J36358 FINAL Rev 1 - bkcob.co.za · Feasibility and High Level Business Plan: ... v3\Hazardous waste treatment facility-Eastern Cape FINAL v3.docx ... factor, source from WRAP, 2014

$Page 1: J36358 FINAL Rev 1 - bkcob.co.za · Feasibility and High Level Business Plan: ... v3\Hazardous waste treatment facility-Eastern Cape FINAL v3.docx ... factor, source from WRAP, 2014$
Feasibility Plan for a Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility in the Eastern Region of the Eastern Cape

J36358

FINAL Rev 1

November 2017

Rev 3/November 2017 P:\J36358_ECDC Hazardous waste feasibility phase 2\03_Project Management Plan Design\G_Document Management - Reports\Report\FINAL REPORT\v3\Hazardous waste treatment facility-Eastern Cape FINAL v3.docx

Feasibility and High Level Business Plan: Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility in the Eastern Region of the Eastern Cape CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

Revision Status i

Distribution List i

Abbreviations / Acronyms / Definitions i

Appendices ii

List of Figures ii

List of Tables ii

Executive Summary i

1 Introduction 1

2 Background 1

2.1 What is Hazardous Waste 2

2.2 Sources of Hazardous Waste 2

3 Approach to the Study 2

3.1 Scope of Works 2

3.2 Methodology 3

4 Previous Hazardous Waste Surveys 4

4.1 2001 - 2002 Survey 4

5 Status Quo of Hazardous Waste Management in the Eastern Cape 5

5.1 The South African Waste Information System (SAWIS) 5

5.2 Hazardous Waste Generation Quantities 7

5.3 Hazardous Waste Recycling 8

5.4 Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities 8


5.5 Hazardous Waste Disposal 10

5.6 Health Care Risk Waste Management 12

5.7 Hazardous Waste Management Costs 13

6 Hazardous Waste Survey 16

6.1 Methodology 16

6.2 Results 20

6.3 Current Waste Management Practices 24

7 Hazardous Waste Disposal and Treatment Options 25

7.1 Disposal Options 25

7.2 Treatment Options 27

7.3 Preferred Waste Treatment Option 32

7.4 Hazardous Waste Incinerator Site Selection 33

8 Hazardous Waste Incinerator Development and Operational Costs 33

8.1 Pricing Assumptions and Limitations 33

8.2 Hazardous Waste Incineration 33

9 Identified Business Opportunities 39

9.1 Partnership with a Waste Management Company 39

9.2 Gate Fees for Incineration of Hazardous Waste 39

9.3 Sale of Heat and Electricity 39

9.4 Sale of Bottom Ash as Construction Material 39

9.5 Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste 40

10 Legislative Requirements for a Hazardous Waste Incinerator 40

10.1 National Environmental Management Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008) 40

10.2 National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) 41

10.3 National Environmental Management Act: Air Quality Act (No. 39 of 2004) 41

10.4 National Waste Information Regulations (R 625 of 2012) 42


10.5 Waste Classification and Management Regulations (R 634 of 2013) 42

10.6 National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Waste to Landfill (R 635 of 2013) 42

10.7 National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (R 926 of 2013) 42

10.8 Other Legislation 43

11 Recommendations and Way Forward 43

11.1 Business Case 43

11.2 Site Selection 43

11.3 Compliance with Legislation 43

11.4 Conclusions 44

12 References 44

Document Control and Disclaimer 58

Page i Rev 3/November 2017

P:\J36358_ECDC Hazardous waste feasibility phase 2\03_Project Management Plan Design\G_Document Management - Reports\Report\FINAL REPORT\v3\Hazardous waste treatment facility-Eastern Cape FINAL v3.docx

Revision Status

Rev No. Issue Date # Pages Revision Description Prepared By

Reviewed By

Approved By

0 07 June 2017 44 Draft K. Parkinson W. Fyvie M. Olivier

1 07 September 2017 66 Draft version 2 K. Parkinson W. Fyvie M. Olivier

2 27 September 2017 67 Final K. Parkinson W. Fyvie M. Olivier

3 20 November 2017 70 Final version 1 K. Parkinson M. Olivier M. Olivier

Distribution List

Copies to:

Copy 1 of 1 Mr Pierre Leppan

Abbreviations / Acronyms / Definitions

AEL Air Emission License

BCMM Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

BKCOB Border Kei Chamber of Business

DoH Department of Health

ECDC Eastern Cape Development Corporation

ECDoH Eastern Cape Department of Health

EL IDZ East London Industrial Development Zone

FABOCS Foundation for African Business and Consumer Services

HCRW Health Care Risk Waste

HWS Hazardous Waste Survey

IDZ Industrial Development Zone

IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan

NAFCOC National African Federated Chamber of Commerce

NEMWA National Environmental Waste Management Act

NMBM Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

SAWIS South African Waste Information System,

WIS Waste Information System

WML Waste Management License

Page ii Rev 3/November 2017


Appendices

Appendix A: Hazardous Waste Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................... 47

Appendix B: Online Survey Notification ................................................................................................ 54

Appendix C: Companies Surveyed ......................................................................................................... 56

List of Figures

Figure 1: Geographic scope of the study ................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2: Eastern Cape Hazardous waste tonnages 2012 – 2016 as reported on the SAWIS ................. 6

Figure 3: Composition of the hazardous waste stream for the Eastern Cape as reported for 2016 on the SAWIS (data accessed on 06/03/2017) ............................................................................................. 7

Figure 4: Inputs and outputs of a biodigester (source DEA, undated) .................................................... 9

Figure 5: Peninsular Piggery bio-digester (source ibert, 2017) ............................................................... 9

Figure 6: Overview of hazardous waste management in the Eastern Cape ......................................... 12

Figure 7: Class A liner (source, National Norms and Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill) 27

List of Tables

Table 1: Hazardous waste tonnages as reported on the SAWIS (accessed on 31/08/2017) 6

Table 2: Summary of waste treatment facilities in the Eastern Cape (information sourced from SAWIC) 8

Table 3: Summary of hazardous waste disposal sites in the Eastern Cape (data sourced from NMBM 2016 IWMP review) 10

Table 4: Quantities (tons/year) of hazardous waste disposed of at Koedoeskloof (data sourced from NMBM IWMP, 2016) 10

Table 5: Quantities (tons/year) of waste disposed of at Aloes for the period April 2013 – March 2014 (data sourced from NMBM IWMP, 2016) 11

Table 6: Estimated breakdown of hazardous waste from the East London area disposed of in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality 11

Table 7: Summary of HCRW generated in the Eastern Cape (tonnes) for government health care facilities (data supplied by ECDoH) 12

Table 8: Estimate of HCRW generated in the study area (tonnes) for 2015 13

Table 9: Estimate of HCRW transportation costs 13

Table 10: NMBM waste disposal tariffs per tonne (including VAT) for hazardous waste at Koeddoeskloof (2017/18 ) 14

Table 11: Health care risk waste treatment costs 15

Table 12: Hazardous waste categories used for the survey (source National Waste Information Regulations) 16

Table 13: Industry categories used in the survey 18

Page iii Rev 3/November 2017


Table 14: Inlet works screenings generated at WWTWs 19

Table 15: Overview of respondents by industry type (NOTE, some companies represent more than one industry type) 20

Table 16: Overview of waste types produced by respondents (Note, some companies produce more than one type of hazardous waste) 21

Table 17: Waste conversion factor, source from WRAP, 2014 22

Table 18: Overview of quantity of waste produced annually in the study area 23

Table 19: Volume of hazardous waste generated in the study area according to different info sources 24

Table 20: Disposal requirements of different waste types 25

Table 21: Waste Restricted or Prohibited in terms of disposal. The timeframe indicates when the prohibition of the different wastes would commence (in years since 2013) 26

Table 22: Cost comparison of Macrotec facilities 34

Table 23: Estimated fuel costs 35

Table 24: Estimated planning, capital and operational costs of incineration solution 37

Table 25: Re-use of incinerator ash in European countries (source International Solid Waste Association, undated) 40

Page i Rev 3/November 2017


Executive Summary

Problem Statement

It has been identified that there is a lack of hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities in the

eastern region of the Eastern Cape. At present hazardous waste is either transported to Port

Elizabeth or removed outside the province for treatment or disposal. GIBB was commissioned by the

Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC) to undertake a hazardous waste survey of the

eastern region of the Eastern Cape to determine the types and quantity of hazardous waste being

generated in the area, and to consider the viability of developing a hazardous waste facility in the

eastern region.

Hazardous Waste Survey

GIBB undertook an online survey, face-to-face surveys and telephonic interviews with a total of 53

companies in the eastern region to determine their waste stream as well as current waste

management practices. The data received from these surveys was used to develop a waste stream

profile per industry. This was then applied to unsurveyed companies to determine a hypothetical

waste stream for the study area. The hazardous waste survey estimated that 4,448 tonnes of

hazardous waste are generated in the study area per annum. The following limitations were noted

with the survey:

Some companies approached were unwilling to participate in the survey

A number of companies are co-disposing of hazardous waste with general waste, and they

therefore do not have separate records for hazardous waste

A number of companies surveyed do not keep hazardous waste records and so were only

able to provide an estimate the volume of hazardous waste generated

The units in which hazardous waste was reported varied significantly, and included kilograms,

tonnes, volumes, litres and units (e.g. the number of oil filters produced or the number of

210l drums full of hazardous waste)

Some companies have only one hazardous waste bin or skip and all hazardous waste is

disposed of into the skip. It is not possible to determine the quantities of the different types

of waste in such cases

Companies were not able to classify waste or provide calorific values or moisture content.

During the hazardous waste survey GIBB engaged with various private waste management

companies and undertook a review of data available on the South Africa Waste Information System.

Approximately 7,944 tonnes of hazardous waste originating from the Buffalo City Metropolitan

Municipality (BCMM) is disposed of or treated in Port Elizabeth, this waste is disposed of at private

facilities. The difference between the surveyed figure (4,448 tonnes) and the figure reported by

waste management companies (7,944 tonnes) may be explained by the limitations listed above.

Page ii Rev 3/November 2017


Hazardous Waste Management Options

Hazardous waste can be managed through treatment, recycling or disposal. Due to the technical

complexities involved, the recycling of hazardous waste is not considered as a viable option for the

study area. Disposal of waste at landfill, while currently still practiced, is being discouraged by waste

legislation. For example the National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Waste for Landfill

Disposal include a list of waste types which are prohibited from being disposed of at landfill. The

timeframes for compliance with the norms and standards range from immediate compliance to

compliance within the next 15 years. Furthermore, a number of international companies appear to

be moving away from landfilling to incineration to achieve “zero waste to landfill” status. For these

reasons, GIBB’s recommendation was to purse the option of treating hazardous waste. Based on the

varied hazardous waste stream being generated in the study area incineration was selected as the

preferred treatment option.

Hazardous Waste Incinerator Costing

Macrotec, a company which designs and engineers incinerators was approached to provide a costing

for the incineration of 8,000 tonnes of mixed hazardous waste a year. A breakdown of waste types

and quantities was provided to Macrotec to assist them with their quote and technical proposal.

Macrotec recommended that four X500 incinerators be installed to manage the hazardous waste

generated in the study area. Each X500 incinerator has a capacity of 280 – 350kg per hour, and the

combined capacity is therefore 1,120 – 1,440kg per hour.

The capital costs and operational costs of the X500 incinerators were calculated based on data

provided by Macrotec and research.

No. ITEM COSTS

Once off costs

1 Environmental / planning services R 650,000

2 Supporting infrastructure R 1,897,500

3 Incinerators R 96,000,000

Annual costs

4 Operational costs (per annum): fuel, labour, maintenance R 20,379,446

5 Operational costs (per annum): transportation & disposal costs*

R 9,200,000

6 Operational costs (per annum): Monitoring and auditing R 170,000

7 Annual interest payment R 4,800,000 *Assuming that the ash from the incinerator will be classified as hazardous waste.

The lifespan of an X500 incinerator is 20 years. Based on the above annual running cost of the

incinerator and an anticipated waste stream of 8,000 tonnes per annum an average minimum gate

fee of R 4,935 per ton would be required to breakeven.

The current costs for transport and disposal of hazardous waste in the province were considered to

see how these compared to the breakeven point above. Present transport (to Port Elizabeth) and

disposal costs (private facilities) were estimated to range from R 3,670 to R 9,500 per tonne, and the

Page iii Rev 3/November 2017


average cost for the different waste streams generated in the study area is R 8,300 per tonne. The

actual costs do however vary significantly depending on the type of waste (Health care risk waste

(HCRW) and pharmaceutical waste are the more expensive hazardous waste streams to manage).

Business Opportunities

Various business opportunities were considered in this report. These include:

Gate fees for incineration of hazardous waste. The average gate fee per tonne would be

between the breakeven cost (R 4,935/ tonne) and the average current transport and disposal

fee to Port Elizabeth (R8,300/ tonne). A full cost accounting exercise would be required to

determine the most appropriate exact gate fees and would be dependent on the type of

hazardous waste and the required profit margin.

Sale of bottom ash as a construction material. In Europe between 20 – 98% of ash from

municipal waste incinerators is re-used as a construction material. If the composition of ash

is suitable for re-use as a construction material it could be sold to the construction industry.

Sale of ash would have an added benefit in that the ash would not need to transported to

landfill site for disposal and landfill site gate fees would be avoided. The ash from a

hazardous waste incinerator would however need to be classified to determine if it is

suitable for such use.

Sale of heat and electricity. A waste incinerator creates heat, which can be used to heat

water or to produce electricity. Hot water can be piped directly to industry, which requires

hot water for production processes. Electricity can be sold to surrounding industry.

Legislative Requirements for a Hazardous Waste Incinerator

Various permits and licenses are required for the construction and operation of a hazardous waste

incinerator. These include but are not limited to:

Waste management license

Environmental authorisation

Air Emissions License.

A hazardous waste incinerator may also be required to register in terms of the National Norms and

Standards for the Storage of Waste and would be required to comply with the National Waste

Information Regulations.

