proposed tete iron ore project landfill site selection tete iron ore english... · 2017-06-13 ·...

PROPOSED TETE IRON ORE PROJECT

LANDFILL SITE SELECTION

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Capitol Resources Limitada (a member of the Baobab Group)

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services

Rua Fernão Melo e Castro 261

Bairro da Sommerschield Maputo

In South Africa and Mozambique* *Rua da Frente de Libertação de

Moçambique, N°324 Maputo,

Moçambique Moçambique

JULY 2015

Landfill Site Selection

Coastal & Environmental Services Capitol Resources ii

Coastal & Environmental Services

Report Title: Landfill Site Selection Report Version: Draft Project Number: 127

Name Responsibility Signature Date

Eric Igbinigie Author

June 2015

Thomas King Author

June 2015

Kevin Whittington-Jones Reviewer

July 2015

Copyright This document contains intellectual property and propriety information that are protected by

copyright in favour of Coastal & Environmental Services (CES) and the specialist consultants. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior

written consent of CES. The document is prepared exclusively for submission to Capitol Resources in Mozambique, and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual

property law and practices of South Africa and Mozambique.

Baobab Landfill Site Selection – July 2015

Coastal & Environmental Services Capitol Resources iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ III LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ III LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... IV 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations ........................................................................................... 1 1.4 Study Team ..................................................................................................................... 1

2 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION ................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Legal Requirements and Permitting ................................................................................. 4

2.2.1 Legal requirements ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Permitting .................................................................................................................... 4

3 LANDFILL SITE SPECIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 6 3.1 Landfill Classification ....................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Waste type .................................................................................................................. 6 3.1.2 Waste quantification .................................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Leachate production potential ...................................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Overall classification .................................................................................................... 8

4 LANDFILL CANDIDATE SITE SELECTION ........................................................................... 9 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Elimination of Fatal Flaws ................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Socio-economic Criteria ................................................................................................. 10 4.4 Environmental Criteria ................................................................................................... 13

4.4.1 Sensitive ecological features ..................................................................................... 13 4.4.2 Rivers and topography ............................................................................................... 13 4.4.3 Geology ..................................................................................................................... 16

5 LANDFILL DESIGN SPECIFICATION .................................................................................. 18 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................... 19 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 21 APPENDIX A: ANNEX I OF THE REGULATIONS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT (DECREE 13/2006 OF 15 JUNE) MOZAMBICAN ......................................................................................... 22

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Tete Iron Project location and licence areas .................................................................. 3 Figure 4.1: Period average wind rose (MM5 data, 2011 to 2013) .................................................. 11 Figure 4.2: Project infrastructure and sensitive social features around the project area ................ 12 Figure 4.3: Sensitive ecological features around the project area ................................................. 15 Figure 4.4: The project area showing the geology and the Revuboe River .................................... 17 Figure 6.1: Intersect of suitable geology and vegetation ................................................................ 20

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Landfill Size Classification .............................................................................................. 7 Table 4.1: Fatal flaws for landfill sites .............................................................................................. 9 Table 5.1: Minimum requirement for G:C:B+ landfill site design ..................................................... 18


Coastal & Environmental Services Capitol Resources iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYM MEANING

CES EOH Coastal & Environmental Services

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESHIA Environmental and Social, Health Impact Assessment

GIS Geographical Information Systems

IRD Initial Rate of Deposition

mbgl Metres below ground level

MITADER Ministério de Terras, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural

MRD Maximum Rate of Deposition

SER Simplified Environmental Report


Coastal & Environmental Services Capitol Resources 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background Capitol Resources Limitada (Capitol Resources), a wholly owned subsidiary of Baobab Resources Plc (Baobab) - a Mozambique-focused iron ore, base and precious metal explorer, is proposing to develop the Tete Iron Project (the project) located north of the provincial capital of Tete, in the Chiúta and Moatize districts of Mozambique. The project extends over three licence areas – 1032L, 1033L and 1035L (Figure 1.1) – all of which are 100% owned by Capitol Resources. The first phase of mining activity will occur in the 1035L licence area, which shares boundaries with Vale and Rio Tinto’s coal projects. The project will initially focus on the Tenge-Ruoni Prospect, an area of mineralisation containing magnetite, titanium and vanadium within a cluster of prospects called the Massamba Group, for the production of pig iron. The Massamba Group, located approximately 55 km north-northeast of Tete, is composed of a cluster of four prospects of which the the Tenge-Ruoni prospect will be mined first and is the focus of the scoping and the Environmental and Social, Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA). As part of the project infrastructure development, an on-site landfill for the disposal of non-hazardous (general) waste from the non-process related mining activities is required. EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (CES) was contracted to prepare a waste management assessment report and to provide a preliminary landfill site selection and design for the proposed Tenge-Ruoni project.

