WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY BY JONES & … Hazardous Waste Site EIA 200916BR… · coega...

Report No.: JW119/08/B494

Appendix B

COEGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROPOSED GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATION REPORT

REPORT NO: JW119/08/B494

APPENDIX B

WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY BY JONES & WAGENER: REPORT NO JW93/08/B494

COEGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY FOR THE PROPOSED GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY IN THE EASTERN

CAPE

Report No.: JW93/08/B494

Revision 2

August 2008

i

Report JW93/08/B494 Rev 2

Waste Management Philosophy Report

COEGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY FOR THE PROPOSED GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY IN THE EASTERN CAPE REPORT NO: JW93/08/B494 Rev 2 CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Purpose 2 1.3 Definitions and Abbreviations 2

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED 3 2.1 Terms of Reference 3 2.2 Information Supplied for Original Report 3 2.3 Information Supplied for Report Update 3 2.4 Reference Documents 4

3. WASTE GENERATED BY EXISTING INDUSTRIES 4 3.1 Quantities 4 3.2 Current management 5 3.3 Future predictions 5

4. WASTE ANTICIPATED FROM COEGA IDZ DEVELOPMENTS 6 4.1 Quantities 6 4.2 Management options for Coega IDZ Wastes 9

5. PROPOSED GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY 11 5.1 Options for the facility 11 5.2 Co-disposal Ratio 13 5.3 Airspace requirements 16 5.4 Leachate Treatment 17

6. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPONENTS OF THE GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY 18

7. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 19 7.1 Relevant Legislation 19 7.2 Monitoring 21

8. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 21 8.1 Predicted Waste Volumes 21 8.2 Development Options 22 8.3 Co-disposal Ratio 22 8.4 Site Development Planning 23

1



COEGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY FOR THE PROPOSED GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY IN THE EASTERN CAPE REPORT NO: JW93/08/B494 Rev 2 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Proposals have been made for the development of a new regional general and hazardous waste disposal facility for the greater Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM) area, mainly as a result of the following factors:

• the development of the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) and the predicted expansion in the generation of hazardous waste streams as a result;

• reliance on EnviroServ’s Aloes II H:H landfill site, whose currently available airspace is expected to be used by mid-2011. (An environmental impact assessment is underway for an extension to the Aloes site, however, and a lease extension from the NMBMM has recently been granted. The extension will provide five years of airspace at current deposition rates.)

• additional capacity is reported to be required for the disposal of general waste within the eastern areas of the NMBMM area.

The process followed to identify and obtain authorisation for a suitable site has been managed by Bohlweki Environmental, and broadly includes the following to date:

• A scoping phase (from 2000 to 2003), culminating in the issue of an Environmental Scoping Report in July 2003,

• Site selection and ranking (from 2000 to 2006), which culminated in the issue of a Final Footprint Ranking Report in 2006,

• A feasibility study on the three preferred footprints (during 2007), which is documented in the Final Feasibility Report, issued in 2007.

• The detailed EIA and permitting phase, currently underway, which will culminate in an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, as well as a Permit Application Report for the Grassridge 190 Remainder site (Footprint F).

It is clear that the type of waste management facility that is required will be influenced by the nature of the waste and the quantities that will need disposal. Waste surveys were conducted by Bohlweki Environmental as part of the Inception Report (Bohlweki Environmental, 2000) and in a report for the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (Bohlweki Environmental, 2002). A review of these initial surveys was done by Environmental and Chemical Consultants (ECC) in 2003, to take into account changed circumstances. In their review, the types and quantities of wastes and the future projections were re-evaluated taking the following into account:

• future legislative developments;

• the impact of waste minimisation implemented at existing industries;

2



• the predicted expansion of industrial activities in the NMBMM;

• the developments associated with the introduction of primary industries in the IDZ; and

• secondary and smaller industries which are likely to develop to support the primary industries, as well as the increased population.

This information was incorporated into a waste management philosophy for the proposed regional general and hazardous waste management facility in the Eastern Cape by Jones & Wagener in 2004, culminating in Report No: JW70/04/8933 Rev 2, dated September 2004. The information was used for sizing purposes for conceptual designs. Given changes in the expected developments at the Coega IDZ between 2004 and 2008, however, the report required updating for use in the design for the permitting of the preferred site.

It is noted that the 2004 Waste Management Philosophy Report included the following: “Based on the outcome of the waste management survey, recommendations were made to construct a hazardous waste processing facility, which can handle, store, recycle, recover, re-use, treat and dispose of hazardous waste that will be generated by existing industries and industries that will be developed at the Coega IDZ and the NMMM area. Proposals were made by Bohlweki and ECC regarding the possible components of such a waste processing facility.”

Subsequent to that report, Arcus Gibb developed an Industry Waste Management Plan for the CDC, of which the draft Options Analysis Report was issued in July 2007. This report focuses largely on general wastes, but concludes that the establishment of a waste collection and sorting facility (WCSF) within or in close proximity to the CDC core development area would be the preferred option. From this, and given the distance to the proposed facility, it would be preferable for waste recovery and recycling to take place close to or within the IDZ rather than at the waste management facility.

It is noted that the proposed regional general and hazardous waste disposal facility for the greater NMBMM area, Footprint F, has been named the Grassridge waste disposal facility.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this Report is to outline and update the waste management philosophy for the proposed Grassridge waste disposal facility to serve the greater Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipal area.

1.3 Definitions and Abbreviations

CDC Coega Development Corporation

CDR Co-disposal Ratio

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ECA Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989)

ECC Environmental and Chemical Consultants

3



ECDEAET Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and

Tourism

EMD Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide

IDZ Industrial Development Zone

IWMP Industry Waste Management Plan

J&W Jones & Wagener

LFG Landfill Gas

LTP Leachate Treatment Plant

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998)

NMBMM Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

NWA National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998)

WCSF Waste collection and sorting facility

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED

2.1 Terms of Reference

Jones & Wagener was appointed by the Coega Development Corporation to undertake the design and technical documentation required for the submission of a permit application for a hazardous waste disposal facility for the CDC, based on a proposal submitted to the CDC for this work in October 2007. This included updating the preliminary waste management philosophy developed by J&W in 2004.