Way Forward

This investigation has considered hazardous waste management in the eastern region of the Eastern

Cape and has investigated business options at only a broad level. The following planning tasks

should be considered should the proponent wish to progress the option of incineration:

1. Further investigation of the business case. A full cost accounting approach should be used in

the development of a detailed business plan and costing model.

2. Site selection. A formal selection process, which considers the strength and weaknesses of

candidate sites, would need to be undertaken.

Page iv Rev 3/November 2017


3. Legal compliance review: All legal permitting requirements, including environmental

requirements, would need to be screened for the site in question.

Conclusions Based on the estimated waste stream of the study area and the costs to capital and operational costs of incinerators it appears that it would be commercially viable to investigate the option of installing hazardous waste incinerators in East London. The lifespan of incinerators is 20 years and so the capital costs of the incinerators would be paid off over this period.

Page 1 Rev 3/November 2017


1 Introduction

The Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC) has identified the need to develop a

hazardous waste facility in the eastern region of the Eastern Cape. The majority of hazardous

waste from industries and municipalities from this region is transported to the hazardous

waste landfill site in Port Elizabeth or to facilities outside the Province. Transporting of

hazardous waste large distances is an expensive exercise, and therefore the establishment of

a hazardous waste management facility in the eastern region of the Eastern Cape warrants

investigation. This study focuses on the eastern region of the Eastern Cape as shown in the

map below. The western region is already serviced by a private facility.

Figure 1: Geographic scope of the study

2 Background

In 2015 the ECDC appointed GIBB to undertake a pre-feasibility assessment for the

development of hazardous waste treatment facility in the eastern region of the Eastern Cape.

The study identified a lack of hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities in the eastern

region of the Eastern Cape. The only licensed hazardous waste disposal sites in the province

(Aloes and Koedoeskloof landfill sites) are both located in the Nelson Mandela Bay

Municipality (NMBM) and there are no commercial physical hazardous waste treatment

facilities in the Province apart from an autoclave facility at Berlin near East London which

treats health care risk waste (HCRW).



2.1 What is Hazardous Waste

The following definition of hazardous waste is used in the National Environmental

Management Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) hereafter referred to as NEWMA.

Hazardous waste means any waste that contains organic or inorganic elements or

compounds that may, owing to the inherent physical, chemical or toxicological characteristics

of that waste have a detrimental impact on health and the environment and includes

hazardous substances, materials or objects within business waste, residue deposits and

residue stockpiles.

2.2 Sources of Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste is generated at a number of sources. Key sources investigated in this study

are as follows:

Industry and manufacturing: hazardous waste is generated a by-product of

manufacturing or the product produced is hazardous and the use of the product results

in hazardous waste (e.g. batteries or compact fluorescent tubes).

Food industry waste: waste from dairies and abattoirs.

Wastewater treatment works: sewerage sludge*.

Health care facilities: health care facilities produce health care risk waste (HCRW).

Health care risk consists of pathological waste, infectious waste, sharps and chemical

waste.

*Sewage sludge is classified as a general waste (GW21) and a hazardous waste (HW20) in the

SAWIS reporting categories. Its classification therefore depends on the nature of the sludge

which may vary from site to site.

3 Approach to the Study

3.1 Scope of Works

The scope of works as presented in tender (Bid no. ECDC/ELN/199/08216) was:

1) Undertake a hazardous waste survey (HWS) of industries located in the major centres

(Mthatha, Queenstown, Butterworth, Buffalo City Municipality) in the eastern part of the

Eastern Cape. The survey must quantify and qualify the hazardous waste that is being

produced. Attempt to approach at least the top 50 companies. The following sectors as a

minimum should be surveyed:

Agriculture (including aquaculture), forestry and food processing

Chemical and other associated industries

Medical and associated health industries

Metals good, engineering and vehicle industries

Municipal services (waste water treatment works)

Commercial and service institutions

Textile, leather and wood industries



Photographic

Retail, commercial and institutional facilities (including SDI & IDZ).

2) The following information needs to be included in the HWS report:

a) Types of hazardous waste

b) The HWS must establish the constituents of the hazardous waste and the moisture

content from each organisation, where possible. Where sufficient information is

available a high level business plan should be developed.

c) Historic waste surveys

d) Cost of transport and disposal

e) HWS results, comparison with previous HWS (i.e. studies in municipalities) and future

projections

f) Hazardous waste treatment technologies to treat findings of identified studies.

g) Environmental legal requirement with regards to treatment and/or disposal of

hazardous waste

h) Identify business opportunities around various types of hazardous waste produced in

the region

i) Recommendations of the way forward.

3.2 Methodology

A phased approach was used in this feasibility study. A summary of the methodology is presented below, and more details of each phase is presented in the relevant chapter of this report.

3.2.1 Phase 1. Status Quo Assessment

The status quo of hazardous waste management in the Eastern Cape was determined

through a literature and data review.

The following were reviewed to determine the hazardous waste stream and quantity of

hazardous was generated in the Eastern Cape:

South African Waste Information System (SAWIS) records

Eastern Provincial Hazardous Waste Management Plan, 2010

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2016

Department of Health Annual Report 2014/2015

Eastern Cape Department of Health (2016), Annual Report 2015/ 2016 Vote 3.

3.2.2 Phase 2. Hazardous Waste Survey

A hazardous waste survey questionnaire was developed. The survey was then posed to

industry and business using the following methods:

Online survey

Face-to-face interviews

Telephonic interviews



The results of the hazardous waste survey were captured in a database.

3.2.3 Phase 3. Hazardous Waste Profile

Based on the results of the hazardous waste survey, different industries were classified by

type and size. The aim was to use this data to determine the hypothetical waste stream of

similar unsurveyed industry and businesses.

The hypothetical waste steams were then applied to the hazardous waste database to try

and determine the total hazardous waste stream of the study area.

3.2.4 Phase 4. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Options

The following were undertaken to determine an appropriate treatment or disposal method

for hazardous waste generated in the study area:

Review of South Africa case studies

Review of international case studies

Review of South African legislation

Attendance of the Waste-to-Energy Technologies Summit.

3.2.5 Phase 5. Recommendations and Way Forward

Based on the types and quantities of waste available, as well as review of case studies of the

waste treatment technologies, a preferred technology was proposed. Costing estimates for

the technology were provided and the key environmental legislative requirements for the

facility were detailed.

4 Previous Hazardous Waste Surveys

4.1 2001 - 2002 Survey

A hazardous waste survey was undertaken by Arcus GIBB (now GIBB) on behalf of the Buffalo

City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM) in 2001 – 2002. The results of the surveys are

presented in report dated 2003 which is titled ‘East London Regional Waste Disposal Site,

Hazardous Waste Survey Report’. The purpose of the survey was to inform the planning and

design of the East London Regional Waste Disposal Site.

The survey followed a two phase approach as detailed below.

(a) Phase 1

A phase 1 survey was undertaken in 2001 which involved the distribution of the survey to

700 organisations. A total of 135 completed surveys were returned. According to the survey

results the surveyed companies produced approximately 2,426 tonnes of hazardous waste

per year. The agriculture/ forestry/ food production and municipal services were the two

greatest contributors to hazardous waste production, 785 and 777 tonnes per annum



respectively. The phase 1 survey results cannot be considered as representative due to the

low number of responses received.

(b) Phase 2

Phase 2 of the survey was undertaken in 2002. The survey targeted organisations identified

in phase 1 and organisations which did not respond to the phase 1 survey. A total of 74

organisations were surveyed. According to the phase 2 survey results the 74 organisations

produce approximately 2,609 tonnes of waste per annum. Metals good/ engineering/ vehicle

industries were the largest contributor to hazardous waste generation producing

approximately 1,578 tonnes per annum.

(c) Hazardous Waste Generation Results

When the results of phase 1 and phase 2 are combined this survey concluded that at least

5,035 tonnes of hazardous waste is generated per year in the BCMM.

5 Status Quo of Hazardous Waste Management in the Eastern Cape

This structure of this section is aligned with the waste hierarchy as presented in the national

waste management strategy, and discusses waste generation, recycling, treatment, disposal

and transportation,. Data has been sourced from the South African Waste Information

System (SAWIS) and from waste contractors.

5.1 The South African Waste Information System (SAWIS)

The SAWIS is a national waste management database administrated by the Department of

Environmental Affairs (DEA). At present the SAWIS is poorly utilised (pers comm. DEA)

however it is the only active reporting system for waste management in the country.

Furthermore data on the SAWIS is only available at a municipality level, meaning that waste

data for individual organisations cannot be extracted. No hazardous waste generators for

the Eastern Cape are currently registered on the SAWIS despite a number of large

organisations in the area. Based on the above, the SAWIS alone cannot provide an accurate

representation of hazardous waste management in the Eastern Cape.

The National Waste Information Regulations (R625 of 2012) (hereafter referred to as the Waste Information Regulations) govern the reporting of hazardous waste records. These regulations make reporting on the SAWIS mandatory in certain situations. A company or organisation must register and report on the SAWIS if they trigger any of the following: 1. Generators of hazardous waste in excess of 20kg per day.

2. Recovery of waste at a facility to process in excess of 500kg of hazardous waste per day,

excluding recovery that takes place as part of an integral part of an internal

manufacturing process within the same premises.



3. The scrapping and recovery of motor vehicles in excess of 500kg per day calculated as a

monthly average.

4. Recycling of hazardous waste in excess of 500kg per day calculated as a monthly

average.

5. Treatment of hazardous waste at a facility that has the capacity to treat in excess of

500kg of hazardous waste per day excluding the treatment of effluent, wastewater or

sewerage.

6. Treatment of health care risk waste.

7. Disposal of hazardous waste to land.

8. Hazardous waste exporter from the Republic of South Africa.

If an organisation triggers any of the above they must register on the SAWIS and report on a quarterly basis.

Waste records on the SAWIS from 2012 – 2016 have been reviewed and summarised below as part of the literature review. Table 1: Hazardous waste tonnages as reported on the SAWIS (accessed on 31/08/2017)

Year Disposal Treatment Recycling Total

2012 0 43,559.6 43,559.6

2013 24,978.2 48,859.4 73,837.6

2014 31,877.6 21,443.9 970.1 54,291.6

2015 36,866.8 49,192.3 51.5 86,110.6

2016 176,464.8 31,814.7 208,279.5

Figure 2: Eastern Cape Hazardous waste tonnages 2012 – 2016 as reported on the SAWIS

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ton

s o

f w

aste

Year

Hazardous Waste Tonnages 2012 - 2016

Disposal

Treatment

Recycling

Total



5.2 Hazardous Waste Generation Quantities

5.2.1 Hazardous Waste Tonnages Eastern Cape

While there are some figures detailing the quantities of hazardous waste that are recycled, treated and disposed of, there are no published figures on how much hazardous waste is actually generated in the province. The waste survey undertaken in 2002 (see section 4) estimated that 5,035 tonnes of hazardous waste is produced annually in the Province. Section 6, which describes the waste survey that was undertaken as part of this report, provides an updated estimation of these quantities.

5.2.2 Hazardous Waste Stream Composition

The Waste Information Regulations define reporting categories for hazardous waste. A total of 21 major waste categories and 49 sub-categories are defined. Fourteen hazardous waste types are reported on the SAWIS for the Eastern Cape. These waste types and their contribution in percentage to the hazardous waste stream reported on the SAWIS are presented below. It should be noted that three waste streams have not been included in the graph due to them contributing a very low percentage to the total volume of hazardous waste. These are HW 02 (02) mercury containing solid waste (0.0018%), HW 18 (03) waste of electric and electronic equipment, office information and communication equipment (0.0041%) and HW 99 (01) miscellaneous (0.02385%). The category of hazardous waste is reported on the SAWIS. As can be seen from the figure below the majority of hazardous waste being treated, recycled and disposed of in the Eastern Cape consists of liquid and sludge inorganic waste (25.3%) and solid inorganic waste (23.8%).

Figure 3: Composition of the hazardous waste stream for the Eastern Cape as reported for 2016 on the SAWIS (data accessed on 06/03/2017)



5.3 Hazardous Waste Recycling

Recycling of hazardous waste is relatively limited in the province, likely due to the costs

involved in the processes required, the low quantities of waste involved, and the low demand

for the recycled product. Only two hazardous waste recycling facilities have permits logged

on the SAWIS:

FIS used oil recycling facility in Coega IDZ, NMBM

Safe Drum Trust Containers Reconditioning Facility – reconditioning on drums for re-use.

5.4 Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities

Hazardous waste treatment can be categorised according to the method used; physical,

chemical or biological. Often waste is subjected to a combination of these methods for

effective and safe disposal. Due to the complexities and costs involved, pre-disposal

treatment is not common place in the Province. Some on-site treatment occurs at source

and some treatment activities are undertaken at Aloes II. A few waste treatment facilities

are listed on the South African Waste Information System. Where information is available on

the status of these facilities it has been included in the table below. Waste water treatment

works have not been included in this list.

Table 2: Summary of waste treatment facilities in the Eastern Cape (information sourced from SAWIC)

Facility name Location Type of facility Date

permitted Comments

Compass Waste

Autoclave

Berlin, East

London

Autoclave

(2x Bondtech

Autoclaves)

2014 The facility has a capacity

of 35,000 kg per day.

Aloes II NMBM Treatment of

hazardous waste

2013

Hazardous waste treatment can be categorised according to the method used; physical,

chemical or biological. Often waste is subjected to a combination of these methods for

effective and safe disposal. Due to the complexities and costs involved, pre-disposal

treatment is not common place in the Province. Some on-site treatment occurs at source

and some treatment activities are undertaken at Aloes II.

Much physical treatment of hazardous waste, such as dewatering, is undertaken within

production processes however commercial physical treatment facilities do exist in the

Province. These include an autoclave at Berlin near East London where HCRW is treated.

Although there are currently no commercially operating, licensed incinerators in the

Province, there are a number of unlicensed incinerators in the Province. These include some

crematoriums, abattoir and medical waste incinerators.



