Comments and Response Report for the Proposed Sasol Synfuels Fine Ash Dam (FAD 6) at Secunda within the Mpumalanga Province Report Prepared for Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd Report Number 421219 Report Prepared by July 2012
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page i Comments and Response Report for the Proposed Sasol Synfuels Fine Ash Dam (FAD 6) at Secunda within the Mpumalanga Province Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd Private Bag x1034 Secunda 2302 SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. Suite 47 Rynlal Building 320 The Hillside Lynwood Pretoria 0081 South Africa e-mail: pretoria@srk.co.za website: www.srk.co.za Tel: +27 (0) 12 361 9821 Fax:+27 (0) 12 361 9912 SRK Project Number 421219 July 2012
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page ii Compiled by: Andrew Caddick Environmental Consultant Peer Reviewed by: Andrew Wood Partner Email: acaddick@srk.co.za Authors: Andrew Caddick; Laetitia Coetser; Andrew Wood
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page iii Table of Contents Disclaimer... v 1 Introduction and Background... 1 2 Objectives... 1 3 Public Participation Process... 2 3.1 Notification to all potential I&APs... 2 3.1.1 Identification of I&APs... 2 3.1.2 Written Notice... 2 3.1.3 Notice Board... 2 3.1.4 Advertising... 2 3.2 Incorporation of Issues into Scoping Study... 2 3.3 Record of Decision... 3 4 Communications... 3 4.1 Authority Participation... 3 4.2 Consultation with other Stakeholders... 3 4.3 General Public Participation... 3 Appendices... 16 Appendix A: Interested and Affected Parties database... 17 Appendix B: Proof of newspaper adverts... 18 Appendix C: Proof of site notices... 19 Appendix D: Minutes of meetings with DEA... 20 Appendix E: Background Information Document... 21
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page iv List of Tables Table 4-1: This section presents comments received from stakeholders from all phases of public participation of the project and their responses.... 1
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page v Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this Report have been based on the information supplied to SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SRK) by Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd (Synfuels). The opinions in this Report are provided in response to a specific request from Synfuels to do so. SRK has exercised all due care in reviewing the supplied information. Whilst SRK has compared key supplied data with expected values, the accuracy of the results and conclusions from the review are entirely reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the supplied data. SRK does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in the supplied information and does not accept any consequential liability arising from commercial decisions or actions resulting from them. Opinions presented in this report apply to the site conditions and features as they existed at the time of SRK s investigations, and those reasonably foreseeable. These opinions do not necessarily apply to conditions and features that may arise after the date of this Report, about which SRK had no prior knowledge nor had the opportunity to evaluate. CADD/WODA 421219.2012.07.17.Sasol Comments and Respons Report Final.docx
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 1 1 Introduction and Background Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd, propose to construct a Fine Ash Dam (FAD) 6, on the farm Rietvley 320IS, in the South West direction to the current FAD 5. During the life time of Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd five FAD s have been constructed of which three have already been decommissioned. The proposed FAD 6 is to replace the existing FAD 4, which is nearing its life span. SRK Consulting has been appointed as an independent Environmental consultant to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in terms of regulation R543, R544, R545 and R546 printed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act no 107 of 1998). The decommissioning and rehabilitation of FAD 4 is planned to take place in the near future, whereby a new FAD 6 will be constructed to assist with the storage of fine ash residues produced from the Sasol Synfuels coal gasification plant. The remaining FAD 5 will not have the capacity to store the fine ash residue produced during operations at Sasol Synfuels. Ash is produced in the Sasol Synfuels plant from the Gasification and the burning of coal for the production of steam. The ash from the gasifiers and steam plants are combined and treated in ash handling plants. The waste ash stream is passed over a set of screens that separates the coarse ash particles from the slurry. This coarse ash is deposited on coarse ash heaps. The finer ash particles that passed the screens are concentrated in a gravity thickener. The bulk of the water is removed as a clear overflow and is re-used as a carrier for ash. The bottom fraction of the thickener is a slurry of fine ash. This slurry is pumped out to a FAD of which there are currently a total of five at the Sasol complex with proposed FAD 6 for which