2.2 Information Supplied for Original Report

Bohlweki Environmental (Pty) Ltd., 2000. Proposed Regional Hazardous Waste Processing Facility in the Eastern Cape, Inception Report.

Bohlweki Environmental (Pty) Ltd., 2003. Environmental Scoping Report for the Proposed Regional General and Hazardous Waste Processing Facility in the Eastern Cape.

CSIR, 2000. Draft Report on the Selection of the Most Suitable Farms for the Development of a Regional, General and Hazardous Waste Processing Facility within the Eastern Cape, Based upon a Pre-feasibility Assessment of Geohydrological and Geological Criteria and Transport Logistics.

Environmental and Chemical Consultants, 2003. Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Quantities and Types Generated in the Port Elizabeth Area and by the Coega IDZ.

2.3 Information Supplied for Report Update

Arcus Gibb, 2007. Appendix A – CIDZ Tenants Anticipated Waste Volumes Rev 1.

4



Arcus Gibb, 2007. Coega Development Corporation Industry Waste Management Report: Options Analysis Report Draft for Comment.

Coega Development Corporation, 2008. Business Development Project Summary.

Environmental Impact Management Services (Pty) Ltd, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Minerals and Energy’s Proposed Peaking Plant: Port Elizabeth, May 2007.

Poltech EC (Pty) Ltd, Environmental Risk Analysis for the Proposed Rainbow Nation Renewable Fuels Agro-Industrial Processing Plant at the Coega Industrial Development Zone, Report number 06-560-07, dated July 2006.

SRK Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Final Environmental Impact Report and Draft Environmental Management Plan for Afro Asia’s Proposed Steels Recycling and Processing Facility within the Coega IDZ, SRK Report Number 372068/5, dated February 2008.

Veolia Environmental Services, Spreadsheet of Existing Waste collected from the Coega IDZ, April 2008.

2.4 Reference Documents

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 1998. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Second Edition.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd, 2004. Waste Management Philosophy for the Proposed Regional Waste Management Facility on the Eastern Cape. Report No JW70/04/8933 Rev 2.

Lereko in association with Jones & Wagener, 2006. Renewable Energy Project: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality: Landfill Gas to Energy Pre-Feasibility Study. Report No: JW119/06/A739.

USEPA, 1997. EPA office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. Profile of the Textile Industry.

USEPA, 2001. To Riches from Rags: Profiting from Waste Reduction. A Best Practice Guide for Textile and Apparel Manufacturers.

World Bank Group, 1998. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook.

3. WASTE GENERATED BY EXISTING INDUSTRIES

The majority of the hazardous waste produced in the greater NMBMM areas is disposed of at the Aloes II H:H landfill site. Small volumes of mineral oil are stored at the Koedoeskloof H:h landfill site, from where they are reported to be recycled, so these volumes were not considered in this study. In general, the illegal disposal or indiscriminate dumping of hazardous waste is not considered to be a major problem within the area.

3.1 Quantities

The total quantity of hazardous waste that currently needs disposal to landfill is approximately 34 800 tons per annum.

5



While the 2004 Waste Management Philosophy included an analysis of existing waste generation, hazardous waste tonnages to landfill have not altered considerably during the period 2004 to end 2007 (35 000 tons per annum versus 34 800 tons per annum respectively). Given this, and commercial sensitivity of the Aloes waste acceptance data, existing waste generation is not reported in detail in this report.

It is noted that there have been increases and decreases in the quantities of specific hazardous waste types landfilled. Hazardous waste types accepted for treatment and disposal at Aloes II include acids, alkalis, arsenic wastes, asbestos, biocides, cyanide waste, flammable liquids, flammable solids, food processing waste, foundry sand, halogenated waste, heavy metal waste, hexavalent chromium, inorganic sulphur, laboratory chemicals, lead waste, mercury waste, mineral oil, oxidising agents, paint residues without solvents, PCB wastes, pesticides, pharmaceutical & veterinary wastes, phenols, substances liable to spontaneously combust, tannery sludges, tarry wastes, and varnish and paint sludges. For 2007, the main components of the hazardous waste stream were foundry sand (27.9%), food processing wastes (15.0%), mineral oil wastes (14.5%), wastes containing heavy metals (10.7%) and varnish and paint sludges (6.6%). The other components each comprised less than 5%. Interesting to note is that tannery sludges have decreased by 89% since 1988/9.

3.2 Current management

The vast majority of the hazardous waste currently generated in the greater NMBMM area is disposed at the Aloes II H:H landfill. Treatment of waste prior to disposal includes ash blending and treatment with lime, ferrous sulphate and sulphur/sodium sulphide, as well as reactive waste treatment and encapsulation. Co-disposal with general waste is practised, and cover material is used.

At Aloes, leachate is characterised by a high salinity. The COD of the raw leachate is approximately 15000 to 20000 mg/l, which is reduced to less than 1000 mg/l by primary aeration and treatment with a biological catalyst in the leachate impoundment dam. Organic constituents are therefore not a concern further on in the leachate treatment process. A leachate treatment plant is in operation on the site. The plant comprises of three phases:

1. pre-treatment with ferric chloride and a proprietary coagulant to reduce the suspended solids;

2. ultra filtration to remove any remaining suspended solids; and

3. a high pressure reverse osmosis phase.

3.3 Future predictions

Given that the total mass of hazardous waste accepted on an annual basis has remained relatively constant from 2003 to 2007, it has been assumed that future waste generation from existing industries will remain at current levels. This is in line with the upper bound for hazardous waste generation calculated for the 2004 Waste Management Philosophy Report, and is believed to be conservative. A figure of 34 800 tons per annum has therefore been assumed for future hazardous waste generation from existing industries.