5.4.1 Proposed Hazardous Waste Facilities – HCRW Incinerators

(a) Health Care Risk Waste Incinerator – Coega IDZ

The company Uloyiso Group Medical Waste is proposing to construct a HCRW incinerator in

the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) in the NMBM. An application for a waste

management license (WML) and air emissions license (AEL) commenced in 2016. The

proposed incinerator is a Macroburn 500c incinerator. The incinerator has the capacity to

process 350kg/hour of medical waste (RHDHV, 2016).

5.4.2 Associated technologies - Biodigesters

The National Norms and Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill (GN 636 of 2013)

prohibits the disposal of infectious animal carcasses and animal waste from being disposed of

at landfill. An alternative to the landfill disposal of animal waste (manure) and carcasses is

treatment in a biodigester and biogas plant. A biogas plant uses anaerobic digestion to

generate gas. This gas can then be burnt in an engine to generate electricity or used as an

alternative to diesel. Biodigesters reduce the volume of solid waste and reduces pathogens,

worm eggs and flies. Biodigesters also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and odours. The

nutrient content of the manure from the biodigester is not greatly reduced and it can be

applied to farm land as a fertiliser. Anaerobic digestion typically reduces the mass of solid

waste by 75%. The volume of water in the waste is however not reduced.

Figure 4: Inputs and outputs of a biodigester (source DEA, undated)

The Peninsular Piggery in Queenstown has a biogas plant which receives 35 tonnes a day of

pig manure. The biogas plant generates 190kW of energy per day, which is used to power the

farm. The facility was installed for an estimated cost of R 6.3 million (ibert, 2017).

Figure 5: Peninsular Piggery bio-digester (source ibert, 2017)



The outputs of a biogas facility are biogas (which can be converted into electricity or fuel),

heat and fertilizer. The quality of gas produced by a biogas plant is directly linked to the

quality of the feedstock.

5.5 Hazardous Waste Disposal

Two hazardous landfill sites exist in the Province, namely Aloes II in Port Elizabeth and

Koedoeskloof in Uitenhage. The Aloes II landfill is permitted as a high hazardous (H:H) landfill

site operated by the private sector. The site accepts a wide variety of wastes, mainly from

within the Province, but also a small amount beyond the Province’s boundaries.

Construction on an extension of Aloes landfill site was commenced in 2013 and completed in

early 2014. The extension was commissioned in 2014 (Jones & Wagener, 2014). The

extension extended the lifespan of Aloes II to 21 years (Enviroserv, 2014).

The Koedoeskloof landfill site in Uitenhage is owned and operated by the Nelson Mandela

Bay Municipality (NMBM). The Koedoeskloof landfill site consists of a general waste landfill

site and an oil containment pond, which can accept certain liquid hazardous waste.

Table 3: Summary of hazardous waste disposal sites in the Eastern Cape (data sourced from NMBM 2016 IWMP review)

Site name Class Operator Comments Location

Koedoeskloof landfill site

H:h Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Only accepts liquid hazardous waste.

NMBM

Aloes II landfill site (extension)

H:H EnviroServ Waste Management

NMBM

Hazardous waste disposal tonnages for the Kodoeskloof landfill site have shown a decreasing

trend year on year. The waste disposal tonnage was 8,275 tonnes in 2010 and decreased to

3,812 tonnes in 2014.

Table 4: Quantities (tons/year) of hazardous waste disposed of at Koedoeskloof (data sourced from NMBM IWMP, 2016)

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Hazardous waste (tons) 8,275 7,644 5,382 5,622 3,812

Hazardous waste disposal tonnages at the Aloes landfill site are significantly higher than those at Koedoeskloof. For the period 2013 -2014, 79,967 tonnes of waste were disposed of at the site. A breakdown of the waste categories is presented below.



Table 5: Quantities (tons/year) of waste disposed of at Aloes for the period April 2013 – March 2014 (data sourced from NMBM IWMP, 2016)

Waste category Tons

Industrial 5,962

Liquid 6,533

Liquid sludge 17,446

Solid (hazardous) 43,385

Drums 867

Cover/ ash 5,774

Total 79,967

Approximately 662 tonnes of waste per month (7,944 tonnes/year) is currently (2017) transported from East London for disposal at private facilities in NMBM. The waste received from East London comprises the following: Table 6: Estimated breakdown of hazardous waste from the East London area disposed of in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Waste category/ industry type Tons/month

Health care and pharmaceutical 480

Food processing 40

Wood/ paper 10

Construction 20

E-waste 5

Oily waste 70

Thermal process waste 25

Textile/ leather 10

Solvents 2

Total 683

The majority of waste disposed of at privately owned facilities is generated by the health care and pharmaceutical industries. According to the SAWIS, the majority of hazardous waste generated in 2016 in the Eastern Cape was disposed of in the NMBM area (84.6%). The remaining 15.4% is treated in the BCMM.



Figure 6: Overview of hazardous waste management in the Eastern Cape

5.6 Health Care Risk Waste Management

Health care risk waste (HCRW) generated by Government health care facilities in the Eastern Cape is managed through the Eastern Cape Department of Health (ECDoH). The ECDoH has two contracts in place for the management of HCRW. The first is for the collection of HCRW from clinics and community health centres. The second contract is for the supply of consumables and the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of HCRW from hospitals (DoH, 2015). The estimated expenditure of the ECDoH on HCRW management for the 2015/16 financial year was R 35,822,000 and the 2016/17 budget is R 37,614,000 (ECDoH, undated). The ECDoH was contacted to obtain records of HCRW generated in the Eastern Cape. The data provided is presented below. The total volume of HCRW generated in the Eastern Cape has remained fairly constant over the period 2013 – 2015. These records are for government health institutions and exclude private facilities.

Table 7: Summary of HCRW generated in the Eastern Cape (tonnes) for government health care facilities (data supplied by ECDoH)

Waste type

Year

2013 2014 2015

Infectious non-anatomical 2,387.763 2,399.743 2,412.754

Anatomical waste 114.656 112.575 108.61

Sharps waste 220.539 231.847 235.333

Pharmaceutical waste 73.38 85.69 67.805

Total 4,809.338 4,843.855 4,839.502

To calculate the volume of HCRW generated within the study area the average volume of each waste category generated per person was calculated. The population of the catchment area was determined based on StatsSA data and volume of waste in tonnes for the study area was then calculated. The results are shown below. Note that these records are for government health institutions and exclude private facilities. Data for private health facilities was not available.

84.6

15.4

Management of hazardous waste in the Eastern Cape (%)

Disposal

Treatment



Table 8: Estimate of HCRW generated in the study area (tonnes) for 2015

Waste Type Amount generated per person (tonnes)

Estimated population

Total (tonnes)

Infectious non-anatomical 0.00034480

379,2455

1307.62

Anatomical waste 0.00001552 58.86

Sharps waste 0.00003363 127.55

Pharmaceutical waste 0.00000969 36.75

Total 0.00034480 1,530.80

5.7 Hazardous Waste Management Costs

5.7.1 Hazardous Waste Transportation Costs

The table below presents the anticipated transportation costs associated with moving

hazardous waste from the BCMM area to the existing privately owned facilities in NMBM.

Table 9: Estimate of HCRW transportation costs

Source Tonnage Volume (m3)

Volume per load (m3)

Loads Distance (km)

Cost (R) / km

Total (R )

SAWIC 17314 34628 10 3462.84 300 23.8 R 24 724 677

SAWIC 17314 34628 10 3462.84 300 28.9 R 30 022 822

Waste management companies 7944 15888 10 1588.8 300 23.8 R 11 344 032

Waste management companies 7944 15888 10 1588.8 300 28.9 R 13 774 896

GIBB excl. sewage 4488 8976 10 897.6 300 23.8 R 6 408 864

GIBB excl. sewage 4488 8976 10 897.6 300 28.9 R 7 782 192

GIBB incl. sewage

62706 125412 10 12541.2 300 23.8 R89 544 353

GIBB incl. sewage

62706 125412 10 12541.2 300 28.9 R 108 732 429

The following should be noted regarding the table:

There is a significant discrepancy between the tonnage data from the different data

sets. The SAWIC data shows hazardous waste generated in the BCMM. This is

significantly higher than the estimate for hazardous waste being transported from

BCMM to private facilities in NMBM sourced from waste management companies. The

data from the GIBB survey is lower than the SAWIC estimate and the waste

management companies’ estimates. During the hazardous waste survey GIBB

experiences difficulties in obtaining accurate data from industry and not all industries

were willing to participate in the survey. These are likely to have contributed to the

lower waste tonnages calculated through the survey.



Transportation costs were calculated based on transportation to the closest hazardous

waste treatment and disposal facility which is located in Port Elizabeth.

The transportation costs for hazardous waste will depend on the volumes of hazardous

waste generated and may be lower per tonne where economies of scale are achieved.

A conversion factor of 0.5 t/m3 was applied to calculate the volumes of hazardous

waste generated in the BCMM area. Hazardous waste generated in BCMM is mixed

waste stream which includes liquid (oils, solvents, paints) and solid elements (chemical

containers, materials contaminated with hazardous liquids). An average of 10m3 per

load is presumed.

Based on the above calculations, the cost to transport waste varies significantly depending on the source information, however all the costs are significant. Furthermore, during interviews with large industry it was noted that some companies are transporting their waste to Germiston in Gauteng for disposal in cement kilns as refuse derived fuel. This is to meet their goal to achieve zero waste to landfill. The transportations costs from BCMM to Gauteng are significantly higher than what has been presented above. These costs represent a potential saving for the industry in the study area if a local treatment facility existed.

5.7.2 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Tariffs

The NMBM charges for the disposal of hazardous waste at its facilities. The following tariffs

were applicable for 2017 – 2018.

Table 10: NMBM waste disposal tariffs per tonne (including VAT) for hazardous waste at Koeddoeskloof (2017/18 )

Waste type Under 7m3

load Exceeding 7m3

load

Hazardous waste no treatment required

R 514.67 R 514.67

Hazardous waste treatment required

As per quotation As per quotation

Surcharges

Tip charges per vehicles/ load R 2,912.47 R 4,160.65

Hazardous waste from outside Uitenhage/ Despatch

X5 tariff X 5 tariff

After hours disposal X6 tariff X 6 tariff

According to a report titled ‘South African waste sector 2012: An analysis of the formal

private and public waste sectors in South Africa, Phase 1 status quo’ commissioned by the

Department of Science and Technology the rate of disposal of hazardous waste at landfill

ranges from R 600 – R 800 per tonne. The study notes that disposal costs vary considerably

according to waste type, disposal option and the particular disposal site used.

The Hazardous Waste Management Plan for North West Province (28 June 2007) presents

the following rates for hazardous waste disposal and transportations.



Holfontein landfill site: R180 – R 700/ tonnes of solid and liquid hazardous waste,

R 2,200/ drum for encapsulation.

Transportation cost for hazardous waste from Rustenburg to Holfontein varies from R14

– R 17/km or R 5,200 – R 6,300 per load.

Treatment costs for thermal destruction of hazardous waste in Gauteng range from

R 3,000 – R 20,000/ tonne depending on handling requirements, composition of waste

etc.

There are no published transportation costs for hazardous waste in the Eastern Cape. It has

been assumed that transportation costs in the Eastern Cape also range from R14 - 17/km/m3.

The study is now 10 years old. At CPI-linked inflation, these costs in present terms would be

R 23.8 – R 28.9/km/m3.

5.7.3 Health Care Risk Waste Management Costs

A study by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT, now the

Department of Environmental Affairs) in 2008 determined the viable costs for incineration

and autoclaving of HCRW. The cost of autoclaving was R2.70 – R3.06/kg. Incineration was

more expensive at R3.69 – R 4.58/kg (DEAT, 2008). When factoring in collection, disposal,

marketing and training the rates further increased.

Incineration: R5.0 – R8.50/kg

Autoclaving: R4.0 – R7.5/kg

An earlier study by DEAT (2000) estimated the cost of incineration of HCRW, excluding transportation, at R1.55/kg and the cost including transportation was calculated at R3.00/kg. The figures for both studies are out of date. Annual CPI from the study period to 2017 was applied to the figures from both studies to determine the present day costs below. Table 11: Health care risk waste treatment costs

Treatment type 2000 figures (extrapolated to 2017) cost/ tonne

2008 figures (extrapolated to 2017) cost/ tonne

Incineration no transport R 3,898.55 R 6,282.21 – R 7,797.43

Incineration with transport R 7,721.21 R 8,512.48 – R 14,471.21

Autoclaving no transport - R 4,596.74 – R 5,209.64

Autoclaving with transport - R 6,809.98 – R 12,768.72

The 2008 study calculated the viable cost based on collection, transportation, treatment, training and marketing. It could not be determined if the 2000 study took all of these factors into consideration or just factored in the transportation and treatment costs. Estimated costs for incineration are provided in section 8 of this report.



6 Hazardous Waste Survey

As part of this study GIBB undertook a hazardous waste survey to try and confirm the need for hazardous waste management services in the eastern side of the province.

6.1 Methodology

6.1.1 Development of Organisation Survey List

A list of organisations in the study area that should be surveyed, was developed. The list was

developed using the follow methods:

1. Visiting the Border Kei Chamber of Business (BKCOB) website and reviewing the

member directory

2. Visiting the East London Industrial Development Zone (EL IDZ) website and reviewing

the tenant list

3. Reviewing a list of companies registered in on the SAWIS

4. Using local knowledge of the GIBB team operating within the study area.

Each of the identified organisations was contacted to source contact details for the person

responsible for waste management.

6.1.2 Development of an Online Hazardous Waste Survey

An online hazardous waste survey was developed and uploaded to surveymonkey. The

survey consisted of five sections as presented below.

1. Introduction – a brief overview of the purpose of the survey

2. Company details, contact details, status with regard to the SAWIS etc.

3. Industrial activities

4. Waste details, types and quantities of waste generated

5. Additional details – an open question to allow the respondent to add additional

details if required.

6.1.3 Waste Categories

The waste categories as defined in the National Waste Information Regulations (R 625 of

2012) were used to guide organisations to complete the online survey. The National Waste

Information Regulations define the following waste categories.