application is being made. For FAD 6 it is also proposed that the fine ash will be deposited using the paddocking method utilised in the existing FAD s. In this system of deposition, the fine ash is deposited to form a day wall in a series of paddocks constructed by raising low walls of previously deposited fine ash. Approximately 100 to 150mm of fine ash is usually deposited in the paddock, and after settling, the supernatant water is drained off towards the decant pool. After a period of drying, the paddock walls are raised again, and the cycle repeated. The deposition cycle decides the rate of rise of the dam and is kept as long as possible to allow the previous layer of deposition to dewater before the next layer is deposited. In terms of the Governmental Notice R 543, R544, R545 and R546 printed in terms of the NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998) a full Scoping and EIA will be required to amend the existing licence conditions and obtain an environmental authorization. SRK Consulting (Pty) Ltd (SRK) has been appointed by Synfuels as an independent consultant to undertake the necessary studies, required in terms of the NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998), National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No 59 of 2008) and the National Water Act (Act no 36 of 1998) to ensure compliance with environmental legislation to allow for the construction of the proposed FAD 6. Section 27 of the EIA Regulations (2010) requires that Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) be given the opportunity to comment on documentation provided as part of the on-going EIA process. These comments must be recorded and continually updated during the course of the EIA. As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the public participation process that was followed the following must be described. 2 Objectives The objective of this Comments and Response Report are to: Describe the steps taken to notify potential I&APs of the proposed application;
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 2 To prove that the posters, advertisements and notices notifying potential I&APs of the proposed application have been displayed, placed or given; Compile a list of all persons, organisations and organs of state that were identified and registered as I&APs in terms of Regulation 57 of NEMA; Summarise the issues raised by I&APs, the date of receipt and the response of the EAP to those issues. 3 Public Participation Process 3.1 Notification to all potential I&APs 3.1.1 Identification of I&APs I&APs were identified and included: The owners and occupiers of land within 100 metres of the boundary of Synfuels FAD 6; Government organisations; Municipal departments; and Ward Councillors. These persons/organisations are listed in Appendix A of this Report. An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper as well as posters placed on site to identify additional I&APs whereby I&APs were requested to submit their concerns in writing to SRK. 3.1.2 Written Notice A cover letter, a Background Information Document (BID) as well as a response form were circulated to all of the I&APs identified at the start of the project. The BID aimed to inform the public of the proposed construction of the FAD 6 and also provided the I&APs with an opportunity to raise issues of concern, for which a response sheet was included. 3.1.3 Notice Board Notice boards were fixed at places conspicuous to public at around the proposed site, public libraries and municipal buildings. The public was given from the 24th November 2010 to the 23rd January 2011 to respond to the notice board and to register as I&APs. A copy of the notice board and proof of the notice boards are attached in Appendix C of this report. 3.1.4 Advertising An advertisement was placed in the local newspapers (Ekasi and Echo Ridge) on the 24th November 2010. The public was given until 23rd January 2011 to respond to the advertisements and to register as I&APs. A copy of the advertisement and proof of the advertisement are given in Appendix B of this Report. 3.2 Incorporation of Issues into Environmental impact Assessment Report Issues raised by the I&AP s during the public participation process were incorporated into the Final EIA / EMP and have been addressed as part of this document. An EMP has been prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts and the Issues and Responses Report will be updated as more information becomes available.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 3 3.3 Record of Decision The I&APs will be informed in writing of the Environmental Authorization given by Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and the Mpumalanga Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (MDEDET). 4 Communications 4.1 Authority Participation BIDs were provided to MDEDET and DEA. No comments were received except for the letter from MDEDET and DEA acknowledging receipt of the application and notification to continue with the EIA / EMP. The following reference numbers were obtained: DEA: 12/9/11/L1/6 MDEDET: 17/2/3/GS 6 4.2 Consultation with other Stakeholders Comments were received from a number of organs of state, including the District Municipality, Eskom, the Department of Water Affairs and the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA). These comments were responded to and have been included within Section 5 of this report. An EMP has been prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts and the Issues and Responses Report will be updated as more information becomes available. 