1.2 Terms of Reference A Waste Management Specialist report (CES 2014a) has been documented as part of the ESHIA process. This report provides guidance on the development of an on-site landfill - a preliminary landfill site selection for the proposed mining development.

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations Much of the information regarding the proposed landfill development and quantitative data relating to waste streams on which this report was based was provided by the Client, obtained during the ESHIA process. It was assumed that the information that was provided was correct and valid. Importantly, at the time of preparing this report much of the detailed project information relevant to this waste specialist study was not available. In particular, the detailed landfill site design, including geotechnical analysis is excluded. This report is therefore limited to type, size and site selection of the proposed landfill.

1.4 Study Team The following team members were involved in the specialist study: Dr Eric Igbinigie - Eric is a Senior Environmental Consultant and a registered Professional Natural Scientist (Pr.Sci.Nat.). Eric holds a PhD in Environmental Biotechnology and his professional interest is in Sustainable Integrated Environmental Management with a keen interest in Waste & wastewater specialist assessment, Environmental due diligence, Contamination assessment and remediation, and Environmental & Social management compliance audits. Eric has successfully conducted several related local and international environmental projects across Africa in compliance with the requirements of Equator Principles Financial Institutions including the IFC, SWEDFUND, DEG and AfDB, where he served as both specialist consultant and project manager. Before joining CES Eric served as a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Environmental Biotechnology, Rhodes University conducting postgraduate lectures and led a research group



tasked with the successful beneficiation of coal spoils, facilitating the re-vegetation of coal mine dump sites evident in Witbank, South Africa. Mr Thomas King - Thomas holds a BSc degree with specialisation in Zoology from the University of Pretoria and an Honours degree in Biodiversity and Conservation from Rhodes University. As part of his Honours degree, Thomas was trained in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in addition to the required biological sciences courses. With CES, he has been primarily in charge of all GIS related work, including database and software management. He has been the lead author of two Visual Impact Assessments; for the Syrah Resources Graphite Mine in Mozambique and the Tete Iron Ore Mine in Mozambique. He was assisted in the compilation of numerous others. He is fully competent with the use of ArcGIS 10 including ArcMap, ArcCatalog, and ArcScene. He is also familiar with the use of supporting GIS software such as Oruxmaps, Quantum GIS, DNR Garmin, to name a few. Dr Kevin Whittington-Jones - Kevin holds a PhD in Environmental Biotechnology and an MSc in Zoology (marine ecology) and is a Director at CES. His professional interests include environmental business risk, management systems, waste management and climate change. Prior to joining CES he held various academic posts at Rhodes University, including that of Senior Lecturer at the Rhodes Investec Business School. Kevin has undertaken environmental work at many of the ports in South Africa, including environmental risk assessments, a climate change risk assessment, strategic environmental assessments and an integrated waste management plan. Kevin has also been involved in a number of industrial EIA projects within South Africa and internationally, both as Project Manager and as a waste management specialist. More specifically, he has conducted specialist waste management studies for various heavy mineral, copper and graphite mining projects (Egypt, Madagascar, Mozambique and Malawi), manganese smelters (Kalagadi and Exxaro, both in South Africa), biofuel & biomass projects (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Mozambique), a brewery (Mozambique) and the Rabai Power Station (Kenya). He is currently managing the EIAs for large-scale developments in Mozambique and is assisting Kenmare Resources’ heavy mineral mine to comply with the requirements of the IFC Performance Standards.



Figure 1.1: Tete Iron Project location and licence areas



2 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

2.1 Introduction The design and construction of the Capitol Resources landfill site should be in accordance with international best practice as developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2000), details of which have been provided in the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, 2nd ed. (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DWAF, 1998). Mozambique has no specific requirement for the siting, designing and construction of a general waste landfill site. According to the Article 7(I) of Decree No. 13/2006, of 15 June (Regulations on Waste Management) “All public or private entities carrying out activities related to solid waste management should prepare their waste management plan, prior to entering into business, which should contain at least, information required in Annex I and/or Annex II, in case it is, respectively, a landfill or another waste management operation”.