Table 12: Hazardous waste categories used for the survey (source National Waste Information Regulations)

Major Waste type produced Specific Waste type produced

HW 01 Gaseous Waste 1 Gases (excluding Greenhouse gases)

2 Obsolete ozone depleting gases

HW 02 Mercury containing waste Liquid waste containing mercury

Solid waste containing mercury

HW 03 Batteries Lead

Mercury

NiCd

Manganese dioxide and alkali

Lithium



Major Waste type produced Specific Waste type produced

Lithium ion

Nickel-metal hydride batteries

Mixed batteries

HW 04 POP Waste PCB containing waste (>50mg/kg)

Other POP-containing waste

HW 05 Inorganic Waste Liquid and sludge inorganic waste

Solid inorganic waste

Spent pot lining (inorganic)

HW 06 Asbestos containing waste Asbestos containing waste

HW 07 Waste oils Waste oil

HW 08 Organic halogenated and /or sulphur containing solvents

Organic halogenated and /or sulphur containing solvents: Solvents containing halogens and/or sulphur

HW 09 Organic halogenated and/or sulphur containing waste

Liquids and sludge containing halogens

Solids containing halogens and/or sulphur

HW 10 Organic solvents without halogens and sulphur

Solvents without halogens and sulphur

HW 11 Other organic waste without halogen or sulphur

Liquid and sludge organic waste

Solid organic waste

Spent pot lining (organic)

HW 12 Tarry and Bituminous waste Tarry waste

Bituminous waste

HW 13 Brine Brine

HW 14 Fly ash and dust from miscellaneous filter Fly ash

HW 15 Bottom ash Bottom ash

HW 16 Slag Slag: Ferrous metal slag

Slag: Non-ferrous metal slag

Slag: Other

HW 17 Mineral waste Foundry sand

Refractory waste

Mineral waste: Other

HW 18 Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

Large household appliances

Small household appliances

Office, information and communication equipment

Entertainment and consumer electronics and toys, leisure, sports and recreational equipment and automatic issuing machine

Lighting equipment

Electric and electronic tools

Security and health care equipment

Mixed WEEE

HW 19 Health care risk waste Pathological waste

Infectious waste and sharps

Chemical waste

HW 20 Sewage sludge Sewage sludge

HW 99 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

6.1.4 Industry Type

Industries were classified based on waste types produced. The following list of industry types

were used to classify respondents. It was anticipated that some industries may fall into more

than one category. For example the automotive industry could fall into category 9 (use of

paints and sealants), category 12 (oil wastes) and category 18 (rejected electrical waste from

vehicles, office e-waste etc.).



Table 13: Industry categories used in the survey

No. Industry type

1 Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting and fishing, food preparation and processing

2 Wood processing / production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard

3 Leather, fur and textile industries

4 Petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal

5 Inorganic chemical processes

6 Organic chemical processes

7 Thermal processes, power stations and other combustion plants, iron and steel industry, thermal metallurgy, manufacture of cement, lime, plastic bricks and ceramic goods

8 Photographic industry

9 Manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints, varnishes and vitreous enamels), adhesives, sealants and printing inks

10 Chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials; non-ferrous hydrometallurgy

11 Shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics

12 Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels e.g. hydraulic oils, engine and gear lubricating oils, waste insulating and transmission oils, oil/ water separator contents (except edible oils)

13 Organic solvents, refrigerants and propellants

14 Construction wastes

15 Human or animal health care and/or related research (except kitchen and restaurant wastes not arising from immediate health care)

16 Wastes from waste management facilities

17 Exploration, mining, quarrying, and physical and chemical treatment of minerals

18 Electronic waste (e-waste).

6.1.5 Distribution of the Survey

The survey was distributed to the BKCOB database (1298) and an additional 8 companies

which were identified as potential producers of hazardous waste. The survey was sent out via

email by the BKCOB on 11 April 2017. Companies were given 10 days to respond to the

survey.

6.1.6 Hazardous Waste Profile

Companies and industry which were not surveyed but which were identified as potential

hazardous waste generators were included in the hazardous waste generator database. The

hazardous waste stream and volume of such industries were estimated based on survey

data.

Sewage sludge and health care risk quantities were calculated based on the estimated

population of the study area. Health care risk waste generation rates are detailed in Section

5.6 of this report.

(a) Sewage Sludge

As part of the survey a number of local municipalities were contacted to determine the volume of sewage sludge generated by their waste water treatment works (WWTW). None of the municipalities were able to provide data on tonnages of sludge generated. Data was however received for the screenings generated at four WWTWs.



Table 14: Inlet works screenings generated at WWTWs

Facility name Volume of screenings (kg/ month) Population of town Kg/person/ month

Fort Beaufort 8000 25668 0.31

Adelaide 5000 12191 0.41

Stutterheim 5000 46730 0.11

Butterworth 15000 287780 0.05

Average 0.22

The average kilogram of inlet works screenings generated is 0.22kg/person/ month according or 2.64kg/ person/ year. The 2012 National Waste Information Baseline Report by Department of Environmental Affairs provided a figure for the volume of sewage sludge generated in South Africa. When this figure was divided by the population (2011) the annual sewage sludge generation per person was 26kg per year. The total sewage sludge and screenings generated per person annually was therefore estimated at 28.6kg per year. In the Eastern Cape only 53.6% of households would generate sewage sludge that would be processed at formal WWTWs. This 53.6% is composed of household which are serviced through toilets connected to the sewerage system (44.4%), toilets connected to a septic system (2.3%), chemical toilets (5.6%) and households using a bucket system which is collected by the municipality (1.3%) (Stats SA, 2017). Based on a population of 3,792,455 persons of which only 53.6% would be generating sewage sludge (2,032,756), approximately 58,218 tonnes of sewage sludge and screenings are generated in the region annually. It must be noted that the figures used to calculate sewage sludge generation are estimates and that the volume of sewage sludge generated per person depends largely on the type of technology used at the WWTWs and the composition of the waste water in the area. At present sewage sludge is not being correctly disposed of. The majority of municipalities are stockpiling sludge on site, burning it or disposing of it at general waste landfill sites.

It is highly unlikely that if a hazardous waste treatment facility were opened in East London

that all the sewage sludge would be disposed of at the facility as the costs for transportation

would make this option unfeasible. For the purposes of this study sewage sludge has

therefore not been considered further.

6.1.7 Limitations

The following limitations were noted during the survey:

Some companies approached were unwilling to participate in the survey

A number of companies are co-disposing of hazardous waste with general waste,

they therefore do not have separate records for hazardous waste

A number of companies surveyed do not keep hazardous waste records and so were

only able to give an estimate the volume of hazardous waste generated



The units in which hazardous waste was reported varied significantly, and included

kilograms, tonnes, volumes, litres and units (e.g. the number of oil filters produced or

the number of 210l drums full of hazardous waste)

Some companies have only one hazardous waste bin or skip and all hazardous waste

is disposed of into the skip. It is not possible to determine the quantities of the

different types of waste in such cases.

Companies were not able to classify waste or provide calorific values or moisture

content.

6.2 Results

6.2.1 Online Survey

There was low a response rate to the online survey. The survey request was sent out to 1,298

companies and only 16 responses were received. The data received was reviewed and the

following was noted:

Three incomplete surveys were received

One company responded to the survey twice

One respondent does not produce hazardous waste

Reporting of waste quantities was inconsistent; some organisations reports in terms

of litres of waste, boxes of waste and cubic meters of waste.

6.2.2 Interviews

A total of 36 telephonic and face-to-face interviews were undertaken with business and

industry in the study area. The interviews served to collect data and to validate data

collected through the online survey.

6.2.3 Classification of Respondents

The table below presents the industry types for those companies that responded. It includes

both online surveys and interviews undertaken.

Table 15: Overview of respondents by industry type (NOTE, some companies represent more than one industry type)

Industry type No. responses

Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting and fishing, food preparation and processing

3

Wood processing / production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard 1

Leather, fur and textile industries 1

Petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal 0

Inorganic chemical processes 0

Organic chemical processes 1

Thermal processes, power stations and other combustion plants, iron and steel industry, thermal metallurgy, manufacture of cement, lime, plastic bricks and ceramic goods

1

Photographic industry 0

Manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints, varnishes and vitreous enamels), adhesives, sealants and printing inks

5



Industry type No. responses

Chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials; non-ferrous hydrometallurgy

2

Shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics 0

Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels e.g. hydraulic oils, engine and gear lubricating oils, waste insulating and transmission oils, oil/ water separator contents (except edible oils)

23

Organic solvents, refrigerants and propellants 1

Construction wastes 1

Human or animal health care and/or related research (except kitchen and restaurant wastes not arising from immediate health care)

4

Wastes from waste management facilities 3

Exploration, mining, quarrying, and physical and chemical treatment of minerals 0

Electronic waste (e-waste). 5

Other: Pest control, pharmaceutical manufacturing, Hospitality industry 8

6.2.4 Categories of Waste Generated

Table 16: Overview of waste types produced by respondents (Note, some companies produce more than one type of hazardous waste)

Major Waste type produced Specific Waste type produced No. companies producing waste type

HW 01 Gaseous Waste 1 Gases (excluding Greenhouse gases) 0

2 Obsolete ozone depleting gases 0

HW 02 Mercury containing waste Liquid waste containing mercury 0

Solid waste containing mercury 9

HW 03 Batteries Lead 1

Mercury 0

NiCd 0

Manganese dioxide and alkali 0

Lithium 0

Lithium ion 0

Nickel-metal hydride batteries 0

Mixed batteries 0

HW 04 POP Waste PCB containing waste (>50mg/kg) 0

Other POP-containing waste 0

HW 05 Inorganic Waste Liquid and sludge inorganic waste 7

Solid inorganic waste 11

Spent pot lining (inorganic) 0

HW 06 Asbestos containing waste Asbestos containing waste 1

HW 07 Waste oils Waste oil




Liquids and sludges containing halogens





Liquid and sludge organic waste

Solid organic waste


HW 12 Tarry and Bituminous waste Tarry waste

Bituminous waste

HW 13 Brine Brine

HW 14 Fly ash and dust from Fly ash



Major Waste type produced Specific Waste type produced No. companies producing waste type

miscellaneous filter




Slag: Other


Refractory waste

Mineral waste: Other



Small household appliances



Lighting equipment



Mixed WEEE

HW 19 Health care risk waste Pathological waste

Infectious waste and sharps

Chemical waste

HW 20 Sewage sludge Sewage sludge

HW 99 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

6.2.5 Volumes of Waste Generated

The majority of organisations surveyed did not hold comprehensive hazardous waste

records. Many interviewees could only provide information on the volume of waste

produced, such as the number of drums or waste or skips of waste generated. In order to

analyse this data it has to be converted into mass. There is a lack of comprehensive South

African waste conversion standards. The Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP)

2014 waste conversion factors were used to convert volumes of waste into mass. The

following conversion factors were used for this study.

Table 17: Waste conversion factor, source from WRAP, 2014

Waste type Conversion factor (tonnes/ m3)

Waste paint and varnish containing organic solvents 0.57

Sludge from paint or varnish containing organic solvents or other dangerous substances

0.90

Readily biodegradable hydraulic oils 0.9

Other hydraulic oils 0.9

Oil from oil/water separators 0.9

Fuel oil and diesel 0.9

Other halogenated solvents and solvent mixtures 0.90

Other solvents and solvent mixtures 0.65

Sludge or solid wastes containing halogenated solvents 0.90

Sludge or solid wastes containing other solvents 0.90



Waste type Conversion factor (tonnes/ m3)

Absorbents, filter materials , wiping cloths, protective clothing contaminated by dangerous substances 0.42

Oil filters 0.19

Lead batteries 1.35

Wastes containing oils 0.19

Aqueous liquid waste containing hazardous substances 0.9

Fluorescent tubes and mercury containing waste 0.19

Packaging containing residues of or contaminated by dangerous substances

0.21

Table 18: Overview of quantity of waste produced annually in the study area

Major Waste type produced

Specific Waste type produced Total kilograms for study area

Total tonnes for study area

HW 01 Gaseous Waste

1 Gases (excluding Greenhouse gases)

2 Obsolete ozone depleting gases

HW 02 Mercury containing waste

Liquid waste containing mercury

Solid waste containing mercury 2386.20 2.3862

HW 03 Batteries Lead 13740.00 13.74

Mercury

NiCd

Manganese dioxide and alkali

Lithium

Lithium ion

Nickel-metal hydride batteries

Mixed batteries

HW 04 POP Waste PCB containing waste (>50mg/kg)

Other POP-containing waste

HW 05 Inorganic Waste

Liquid and sludge inorganic waste 844966.00 844.966

Solid inorganic waste 254516.00 254.516

Spent pot lining (inorganic)

HW 06 Asbestos containing waste

Asbestos containing waste 99.60 0.0996

HW 07 Waste oils Waste oil 540236.00 540.236




Liquids and sludges containing halogens




116640.00 116.64


Liquid and sludge organic waste 15399.60 15.3996

Solid organic waste 325769.40 325.78


HW 12 Tarry and Bituminous waste

Tarry waste

Bituminous waste

HW 13 Brine Brine



Major Waste type produced

Specific Waste type produced Total kilograms for study area

Total tonnes for study area

HW 14 Fly ash and dust from miscellaneous filter

Fly ash




Slag: Other


Refractory waste

Mineral waste: Other 2400.00 2.4



Small household appliances 6.00 0.006


12.00 0.012


Lighting equipment



Mixed WEEE 24348.00 24.348

HW 19 Health care risk waste

Pathological waste 58868.08 58.86808

Infectious waste and sharps 1487490.00 1487.49

Chemical waste 412521.24 412.52124

HCRW - unspecified 43291.40 43.2914

HW 20 Sewage sludge

Sewage sludge

HW 99 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 345744.00 345.744

TOTAL 4488373.50 4488.3735

The table below presents the waste generation estimates from different sources. It is noted that these differ significantly. A realistic estimation is likely to be closest to the data set provided by private waste management companies datasets, and hence is estimated to be in the range of 8,000+ tonnes/year for the region. Table 19: Volume of hazardous waste generated in the study area according to different info sources

6.3 Current Waste Management Practices

The majority of large companies surveyed use an external waste service provider to manage their hazardous waste. A ‘zero waste to landfill’ approach is becoming more common with large multinational and international companies. Interwaste Environmental Services are collecting hazardous waste from such companies in East London and transporting the waste

Source Tonnage per year

SAWIC 17,314

Waste management companies 7,944

GIBB excl. sewage 4,488

GIBB incl. sewage 62,706



to their blending platform in Germiston. The waste received at the facility is used in the pre-calcination process at cement kilns (Johns et. al, 2014). The surveys highlighted that a number of medium and smaller sized companies co-dispose general and hazardous waste. This waste will almost certainly end up in a general waste landfill site.