4.3 General Public Participation Minimal comments were received from the general public. Johan vd Westhuizen from Wes Town Planner raised his comment and concerns regarding the land use plan for the area, Rico Euripidou from GroundWork - Friends of the Earth SA, with regards to the possible groundwater contamination due to the proposed FAD 6 construction, Department of Water Affairs raised their concerns regarding the dam safety regulations, as well as Albert Olivier from the Govan Mbeki Local Municipality with regards to land use surface rights. These comments have been addressed and included within Section 5 of this report. An EMP has been prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts and the Issues and Responses Report will be updated as more information becomes available. Table 4-1 illustrates the comments received throughout the Initiation, Scoping and impact Assessment Phase of the EIA thus far.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 1 Stakeholder Comments and Response Report Table 4-1: This section presents comments received from stakeholders from all phases of public participation of the project and their responses. Comments Received By Albert Oliver (Govan Mbeki Municipality) Comment 1. The use of the land surface right does not comply with MPRDA regulations. 2002! 2. The use of the land surface rights does not comply with the Mine Health and Safety Act (Act 29 of 1996)! 3. What mitigation steps will be in place to prevent health and safety risks for the community of the adjacent cemetery? 4. What mitigation steps will be in place to prevent pollution of the water way south of the Mayfield property? Response SRK Consulting and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team would like to express sincere appreciation to all Interested and Affected parties (I&AP s) who have taken the time to submit comments. This letter serves to assure you that your comments have been recorded for consideration during the EIA Phase of the project. i) The land under consideration is owned by Sasol, and whilst there is mining activity in the area, the establishment of the FAD6 is not considered to compromise the MPRDA Regulations, or compromise mineral resources under the site. Sasol Coal is aware of the proposed FAD6 development and has not raised objections. FAD6 is an extension of the existing Licensed Waste Ash Disposal Site (WADS). ii) It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements, and be constructed and operated in accordance with the WADS License conditions, the WADS Operating Envelope (Operating, Maintenance and Reporting Procedures) and Sasol SHEQ Protocols and Procedures.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 2 Comments Received By Comment Response iii) It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements, and be constructed and operated in accordance with the WADS License, the WADS Operating Envelope and Sasol SHEQ Protocols and Procedures. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts. A suitable buffer zone will be established between the FAD6 and the community areas. No material safety or health risk to the indicated community of the cemetery is envisaged. iv) It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements, and be constructed and operated in accordance with the WADS License conditions, the WADS Operating Envelope and Sasol SHEQ Protocols and Procedures. L Human (Land Development Manager Eskom) This application affects the existing Eskom Transmission, Eskom Sub Transmission; Sol -Irene dale 132kV and the Eskom Distribution; Sol - Bracken 22kV power lines, which traverse the area of the proposed FAD project. Eskom Distribution has in principle no objection to the above An EMP will be prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts. Potential discharges to the surface water or groundwater resources are to be managed and minimised. SRK Consulting and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team would like to express sincere appreciation to all Interested and Affected parties (I&AP s) who have taken the time to submit comments.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 3 Comments Received By Comment mentioned application provided the following conditions are adhered to:- 1. There is an 18 metres building and tree restriction either side of the centre lines of the 132kV powerlines, which must be adhered to in all future development and or construction. These lines are held in terms of the Notarial Deed of Servitude K4682/1992S as depicted on SG Diagram No A8537/1987. 2. There is also a 9 metres building and tree restriction either side of the centre line of the 22kV powerline, which must be adhered to in all future development. No construction work may be executed closer than 9 metres from any of Eskom's structure and or supporting mechanism. 