2.2 Legal Requirements and Permitting 2.2.1 Legal requirements A number of Mozambican laws are applicable to the licensing and management of the proposed landfill. It is apparent that the sound management of solid and liquid waste is an area of focus of the local government in Mozambique and that a sound understanding of the relevant Policies and Acts is important for any developer wishing to operate within Mozambique. An understanding of this legal framework is also essential when evaluating options for the management of wastes. The following documents have bearing on the management of wastes in Mozambique:

Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique (2004)

Environmental Act (Law 20/97) (1997)

National Environmental Management Programme (1995)

Regulation on Environmental Quality Standards and Effluent Emission Decree No. 18/2004 as amended by the Decree No. 67/2010

Regulation on the process of EIA Decree No. 45/2004 as amended by Decree 42 of 2008

Regulation on the Environmental Audit process Decree No. 32/2003

Regulations on Waste Management, Decree No. 13/2006

Regulation on the Management of Bio-Medical Waste Decree No. 8/2003 2.2.2 Permitting “Facilities and equipment meant for disposal, treatment, utilization, valorization or elimination of waste are subject to environmental licensing, in accordance with the regulations on the process of environmental impact assessment …” (Article 10(1) of Decree No. 13/2006). Appendix I (4.8a) of Decree no. 45/2004 (as amended by Decree No. 42/2008), “Places for disposal of Municipal waste with a load greater than 500 tonnes per day” requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for licencing. According to the Waste Management Specialist Report (CES 2014a), the construction workforce of 3000 individuals (maximum) could, without contributions from other sources during the construction, generate 1500kg (1.5 tonnes or 10m3) of solid domestic waste per day. The quantity



of waste from this source is expected to be lower during the operation phase approximately 250kg (0.25 tonnes or 1.6m3) per day1 with a population of 500 persons. The estimated quantities of general solid wastes generated by the proposed mining construction and operation will be significantly less than the legal threshold of 500 tonnes/day requiring EIR for licencing. It is therefore expected that a Simplified Environmental Report (SER) covering this facility will need to be submitted to the Ministério de Terras, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural (MITADER) [as per Appendix II of Decree no. 45/2004 (as amended by Decree No. 42/2008)] to support the application for a landfill license. However, the design and construction of the facility forms part the ESIA application for the mining concession 7055C granted December 2014 for 25 years.

1 According to the World Bank Technical Paper No. 426 (Rushbrook and Pugh, 1999), the estimated rate of generation of domestic

waste in developing countries is approximately 0.5kg per person per day, at an estimated density of 151kg/m3.



3 LANDFILL SITE SPECIFICATIONS

3.1 Landfill Classification The classification of a landfill will determine specific requirements in terms of design and management of the facility. Landfills may be grouped according to the following characteristics (DWAF 1998):

the type of waste to be disposed

the volume of the waste stream, and

the potential for significant leachate generation. The likely classification of the landfill at the Baobab mine, based on these characteristics, is discussed below. 3.1.1 Waste type It has already been established that the objective would be to establish a landfill facility on site for the disposal of non-hazardous (general) waste. This is therefore designated as a ‘general’ (G) landfill. Disposal of hazardous waste (other than small quantities of hazardous materials normally associated with household garbage) is not permitted in such a facility. 3.1.2 Waste quantification The ultimate physical size of the proposed general waste landfill site will depend on the amount of waste it receives over its lifetime. This is important in the context of a point source of pollution, and should therefore be addressed when undertaking the environmental assessment for the selected site. The size of operation depends on the daily rate of waste deposition. This in turn relates to, amongst other things, the size of the population served. To take time and growth into account, disposal sites are classified using the ‘Maximum Rate of Deposition’ (MRD). This is simply the projected maximum average annual rate of waste deposition, expressed in tonnes2 per day, during the expected life of the site. This calculation requires estimates of the initial rate of deposition and expected annual escalation in waste production. To determine the MRD, the following are required:

Establish the ‘Initial Rate of Deposition’ (IRD). This is the measurement of the existing waste stream in tonnes per day.

Then, escalate the IRD at a rate that is usually based on the projected population growth for the estimated or design life of the disposal site.

The maximum average daily rate of deposition, which usually occurs in the final years of the operation, then represents the MRD.