6.3.1 Used Oil Management

Through interviews with small motor mechanics in Butterworth it was noted that used motor oil was previously collected by an oil recycler in the area. This system arrangement seems to have stopped and some mechanics are now disposing of used oil into the stormwater system. This is a major concern due to the potential for oil to contaminate water. Oilkol also collects used mechanical oil and transports it to East London Bricks for use in their brick manufacturing process. Used vegetable oil is collected from generators in the Eastern Cape by Biofusion and converted into biofuel.

7 Hazardous Waste Disposal and Treatment Options

7.1 Disposal Options

The disposal of hazardous waste is governed by two key pieces of legislation. The first is the National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal (GN 635 of 2013). These norms and standards specify the procedure required to classify waste for landfill site disposal. Waste must be assessed in terms of total concentration and leachable concentrations of a set list of elements and chemical substances. Based on the results of this analysis waste is classified a Type 0 – Type 4 waste. The second is the National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (GN 636 of 2013). These norms and standards specify the disposal method for wastes based on their type. The following disposal requirements are allocated to each waste type: Table 20: Disposal requirements of different waste types

Waste type Landfill site disposal requirements

Type 0 Disposal of type 0 waste is not permitted at landfill. This waste must be treated and then re-assessed.

Type 1 May only be disposed of at a class A landfill site or at a Hh/ HH landfill site where the design of the operational cell has been approved by the competent authority.

Type 2 May only be disposed of at a class B landfill site or a GLB+ site where the design of the operational cell has been approved by the competent authority.

Type 3 May only be disposed of at a class C landfill site or a GLB+ site where the design of the operational cell has been approved by the competent authority.

Type 4 May only be disposed of at a class C landfill site or a GLB- site where the design of the operational cell has been approved by the competent authority.

Hazardous waste can only be disposed of at a type 1 or type 2 landfill site. A Class A landfill site can accept hazardous waste with a hazard rating or 1 or 2; a Class B landfill site can only accept waste with a hazard rating of 3 or 4.



It is recommended that if landfilling is to be pursued, a Class A landfill site should be considered as it will be able to accept a wider range of different types of hazardous waste. The norms and standards include a list of waste types which are prohibited from being disposed of at landfill. Of key significance to this study are the following waste streams: Table 21: Waste Restricted or Prohibited in terms of disposal. The timeframe indicates when the prohibition of the different wastes would commence (in years since 2013)

Waste type Compliance timeframe

Waste which in the conditions of a landfill, is explosive, corrosive, oxidising Immediate

Waste with a pH value of <6 or >12 Immediate

Flammable waste with a closed cup flash point of lower than 61oC Immediate

Reactive waste that may react with water, air, acids or compounds, or that could generate unacceptable amounts of toxic gases

Immediate

Waste compressed gases Immediate Untreated health care risk waste Immediate (i) POPs pesticides listed under the Stockholm Convention (ii) other waste pesticides

8 years, 4 years

Lead batteries Immediate

Other batteries 8 years

Re-useable, recoverable or recyclable used lubricating mineral oils, as well as oil filter, excluding oil containing wastes

4 years

Re-usuable, recoverable or recyclable used or spent solvents 5 years

PCB containing waste (>50mg/kg or 50 ppm) 5 years

Hazardous e-waste - lamps 3 years

Hazardous e-waste - other 8 years

Hazardous waste with a calorific value of >25MJ/kg 4 years



Hazardous waste with >6% TOC 15 years

Infectious animal carcasses and animal waste Immediate

The design requirements for a Class A landfill site are detailed in the National Norms and

Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill. A hazardous waste landfill site needs to be

designed with a Class A liner as shown below.



Figure 7: Class A liner (source, National Norms and Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill)

The norms and standards also list design requirements for landfill sites, which include a design report and drawings being signed off by a registered professional engineer and calculation of total solute seepage in addition to others.

7.2 Treatment Options

The following information regarding treatment options has been gathered through the review of case studies.

7.2.1 Autoclaving

Treatment Method : An autoclave is a specialized piece of equipment designed to deliver steam generated heat under pressure to a sealed chamber, with the goal of decontaminating or sterilizing its contents. Autoclaves are mainly used to disinfect medical and biohazardous waste. An autoclave uses pressurized steam to decontaminate infectious waste. Laboratory autoclaves normally operate at a temperature of 121° C, a pressure of 15 pounds per square inch (psi), and a minimum cycle time of 60 minutes. The effectiveness of an autoclave depends on the time, temperature and direct steam contact with infectious agents. Other factors that influence treatment efficiency include waste destiny, physical state, size, and organic content.

Compatible waste streams: • Cultures and stocks of infectious agents, consumables

used in the manipulation of said cultures,

• Recombinant DNA (rDNA),

Outputs: • Ash and non-combustible solids • Particulate matter, salts, and some metals • Sulphur dioxide, acids • Dioxins, furans, and mercury



• Human and infectious animal tissue waste,

• Cages and bedding of potentially infected animals, and

reusable lab ware.

Incompatible waste streams: Items contaminated with solvents, volatile or corrosive chemicals, radioactive materials, or items containing carcinogens, mutagens or teratogens, toxic chemicals, radioisotopes. In general, do not autoclave flammable, reactive, corrosive, toxic or radioactive materials.

• Nitrogen oxides.

Capacity and Energy recovery: Capacity ranges from 40L to 700L. The common size of a medical autoclave used in South Africa is 350L, which can process 350 kg per hour. Steam recovery technology is being developed to recover energy from the system but the majority of existing facilities do not recover energy from the system.

Benefits:: • Bach processing of waste is relatively quick,

approximately 60 minutes. • Desterilizes medical waste • Low operational cost treatment as relative to

incineration • Low risk of air pollution • Easier to find a suitable location to establish new

facilities

Weaknesses/ Obstacles:

Cannot accept a wide variety of hazardous wastes types

Only reduces the bulk size of waste by approx. 5 %.

Higher transport costs for waste as relative to incineration.

High use of landfill space as relative to incineration.

Limited energy recovery

Capital Costs: Capital costs can range from R600,000 to R1 billion depending on the size of the facility.

Operational Costs: In the region of R80,000 per year. In 2008, a feasibility study for autoclaves in South Africa calculated that the current cost of processing HCRW waste was R10 per kg including transportation and other operational costs.

Income avenues: • Gate fees

Authorisations required:

NEMWA waste activity License

NEMA Environmental Authorisation

Case Studies In 2008, the Department of Health funded a study on the Generation Rates, Treatment Capacity and Minimal Costs of Health Care Waste in the South Africa. The report indicated that a total of 11 autoclave facilities would be operational by 2009. The report made several important recommendations including “wherever possible, to be treated at HCRW treatment facilities closest to the respective sources. The long distances over which HCRW is currently transported not only results in unnecessary money being spent that can be shared between the interfacing HCRW collection and HCRW treatment contractors, but it also presents environmental as well as health and safety risks associated with long distance transport of HCRW. Provincial Departments of Environment are to be assisted by DEA to ensure that each province has access to at least one hazardous waste disposal facility / cell that is designed, constructed and operated according to Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Where there is no financial incentive for the private sector to venture into projects for areas that may be financially risky due to a lack of economies of scale, it may once again create a need for DEAT to enter into PPP’s with the waste disposal contractors from the private sector for the development and operation of such facilities, on the same basis as for the supply of additional HCRW treatment facilities.”

References: Otto K, Clements J. 2008. Survey of Generation Rates, Treatment Capacities and Minimal Costs of Health Care Waste in the 9 provinces of RSA. Available online at http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/1067.PDF. Accessed on 11 May 2017. UMassAmherst. 2017. Environmental Health & Safety: Autoclave Waste Fact Sheet. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Available online at https://ehs.umass.edu/autoclave-waste-fact-sheet. Accessed on 11 May 2017. EHS Biosafety. 2017. Requirements for Decontaminating by Autoclaving. Available online at http://ehs.virginia.edu/biosafety/bio.documents/Autoclaving_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2017. UMassAmherst. 2014. Environmental Health & Safety: Autoclaving of Infectious Waste. Available online at http://www.ehrs.upenn.edu/programs/bio/waste/autoclaveing.html. Accessed on 11 My 2017.

http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/1067.PDF

https://ehs.umass.edu/autoclave-waste-fact-sheet

https://ehs.umass.edu/autoclave-waste-fact-sheet

http://ehs.virginia.edu/biosafety/bio.documents/Autoclaving_Guidelines.pdf

http://ehs.virginia.edu/biosafety/bio.documents/Autoclaving_Guidelines.pdf

http://www.ehrs.upenn.edu/programs/bio/waste/autoclaveing.html

http://www.ehrs.upenn.edu/programs/bio/waste/autoclaveing.html



7.2.2 Incineration

Treatment Method : Waste is tested for constituents and calorific value. Liquid wastes generally are pumped into the kiln through nozzles, which atomize the liquids into fine droplets for optimal combustion. Solid wastes may be fed into the kiln in bulk. Waste is burned at about 1,000 °C / 1800°F in a rotary kiln followed by a secondary chamber to ensure the material is completely combusted. Gas cooling and removal of toxic constituents is achieved through spray drying and wet scrubbing. Energy is recovered from the system by using steam to drive a turbine and produce electricity or by heat recovery.

Feedstock: Compatible waste streams:

Hospital waste

Industrial waste (solid, sludge, liquid etc.)

Domestic waste

Sludge from treatment stations

Slaughter house waste

Animal carcasses Incompatible waste streams: Radioactive materials, Class A or B explosives, shock-sensitive chemicals, gas or liquids under pressure, biologically infectious agents, wastes containing PCBs greater than 50 mg/kg, dioxins, or furans.

Outputs:

Ash and non-combustible solids

Particulate matter, salts, and some metals

Sulfur dioxide, acids

Dioxins, furans, and mercury

Nitrogen oxides. Capacity and Energy recovery: Destruction capacities range from 600 to 3000 kg / hour with a corresponding generation of thermal power from 2500 to 12000 kW per hour.

Benefits::

Reduces waste volumes up to 90%.

Mitigates land space, leachate, gas, odour, visual and scavenger impacts of landfills.

A 250 ton per day incinerator can produce up to 6.5MW of electricity per day

Reduces the volume of waste and so can save on transportation costs

Incinerators can accept a wide range of waste streams. If insufficient hazardous waste is available municipal waste can be processed at the incinerator


High capital and operational costs

Skilled labour required to operate facilities.

Smoke and ash emitted by the chimneys of incinerators include acid gases, nitrogen oxide, heavy metals, particulates, and dioxin, which is a carcinogen.

Mixed food waste has a high moisture content (40-70%) making it difficult to burn.

Incineration requires waste volumes to run and so discourages recycling and waste reduction, which are the long term focus.

There is a negative public perception regarding incinerators and an EIA for an incinerator may receive opposition

Capital Costs: In the region of R500 million to R1.5 billion. Cost is dependent on size, type and location of the facility.

Operational Costs: In the region of R6 to R11 million per year. The cost is dependent on volumes processed, distance to landfill, consumables and labour. In 2008, a feasibility study for autoclaves in South Africa calculated that the current cost of processing HCRW waste was R10 per kg including transportation and other operational costs.

Income avenues:

Sale of electricity

Sale of heat

Gate fees


NEMWA waste activity Licence


Electricity license

Case Studies The earliest recorded hazardous waste incineration facility in RSA is a clinical medical waste incinerator in Gauteng, licensed in 2007. The majority of incinerators are HCRW

References: Environment, Health and Safety Online. 2015. Commercial Hazardous Waste Incinerators. Available online at http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfincin.php#kwRw9veKsWj1cIo

http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfincin.php#kwRw9veKsWj1cIo8.99



incinerators but newer facilities are accepting broader categories of hazardous waste and moving towards heat energy recovery. In 2008, the Department of Health funded a study on the Generation Rates, Treatment Capacity and Minimal Costs of Health Care Waste in the RSA. The report made several important recommendations including “Discrepancies in standards for the management as well as the treatment and disposal of HCRW between various provinces further contributed to the distortion of the market. Service-providers with HCRW treatment facilities in Gauteng were at a disadvantage when compared to those from other provinces, in particular with regard to incineration. The disparity in standards (‘uneven playing field’) resulted in service providers with state-of-the-art and legally complaint HCRW treatment facilities having gone insolvent, which in turn created more opportunities for service-providers not complying with the standards to acquire an even larger share of the HCRW management market. Award of contracts to service-providers that treat and dispose of HCRW in illegal manners, without firm action being taken against them when contravening the regulations / tender specifications, resulted in responsible HCRW management service-providers leaving the industry as the capital investment required to comply to the standards cannot be recovered.”

8.99. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Kemsely, J. 2017. New Hazardous Waste Incinerators Comes Online. American Chemical Society 95 (14), 34-35. Available online at http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i14/New-hazardous-waste-incinerator-comes.html. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Environmental Technology Council. 2017. High Temperature Incineration. Available online at http://www.etc.org/advanced-technologies/high-temperature-incineration.aspx. Accessed on 11 May 2017. Green Garage. 2015. 8 Pros and Cons of Incineration. Available online at https://greengarageblog.org/8-pros-and-cons-of-incineration. Accessed on 11 My 2017 Greentumble. 2017. Waste Incineration: Advantages and Disadvantages. Available online at http://greentumble.com/waste-incineration-advantages-and-disadvantages. Accessed on 11 My 2017.

