly taken on days other than the date of the video, from vantage points wholly unrelated to the location of the videographer and with plumes visible at locations other than that where the plumes were in fact seen rising in the video.

 Accordingly we offer to EnviroServ the following, the NPC publishes the following further videos clearly demonstrating the plumes it is “100% certain” emanate from the Shongweni landfill site waste face.

The first video was taken on 29 November 2016 and the second on 6 November 2016.

The post EnviroServ PR Firm Requests “Retraction” of Smoke Plumes Video, allegedly emanating from Landfill. appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

(i) Information concerning the appeal,

(ii) the application for suspension,

(iii) EnviroServ’s formal PAIA documentation, and

(iv) an indication from EnviroServ what information it would be prepared to make available concerning the detailed inventories of the waste streams received, treatment methods or safety data sheets or classifications regarding the waste, even if the disclosure of the latter was to be made subject to conditions. We did not insist this last batch of information be made available before the meeting, only an indication be given of what would never be provided and what would be provided on conditions, and what those conditions would be, so we could consider those conditions.

Despite repeated undertakings to respond regarding the above, no response has been provided including regarding the possible conditions to be imposed on any disclosure.

UHA will thus make use of the Act and otherwise pursue further formal requests for information with the Department of Environmental Affairs and EnviroServ .

UHA’s specialist investigations continue. We confirm UHA’s mission is to restore the air quality for all affected parties and to investigate if the present odour impacts are in fact the cause of the increased negative health impacts. Our mission is to establish the facts and to take all necessary and appropriate actions once such facts are at hand. If there is in fact more than one contributor as alleged by EnviroServ then the facts will reveal that and the UHA will ensure that its efforts are directed at all contributors. For now, EnviroServ have conceded they are a contributor and steps must be taken to ensure their contribution is addressed.

EnviroServ ’s repeated refusal to play open cards is not assisting in these endeavours.

The post EnviroServ refusing to play open cards with UHA and community appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

Saret Knoetze of Transnet issued the following statement, “We were working with the Department of Health and they have confirmed that Transnet Pipeline does not in any way contribute to any of the odours in the area.

Our pipeline is buried underground and is a closed system – there are no odours/vapour that could “escape” – not even when it goes through the pump-station.

We have had meetings with EnviroServ and we have shown them our operations but they have not amended their opinion. Our 3800 km of pipelines have been in operation for many years, traversing many properties and we have not had complaints from any other areas.

Our last two spill incidents, the one in Hillcrest and the one in Sparrow lane refers; we did air monitoring at both sites and at no stage were there any “red flags”.

The post Transnet issues statement “The pipeline does not in any way contribute to any of the odours in the area” appeared first on Upper Highway Air.