6



4. WASTE ANTICIPATED FROM COEGA IDZ DEVELOPMENTS

4.1 Quantities

The waste survey conducted by ECC in 2003 investigated the proposed developments for the Coega IDZ and the waste streams that could be expected from these developments, which was summarised in the 2004 waste management philosophy report. At that stage, potential developments included an aluminium smelter, an electrolytic manganese dioxide (EMD) plant, bulk material import/export, a ferromanganese plant, a ferrochrome plant, a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal, electronics industries, shipbuilding and repair industries, and associated service industries. Potential developments included a ferronickel plant, steel manufacturing, textile industries and limited automotive business.

The list of potential developments has evolved between 2003 and 2008. A strong emphasis remains on metallurgical industries, a significant increase in potential automotive industries is evident, while textile industries are no longer a focus area. The following sectors are being targeted for development in the Coega IDZ:

• agro-processing industries,

• automotive industries,

• business process outsourcing,

• chemical industries,

• construction,

• electro-tech industries,

• energy projects,

• logistics,

• manufacturing,

• metals and metallurgical industries,

• property and property development.

• shrimp-farming, as well as

• warehousing.

By mid-June 2008, fourteen investors had signed agreements with the CDC, and five companies had commenced operations in the IDZ (www.coega.co.za/NewsView dated 10 June 2008). However, the current power supply problems in South Africa could have some effect on developments, with at least one development (the Alcan aluminium smelter) being delayed for three years or more until the electricity supply outlook is expected to improve (Business Report, 20 January 2008; SABCNews.com/economy/business, 18 March 2008). The waste streams that can be expected from the existing and potential developments in the CDC are summarised below. It is noted that very limited information is available on the nature and the size of several of the potential developments and therefore predictions provided below are of speculative nature.

7



Table 1: Estimated hazardous waste streams from Coega IDZ

Sector Company Nature of Project

Est. Start Date

Est. Staff

Est. Waste streams Waste state*

Waste class*

Estimated Waste in Tpa

Alcan Aluminium smelter

2012 1000 General/industrial wastes would form part of MSW for co-disposal

S G (6340) Metals & Metta-lurgical Inorganic hazardous waste L H 3690

Organic hazardous waste L H 320

Spent potlinings (SPL): volumes too large for Coega site

S H (7000)

Cracked anodes/cathodes S H 1000

Dross S H 6000

Kalagadi Resources

Ferro manganese smelter

2011 500 Filter-press sludge/ slag volumes too large for Coega site

SL H (340000)

Waste water treatment sludge SL H 2750

Exxaro Alloy Ferro manganese smelter

2011 NS Filter-press sludge/ slag volumes too large for Coega site

SL H (25000)

Waste water treatment sludge SL H 2750

Afro-Asia Steel billets 2008 120 Slag S H 5840

- Steel plant 2012 1150 BOF & slag volumes too large for Coega site

S/SL H (285000-470000)

- Steel billets 2010 100 Slag S H 5000

- Direct Reduction Iron Plant

2011 100 Slag volumes too large for Coega site (ND)

Sub-total (excluding figures in brackets) 27350

Chemicals Cerebos Salt production

Opera-tional

200 Chemical wastes S H 458

General packaging and food wastes would form part of MSW for co-disposal

S G 0

Straits Chemicals

Chlorine plant/ water desalination plant

2009 250 None specified: brine expected 0

Coega Chemicals

Chemicals 2010 130 Insufficient information 0

- Industrial gas suppliers

2011 NS Insufficient information 0

- Titanium pigments

2011 NS Hazardous wastes S H 4000

Sulphuric acid L H 6500

Gypsum waste quantities too large for Coega site

S G 0

Other non-hazardous waste quantities too large for Coega site

S G 0

- Silica carbide 2011 33 No hazardous waste expected from new technology

0

- Refrigerant gas plant

2011 NS Insufficient information 0

Sub-total 10958

Auto-motive

General Upholsterers/ Accoustex

Manufacturing vehicle interior trim

Opera-tional

300 Textiles dye listed but not quantified L H 10

Waste bottles listed but not quantified S H 10

- Vehicle assembly : 6

2009 to 2011

350 each

Waste paint: allowance included SL H 20

Solvents: allowance included L H 50

8




Est. Start Date

Est. Staff


Waste class*


Wastewater treatment sludge: allowance included

SL H 100

- Component manufacture: 10

2009 to 2011

170, 350, others NS

Insufficient information: allowance included V H 300

- Heavy vehicle manufacture

2010 2500 Insufficient information: allowance included V H 300

- Commercial vehicle centre

2008 150 Insufficient information: allowance included V H 20

-

Vehicle distribution and preparation centre

2010 NS Insufficient information: allowance included V H 10

Sub-total V 820

Manu-facturing

-

5 plants at Feasibility/ Pre-Feasibility Stage

2010 to 2012

750, others NS

Insufficient information: allowance included V H 100

Sub-total 100

-

6 BPOs at Feasibility/ Pre-Feasibility Stage

2009

100 each approximately

Minimal industrial waste expected 0

Business Process Outsourc-ing Sub-total 0

Ware-housing

Fresh Produce Terminal

Fresh Produce 2009 NS Fresh produce wastes: part of MSW for co-disposal

S G 0

Sub-total 0

Energy Biomass Biomass fuel 2008 350 EIA lists no hazardous waste & little waste production

0

Rainbow Nation Renewable Fuels

Biodiesel and animal feed from soya beans

2008 350 EIA lists no hazardous waste & little waste production

0

PetroNet SA (Possible EIA approval issues)

Crude oil refinery & fuel storage

2015 1000 Waste water sludges SL H ND

Spillage clean ups S H ND

AES-Khanya (DME)