7.2.3 Plasma Pyrolysis

Treatment Method : Plasma gasification is an extreme thermal process using plasma which converts organic matter into a syngas (synthesis gas) which is primarily made up of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. A plasma torch powered by an electric arc, is used to ionize gas and catalyze organic matter into syngas with slag remaining as a byproduct. The reactor for such a process typically operates at 4000°C - 7000°C. Content and consistency of the waste directly impacts performance of a plasma facility. Pre-sorting and recycling useful material before gasification provides consistency. Shredding waste before entering the main chamber helps to increase syngas production. This creates an efficient transfer of energy which ensures more materials are broken down. For improved processing steam is sometimes added into the plasma gasification process.

Compatible waste streams:

Municipal solid waste, biomass, industrial waste, hazardous waste, and solid hydrocarbons, such as coal, oil sands, petcoke and oil shale.

Incompatible waste streams:

Nuclear waste

Too much inorganic material such as metal and construction waste increases slag production, which in turn decreases syngas production. However, a benefit is that the slag itself is chemically inert and safe to handle.

Outputs:

Chemically inert slag

Synthetic gas (syngas) that consists predominantly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2)

Dioxins are formed during cooling of the syngas.

Metals be recovered from the slag

Inert slag can be granulated and used in construction.

Capacity and Resource recovery:

The throughput volumes ranges from approx. 150 – 900 ton/day.

Up to 740 kWh electricity /ton of solid waste

http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfincin.php#kwRw9veKsWj1cIo8.99

http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i14/New-hazardous-waste-incinerator-comes.html

http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i14/New-hazardous-waste-incinerator-comes.html

http://www.etc.org/advanced-technologies/high-temperature-incineration.aspx

http://www.etc.org/advanced-technologies/high-temperature-incineration.aspx

https://greengarageblog.org/8-pros-and-cons-of-incineration

https://greengarageblog.org/8-pros-and-cons-of-incineration

http://greentumble.com/waste-incineration-advantages-and-disadvantages

http://greentumble.com/waste-incineration-advantages-and-disadvantages



Production of syngas for direct use and conversion to fuel products

Benefits:

Diverts up to 95% hazardous waste from landfills

No harmful emissions of toxic waste or production of dioxins and furans using direct arc technology

Potential production of vitrified slag for use as a construction material

Recovery of products (metals) from slag

Processing of organic waste into combustible syngas for electric power and thermal energy

Safe means to destroy both medical and many hazardous wastes.


Large initial investment costs relative to that of alternatives, including landfill and incineration.

High electricity usage

High operational costs relative to that of incineration

Little or even negative net energy production

Wet feed stock results in less syngas production and higher energy consumption

Frequent maintenance and limited plant availability.

Capital Costs: In the region of R1.8 billion.

Operational Costs: In the region of R5 – R10 million per year

Income avenues:

Sale of recovered metals

Sale of granulated waste

Sale of electricity

Waste tariffs.


NEMWA waste activity Licence


NEMAQA Air Emissions Licence.

Case Studies Milvinetix Waste Tyre Pyrolysis (Gauteng) - The company currently processes approximately 180 t of waste tyres. Tyres are transformed into compounds that can be turned into various products, including carbon char, oil and products that can be used to generate electricity. Milvinetix received an infrastructure development grant of R310 a ton of waste tyres from 2013 -2015 from the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa (Redisa). Afro Energy and AAP Carbon has submitted EOIs to municipalities in SA to install plasma gasification technology. Installation 18 – 24 months with indicative figures of 1,000 tones/ day/ plant costing R 1.8 billion to develop.

References: Clack, B.J. and Rogoff, M.J. 2010. Economic Feasibility of Plasma Arc Gasification Plant, City of Marion, Iowa. Available online at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3502.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2017. Docharme, C., Themelis, N.J. and Castaldi, M.J. 2010. Technical and Economic Analysis of Plasma-assisted Waste-to-Energy Processes. Available online at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/ducharme_thesis.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2017.

7.2.4 Refuse Derived Fuel/ Waste Derived Fuel

Treatment Method : Refuse or waste derived fuel (RDF) is the replacement of traditional fossil fuels with hydrocarbon based waste stream for use as fuel.

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3502.pdf

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3502.pdf

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/ducharme_thesis.pdf

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/ducharme_thesis.pdf



Compatible waste streams:

Municipal waste

Industrial waste

Hazardous waste

Favours waste which is high in hydrocarbon such as

hydrocarbon sludge, oils and greases

Incompatible waste streams:

Inert waste

Waste with a low hydrocarbon content

Outputs:

Electricity – approximately 24MJ/kg

Heat

Ash

Capacity and Resource recovery:

Interwaste’s facility in Germiston currently processes 12,000 tonnes/ year, there are plans to expand this to 24,000 tonnes/ year and then to 100,000 tonnes/ year

Benefits:

Reduces waste to landfill

Can process waste streams which are no longer accepted at landfill

Provides a fuel source for industry

Reduces reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source.


The blending platform needs to be located close to industry which requires RDF to reduce transportation costs

There needs to be a constant supply of high quality RDF available.

Capital Costs: Unknown

Operational Costs: Unknown

Income avenues: Gate fees Sale of RDF


Waste management license

Case Studies Interwaste have constructed a blending platform in Germiston which processes waste to produce RDF which is used as fuel for Lafarge’s cement kilns in the North West. The facility processes approximately 12,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste annually.

References: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print-version/waste-management-specialist-commissions-refuse-derived-fuels-facility-2015-07-10 https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-02-18-south-africa-gets-its-first-refuse-derived-fuel-plant/#.WalWs50aKM8

7.3 Preferred Waste Treatment Option

7.3.1 Incineration

Incineration has been identified as the preferred waste treatment option for the following reasons:

Legislation, namely the norms and standards for the disposal of waste to landfill is

moving towards restricting the disposal of waste to landfill

Incinerators can manage a wide range of waste streams

Incineration can significantly reduce the volume of waste that needs to be disposed of

at landfill

Incineration can destroy pathogens and toxic compounds in waste such as sewage

sludge

Incinerators can produce hot water and electricity which can be used to run to plant or

sold.

Landfilling is not seen as sustainable in the long term due to the general move away from

landfilling of hazardous material. Autoclaving has limited application and pyrolysis is likely to

be less financially sustainable.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print-version/waste-management-specialist-commissions-refuse-derived-fuels-facility-2015-07-10





7.4 Hazardous Waste Incinerator Site Selection

A number of criteria need to be considered when undertaking a site selection process for a hazardous waste incinerator. These include but are not limited to:

Distance from main hazardous waste generators.

Availability of infrastructure, in particular roads

Proximity to residential areas

Proximity to industry which can make use of hot water or heat output.

Site selection has not been investigated as part of this report.

8 Hazardous Waste Incinerator Development and Operational Costs

The following sections present high level costing estimates for the development and operational costs for a hazardous waste incinerator.

8.1 Pricing Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions are limitations are applicable to this section:

The transportation cost is estimated at R3,000 per tonne.

The interest repayment rate, over a 20 year period is calculated as R4.8 million per

annum.

The costing for the incinerators as provided by Macrotec is accurate.

The present cost for waste transport and disposal is based on estimated prices and

the average cost is based on a waste stream, which comprises of a high level of

health care and pharmaceutical waste. If the waste stream changes then the average

cost of disposal of waste will also change.

The below costings for transportation and disposal of ash assume that the ash will be

classified as hazardous waste and as such will be disposed of in Port Elizabeth. If the

ash is classified as general waste significant savings will be made as the waste will be

disposed of at Roundhill general waste landfill site outside East London.

8.2 Hazardous Waste Incineration

GIBB approached Macrotec and requested they recommend the most suitable incineration solution for the waste types and quantities revealed in this study. They recommended the following:

A complete incineration system to treat the hazardous waste generated in the study

area (mixed waste of approximately 8,000 tonnes per year)

Two plants have been recommended for consideration, a X500 and a X100 plant. Both

plants are reciprocating grate furnaces which allow for adjustments with different waste

and are flexible in terms of waste stream. The X500 is the smaller of the two plants. To



process 8,000 tonnes of waste annually four X500 or two X100 plants would be required.

The following options are available:

o Option 1: Installation of four X500 plants

o Option 2: Installation of two X1000 plants

An organic rankine cycle (ORC) should be used in conjunction with the incinerator to

recover heat for conversion into electricity.

The feeding intervals, temperature control, combustion air requirement, flue gas cooling, scrubbing and filtration operations are all fully automated. The only tasks required by the operator are the placing of waste into the feeding system ash removal and loading of scrubber agent.

8.2.1 Project Planning and Professional Fees

Estimated fees for the project planning phase are presented in the costing table at the end of

this section (Table 24). Items which require consideration but cannot be costed at this phase

have also been included in the table for future planning. These costs can only be determined

once a site is selected as it will affect engineering designs.

8.2.2 Capital Costs

Capital costs for the supporting infrastructure are heavily dependent on location of the plan,

and whether it is to be a greenfield development or incorporated into existing infrastructure.

Costs for supporting infrastructure are hence broad estimates at best.

The capital cost will vary depending on the type of plant selected. It was strongly recommended by Macrotec to start with a small installation and add additional units as required. Since each of the units can run completely independently, extra units can be added in a phased approach. The table below presents the cost of small and larger incinerator modules and the number of units required to service the volume of waste in question. Table 22: Cost comparison of Macrotec facilities

Item Cost Quantity Total

Incinerator

X500 incinerator R 17 500 000.00 4 R 70 000 000.00

ORC for X500 incinerator R 6 500 000.00 4 R 26 000 000.00

Sub-total X500 plant R 96,000,000.00

X1000 incinerator R 34 500 000.00 2 R 69 000 000.00

ORC for X1000 incinerator R 13 000 000.00 2 R 26 000 000.00

Sub-total X1000 plant R 95,000,000.00

The ORC prices also exclude piping and storage vessels and connections to the grid or

surrounding industry (e.g. piping for hot water or electrical cabling). The cost of the two

options is comparable. The X1000 plant is R1 million less but would offer less flexibility than

using four X500 plants. On the recommendation of Macrotec, an Option 1 scenario (four

X500 units) will be considered further in this report.



The X500 plant has a capacity of 280 – 360kg per hour; four X500 incinerators will therefore

be able to process 1,120 – 1,440kg per hour.

8.2.3 Operational Costs

The anticipated operational costs of an incinerator have been tabled in the Table 23. These

include

Labour

Fuel

Maintenance – replacement of filters

Transportation and disposal costs for ash

Monitoring costs

Auditing costs.

Additional detail of key operational costs is provided below.

(a) Labour

Each of the X500 plants requires at least people to ensure they are operated correctly. The

salary for the plant operators has been estimated at R 200,000.00.

(b) Fuel

Each of the X500 plants can process 280 – 360kg of hazardous waste per hour.

Approximately 30 -50kg of fuel is required per hour to run the incinerator. This equates to

24.9 – 41.5 litres of diesel. At the current market prices of diesel (R11.71/litre), the fuel cost

to run the incinerator per hour would be between R291.57 – R 485.96.

As previously discussed a waste stream of 8,000 tonnes per year was used for the costing for

the incinerators. Data from waste management companies suggests that at least 8,000

tonnes of hazardous waste are generated per annum in the study area. Based on a waste

stream of 8,000 tonnes a year the fuel required to incinerate the waste would range from

R 6,479,333 to R 13,884,571.

Table 23: Estimated fuel costs

Kg of waste/ year

Capacity of plant/ hour (kg)

No. operational hours required

Fuel cost / hour Total

8000000 280 28571.42 291.57 R 8 330 571

8000000 280 28571.42 485.96 R 13 884 571

8000000 360 22222.22 291.57 R 6 479 333

8000000 360 22222.22 485.57 R 10 790 444

Based on a waste stream of 8,000 tonnes per year the fuel cost would range between

R 6,479,333 – R 13,884,571. The range is fuel price is due to the range of fuel requirements



(30 – 50kg/ hour) and the incineration capacity (280- 360kg/hour). It should be noted that

the above fuel costs excludes fuel requirements for the start and shutdown of incinerators.

Macrotec recommend that incinerators are continually run for a period of 72 – 144 hours.

Running the incinerator at the maximum recommended timeframe (144 hour cycles) would

reduce fuel consumption for start-up and shutdown.

The value of R13,884,571 was used to calculate the operational cost of the incinerator. The

higher value was used to avoid underestimating fuel costs.

(c) Maintenance

The maintenance cost for the incinerators was set at 5% of the capital cost of the

infrastructure per year. Based on a capital cost of R96 million the maintenance cost per year

is R4.8 million.

(d) Transportation and Disposal Costs for bottom ash

Bottom ash is classified as a general waste under the National Waste Information Regulations

(GN 625 of 2012), however as the incinerator will process hazardous waste, it is possible that

hazardous components such as heavy metals will be deposited in the ash. The ash will

therefore need to be regularly tested in terms of the National Norms and Standards for the

Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal (GN 635 of 2013). One set of laboratory testing

required in terms of these norms and standards costs approximately R10,000 - R15,000.

The transportation and disposal costs for ash will depend on the classification of the ash. If

the ash is classified as a general waste it can be disposed of at the East London regional

waste disposal site (Roundhill). If classified as hazardous it will require disposal at private

facilities in NMBM. The disposal costs will also vary depending on the classification. The

current disposal cost for waste at Roundhill is R170.18/m3 of compacted waste. Applying a

conversion factor for bottom ash of 0.46 (WRAP, 2014), 1 cubic meter of ash equals 0.46

tonnes. The disposal cost for 1 tonne of ash would be R 370.8. The disposal cost at Aloes II

is unknown but will be significantly higher. The transportation costs were calculated as

R3,000 per tonne.

The quantity of bottom ash depends on the waste types, which are being incinerated.

Approximately 230 – 250kg of ash is generated for every ton of municipal solid waste

incinerated (International Solid Waste Association, undated). Presuming a waste stream of

8,000 tonnes per year, 2,000 tonnes of ash could be generated, with an estimated

transportation cost of R3,000 per tonne and a disposal cost of R 1,600 (presuming it is

classified as hazardous). The total transportation would therefore be R6,000,000 and the

disposal cost would be R3,200,000.