For consistency, the IRD (and hence the MRD) is based on a five day week. If waste is disposed of on weekends, this must be quantified and clearly indicated, but for purposes of standardisation the total must still be presented as though for a five day week (i.e., a 260 day year) (DWAF 1998). IRD: Construction solid waste = 1500kg (1.5tonnes)/day Operational solid waste = 250kg (0.25 tonnes)/day

2 1 ton = 1.016tonne. NEMA WA refers to “Ton” while the DWAF 1998 refers to Tonnes. For the purpose of this report 1tonne has been equated to

1ton.



MRD = (IRD) (1 + d)t Where

MRD: The maximum rate of deposition in tonnes/day during the final year of operation IRD: The initial rate of deposition in tonnes/day and would either be measured or estimated from

appropriate information d: The expected annual increase in the rate of deposition and would usually be based on the

anticipated population growth rate. In this case the anticipated population growth is assumed to be 1% since the number of employees will not increase throughout the life of the mine.

t: The period or planned life of the site expressed in years assuming a 2-year construction phase and a 25-year operation phase.

Construction solid waste = 100kg (0.1

tonnes) / day 1500kg (1.5tonnes)/day Operational solid waste = 100kg (0.1 tonnes) / day 250kg (0.25 tonnes)/day

MRD = (1.5) (1 +1%)2 = (1.5) (1 + 0.01)2 = (1.5) (1.01)2 = (1.5) (1.02) = 1.93 tonnes/day

= (0.25) (1 + 1%)25 = (0.25) (1 + 0.01)25 = (0.25) (1.01)25 = (0.25) (1.28) = 0.32 tonnes/day

= MRD Construction + MRD Operation

= 1.93 + 0.32

= 2.25 tonnes/day Disposal site size classification according to DWAF 1998 is presented in Table 3.1 below. Based on the MRD of 2.25tonnes/day the landfill site can be classified as a Communal (C) Landfill Site (Table 3.1). This is the smallest classification category and is associated with the least number of design and operational requirements (DWAF 1998). Table 3.1: Landfill Size Classification

Disposal Site Size Class Maximum Rates of Deposition (Tonnes per day)

Communal Landfill Site ‘C’ <25

Small Landfill Site ‘S’ >25 <150

Medium Landfill Site ‘M’ >150 <500

Large Landfill Site ‘L’ >500

Source: DWAF 1998

Given the five day week (i.e a 260 day year) recommended by DWAF (1998) for standardisation of the rate of disposal to landfill: Estimated total waste disposal to landfill per year = 2.25tonnes/day x 260d = 585 tonnes/yr Total waste disposal to landfill during the life of mine = 585 tonnes/yr x 25yr = 14 625 tonnes As such, the total capacity of the proposed landfill should be in excess of 14 625 tonnes (approximately 96 854.05m3 at an estimated density of 151kg/m3). In terms of the surface area (footprint) of the landfill as well as the maximum carrying capacity, the Mozambique legislation does not provide specifications in this regards (see Appendix A). It is therefore recommended that the footprint is based on suitable land availability after due consideration of all site determination criteria as defined in this report. As such a surface area of 30,625m2 (175m x 175m) at a depth of 3.16m equating to a total volume of 96 854.05m3 is proposed.



3.1.3 Leachate production potential All landfills have the capacity to generate sporadic leachate in excessively wet weather conditions, as such the potential for significant or sporadic leachate generation be assessed and any need for leachate management identified prior to considering a site for the location of landfill. Three factors are considered in determining whether significant leachate will be generated and if leachate management is required by a landfill site. They include the Site Water Balance, the Climatic Water Balance and the Site Specific Factors. The Site Water Balance is affected by such factors as rainfall, evaporation, moisture content of incoming waste and water ingress into the waste body on account of poor landfill site selection, design and operation. Of these, however, the relationship between rainfall and evaporation will, as a general rule, determine the Site Water Balance. As ambient climate is the major uncontrollable cause of significant leachate generation at a landfill, a Climatic Water Balance is used as the first step in determining the potential for significant leachate generation. “The Climatic Water Balance is a relatively simple and conservative calculation that assists in deciding whether a landfill is likely to generate leachate” (DWAF, 1998). If so then this must be considered during the design of the facility. The Climatic Water Balance is calculated according to the following formula:

B = rainfall (R) in mm of water – evaporation from soil (E) in mm water The value of B is calculated for the wet season of the wettest year on record and then also recalculated for successively drier years. The results of the calculation will determine the classification of the landfill in terms of potential to generate leachate, where: B is positive for less than one year in five for which data is available: B- (no leachate likely); or B is positive for more than one year in five for which data is available: B+ (leachate likely) Site-Specific Factors include the expected waste moisture content, and ingress of runoff and ground water into the waste body. The climate of the project area is considered sub-tropical, with a mean annual rainfall of 1000mm. January is traditionally the wettest month, with a mean rainfall of 229mm while rainfall in the driest months of August and September are 6mm and 5mm, respectively. Although no site-specific evaporation data is available, it is expected that due to the distinct wet season that the site would be classified as B+. Consequently, the design of the facility would need to include leachate management systems. 3.1.4 Overall classification Based on the above, the landfill site at the mine would most likely be classified as: G:C:B+



4 LANDFILL CANDIDATE SITE SELECTION

4.1 Introduction Site selection is the fundamental step in the development of a landfill site. This step has far reaching economic, environmental and public acceptance implications. The site selection process is only complete once the MITADER has confirmed a site feasible on the basis of an environmental assessment. The objectives of disposal site selection are:

To ensure that the site to be developed is environmentally acceptable and that it provides for simple, cost-effective design, this in turn provides for good operation.

To ensure that, because it is environmentally acceptable, it is also socially acceptable. Generally, the first step of the site selection process involves identification and ranking of candidate landfill sites. It is important to ensure that this process is conducted in a logical manner and that all relevant information is available. The specific area of each candidate site will be determined by the required size of the landfill which, in turn, is dependent on the Maximum Rate of Deposition and expected life of the landfill. In the current study, the landfill to be considered must fall within the mining concession area. Various areas were then excluded based on the following steps:

Elimination of all areas with Fatal Flaws

Identification of candidate sites based on key socio-economic and environmental criteria

Selection of candidate sites based on selected site ranking A single area was then identified as candidate site for the landfill siting.

4.2 Elimination of Fatal Flaws No landfill should be developed in areas with an inherent fatal flaw. Based on the DWAF (1998) guidance documents, these fatal flaws are listed in Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1: Fatal flaws for landfill sites

Description Applicable?

Yes No

3 000m from the end of any airport runway or landing strip in the direct line of the flight path and within 500m of an airport or airfield boundary

Areas below the 1 in 50 year flood line

Areas in close proximity to significant surface water bodies (e.g. water courses or dams)

Unstable areas (e.g. fault zones, seismic zones and dolomitic or karst areas where sinkholes and subsidence are unlikely)

Sensitive ecological and / or historical areas

Catchment areas for important water resources

Areas characterised by flat gradients, shallow or emergent ground water (i.e. where a sufficient unsaturated zone separating the waste body and ground water would not be possible)

Areas characterised by steep gradients, where the stability of slopes could be problematic

Areas of ground water recharges on account of topography and / or highly permeable soils

Areas overlying or adjacent to important or potentially important aquifers

Areas characterised by shallow bedrock with little soil cover



Areas in close proximity to land-uses that are incompatible with landfilling (e.g.. areas that would attract community resistance and would include residential areas, nature reserves and cemeteries)

Areas where adequate buffer zones are not possible

Areas immediately upwind of a residential area in the prevailing wind direction(s)

Areas, which, because of title deeds and other constraints, can never be rezoned to permit a waste disposal facility

Areas over which servitudes are held that would prevent the establishment of a waste disposal facility

Any area characterised by any factor that would prohibit the development of a landfill except at prohibitive cost

Areas in conflict with the Local Development Objectives process

Potential areas within the mine lease that exhibit any of the above fatal flaws must be excluded from further consideration as potential sites for the landfill. After exclusion of areas associated with potential fatal flaws, it will be possible to identify candidate sites using a range of socio-economic and environmental criteria. As a general rule, sufficient candidate sites should be identified to ensure the due consideration of alternatives.