Power peaking plant

2011 100 Little waste expected, possibly some hydrocarbon spills

S H 2

- Renewable energy

NS NS Not known 0

- CCGT power station

NS NS Not known 0

- Charcoal NS NS No solid or liquid wastes expected 0

Sub-total 2

Construct-ion

Coega Concrete Products

Manufacture and distribution of pre-cast products

2008 50 Little waste expected 0

Bosun Bricks Brick & concrete manufacturing

2008 NS Wastes listed include diesel, hydraulic fluids, ultra grease, gearbox oil & degreaser, which can be recycled.

0

General waste: forms part of MSW for co-disposal

S G 0

-

Precast and pre-stressed concrete products

2008 50 Little waste expected 0

Sub-total 0

Logistics Sati Container Depot

2008 26 None specified 0

9




Est. Start Date

Est. Staff


Waste class*


PE Cold Storage

Cold storage/ export facilities


MSC Container Depot


-

Logistics: 6 at Feasibility/ Pre-Feasibility Stage

2010 50 to 100 each

0

-

Cold storage, processing and packaging citrus

2008 150

General packaging and food wastes would form part of MSW for co-disposal or could be recycled/ given to farmers

0

Sub-total 0

Electro-tech:

- Plasma Screens

2010 NS Not specified 0

Sub-total 0

Shrimp-farming:

Sea Ark (Pty) Ltd

Shrimp Farming

Pilot 2007

4470 Shrimp Pond Waste (Organic, can be used as fertiliser in some applications)

SL H 90

Shrimp processing wastes (shells etc) S G 156

Sub-total 246

Dynamic Commodities

Fruit processing for export

Opera-tional

350 per shift

Chemical, detergent and disinfectant wastes

L H 86 Agro-process-ing: Organic wastes(given to pig farmer) S G 0

- Tomato Paste 2010 NS Organic wastes (can be used by poultry farmers)

SL&S G 0

Sub-total 86

-

Property development for BPO and office parks

2010 NS Minimal industrial waste expected 0 Property & property develop-ment: -

Property retail branch

2010 NS Minimal industrial waste expected 0

Sub-total 0

New Developments: Expected hazardous and industrial wastes (tons per annum) 39562

Existing Developments: Hazardous waste (tons per annum) 34800

Expected hazardous and industrial wastes (tons per annum) 74362

*Notes: Tpa = tons per annum; Liquid (L), sludge (SL), solid (S) or variable (V); Hazardous (H) or General (G); NS= not specified; ND = not determined; figures in brackets not included in totals.

As stated, considerable uncertainty still exists regarding many of the developments listed above and therefore the waste types and quantities are merely expected trends based on proposed developments at this stage. If all the developments listed in Table 1 proceed, the amount of hazardous and industrial waste that would need to be handled at the Grassridge waste disposal facility is estimated in the order of 74 400 tons per annum. This figure assumes that several waste streams, such as metallurgical slags, will be disposed of on site, and not at the Coega regional hazardous waste management facility, due to their high volumes. It could, however, be advantageous to use an appropriate quantity of slag and/ or ash for co-disposal and daily cover material, depending on the final size and composition of the waste stream.

4.2 Management options for Coega IDZ Wastes

The following management options for the potential waste streams generated in the Coega IDZ can be considered (as also discussed by ECC, 2003):

10



• General industrial waste includes waste that is not contaminated with hazardous material and could potentially be disposed of at a general waste disposal site. These waste streams should also be evaluated for re-use and recycling potential, e.g. recycling of uncontaminated packaging or re-use of alumina contaminated with soil in cement manufacture.

• Spent pot linings (high to extreme hazardous waste) can be used as input feed into cement kilns or can be incinerated in a dedicated incinerator and the residues disposed of in the landfill. Silicon carbide should be treated in a rotary kiln.

• Low to moderate inorganic waste can be disposed of directly at a hazardous waste site or treated with lime to limit the leachability of mobile constituents.

• Low to moderate organic waste (mainly oil contaminated waste) should be co-disposed at a hazardous waste site.

• Some organic wastes (from food production) can be utilised by farmers as animal or poultry feed.

• Waste water treatment sludges can be expected from a number of developments. Treatment should be determined based on the constituents of the sludge, and co-disposed at a hazardous waste site.

• Waste from an EMD plant is thixotropic, i.e. it appears to be solid but liquefies on agitation. The most viable option for this waste is treatment with lime after which it is left to dry and cure. It is however recommended that options such as utilisation of this waste in cement products should be investigated. (It is noted that an EMD plant no longer appears on the list of proposed developments, but that the development of such a plant should not be ruled out, if a ferromanganese plant is established. Treated EMD waste performs well as daily landfill cover material, and for building access roads on landfill footprints.)

• Waste generated by the potential Bulk Materials Imports/Exports will depend on the type of material handled and therefore management options are difficult to predict. Small quantities will however need disposal at the Grassridge waste disposal facility.

• It will be prohibitively expensive to dispose of the large volumes of slag generated by ferromanganese and steel manufacturing plants at the Grassridge waste disposal facility. Although alternative uses such as road building materials, brick-making and concrete products are viable for metallurgical slags it is unlikely that the demand will (at least initially) meet the production rate. An on-site facility will probably be required for temporary stockpiling of the slags from the respective plants. The CDC previously indicated that the slag is regarded as a resource and that appropriate management options will be investigated (J&W Report No JW70/04/8933 Rev 2). Disposal of some slags could probably be accommodated to meet co-disposal ratios, depending on their characteristics.

• The exact type and size of several businesses within the chemical, automotive, manufacturing, electronics, energy and logistics sectors that will be located within the Coega IDZ is not known. The amount of waste should be limited as far as possible by implementing minimisation, recycling and treatment technologies.

From the above it is clear that while there are various alternative waste management options for the waste that could be generated within the Coega IDZ, it must be born in mind that until the recycling/re-use options have been investigated and implemented, these waste streams potentially need to be managed at the Grassridge waste disposal facility. Waste classes range from general to low hazardous to extremely hazardous waste

11



and the proposed facility needs to cater for all these waste streams, with the possible exception of extremely hazardous waste.

5. PROPOSED GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY

One of the objectives of the proposed Grassridge waste disposal facility is to provide an integrated approach to waste management for the Coega IDZ and greater NMBMM area. It should furthermore fulfil the hazardous waste management needs in the Region for the next 20 years or more.

