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.

It is time to extend your efforts beyond the valuable reporting contribution to date.

Those interested and affected members of the community who are prepared to formally record in the litigation to be instituted by Upper Highway Air NPO against, amongst others, the DEA and Department of Water & Sanitation, that the NGO is litigating in protection of their human rights and in their interests, are required to formally email [email protected] with subject “IAP – FULL NAME” (example: IAP – JANE DOE) with their full names, address, identity number and a short description of their nuisance, odour and /or health impacts suffered, the period over which it has been suffered, and confirmation that they are prepared to be named as interested and affected parties in a schedule to be attached to the court papers. You will not, in fact be cited as a party to the litigation but will be named in a schedule as parties who support the litigation instituted by the NGO in protection of your interests and human rights.

If you would like to complete a form please click here and email to [email protected]

Please let us have these names as soon as possible.

Below is a guideline, please use this as an example only.

The post IAP’s Required for Litigation to be Instituted by UHA appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

The post Illegal Protest Action and Signage appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

Please note that Upper Highway Air will not be held liable for any losses incurred and parents/guardians are responsible for supervising children and that all participants participate at their own risk.

TOXIC TREK RULES

To ensure a lawful and peaceful march:
– NO hate speech
– NO violence
– NO masks / covering of your face
– NO alcohol
– NO drugs
– NO weapons of any kind – traditional or not
– NO political branding this is not a political rally
– NO wearing anything which imitates police or paramilitary groups
– Marchers are to keep moving along the designated route, no stopping or sitting etc
– Any marchers who get into difficulties contact the nearest marshal for help.
– Any marcher that causes trouble will be instructed to leave the marching line, SAP and Metro will be in attendance
– Only people with wrist bands may march. We will only be letting 1,000 people march and will be strict regarding the numbers. Only people who have registered either online or via the sms line will be allowed to walk.
– Once the memorandum has been handed over for people to disperse quickly and orderly.
– Try and organise lifts to prevent parking problems.

Please note that 2 of our own have put themselves on the line to make this happen and if there are more than 1,000 marchers or trouble of any kind these two people will be arrested.

Let’s make this PEACEFUL statement to air our grievances, media will be present.

The post Toxic Trek February 4th 2017 – Rules 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.

UHA have consulted with and continue to consult with our own Environmental, Air and Landfill experts regarding this matter and this information is being collated.

The post EnviroServ Complaints Analysis appeared first on Upper Highway Air.

The following was received by Upper Highway Air from the Department of Environmental Affairs on the 27th of December 2016.

This document forms part of a larger request for information made to the DEA for documents pertaining to the landfill, which to date, have not yet been received. Read more on this topic HERE

Click here to read the Infotox document.

The post Methodology and toxicology update EnviroServ Shongweni Landfill appeared first on Upper Highway Air.