3. Eskom cannot guarantee the exact position of the underground electrical cables and therefore the applicant's site representatives must expose the cables by hand, in order to establish their location. Eskom's cables must be placed in sleeves encased in concrete across the width of the servitude, at the applicant's expense where frequent excavations occur in the cable area. 4. Eskom Distribution's services and equipment must be acknowledged at all times and may not be tampered or interfered with. It is important to acknowledge and respect Eskom's Distributions services at all times. It will be required of the developer to familiarise him/herself with all safety hazards related to electrical plant. 5. Eskom's consent will not relieve the applicant from obtaining the necessary statutory, landowner or municipal approvals. 6. Natural ground level must be maintained within Eskom Distribution reserve area and servitudes. 7. Eskom Distribution shall at all times retain unobstructed access to and egress from its services. 8. Eskom Distribution shall not be liable for the death of or injury to any person or for the loss of or damage to any property whether as a result of the encroachment or of the use of the area where Eskom Distribution has its services, by the Response This letter serves to assure you that your comments have been recorded for consideration during the EIA Phase of the project. It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements, cognisant of the issues identified by Eskom, and be constructed and operated in accordance with the WADS License conditions, the WADS Operating Envelope and Sasol SHEQ Protocols and Procedures. An EMP will be prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 4 Comments Received By Comment applicant, his/her agent, contractors, employees, successors in title and assigns. 9. The applicant indemnifies Eskom against loss claims or damages including claims pertaining to interference with Eskom Distribution services or apparatus or otherwise. The applicant's attention is drawn to section 27(3) of the Electricity Act 1987, as amended in 1994, which stipulates that the applicant can be fined and/or imprisoned as a result of damage to Eskom's apparatus. 10. No construction work may be executed closer than nine metres from any of Eskom's structures or the middle of the power line servitude and no squatting to be allowed in the servitude area. 11. No tree shall be planted within the servitude area or be allowed to grow to a height in excess of the horizontal distance of that tree from the nearest conductor of any power line or to grow in such a manner as to endanger that line should it fall or be cut down. 12. Eskom will recover costs from the applicant where any damages of Eskom assets and or any penalties suffered by Eskom occur. The Applicant shall also accepts costs if: Eskom pylons subside or are damaged as a result of blasting activities. Eskom has to incur any costs to comply with statutory requirements because of the applicants or applicant's contractor work or the presence of the equipment or plant in the reserve area. Such proven costs shall be refunded on demand. 13. The effective management and handling of waste is of crucial importance. No dumping shall be allowed within Eskom Distribution Servitudes. All unwanted waste (gaseous, liquid or solids) should be disposed of at a registered waste disposal site as stipulated under Section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989). 14. Any relocation of Eskom's services, due to this development, will be for the account of the Developer. The Response
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 5 Comments Received By Comment Developer / Applicant will also be responsible for granting Eskom an alternative route for the power line. Regarding any power line deviation, please contact Eskom Customer Contact Centre; 08600 37566 in connection with cost. Response Noxolo Galela Eskom Tx will raise no objection to the proposed draft scoping report provided Eskom Tx's rights and services are acknowledged and respected at all times. Please note that before construction work commences in the vicinity of Eskom Tx's services, a formal application must be submitted for Eskom Tx's response and direct reply. SRK Consulting and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team would like to express sincere appreciation to all Interested and Affected parties (I&AP s) who have taken the time to submit comments. This letter serves to assure you that your comments have been recorded for consideration during the EIA Phase of the project. It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements, cognisant of the issues identified by Eskom, and be constructed and operated in accordance with the WADS License conditions, the WADS Operating Envelope and Sasol SHEQ Protocols and Procedures. Nonofho Ndobochani (SAHRA: Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorite Unit Chief Executive Officer) Thank you for your indication that development is to take place in this area. In terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, no 25 of 1999, heritage resources, including archaeological or paleontological sites over 100 years old, graves older than 60 years, structures older than 60 years are protected. They may not be disturbed without a permit from the relevant heritage An EMP will be prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts. SRK Consulting and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team would like to express sincere appreciation to all Interested and Affected parties (I&AP s) who have taken the time to submit comments. This letter serves to assure you that your comments have been recorded for consideration during the EIA