From the waste surveys conducted to date, the predicted quantity of waste that will require disposal in future is approximately 34 800 tons per annum from the existing industries and approximately 39 600 tons per annum from the developments in the Coega IDZ, i.e. an estimated total amount of 74 400 tons per annum. The following aspects should however be highlighted:

• the amount of waste expected from industries within the Coega IDZ may vary significantly depending on recycling initiatives;

• the amount of waste predicted from the Coega IDZ industries is based on all the industries listed in Table 1 being constructed, except for those where insufficient information is available to estimate waste types and quantities. At this stage, uncertainty remains regarding many of the potential industries.

5.1 Options for the facility

In considering the options for the Grassridge waste disposal facility it is necessary to take a realistic view on future waste generation and the phasing in of the Coega IDZ industries. It is probably realistic to assume the that the Grassridge waste disposal facility will have to be in place to take over from the Aloes II facility in 6 to 7 years, provided that the proposed extension to Aloes II is approved and constructed by mid-2011, which is likely. It will probably also be necessary to run the two sites concurrently for some time as it could take up to a year for a new facility to establish a bed of solid waste before being able to receive and safely dispose of significant amounts of liquid waste and sludges.

Figure 1 below illustrates the expected hazardous waste for disposal at the Grassridge waste disposal facility over the next 20 years, based on the expected date of operation of the facilities. Note that no liquids and sludges have been included in the first year of operation.

12



Expected hazardous waste at regional GHWMF

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Year

ton

s/a

nn

um

Figure 1 Expected hazardous waste disposal at the Grassridge waste disposal

facility

Should the closure of the Aloes Site realise in mid-2011 (when Aloes II is likely to be full), this waste will have to be disposed of at the Grassridge waste disposal facility. However, if the Aloes extension is approved and constructed, Aloes could continue to take waste until mid-2016 at current filling rates. However, including the expected wastes from the Coega IDZ, the Aloes extension site life could reduce to early 2014.

Changes in Figure 1 will occur as developments for which information is not available at this stage establish. In addition, new developments that are not foreseen at this stage will also influence the expected total waste at the Grassridge waste disposal facility. Further waste minimisation and waste recycling programmes at the Coega IDZ developments could lead to a reduction in waste that needs disposal at the Grassridge waste disposal facility. However, the lead time for the planned industries is probably such that sufficient time will be available to construct additional capacity timeously.

It has therefore been recommended that a phased approach be adopted in the development of the Grassridge waste disposal facility. The first phase will include the following components:-

• A co-disposal Class H:H landfill cell to accommodate both organic and inorganic waste streams, for a 5-year period;

• A contaminated stormwater management system, including drains and a stormwater dam;

• A leachate collection system, leakage detection system and leachate storage dam;

• A leachate treatment plant;

• General site infrastructure.

The requirements for each of the above components are discussed separately in Section 6 of the report.

13



Further phases are largely dependent on the nature and volume of future waste streams from the Coega IDZ and expansion of the NMBMM. The following principles should however apply to future disposal or treatment options:

• Ideally, separate organic and inorganic waste containment facilities should be constructed and provision should be made to treat the leachates generated by the two facilities separately.

• Clients should be encouraged to de-water waste sludges and watery waste products at source by applying an additional disposal charge on liquids and sludges to make provision for the leachate treatment costs that will be incurred.

• Many of the potential waste types from the Coega IDZ have the potential to de-list to a waste type that can be disposed of on a GB+ facility. Some of the wastes will however require treatment such as lime stabilisation in order to de-list. As more information becomes available, it may be advisable to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of constructing a dedicated GB+ cell to accept de-listed waste, taking into account additional stabilisation costs.

• To correspond with the phasing out of co-disposal of liquids as a preferred technology it could become necessary to consider a treatment facility for liquid and sludge wastes to be handled on site. Such a treatment facility could typically consist of a number of components, including filter presses, evaporative crystallizers, desalinisation processes, neutralisation of acids and alkaline wastes, biological treatment of organic waste streams, and an oil separation and blending facility. The composition of the treatment facility will depend on the nature of the waste streams to be treated. The brine that will inevitably be produced should be disposed of in a dedicated inorganic cell.

• Currently, small quantities of extremely hazardous waste that may not be landfilled are encapsulated in reinforced concrete at the Aloes facility. These waste streams are all organic in nature and the more appropriate technology will be thermal destruction under highly controlled conditions. This is however an expensive technology that requires economy of scale. It is therefore recommended that a thermal destruction facility for organic waste not be considered until such time as sufficient need can be proven. Should the need arise for a thermal destruction facility, the required authorisation processes such as an EIA for the facility will be complied with. The small quantities of waste currently encapsulated at Aloes will have to be treated either in the Western Cape or in Gauteng when the Aloes facility closes down.

5.2 Co-disposal Ratio

The effective and safe running of a co-disposal cell is directly linked to the ratio of dry waste to liquids being disposed of on the site. Many other aspects such as climatic conditions, the absorptive capacity of the “dry” waste components and the cell geometry also play a role in determining the ideal co-disposal ratio. On the one hand, if the co-disposal ratio is too low, an excess of leachate is generated, the leachate quality deteriorates and stability problems can be experienced. On the other hand if the co-disposal ratio is too high, expensive air space is consumed by general waste which could have been disposed of on a general site.

It is not possible to accurately determine an ideal co-disposal ratio before much more certainty is obtained on the composition of the waste stream to be disposed of when the site opens. However, from experience gained on four coastal co-disposal sites, we are of

14



the opinion that the ideal co-disposal ratio for the Grassridge waste disposal facility is likely to be between 1:6 and 1:8 (liquids: dry solids by mass). The likely waste generation as described in Sections 3 and 4 of this report have been considered to assess the need for additional “dry” waste to achieve an acceptable co-disposal ratio.

Two methods were used to determine the dry waste required for co-disposal, and the airspace required for the site.