(e) Monitoring Costs

The air emissions license (AEL) for the incinerator is likely to require iso-kinetic sampling of

the stack. The estimated costs of monitoring equipment and monthly analysis of results by an

independent consultant is estimated at R30,000 per year per stack. This cost will vary

depending on travel expenses and laboratory fees.

(f) Auditing Costs

The waste management license for the incinerator will most likely require annual compliance

audit. The National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (GN 926 of 2013) require

bi-annual external audits of all waste storage facilities.

Table 24: Estimated planning, capital and operational costs of incineration solution

No. ITEM COSTS QTY TOTAL

PLANNING AND DESIGN

1 Environmental / planning services

1.1 Waste management license / EIA R 300 000.00 1 R 300 000.00

1.2 Norms & Standards for Storage of Waste Registration

R 30 000.00 1 R 30 000.00

1.3 Air emissions license R 250 000.00 1 R 250 000.00

1.4 Water use licenses R 70 000.00 1 R 70 000.00

1.5 Rezoning R 0.00 1 R 0.00

SUB-TOTAL R 650 000.00

CAPITAL COSTS

2 Supporting infrastructure

2.1 Building / structures R 1 500 000.00 1 R 1 500 000.00

2.2 Water R 50 000.00 1 R 50 000.00

2.3 Electricity R 50 000.00 1 R 50 000.00

2.4 Sewerage R 50 000.00 1 R 50 000.00

2.5 Engineering fees (15%) R 247 500.00 1 R 247 500.00

3 Incinerators R 0.00

3.1 X500 plant (incl. installation) R 17 500 000.00 4 R 70 000 000.00

3.2 ORC for X500 plant R 6 500 000.00 4 R 26 000 000.00

SUB-TOTAL R 97 897 500.00

OPERATIONAL COSTS (ANNUAL)

4 Running costs

4.1 Labour R 200 000.00 8.00 R 1 600 000.00

4.2 Fuel R 13 884 571 1 R 13 884 571.00

4.3 Maintenance R 4 894 875.00 1 R 4 894 875.00

5 Transportation & disposal costs

5.1 Transportation of ash R 3 162 000.00 1 R 3 162 000.00

5.2 Disposal of ash (hazardous landfill site) R 1 600.00 2000 R 3 200 000.00

6 Monitoring and Auditing

6.1 Annual iso-kinetic sampling (per stack) R 30 000.00 4 R 120 000.00

6.2 Annual waste compliance audit R 40 000.00 1 R 40 000.00

6.3 Bi-annual norms and standards audit (cost split over 2 years)

R 20 000.00 0.5 R 10 000.00



7 Interest payments

7.1 Annual interest repayment R 4 800 000 1 R 4 800 000

SUB-TOTAL (EXCL. VAT) R 34 549 446.00

TOTAL R 133 096 946.00

8.2.4 Estimated Incineration Cost

The estimated incineration cost was calculated through the following steps

1. Splitting the capital cost and planning cost (R 98,547,500) over a 20 year period

(R 4,927,375/year)

2. Calculating operational costs (labour, fuel, maintenance, ash transport and disposal

costs, monitoring and auditing and interest) (R 34,549,446)

3. Combining annual capital and planning cost with operational costs (R 4,927,375 +

R 34,549,446= R 34,549,446)

4. Dividing the annual cost by annual waste tonnage R 34,549,446/ 8,000 tonnes.

The breakeven cost per tonne for the facility would therefore be R 4,934.60 per tonne.

8.2.5 Waste Tariffs

A full cost accounting exercise will be required to determine the waste tariffs to be charged for waste treated at the incinerator. This would have to consider all capital and operational costs, and would need to be benchmarked against existing disposal and treatment costs taking into account savings on current transportation costs that would be realised. A full cost accounting exercise is outside the scope of this report. When this exercise is undertaken consideration will need to be given to variable gate fees for different waste streams. This would include consideration of the following:

Calorific value of waste (waste with a high calorific value would require less fuel).

Composition of ash generated from a particular waste stream (the type of ash

generated from the incineration of waste would impact the disposal options for

hazardous vs general landfill sites).

Volume of ash generated- this will vary between waste streams. Waste streams

which produce a larger percentage of ash would require higher gate fees.

Current treatment and disposal fees for a specific waste stream.

8.2.6 Lifespan of the Incinerators

According to specifications provided by Macrotec the typical lifespan of the X500 incinerator is 10 – 15 years, however if the incinerator is well maintained it can have a lifespan of up to 20 years.



9 Identified Business Opportunities

The following scenarios are presented as potential options for offsetting the costs associated with the operation of a hazardous waste incineration system.

9.1 Partnership with a Waste Management Company

Potential investors could consider partnering with an established waste management company to manage the incinerator. The benefits would include:

Access to experienced and qualified staff to operate the facility.

Access to a wide client base. Private waste management companies are already

managing hazardous waste for industry in the region.

Reduced transportation costs. Waste management companies would already have a

fleet in operation and could reduce costs my combining collections from multiple

companies.

9.2 Gate Fees for Incineration of Hazardous Waste

The primary revenue generation for the hazardous waste incinerator would be gate fees charged for the management of hazardous waste. As previously mentioned the calculation of gate fees is outside the scope of this study. Based on the annual cost to operate and manage the incinerators a minimum gate fee of R 4,935 per tonne would be required to breakeven. The average current transport and disposal cost (to Port Elizabeth) of hazardous waste is

estimated to range from R3,670 – R10,000 per tonne. This is based on an estimated

transportation cost of R3,000 per tonne. The average current management fee based on the

different waste streams generated in the study area is R 8,332 per tonne. The current fee is

based on an estimated waste stream, which is comprised largely of pharmaceutical waste,

which carries a more expensive disposal cost.

It is acknowledged that these costs are estimates and the actual management cost of hazardous waste in the Eastern Cape requires further investigation. The incinerator gate fee should therefore be priced between the breakeven gate fee (R4,935/ tonne) and the current average management cost for hazardous waste (R8,300/tonne) (transport and treatment/ disposal) to make the use of the incinerator attractive to organisations.

9.3 Sale of Heat and Electricity

Up to 80% of the energy in the waste incinerated can be recovered as heat. This can be used to heat water or converted into electricity. This heat or electricity can be sold to surrounding industry.

9.4 Sale of Bottom Ash as Construction Material

In Europe bottom ash generated in waste-to-energy plants is used as a construction material for road construction or for capping of landfill sites.



Table 25: Re-use of incinerator ash in European countries (source International Solid Waste Association, undated)

Country % of ash re-used* Major usage

Denmark 98% Building/ road construction, embankments

Czech Republic 89% Landfill construction

Netherlands 87% Road construction and embankments

Frances 77% Road construction

Germany 72% Civils works

Norway 52% Landfill construction

Italy 20% Civil works, base material for landfill

*it must be noted that the study focused on ash from waste-to-energy plants which were incinerating municipal solid waste. The ash from the hazardous waste incinerator may not be suitable for re-use due to the type of waste being incinerated.

In the examples above, bottom ash recovered from waste-to-energy facilities is sent for reprocessing to remove ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The bottom ash is then crushed to obtain a desired particle size, and the remaining combustible material is removed. Metals are sold for recycling, combustible material is returned to the waste-to-energy facility and the ash is sent to a storage facility for ageing to improve its quality (CEWEP, undated). The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2006) Guidelines for the utilisation and disposal of wastewater sludge identify several uses of ash from incinerators which incinerate solely sewage sludge. These include manufacture bricks, cement, and use as an artificial aggregate. Ash would need to be tested to determine the suitability re-use. Ash used in brick making must have a moisture content of less than 1% to prevent bricks from cracking. The final product would need to conform to South African National Standards (SANS) (DWAF, 2006).

9.5 Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste

There is an opportunity for the incinerator to accept municipal waste. Municipalities are under increasing pressure to reduce waste to landfill. In addition and National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill are prohibiting the disposal of certain waste streams from being disposed of at landfill.

10 Legislative Requirements for a Hazardous Waste Incinerator

A number of pieces of legislation govern the development and operation of hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities. Key pieces of legislation are summarised below.

10.1 National Environmental Management Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008)

The National Environmental Management Waste Act (Act no. 59 of 2008), hereafter referred to as NEM:WA identifies activities which are likely to have a detrimental effect on the environment and specifies the waste licensing process required. The NEM:WA classifies activities into three categories as described below:



Category A- activities which require a waste management license application and a basic

assessment.

Category B - activities which require a waste management license application and a

scoping and environmental impact assessment report.

Category C – activities need to be undertaken in compliance with the applicable standards. o National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (GN 926 of 2013) o National Standards for the Extraction, Flaring of Recovery of Landfill Gas (GN 924

of 2013) o National Standards for the Scrapping or Recovery of Motor Vehicles (GN 925 of

2013).

The category A thresholds are for smaller scale waste management activities. The applicable activity in category A would be ‘The treatment of hazardous waste using any form of treatment at a facility that has the capacity to process in excess of 500kg but less than 1 ton per day’. The hazardous waste incinerator would process in excess of 1 ton per day therefore this activity does not apply. Category B activities which would be applicable to the operation of an incinerator would include:

The treatment of hazardous waste in excess of 1 ton per day calculated as a monthly

average, using any form of treatment excluding the treatment of effluent, wastewater

or sewage.

The construction of any facility for a waste management activity listed in Category B of

NEMWA.

Category C activities which would be applicable to the operation of an incinerator would include:

The storage of hazardous waste at a facility that has the capacity to store in excess of

80m2 at any one time.

The storage of hazardous waste would need to be undertaken in accordance with the National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (GN 926 of 2013).

10.2 National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)

The waste management license application which is triggered by category B activities will be undertaken in accordance with the 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations, as amended in 2017. A scoping and EIA process will be required.

10.3 National Environmental Management Act: Air Quality Act (No. 39 of 2004)

The National Environmental Management Act: Air Quality Act (NEM:AQA) lists activities which result in air emissions which require an air quality license (atmospheric emissions license).



The operation of a hazardous waste incinerator would trigger Category 8: Disposal of hazardous and general waste. This activity is applicable to facilities where general and hazardous waste including health care risk waste, crematoria, veterinary waste, used oil or sludge from treatment of used oil are incinerated.

10.4 National Waste Information Regulations (R 625 of 2012)

The National Waste Information Regulations are intended to regulate the collection of waste management data. The Waste Information Regulations identify activities for which a person must register on the SAWIS and report waste data on a quarterly basis. The activities which are applicable to the operation of a hazardous waste incinerator are:

The treatment of general waste using any form of treatment at a facility that has the

capacity to process in excess of 10 tons of general waste or 500kg of hazardous waste

per day excluding the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage.

Treatment of health care risk waste regardless of the size or capacity of the facility.

10.5 Waste Classification and Management Regulations (R 634 of 2013)

The Waste Classification and Management Regulations aim to address the management of

different waste categories. The regulations stipulate the requirements for the transport

storage and treatment of different waste types. A list of requirements for record keeping by

waste generators is also included in the regulations with the aim of improving and

standardising record keeping. The regulations also detail the process to be followed when

motivating why a listed waste management activity does not require a waste management

license.

10.6 National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Waste to Landfill (R 635 of 2013)

These norms and standards require the assessment of waste prior to disposal at landfill. The

assessment of waste before disposal must include identification of the total and leachable

concentrations of different chemicals. The concentration of chemicals determines the

classification of the waste which in turn dictates the type of disposal site where the waste

can be disposed of. The bottom ash from the incinerator will require testing to determine the

class of landfill site where the ash can be disposed of.

10.7 National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (R 926 of 2013)

The National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste are applicable to any facility which has the capacity to store in excess is 100m3 of general or 80m3 of hazardous waste. If a facility triggers these requirements the facility must be registered with the competent authority 90 days prior to construction and the facility must comply with the regulations. In order to reduce transportation costs it is anticipated that a facility will be constructed to store ash. This facility will have a storage capacity in excess of 80m3 and as the ash generated



by the incinerator will potentially be hazardous this will trigger the requirements of these norms and standards.

10.8 Other Legislation

The following legislation would also need to be considered during the planning process for the hazardous waste incinerator:

Hazardous Substances Act (No. 15 of 1973)

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No. 1210 of 2009)

National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)

National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999)

BCMM by-laws.

11 Recommendations and Way Forward

11.1 Business Case

The business case for an incinerator would need to be further investigated. It is recommended that any potential investors engage with existing large waste management companies operating in the study area.

11.2 Site Selection

Site selection for the incinerator does not form part of this investigation. The following should however be taken into consideration when identifying a suitable location for the incinerator:

Proximity to hazardous waste generation area. If possible the site should be located

near an industrial area where large volumes of hazardous waste are being generated. In

East London industry is focused in the IDZ, Wilsonia, Arcadia and Woodbrook areas.

Proximity to industry which can utilise hot water or electricity from the incinerator.

Proximity to infrastructure (roads, sewage, electricity etc.).

11.3 Compliance with Legislation

An environmental consultant should be appointed during the design phase to ensure that all the legislated environmental procedures are undertaken and to ensure that the facility conforms to legislated requirements. As detailed above a number of licenses and authorisations will be required for the facility before construction can commence.



11.4 Conclusions

Based on information gathered during this study and costing estimates it appears that it would be financially viable to establish a hazardous waste incinerator in East London. The planning and capital cost of the incinerators (R 98,5447,500) would be repaid over the 20 year lifespan of the incinerators. It should be noted that a number of assumptions and limitation were applied during this study. If any of these are found to be incorrect the study should be revised accordingly.