4.3 Socio-economic Criteria For the purposes of the current project, consideration of certain of the recommended economic factors, as defined in DWAF (1998), are not considered essential as they are more applicable to landfills servicing urban areas. The social criteria considered relate mostly to issues of health, quality of life, local land values and the likely resistance of communities to the landfill. Social features identified in and around the project site include;

Cemeteries;

Archaeological sites / historical sites / heritage sites / graves site / sacred sites, etc;

Clinics; and

Villages. Other criteria include:

Displacement of local inhabitants (note: unlikely to be relevant to the current project);

Exposed sites with high visibility are undesirable;

Proximity to access road(s), houses and other project infrastructure and associated 200m-wide buffer zones;

Access to the landfill within the project site, in particular, the need for additional access roads;

Prevailing wind directions;

Distance from the nearest residential area. To protect the public from any adverse effects of a waste disposal operation, adequate buffer zones must be established. An additional benefit of maximising the distance between a landfill site and local community is the reduction in the practice of “picking” where community members gain access to the disposal site to search for items of value or food. Discouraging these activities through erection of physical barriers, such as fences, can be costly and ineffective. The predominant wind direction is considered essential and the landfill must not be sited with communities located downwind. The predominant wind direction is East-South-East, and South-South-East, as indicated in Figure 4.1. Therefore, the landfill site should preferably be situated to the north-east of the mine infrastructure and villages.



Figure 4.1: Period average wind rose (MM5 data, 2011 to 2013) Source: Shackleton and von Reiche (2015): Based on these social parameters (Figure 4.2), a number of areas within the project boundary were excluded.



Figure 4.2: Project infrastructure and sensitive social features around the project area



4.4 Environmental Criteria Environmental criteria relates to impacts on the biophysical environment, in particular, water resources. The objectives are:

To ensure that the site to be developed is environmentally acceptable and that it provides for simple, cost-effective design, which in turn provides for good operation; and

To ensure that, because it is environmentally acceptable, it is also socially acceptable. This suggested approach would screen out options based on biophysical and social sensitivities and potential fatal flaws identified on site, and result in the identification of either one or more site options for detailed impact assessment. The intent is to ensure that site options which are environmentally viable are taken forward to the decision making phase. The following factors were considered in selecting a suitable area for the positioning of the landfill site:

Sensitive ecological features

Rivers and topography

Geology 4.4.1 Sensitive ecological features The sensitivity of the ecological areas and the receiving environment were considered in selecting a suitable area for the positioning of the landfill site. According to the Vegetation and Floristic Survey (CES 2014b), five vegetation types were identified in the project area:

Dambo (High sensitivity), although certain dambos have moderate sensitivity;

Mopane Woodland (Moderate sensitivity);

Open Zambezian Undifferentiated Woodland (Moderate sensitivity);

Closed Zambezian Undifferentiated Woodland (High sensitivity);

Riparian (High sensitivity) In the selection of suitable candidate landfill sites, vegetation types of moderate sensitivity were adopted as potentially suitable sites for a landfill (from a vegetation perspective only) (Figure 4.3). Here sensitive vegetation types are delineated by solid polygons while vegetation types of moderate sensitivity are delineated by cross-hatched polygons. 4.4.2 Rivers and topography The following factors were considered in selecting a suitable area for the positioning of the landfill site:

The location of rivers, drainage lines and surface water bodies;

Topography and depth of soil and its quality (the greater the availability of soil, the better as this is required as cover material. Low permeability soil will reduce pollutant migration); and

Valleys where temperature inversion could occur (this could promote the migration of landfill gas and odours into populated areas);

There are no steep areas in the project area except Tenge Hill, which will be mined. The discharging of contaminated water into the local streams or aquifers could be a potential risk on groundwater quality. It is not expected that the volume of leachate discharge from the landfill site will impact significantly on the quality and quantity of groundwater, so the driving head will not increase enough to greatly change local groundwater levels and quality. However, the design specification should meet the minimum requirement for landfill site design for the G:C:B+ (see



Table 5.1). The water quality of the surface water streams will be a far greater consideration. The impacts to water quality primarily results from waste water or sludge directly discharging into the water resources. These discharges may result in the contamination of the Revuboe River and its tributaries. At this juncture, the position of the 1:100 year flood line for the Revuboe River is unknown and a buffer of 100m of the river bank was adopted for the landfill siting. Currently, access to the exploration camp is from the north, via a ferry across the Revuboe River. When the mine is operational, access to the site is anticipated to be from the south-east. Therefore, all areas to the north-west of the Revuboe River will not be considered as suitable for a landfill, because the area will not be accessible except via ferry (Figure 4.3).



Figure 4.3: Sensitive ecological features around the project area Sensitive vegetation types are delineated by solid polygons while vegetation types of moderate sensitivity are delineated by cross-hatched polygons. Vegetation types of moderate sensitivity are potentially suitable sites for a landfill (from a vegetation perspective only).