Firstly, the method used for the 2004 report was applied: Industrial waste expected from the new and existing developments were summed, and a factor of 1:2.45 for industrial waste to municipal solid waste (MSW) was applied, to obtain the general waste required.

Secondly, the wastes estimated as emanating from the Coega IDZ were divided into liquid, sludge, or solid wastes. A co-disposal factor of 1:7 (liquid/sludge: dry waste by mass) was applied to the Coega waste, to obtain the mass of additional dry waste required for co-disposal. For the existing waste stream to Aloes, a disposal ratio of 1:0.68 hazardous to general waste by mass was applied, as the waste stream information obtained does not list the wastes in terms of liquids, sludges and dry wastes, and the ratio used is the actual ratio successfully applied at Aloes. Note that the ratios used for new and existing wastes are not comparable, as the former is for liquids and sludges versus solid wastes while the latter is for hazardous versus general wastes. A cover to waste ratio of 1:5 was then applied to take account of daily and interim cover requirements, given the size of the operation. The results are indicated in Table 2 overleaf.

15

Table 2: Co-disposal and Airspace Calculations

2004 Method 2008 Method

Year New Develop-ments

Existing Develop-ments

Total Industrial Waste

MSW required

Total Industrial plus MSW to site per annum

Hazard-ous liquid wastes

Hazard-ous

sludge wastes

Hazardous solid wastes

Existing hazardous wastes

Total hazardous wastes expected

Solid waste reqd for Coega waste co-disposal

General waste reqd for existing waste co-disposal

Cover reqd

Total tonnage to site per annum

Units Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa Tpa

Ratio used

1

Industrial: 2.45 MSW

1 liquids and sludges: 7

solid

1 hazardous: 0.68general

1 cover: 5 waste

2013 22466 34800 57266 140302 197568 0 0 22466 34800 57266 0 23664 16186 97116

2014 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2015 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2016 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2017 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2018 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2019 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2020 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2021 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2022 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2023 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2024 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2025 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2026 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2027 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2028 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2029 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2030 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2031 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

2032 39562 34800 74362 182187 256550 10656 5710 23196 34800 74362 114562 23664 42518 255106

Totals 774148 696000 1470148 3601864 5072012 202464 108490 463194 696000 1470148 2176678 473280 824021 4944128

16



A number of assumptions have been made in these calculations, which could be refined in time. Where possible, these are conservative, in order to overestimate, rather than underestimate, the airspace required. These include:

• Landfill density has been taken as 1T/m3, while a higher density would be expected on a hazardous waste site employing specialist landfill compaction plant.

• For the second method, the solid waste required for co-disposal or cover required has not been reduced by the expected quantity of hazardous solid waste from the Coega IDZ, as a worst case scenario. It is likely that the hazardous solid waste from the Coega IDZ will be suitable for either solid waste for co-disposal or for daily and interim cover material.

• Generally, a cover ratio of between 1 part cover to 4 parts waste and 1 part cover to 6 parts waste by volume would be applied: in this case the ratio of 1 part cover to 5 parts waste has been applied by mass, which is conservative, given typical cover material densities. In addition, for a large scale operation of approximately 1000 tons per day, a cover ratio of 1 part cover to 6 parts waste by volume would apply.

It is noted that the “dry” waste requirements differ somewhat between the two calculations. Given that the 2008 method includes more detail, this is likely to be more accurate than the 2004 method. There is likely to be a significant shortfall of “dry” waste at the site, which could either be made up by disposing of MSW from the NMBMM, or by accepting additional hazardous solid wastes from the Coega IDZ generators, such as slags and ashes.

After closure of the Aloes Site, waste from the Motherwell area would need to be diverted to another permitted waste disposal site. The NMBMM previously indicated their willingness to dispose of MSW at the Grassridge waste disposal facility provided that there will be no financial impact on disposal cost for the NMBMM associated with this option. A detailed study of the costs and benefits associated with each of these options will have to be conducted to enable the NMBMM to reach a decision regarding future/long-term disposal of MSW.

Prior to developing the proposed Coega regional hazardous waste disposal site, the CDC must therefore explore MSW and other general waste disposal options with the NMBMM.

The traditional method of trenching into a waste body to discharge liquids has been revisited in recent years. The co-disposal calculations are based on an even spread of liquid over the entire waste body to take advantage of the full field capacity of the waste. It will be an operational requirement to blend liquids and solids with waste and then to distribute the blended waste over the full site.

5.3 Airspace requirements

The airspace requirement calculated by the two methods for a twenty year horizon is similar: 5 072 012m3 for method 1, and 4 944 128m3 for method 2 (from Table 2). This was rounded to 5 000 000m3 for developing the site design.

It is noted that the calculations are conservative, and site life for the current design could extend beyond twenty years, particularly if the establishment of new developments within the Coega IDZ is slower than anticipated.

17



5.4 Leachate Treatment

It can be regarded as a given that a co-disposal cell at Grassridge waste disposal facility will generate leachate and that initially the leachate will have to be treated. It is anticipated that the leachate quality will be reasonably similar to that generated at Aloes, with a high TDS (40 000 to 50 000 mg/l). The TDS will predominantly be made up of Chloride and Sodium. The Fishwater Flats Sewage Works will not accept such highly saline waste and therefore direct discharge to sewer will not be an option. In addition, as no sewer connection is available close to the proposed Grassridge waste disposal facility it would mean transporting the leachate to the closest sewer connection which could be 20km away.

The recommended options for the Grassridge waste disposal facility would be to treat the leachate to a standard that will allow discharge directly into the environment or for re-use on site for dust control, for irrigation of vegetated areas and for fire-water. The quality of water to be discharged should comply with the quality objectives set by DWAF for the catchment and should ensure that the downstream water remains fit for the purposes it is used for. This aspect should be agreed with DWAF.

Likely steps in a treatment process could include the following (Ardeer, personal communication with Ms T. Hopkins of J&W, April 2004):-

• Pre-treatment (pH adjustment and removal of suspended solids);

• Ultra filtration;

• High pressure reverse osmosis step; and

• Low pressure reverse osmosis step.