12 References

Breytenbach M, Waste Management Specialist Commissions Refuse-Derived Fuel Facility. Available online at http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print-version/waste-management-specialist-commissions-refuse-derived-fuels-facility-2015-07-10 Clack, B.J. and Rogoff, M.J, (2010). Economic Feasibility of Plasma Arc Gasification Plant, City of Marion, Iowa. Available online at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3502.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2017. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (undated). Environmentally sound use of bottom ash. Department of Environmental Affairs (undated) Appropriate Technology for Advanced Waste Treatment - Guideline. Chapter 5 Potential Technologies Medium Term. Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, North West Province (2007). Hazardous Waste Management Plan for North West Province. Department of Environmental Affairs (2012). National Waste Information Baseline Report (draft). Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs, (2010). Integrated Waste Management Plan, Hazardous Waste Final. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2008). Survey of generation rates, treatment capabilities and minimal costs of health care waste in the 9 provinces of RSA. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2000) Programme for the implementation of the National Waste Management Strategy. Starter document for Health Care Waste. Background document on management of heath care waste. Final draft Department of Health (2015), Eastern Cape Department of Health Annual Report 2014/15 Eastern Cape Department of Health (undated), Annual Performance Plan 2016/17- 2018/19. Department of Science and Technology (2013). South African Waste Sector – 2012. An Analysis of the Formal Private and Public Waste sector in South Africa. A National Waste RDI Roadmap for South Africa: Phase 1 Status Quo Assessment. Department of Science and Technology: Pretoria



Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2006) Guidelines for the utilisation and disposal of wastewater sludge. Volume 1 of 5 selection of management options. Docharme, C., Themelis, N.J. and Castaldi, M.J. (2010). Technical and Economic Analysis of Plasma-assisted Waste-to-Energy Processes. Available online at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/ducharme_thesis.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2017. Eastern Cape Department of Health (2016), Annual Report 2015/ 2016 Vote 3 Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (2016) Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality Integrated Waste Management Plan 2016 Review. EHS Biosafety (2017). Requirements for Decontaminating by Autoclaving. Available online at http://ehs.virginia.edu/biosafety/bio.documents/Autoclaving_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2017. Environment, Health and Safety Online (2015). Commercial Hazardous Waste Incinerators. Available online at http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfincin.php#kwRw9veKsWj1cIo8.99. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Environmental Protection Agency (2016). Volume-weight conversion factors U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Johns D. et al. (2014) Waste Derived Fuels Blending Platform – Case Study http://www.infrastructurene.ws/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/06/Johns-D.-et-al-95.pdf Green Garage (2015). 8 Pros and Cons of Incineration. Available online at https://greengarageblog.org/8-pros-and-cons-of-incineration. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Greentumble (2017). Waste Incineration: Advantages and Disadvantages. Available online at http://greentumble.com/waste-incineration-advantages-and-disadvantages. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Ibert (2017). Converting Waste to Energy with Biogas Solution. Presented at the 2017 Waste-to-Energy Technologies Summit. Institute of Solid Waste Association (undated). Management of bottom ash from WTE plants. Kemsely, J. (2017). New Hazardous Waste Incinerators Comes Online. American Chemical Society 95 (14), 34-35. Available online at http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i14/New-hazardous-waste-incinerator-comes.html. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Environmental Technology Council (2017). High Temperature Incineration. Available online at http://www.etc.org/advanced-technologies/high-temperature-incineration.aspx. Accessed on 11 May 2017. Otto K, Clements J. (2008). Survey of Generation Rates, Treatment Capacities and Minimal Costs of Health Care Waste in the 9 provinces of RSA. Available online at http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/1067.PDF. Accessed on 11 May 2017. Royal Haskoning DHV (2016). Environmental scoping report for the proposed health care risk waste incinerator within the Coega Industrial Development Zone – Eastern Cape.

http://www.infrastructurene.ws/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/06/Johns-D.-et-al-95.pdf



Statistics South Africa (2017). The state of basic service delivery in South Africa: An in-depth analysis of the Community Survey 2016 data UMassAmherst (2017). Environmental Health & Safety: Autoclave Waste Fact Sheet. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Available online at https://ehs.umass.edu/autoclave-waste-fact-sheet. Accessed on 11 May 2017. UMassAmherst (2014). Environmental Health & Safety: Autoclaving of Infectious Waste. Available online at http://www.ehrs.upenn.edu/programs/bio/waste/autoclaveing.html. Accessed on 11 My 2017. Van der Merwe M. South Africa get its First Refuse-derived Fuel Plant. Available online at https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-02-18-south-africa-gets-its-first-refuse-derived-fuel-plant/#.WalWs50aKM8. WRAP (2014). Construction, demolition and excavation waste volume to mass conversion factors and list of waste codes used in WRAP’s tools.

47

Appendix A: Hazardous Waste Survey Questionnaire

48

Hazardous Waste Survey Questionnaire INTRODUCTION To whom it may concern: The Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC) have identified that there is a lack of hazardous

waste treatment and disposal facilities in the eastern region (East London, Queenstown,

Butterworth, Mthatha, King Williams Town) of the Eastern Cape. ECDC have therefore commissioned

a feasibility study to determine the viability of developing a hazardous waste facility in this area.

ECDC have appointed GIBB Pty Ltd (GIBB) to undertake a hazardous waste survey in the area to develop a hazardous waste database for the region. The database will ultimately be used to test a business case for the development of a hazardous waste facility in the region. The success of the project is dependent on the appointed service provider (GIBB Pty Ltd) obtaining reliable records of hazardous waste being generated in the study area. GIBB will be contacting companies across the eastern region of the Eastern Cape to request information on hazardous waste generated. would be in line with the SAWIS reporting categories as outlined in the National Waste Information Regulations (GN 625 of 2012). The preferred unit for records is kilograms or tonnes per month. The Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC) has identified that tThere is a lack of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities in the Eastern region of the Eastern Cape. As such, GIBB have been The ECDC has therefore commissioned to undertake a feasibility study for the development of a hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility in this area, with the expectation that the development of such a facility near East London may assist local businesses through reducing hazardous waste transportation costs. The Border- Kei Chamber of Business is a key role-player in the project and is assisting by administrating this hazardous waste survey. It is within the context of facilitating the growth of industry in the eastern region of the Eastern Cape that we request your cooperation with this waste survey. The hazardous waste inventory (i.e. type, quantity and quality) supplied by your organisation will allow ECDC GIBB to develop a hazardous waste database for the region and ultimately test a business case for the development of a hazardous waste facility in your region. Your contribution will assist in testing this business case and may ultimately contribute to the development of such a facility, which would assist in facilitating business growth. Please note that the information collected during this survey will be treated as confidential. All documentation returned to the Border- Kei Chamber of BusinessGIBB will remain confidential. The data obtained from your organization will not be linked to your company name unless official written permission has been granted by the CEO of that your company. The final report generated from this data will not indicate specific company names or details. The final report will be the property of the ECDC.The final report It will not be made available to the public but will be made available to those companies that contributed to this survey.

49

We request that Tthis questionnaire should be completed by staff who have a the best good understanding of the waste types produced by industrial activities undertaken by your organization . The survey consists of five short sections and should take between 5 – 10 minutes to complete. The completed survey can be returned to GIBB using the below contact details: FAO: Ms Kate Parkinson Email: [email protected] Fax: 041 363 9300

mailto:[email protected]

Thank You for assisting us to build the business case for the Eastern Region Eastern Cape Hazardous Waste Facility

50

1. COMPANY DETAILS Please ensure contact details are correct.

Institution/Organisation

Address / Location description

GPS (optional)

Industry Type

Name of the waste manager

Name of person completing survey

Contact details Email: Tel: Address:

Registered with South African Waste Information System (SAWIS)?

Yes/ No (tick boxes)

Reporting on SAWIS? Yes/ Noo (tick boxes)

Environmental Management System? / Waste document control system?


51

2. INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES

From the list below, please indicate all those industries and activity types that are applicable to your organisation, even if these are not your main industrial activities or waste types.

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES SELECT (X)TICK

1. Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting and fishing, food preparation and processing

2. Wood processing / production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard

3. Leather, fur and textile industries

4. Petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal

5. Inorganic chemical processes

6. Organic chemical processes

7. Thermal processes, power stations and other combustion plants, iron and steel industry, thermal metallurgy, manufacture of cement, lime, plastic bricks and ceramic goods

8. Photographic industry

9. Manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints, varnishes and vitreous enamels), adhesives, sealants and printing inks

10. Chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials; non-ferrous hydrometallurgy

11. Shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics

12. Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels e.g. hydraulic oils, engine and gear lubricating oils, waste insulating and transmission oils, oil/ water separator contents (except edible oils)

13. Organic solvents, refrigerants and propellants

14. Construction wastes

15. Human or animal health care and/or related research (except kitchen and restaurant wastes not arising from immediate health care)

16. Wastes from waste management facilities

17. Exploration, mining, quarrying, and physical and chemical treatment of minerals

18. Electronic waste (e-waste).

19. Other (if the waste generated in your institution is not contained within the category lists).

If you have selected ‘other’ please provide details:


52

3. WASTE DETAILS

What hazardous waste streams, and how much of each waste stream, does your organization generate per month (please include units).

HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAM (as detailed as possible) QUANTITY (per month)

UNIT

How is your hazardous waste currently managed?


53

4. ADDITIONAL DETAILS

If there is any additional information or comments that you think will assist us in understanding hazardous waste generation or management within your organization or industry, please provide this below:

The End

A sincere ‘thank you’ for assisting the Eastern Cape Development Corporation by -completing this survey. Please note, the project team may contact you to clarify information contained in the survey.

54

Appendix B: Online Survey Notification

55

56

Appendix C: Companies Surveyed

57

Table B1. List of companies surveyed No. Company Area Method

1 Aloe Oil East London Interview

2 Johnson Control/ Yanfeng East London Interview

3 Isringhausen East London Interview

4 SMA Engineering East London Interview

5 Collectall Paper East London Online survey and interview

6 Babcock East London Interview

7 Floorworx East London Interview

8 Border Metal Industries Butterworth Interview

9 Butterworth Motor Mechanic Butterworth Interview

10 Transnet Port Terminals East London Interview

11 Mediterranean Shipping Company East London Interview

12 East London Shipyard East London Interview

13 Nestle East London Interview

14 B&H Autopaint East London Interview

15 Twizza Queenstown Interview

16 Mercedes Benz East London Interview

17 Reclamation Group East London Telephone interview/ email correspondence

18 First National Battery East London Online survey

19 UD Trucks Queenstown Telephone interview/ email correspondence

20 Summerpride Foods East London Telephone interview/ email correspondence

21 Froetek Data East London Telephone interview/ email correspondence

22 Eastern Cape Department of Health Eastern Cape Telephone interview/ email correspondence

23 Amathole District Municipality Eastern Cape Telephone interview/ email correspondence

24 East London Eye Hospital East London Online survey

25 Aristopix East London Online survey

26 Foxtec-Ikhwezi East London Online survey

27 Gompo Occupational Health Services East London Online survey

28 Atlantis Hill Trading cc East London Online survey

29 Airports Company South Africa East London Online survey

30 Transnet Ports Authority East London Interview

31 JJ Drums East London Online survey

32 PricewaterhouseCoopers East London Online survey

33 Amanz'abantu services East London Online survey

34 Bidvest Steiner East London Online survey

35 TFM East London Online survey

36 Garden Court East London East London Online survey

37 Hands on Marketing East London Online survey

38 Aspen Pharmacare East London Telephone interview/ email correspondence

39 Peace Abattoir Queenstown Telephonic interview

40 Rance Timber Stutterheim Telephonic interview

41 Chalk-Air Mthatha Interview

42 Conways Truck Shop Mthatha Interview

43 IWS East London Interview

44 JD Radiators Mthatha Interview

45 Biofusion East London Interview

46 Mark’s Motors Mthatha Interview

47 Mthatha Trailers Spares Mthatha Interview

48 Transfrontier Civils Mthatha Interview

49 Unique Bodyworks Mthatha Interview

50 Pest Control Specialists East London Telephone interview

51 East Coast Pest Control East London Telephone interview

52 Suntex King Williams Town Telephone interview

53 Aforx East London Telephone interview/ email correspondence

58

Document Control and Disclaimer

FORM IP180_B

CLIENT : Eastern Cape Development Corporation

PROJECT NAME : ECDC Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Feasibility Phase 2

PROJECT No. : J36358

TITLE OF DOCUMENT : ECDC Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Feasibility Phase 2

ELECTRONIC LOCATION : P:\J36358_ECDC Hazardous waste feasibility phase 2\03_Project Management Plan Design\G_Document Management - Reports\Report\Hazardous waste treatment facility-Eastern Cape Phase 2 FOR WF_WF4 KP.docx

Approved By Reviewed By Prepared By

ORIGINAL NAME M. Olivier

NAME W. Fyvie

NAME K. Parkinson

DATE 07 June 2017

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE


REVISION 1 NAME W. Fyvie

NAME W. Fyvie

NAME K. Parkinson

DATE 07 September 2017

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE


REVISION 2 NAME M. Olivier

NAME W. Fyvie

NAME K. Parkinson

DATE 27 September 2017

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE


REVISION 3 NAME M. Olivier

NAME M. Olivier

NAME K. Parkinson

DATE 20 November 2017

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

This report, and information or advice, which it contains, is provided by GIBB (or any of its related entities) solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in performance of GIBB’s duties and liabilities under its contract with the Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon the information made available to GIBB at the date of this report and on current South African standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this report. Following final delivery of this report to the Client, GIBB will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this report. This report has been prepared by GIBB in their professional capacity as Consulting Engineers. The contents of the report do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GIBB contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this report. Should the Client wish to release this report to a Third Party for that party's reliance, GIBB may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that: (a) GIBB’s written agreement is obtained prior to such release, and (b) By release of the report to the Third Party, that Third Party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against

GIBB and GIBB, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that Third Party, and (c) GIBB accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of GIBB interests arising out of the Client's

release of this report to the Third Party.

GIBB (Pty) Ltd Website : www.gibb.co.za

Postal Address : PO Box 19844, Tecoma 5214 Physical Address : 9 Pearce Street, Berea, East London

Contact Person : Mervin Olivier Email Address : [email protected]

Telephone No. : 043 706 3600 Fax No. : 043 721 0141

http://www.gibb.co.za/

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

J36358 FINAL Rev 1 - bkcob.co.za · Feasibility and High Level Business Plan: ... v3\Hazardous waste treatment facility-Eastern Cape FINAL v3.docx ... factor, source from WRAP, 2014