4.4.3 Geology The following factors were considered in selecting a suitable area for the positioning of the landfill site:

The underlying geology and distance to groundwater (impacts on water movement and quality – the presence of deep weathered formations and aquifers, fault and fold structures could have a major significance in terms of the movement of contamination off site or increasing water quality impacts of a major water resource);

Any landfill site option close to surface water sources should be avoided as the groundwater table is very close to surface in these areas; and

Local soil quality (availability of low permeability clayey soils may reduce the cost of containment liners and leachate management systems).

The geology of the project area is shown in Figure 4.4. The Karoo Formations (of which sandstone is part of) have higher horizontal conductivity values and if sited here, contamination might migrate along the bedding planes towards local streams. The Tete Suite gabbro-anorthosite rocks present lower horizontal conductivity values, but higher vertical conductivity, however, the area is intruded by numerous dolerite dykes and sills that will limit the vertical migration of contaminants. The contact between the gabbro-anorthosite and the Karoo formations (including sandstone) are potentially faulted and fractured, but the recent drilling and aquifer testing programmes have indicated that these geological contacts yield little water and therefore movement of contaminants should also be limited. According to the Groundwater and Geochemistry Impact Assessment undertaken for this project (Coller and von Reichie (2014), the most suitable underlying geology for the construction and operation of a landfill site would be on the gabbro-anorthosite formation (Tete Suite) (Figure 4.4), that is located to the northwest of the plant staying clear of the 1 in 50 year flood line. Once a suitable site is identified in the selected area it would be best practice to conduct a fine grid geophysical survey across the proposed landfill footprint to identify any linear geological features and the natural groundwater levels should be between 10 and 25 mbgl.



Figure 4.4: The project area showing the geology and the Revuboe River The Gabbro formation is the most suitable geology for the landfill site. Areas to the west of the Revuboe River are not considered, due to limited access during the operations phase. The landfill should preferably be situated to the north-west (downwind) of villages and mine infrastructure.



5 LANDFILL DESIGN SPECIFICATION The design requirement for the G:C:B+ landfill should meet the minimum requirement for the landfill design summarised in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Minimum requirement for G:C:B+ landfill site design LEGEND B

- = No significant leachate produced

B+ = Significant leachate produced

R = Required N = Not required F = Flag – special consideration to be given by expert/Competent Authority/Department

“G” General Waste

“C” Communal Landfill

Minimum Requirements B+

Appoint a Responsible Person R

Conceptual Design Confirmation and Site Classification R

Determine final landfill height N

Assess cover volume N

Indicate unsaturated zone after cover excavation N

Determine available airspace N

Estimate airspace utilisation N

Estimate site life N

Address any impacts identified by investigation and/or by the IAPs R

Site layout design N

Surface drainage design R

Development Plan R

Progressive Remediation Plan N

Design of leachate management system N

Design of the toe drains R

Monitoring system design N

End-use Plan N

Testing of soils and materials N

Technical Design Surface hydrology and drainage design N

Determine Lining Requirements R

Water quality monitoring system F

Leachate detection system F

Leachate treatment system N

Leachate management and monitoring system F

Gas management system F

Gas monitoring system F

Cover requirements R

Stability of slopes N

Erosion control design N

Design drawings and specifications N

Approval of Technical Design N

Source: DWAF 1998



6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the available information, it can be concluded that the proponent establish a general waste landfill site with the classification G:C:B+ and a total carrying capacity in excess of 14 625 tonnes (approximately 96 854.05m3 at an estimated density of 151kg/m3). Due to the project site location, the landfill is expected to generate leachate and this would be during the heaviest rainfall season around January, which is traditionally the wettest month, with a mean rainfall of 229mm. As such, the engineering design should include a suitably designed leachate management system. This may include the installation of under-liners, drains and removal system to avert the potential contamination of water resource and in particular, ground water. In terms of the surface area (footprint) of the landfill as well as the maximum carrying capacity, the Mozambique legislation does not provide specifications in this regards. It is therefore recommended that the footprint is based on land availability and suitability after due consideration of all site determination criteria. As such a surface area of 30,625m2 (175m x 175m) at a depth of 3.16m equating to a total volume of 96 854.05m3 is proposed. The most suitable and practicable location for the potential siting of the proposed landfill site is shown on the map below (Figure 6.1). The area identified is within the currently proposed slag dump designed to hold slag from the processing operations. Discussions with Capitol Resources have identified that not all of this area will be required for the slag dump and that a portion, to the south, can be set aside for the landfill site in what will become a joint slag and landfill facility. This area is to the:

North of the project Tete Iron plant;

South-east of the Revuboe River;

East of the Tenge pit. An alternative site identified is to the north-west of the Tete Iron plant, south-east of the Revuboe River and between the Tenge pit and the waste rock dump. This area was however considered undesirable because it falls within the operations and partly overlaps the fly rock zone from the blasting assessment (400-500m). Once a suitable 30,625m2 footprint is identified in the southern portion of the currently proposed slag dump, it would be best practice to adopt the following recommendations:

Adhere to the Annex I of the Regulations on Waste Management (Decree 13/2006 of 15 June) (Appendix A) and the minimum G:C:B+ landfill design requirement as described in DWAF 1998;

It would be beneficial to conduct a fine grid geophysical survey across the footprint to assess the presence of any linear geological features:

The natural groundwater levels in the area should be between 10 and 25 mbgl:

The selected area should be clear of the 1 in 50 year flood line:

A minimum distance of 100m to any surface water resource should be adopted; and

The selected site should not trigger any of the listed fatal flaws described in Table 4.1.



Figure 6.1: Intersect of suitable geology and vegetation showing the preferred landfill site Areas shown in green shades are suitable from both a geological and vegetation perspective i.e. green areas have moderately sensitive vegetation on Gabbro geology. Grey-shaded areas are either inaccessible, downwind, or of unsuitable geology.



REFERENCES Coastal & Environmental Services (2014a): Waste and Wastewater Specialist Assessment for the Capitol Resources, Tete Iron Project, Mozambique. Coastal & Environmental Services: Grahamstown. Coastal & Environmental Services (2014b): Tete Iron Ore Project: Vegetation and Floristic Survey and Impact Assessment, CES, Grahamstown. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1998): Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, 2nd ed. Environmental Protection Agency (2000): Landfill Manuals - Landfill Site Design Rushbrook and Pugh (1999): Solid Waste Landfills in Middle and Lower Income Countries - World Bank Technical Paper No.426 Shackleton, N. and von Reiche, N. May (2015): Baobab Tete Iron Ore Project. Air Quality Specialist Impact Assessment Report, Airshed Planning Professionals (Pty) Ltd, Midrand van Coller, AA, Smith, LA, and Moeketsi, B. (2014): Baobab Tete Iron Ore Project. Groundwater and Geochemistry Impact Assessment Report, Digby Wells Environmental (DWE), Randburg



APPENDIX A: ANNEX I OF THE REGULATIONS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT (DECREE 13/2006 OF 15 JUNE) MOZAMBICAN

ANNEX I

LANDFILLS I. WRITTEN PARTS A. descriptive document and Justification

a) the Purpose of the project. b) planning, site selection and Project bases, including volume and area occupied. c) geotechnical and hydrogeological, geological features of the site; d) typology and amount of waste; e) risk management processes; f) observing procedures for the prevention and minimization of waste production; g) techniques, equipment and procedures to be observed for the treatment of waste; h) location and characteristics of the place for storing of waste, as well as storage

procedures, including information on the type and characteristics of the storage containers;

i) type, characteristics of transport means and procedures to be observed for the carriage of waste, from the point of his generation to the place of their disposal;

j) procedures to observe for the deposition or disposal of waste; k) waterproofing system; l) stormwater drainage systems and leachate; m) leachate treatment, forecasting the quantity and quality of leachate; n) leachate and groundwater monitoring in order to prevent contamination of groundwater; o) drainage and treatment of biogas, if necessary; p) business plan of the landfill; q) staff structure and schedule of work; r) and populations safety plan system workforce; s) waste acceptance plan; t) waste collection plan; u) final coverage, landscape recovery and post closure monitoring; v) procedures in case of accidents, oil spills. Discharge and accidental leaks; w) means and responsibilities for carrying out the activities set out in the waste management

plan. B. Sizing

a) the calculation and dimensioning of barriers for waterproofing; b) scaling and calculations of leachate treatment plant.

II. PARTS DESIGNED A. plant location (1:25 000 scale) B. General Plan of the landfill, with clear indications of all infrastructure components, including implementation of waste disposal and the pre-treatment; C. Details of stratigraphy of waterproofing and final coverage of the landfill.

proposed tete iron ore project landfill site selection tete iron ore english... · 2017-06-13 ·...

Documents