Should the leachate at the Grassridge waste disposal facility contain a higher organic content, an additional step to address this component, e.g. biological treatment will be needed.

The anticipated treatment technologies listed above are well established technologies that are currently used for the treatment of waste water and which will ensure that the required discharge standard is achieved.

Management of the co-disposal ratio and issues such as temporary cover and efficient drainage of stormwater will be essential to minimise leachate generation, as the treatment costs will be high.

An accurate prediction of leachate generation rates is not possible at this stage, as it will depend on many factors, including the stage of landfill development, cell geometry, co-disposal ratio, operational controls and waste characteristics. Ideally, the cell should be operated for a period before determining the size and design of the treatment facility required. It will also be an advantage to design a modular system that can easily be expanded as the need arises.

The 2004 report included, as a rough estimate, that the initial co-disposal cell could generate leachate at a rate of between 500 and 2 000 m3 per month, provided that the co-disposal ratio is maintained at between 1:6 and 1:8. From experience at other hazardous waste sites, approximately 20% of the liquid wastes disposed of present as leachate: this provides an average leachate generation estimate of 600m3 per month. Using the maximum 200mm per unit area of leachate specified in the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, a maximum of 1 400m3 per month would be expected.

18



6. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPONENTS OF THE GRASSRIDGE WASTE DISPOSAL

FACILITY

Specific requirements for the components included in the development of Phase 1 of the Grassridge waste disposal facility are listed in Table 3 below:-

Table 3: Requirements for Components

Component Specific Requirements General Requirements

Co-Disposal

Landfill Cell

• Capacity 1 250 000 m3 for 5 years

• Design to H:H standard

• Height not less than 25m

• Side-slope not steeper than 1:3

• Depth below natural ground

surface approximately 1,5m

• Interim cover either soil or

appropriate waste material (not

MSW)

• Portions of cell not in use or not

yet lined to be isolated from active

part of cell to prevent any

unnecessary water entering the

leachate or contaminated

stormwater systems

• Landform to blend into natural

surroundings

• Leachate collection and detection

systems to gravitate from cell

Stormwater

Management

System

• Upstream catchment drainage to

be diverted past the site for up to

1:100 year event

• Contaminated run-off from roads

and active cells to be intercepted

and drained to a lined

contaminated stormwater facility

• System to be sized to handle

1:100 year event

• After rehabilitation run-off to be

drained off-site

• Keep “clean” water clean and

minimise contaminated catchment

areas

• Contaminated stormwater to be

used for dust suppression on

areas bounded by the

contaminated stormwater system

Leachate

Management

System

• Leachate collection system to

gravitate to leachate storage dam.

System to be designed to handle

maximum anticipated flow with

adequate factor of safety

• Leachate storage dam to be

designed to Minimum

Requirements Lagoon standard

• Leachate storage dam to be sized

to provide sufficient buffer capacity

to accommodate seasonal peaks

19



Component Specific Requirements General Requirements

in order to match rate of treatment

• Leachate dam may have to be

equipped to break down organics

and prevent odour problems if

these arise

Site

Infrastructure

Buildings Required

• Entrance facility incorporating

weighbridge control

• Double weighbridge

• Offices

• Site staff ablutions and canteen

• Chemical store

• Site laboratory

• Equipment shed and maintenance

area

• Wheel wash facility

Other Infrastructure Required

• All weather site access roads

• Perimeter security fencing

• Site lighting

• Fire fighting system

• Weather station

7. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Relevant Legislation

The general objective of environmentally acceptable waste disposal is to avoid both short and long term impacts and any degradation of the environment in which the Grassridge waste disposal facility is located. More specific objectives are to prevent pollution of the surface water, groundwater and air and to ensure public acceptance by ensuring environmental acceptability.

The proposed Grassridge waste disposal facility should comply with appropriate legislation in all respects. More specifically, aspects discussed below need to be borne in mind:

The principles of waste avoidance, minimisation and re-use as enshrined in NEMA, 1998 should be implemented. Pollution and degradation of the environment should be avoided and where it cannot be avoided should be minimised and remedied or mitigated. Negative

20



impacts on the environment and people’s environmental rights should be anticipated and prevented and where it cannot be prevented should be minimised and remedied or mitigated. The management of the Grassridge waste disposal facility should aim to support these principles.

An approach of Integrated Environmental Management should be followed to ensure that any development is sustainable. The development of the site and the processes and activities on site must be based on the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). This is the option which provides the most benefit and least damage to the environment as a whole, both in the short and long term.

Section 20 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) (ECA) states that no one may establish, provide or operate a disposal site without a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs. The permitting system was amended by the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003), which states that no person shall establish, provide or operate any disposal site without a permit issued by the Minister of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). The issuing of a disposal site permit is subject to the concurrence of the Minister of DWAF and the conditions contained in a Record of Decision (RoD) issued by the Minister of DWAF. The definition of a disposal site in terms of ECA not only includes all sites used for accumulation of waste with the purpose of disposal or treatment of such waste. Recycling and treatment facilities, as well as transfer stations therefore also need to comply with the requirements of the Act. The process for applying for a permit and the investigations that need to be conducted as part of this process is contained in the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. This document also sets out the requirements for the management and operation of disposal sites. The Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste provides the South African waste classification system and the requirements for disposal of all hazardous waste. The Minimum Requirements for Water Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities provides the requirements for water quality monitoring at disposal sites. Authorisation, construction and operation of the Grassridge waste disposal facility should comply with these requirements.

The Minimum Requirements documents also refer to the concept of the Responsible Person. The Responsible Person must ensure that all facets of the work undertaken are properly and competently directed, guided and executed and should therefore be appropriately qualified and experienced. One of the prerequisites would therefore be to appoint a Responsible Person to oversee and guide the whole process.

The EIA Regulations were published to give effect to Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the ECA and the disposal of waste in terms of Section 20 of the ECA is a listed activity and therefore an EIA is required. The process and information requirements are compiled in a Guideline Document published by DEAT and the Regulations (and amendments) should be complied with in all respects.