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 6 Comments Received By Comment resources authority. This means that before such sites are disturbed by development it is incumbent on the developer to ensure that a Heritage Impact Assessment is done. This must include the archaeological component (Phase 1) and any other applicable heritage components. Appropriate (Phase 2) mitigation, which involves recording, sampling and dating sites that are to be destroyed, must be done as required. The quickest process to follow for the archaeological component is to contract an accredited specialist to provide a Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Report This must be done before any large development takes place. The Phase 1 Impact Assessment Report will identify the archaeological sites and assess their significance. It should also make recommendations (as indicated in section 38) about the process to be followed. For example, there may need to be a mitigation phase (Phase 2) where the specialist will collect or excavate material and date the site. At the end of the process the heritage authority may give permission for destruction of the sites. Where bedrock is to be affected, or where there are coastal sediments, or marine or river terraces and in potentially fossiliferous superficial deposits, a Paleontological Desk Top study must be undertaken to assess whether or not the development will impact upon paleontological resources - or at least a letter of exemption from a Palaeontologist is needed to indicate that this is unnecessary. If the area is deemed sensitive, a full Phase 1 Paleontological Impact Assessment will be required and if necessary a Phase 2 rescue operation might be necessary. (See attached list of accredited Palaeontologists). If the property is very small or disturbed and there is no significant site the specialist may choose to send a letter to the heritage authority to indicate that Response Phase of the project. It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements and cognisant of the issues identified by SAHRA. A Heritage specialist assessment has been commissioned for the EIA Phase. An EMP will be prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 7 Comments Received By Johan van der Westhuizen. Comment there is no necessity for any further assessment Any other heritage resources that may be impacted such as built structures over 60 years old, sites of cultural significance associated with oral histories, burial grounds and graves, graves of victims of conflict, and cultural landscapes or views capes must also be assessed. I am in possession of two EIA authorisations, one form The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, dated 03/07/2010 and one from Environmental Affairs, dated 29 September 2009. The last being a Water Licence. None of these documents are dealing with Ash dam no. 6 located on Portion 8 of the Farm Rietvley 320-IS. Can you please check that we all are on the same page as far as the land portions are involved? How will your application amend / replace the two authorisations, attached hereto? Is your application an EIA authorisation for all the existing and future fine ash dams or just for dam nr. 6? My application includes all the portions as per land surveyor s diagram. My land use application is ready for submission, but according to the relevant legislation the Municipality may not accept and /or consider any application without a proper EIA Authorisation. To avoid any possible misunderstandings of confusions, I recommend that I do not submit and advertise my application without the EIA authorisation. If any objections will be received and I did not submit an EIA Authorisation with my application, my application will be regarded to be null and void. Due to the closeness of the ash dams (Dam 4 and Emmet Dam) to Response SRK Consulting and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team would like to express sincere appreciation to all Interested and Affected parties (I&AP s) who have taken the time to submit comments. This letter serves to assure you that your comments have been recorded for consideration during the EIA Phase of the project. It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements and cognisant of the issues identified by Mr van der Westhuizen. The land portions identified for the FAD6 development have been confirmed by Sasol. The FAD6 EIA is independent of applications to DWA in terms of the Synfuels water use license and WADS site amendments already submitted. Amendments to the WUL and WADS License are included to specifically address the development of FAD6. An EMP will be been prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts.
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 8 Comments Received By Rico Euripidou (Friends of the Earth) Comment Embalenhle 15, 17 and 27 (between Portion 26 and 25,Middelbult) objections cannot be excluded and I think should objections be raised, it should be dealt with at the EIA stage. Do you agree with my strategy? Firstly please register groundwork, Friends of the Earth South Africa as an I&AP for this project. Musa Chamane, Bobby Peek and I should be cc d of any new developments and forwarded any relevant documentation. Please confirm that the DEA Waste Classification and Management System: Updated Regulations and Standards will be applied as criteria to classifying this waste stream and following on from this determining the appropriate waste disposal criteria. As a second step we would like to draw your attention to the following global debate on the ecotoxicology of incinerator ash which we consider meets the criteria as a hazardous waste. There is currently a very live debate (particularly in the UK and Eurozone) about regulating incinerator bottom ash as hazardous waste and the regulatory authorities are currently trying to finalise their regulations. These centre on some major and legitimate concerns about the use of bottom ash in unbound uses as a replacement for aggregate and this summary touches upon some of the arguments. 1. There is increasingly little doubt that the fly ash has many hazardous waste properties and will need to be treated and disposed of at specialist facilities. Recent research indicates that there is potentially serious health and environmental impacts arising from the landfill disposal of fly ash even in modern containment landfill sites (Macleod, Duarte-Davidson et al. 2006; Macleod, Duarte-Davidson et al. 2007). This shows that the modelled exposure to children around the Wingmoor farm landfill site, one of the major fly ash disposal facilities in the UK, can exceed acceptable Response SRK Consulting and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team would like to express sincere appreciation to all Interested and Affected parties (I&AP s) who have taken the time to submit comments. This letter serves to assure you that your comments have been recorded for consideration during the EIA Phase of the project. Invitations will be extended to I&AP s to comment on the final EIA / EMP Report which is currently being finalised and notice of its availability will be communicated shortly. It is expected that Sasol will ensure that the establishment of FAD6 will be compliant to all regulatory requirements, cogniscant of the issues identified by Groundwork, and be constructed and operated in accordance with the WADS License conditions, the WADS Operating Envelope and Sasol SHEQ Protocols and Procedures. It is noted that much of the literature Groundwork refer to is in fact related to the bottom ash as generated by hazardous waste incinerators, where some residues of the hazardous waste being destroyed may be expected to arise. The Synfuels coal gasification process that
SRK Consulting: Project 421219: Sasol FAD 6 Comments and Response Report Page 9 Comments Received By Comment intakes of dioxin from the contamination in the fly ash. 2. Whilst the bottom ash is often described as being inert this is incorrect bottom ash is never classed as inert in the UK. The bottom ash is currently taxed as inactive waste for landfill tax purposes although this may be about to change as the default position in the recent Customs and Excise consultation is that the bottom ash should be taxed at the standard rate of landfill tax. 3. In practice the designation of bottom ash is either as non-hazardous or hazardous waste. At the end of 2006 the Environment Agency indicated that they had tested some bottom ash samples and: Levels of lead and zinc in a number of isolated compliance monitoring samples have exceeded the hazardous waste threshold for H14. 4. H14 is the hazardous waste criteria for Eco toxicity. Veolia, one of the major incinerator operators, has indicates (Veolia Environmental Services 2007) that when they had tested for metals and then used the recent Environment Agency WM2.2 assessment methodology to determine the whether the wastes were hazardous wastes about 40% of the samples from UK incinerators were found to be hazardous waste under the H14criteria. This follows increasing concern about the environmental impact of combustion residues in disposal and utilisation, especially for the release of toxic substances such as heavy metals (such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel and, particularly in relation to Eco toxicity, lead and zinc) together with soluble salts from the residues (Stegemann, Schneider et al. 1995; Hartenstein and Horvay 1996; Hunsicker, Crockett et al. 1996; Abbas, Moghaddam et al. 2003). The content of toxic metals present in the bottom ash from municipal waste incinerators is usually 10-100 times larger than in natural soils (Theis and Gardner 1990). Response generate the fine ash that will be disposed to FAD6 are not hazardous waste incinerators, and ash so generated does not demonstrate the characteristics associated with hazardous waste incinerator bottom ash. Synfuels Fine ash has been characterised and a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is available. Synfuels is investigating opportunities for alternative uses of its fine ash and coarse ash, but the volumes involved do not currently allow an alternative to a FAD site to be established. An EMP will be prepared to mitigate and manage identified potential impacts, taking specific consideration of DWA Minimum Requirements and appropriate management of potential surface, groundwater and atmospheric impacts of FAD 6.