The purpose of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) is to ensure that South Africa’s water resources are protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled. Section 19 of the Act requires that pollution of a water resource be prevented, or that the effects of pollution should be remedied. Section 21 defines water uses which have to be licensed in terms of the Act. This includes the disposal of waste, as well as storage of water in a dam. The principles and requirements of the NWA should be complied with in all respects to ensure protection of the water resource.

If the leachate and stormwater dams’ maximum wall height exceeds 5.0m or their individual capacity exceeds 50 000 m3 in the detailed design, or the dams are declared as dams with a safety risk by DWAF, then the dams will classify as dams with a safety risk, and the Dam Safety Regulations (published in Government Notice R. 1560 of 25 July

21



1986) must be adhered to. These regulations became fully effective in January 1987 and are still in force under the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA).

The objectives of the Grassridge waste disposal facility design will therefore be to provide a cost-effective, environmentally acceptable waste management facility, to mitigate any potentially adverse impacts, to prevent pollution of surface water and groundwater by leachate and to ensure environmentally and aesthetically acceptable operation.

The proposed Grassridge waste disposal facility should be operated to the highest national and international waste management standards. The objective for the operation of the Grassridge waste disposal facility will be to ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. The operation will therefore comply with the requirements as contained in the authorisations (i.e. permit, Record of Decision, licences) and to the relevant Minimum Requirements.

7.2 Monitoring

The objective of monitoring is to verify that the waste management facility conforms to the required standards and authorisations. Monitoring serves to quantify any effect that the operation has on the environment and serves as an early warning system so that corrective actions can be taken timeously should it be needed.

It is proposed that monitoring should include the following:

• environmental monitoring, i.e. ground water, surface water, leachate and air quality;

• operational monitoring, e.g. monitoring of the co-disposal ratio, effectiveness of treatment prior to disposal;

• quarterly internal auditing;

• biannual external auditing; and

• monitoring of the standard of operation and compliance to permit conditions by the Monitoring Committee for the Grassridge waste disposal facility. This committee should include representatives of the community living in the immediate vicinity of the Grassridge waste disposal facility.

8. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Predicted Waste Volumes

• The new Grassridge waste disposal facility will replace the existing Aloes site in providing a waste management facility to existing industries in the greater NMBMM area, probably from early 2014. Tonnages of industrial waste handled by Aloes have reduced over the last decade due to waste minimisation and recycling initiatives.

• It is estimated that the current tonnage of 34 800 tons per annum of liquid, sludge and solid hazardous waste handled by the Aloes II site will remain constant, to allow for additional reductions as well as industry growth.

• An estimate was prepared for the quantities of hazardous waste that could be generated by the industries that could establish at the Coega IDZ. Many waste streams have significant potential for de-listing or recycling. The actual demand for disposal or treatment capacity at the Grassridge waste disposal facility will depend

22



on which industries are established, the technologies used and the success of recycling initiatives.

• It is estimated that new industries in the Coega IDZ and expansion of the NMBMM could produce approximately 40 000 tons per annum of waste that will have to be disposed of at the Grassridge waste disposal facility, excluding large slag and spent potlining waste streams.

8.2 Development Options

• Due to the uncertainties regarding the timing and specifics of industries that may be developed at Coega IDZ, a phased approach is recommended. Planning will have to be flexible to allow the development of additional capacity as the need arises.

• It is recommended that an initial H:H co-disposal cell and a leachate treatment plant be developed to handle the estimated waste generated by current industries, for a 5 year period.

• Once substantial volumes of waste from the new Coega IDZ industries are being generated, the co-disposal philosophy could be phased out in favour of separate organic and inorganic disposal cells and treatment of liquid wastes to reduce the liquid input into the site.

• It is recommended that a Liquid Waste Treatment Plant be developed in the second phase to de-water and treat liquid wastes and sludges. New cells will be developed to meet specific requirements.

• A large percentage of both current and future waste could be treated to de-list and to be disposed of in a GB+ facility. A cost-benefit analysis should be carried out into the viability of developing a GLB+ cell once more information becomes available regarding the IDZ waste.

• At this stage, the handling of extremely hazardous waste on the Grassridge waste disposal facility is not recommended. The need should be re-assessed as more information becomes available.

8.3 Co-disposal Ratio

• A co-disposal ratio of between 1:6 and 1:8 (liquids: solids by mass) is provisionally recommended.

• Leachate will be generated in the initial co-disposal cell. The recommended option for the Grassridge waste disposal facility would be to treat the leachate to a standard that will allow discharge directly into the environment or for the re-use on site for dust control and irrigation of vegetated areas.

• Provisional estimates of leachate qualities and generation volumes are provided in the report.

• Provisional estimates have been calculated for the volumes of MSW that will be required to achieve the required co-disposal ratio. It is important that the required MSW component be contractually secured prior to developing the site. A certain amount of the MSW can be replaced with a waste product such as ash.

• In the longer term, co-disposal with MSW may not remain a viable option, should many liquid and sludge waste streams be generated in the Coega IDZ, with fewer

23



solid waste streams transported to the landfill. Waste will then have to be de-watered in a Liquid Waste Treatment Plant or MSW will have to be replaced by another dry waste such as ash or fume dust.

8.4 Site Development Planning

• An airspace requirement of 5 000 000m3 has been estimated to provide a twenty year site life for the Grassridge waste disposal facility.

• Requirements for the facilities to be included in the Site Development Plan are given in Section 6 of the report.

Danie Brink PrEng Riva Nortjé PrEng for Jones & Wagener August 2008 C:\AllJobs\B494Coega\Waste_Management_Philosophy\B494RN03_Waste_Management_Philosophy_Report_2008_Rev2.doc

WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY BY JONES & … Hazardous Waste Site EIA 200916BR… · coega...

Documents

Transcript of WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY BY JONES & … Hazardous Waste Site EIA 200916BR… · coega...