requirements waste disposal landfill sep full

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

BY LANDFILL

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Republic of South Africa

DRAFT Third Edition 2005

________________________

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 i

Published by

Department of Water Affairs & Forestry

Private Bag X313 PRETORIA 0001 Republic of South Africa Tel: (012) 338 7500 Printed and bound by

First Edition 1994 Second Edition 1998 Third Edition 2005

ISBN 0620-22993-4 Copyright Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner

without full acknowledgement of the source

______________________________ This document should be cited as: Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, Third Edition, 2005. Waste Management Series. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Project Leader: Leon Bredenhann, Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Project Co-ordinator (First and Second Editions): Jarrod Ball, Jarrod Ball & Associates cc, Johannesburg, South Africa Departmental Project Co-ordinator (Third Edition): Romy de Jager, Romy van Jaarsveld Consultants cc Editor: Kathleen Langmore, Jarrod Ball & Associates cc, Johannesburg, South Africa

ii Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

This document forms part of the Waste Management Series, produced by the Department of Water Affairs & Forestry. Thus far, the series comprises:

Document 1: Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. Document 2: Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Document 3: Minimum Requirements for the Monitoring of Water Quality at Waste Management Facilities.

Document 1: Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, sets out the waste classification system. In this, wastes are placed in two classes, General or Hazardous, according to their inherent toxicological properties. Hazardous wastes are further subdivided, according to the risk that they may pose at disposal, using a hazard rating. In this way, a less hazardous waste is distinguished from an extremely hazardous waste. Wastes with a hazard rating of 1 or 2 are very or extremely hazardous, while wastes with a hazard rating of 3 or 4 are of moderate or low hazard. The requirements for pre-treatment and disposal are set in accordance with the waste classification. Hazardous waste prevention and minimisation are briefly addressed, because of their importance, as is handling, transportation and storage. Protocols are included for evaluating downstream uses of waste and for fixed scenario and site specific risk-based approaches in the application of Minimum Requirements. Risk is also based on both eco- and mammalian toxicity. The hazardous waste classification tables have been extended to include organic contaminants.

Document 2: Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, addresses landfill classification and the siting, investigation, design, operation and monitoring of landfill sites. In the landfill classification system, a landfill is classified in terms of waste class, size of operation, and potential for significant leachate generation, all of which influence the risk it poses to the environment. Graded requirements are then set for all aspects of landfilling, including public participation. Although the primary focus of this document is landfills, the classification system is also applied to disposal sites other than landfills, including waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants, and pre- and post-incineration areas. Graded requirements are also set for these disposal sites. An Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation procedure harmonises the EIA application process and the disposal site permit procedure.

Document 3: Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities, addresses the monitoring of water quality at and around waste disposal facilities.

Other documents in the process of being finalised as part of the Minimum Requirements series include Minimum Requirements for Landfill Auditing, Minimum Requirements for Waste Management Training, and Minimum Requirements for Upgrading Waste Disposal Operations.

PREFACE

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 iii

PREFACE

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (the Department) first published the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill in September 1994. In 1998, a Second Edition was published to incorporate feedback from workshops held to involve Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) and other sources. In the Third Edition, the document has been extensively reviewed and extended to incorporate important aspects that were missing from the regulatory and technical framework in the Second Edition. Also, as in the past, experience gained since implementation and recent research have been used to enrich the Minimum Requirements and to address waste disposal in South Africa more extensively in a way that is practical, affordable and implementable.

Requirements addressed and extended in the Third Edition include those for an Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation (IDSA) procedure, public participation, buffer zones, sites other than landfills that are legally defined as disposal sites, waste salvaging1, landfill final height, leachate treatment, liners and covers, air quality control, gas management, and sewage sludge.

The IDSA procedure was developed during the finalisation of the EIA Regulations to be promulgated in terms of Section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and the transfer of the disposal site permit function from the Department of Water Affairs to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This procedure can therefore only be fully refined after a reasonable period of implementation.

The IDSA presents a single application procedure that harmonises Environmental Authorisations and the disposal site permit procedure (in terms of the Environment Conservation Amendment Act (Act 50 of 2003)). In IDSA, the relevant provincial environmental authority serves as point of entry and authorises both disposal site permits and Environmental Authorisations. This will only apply after the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has delegated the power to permit disposal sites to the MECs of the relevant provinces.

This Edition of the Minimum Requirements has been written based on the assumption that all relevant provincial environmental departments have been assigned as Competent Authorities, also for disposal site permit authorisations. The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism serves as point of entry and as authorising authority in respect of provinces not yet assigned with the disposal site permit authority.

The approach to the climatic water balance has been revised, based on recent research, and certain areas that were classified B- will be classified2 B+. All permit applications for new sites, existing unauthorised sites and amendments will be classified or reclassified according to the new approach. At this stage, authorised sites do not have to be reclassified unless the leachate detection system, which has always been a Minimum Requirement for B- sites, indicates that significant leachate is being produced, see Section 8.4.4.

1 Although the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism strongly support waste separation at source for further re-use, recycling and recovery, they recognise that waste salvaging takes place at landfills in South Africa and that it may be the only form of livelihood for local families. The intention in setting requirements for professionalising waste salvaging practices is to control salvaging and protect the dignity and health of salvagers until salvaging is phased out.

When considering the changes in the Third Edition, users should remember that the Minimum Requirements address the rule rather than the exception. The aim is to ensure that the same environmental standards and objectives are applied across South Africa, whilst at the same time not simply applying an indiscriminate, ‘one size fits all’ approach. They therefore address the rule,

2 This applies from the date of publication of the Third Edition.

PREFACE

iv Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

while still making provision for defensible deviation where site-specific factors are such that the rule cannot or need not be applied. Such deviation could involve either an increase in standards or a relaxation, and would have to be properly, researched, motivated and recorded, so that it is indeed defensible.

Users should also remember that although the Department fully subscribes to all four components of Integrated Waste Management, i.e., waste minimisation, recycling, treatment and disposal, the primary purpose of this document is to address waste disposal by landfill. The reasons for this are:

• Regardless of how well the first three steps are undertaken, some waste will always have to be disposed of on landfills.

• Historically, many landfills in South Africa have been badly sited, designed and operated. They therefore represent significant point sources of pollution, which require priority control.

• By improving the standards of waste disposal, the cost of landfilling will increase. This will make waste disposal less attractive, which will in turn promote waste minimisation, recycling and treatment.

To enable the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to manage the waste cycle from generation to disposal and hence promote integrated waste management, the disposal site permit function will be added to their portfolio and transferred from the Department of Water Affairs to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in 2005, see Appendix 5.2. The date of transfer will be proclaimed by the President in the Government Gazette. From the date of transfer, disposal site authorisations will be issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in concurrence on the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (the Departments). To this end, the Environmental Conservation Act has been amended to read, “s.20(1) No person may establish, provide or operate a disposal site

without permit issued by the Minister [of Environmental Affairs and Tourism].

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism intends to selectively delegate the power to permit the establishment, provision or operation of disposal sites to the provincial environmental Members of the Executive Committee (MECs), in respect of applications made in terms of section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989) where such applications are subject to environmental authorisation.

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry will remain responsible for those elements of the disposal site permit function concerned with water quality protection, “s.20(6) The issuing of a waste disposal site permit is subject to - (a) the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry; and (b) the inclusion therein of the conditions contained in a Record of Decision issued by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry regarding any measures that the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry considers necessary to protect water resources as defined in the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No, 36 of 1998)”.

Throughout this document, the “Competent Authority” (the relevant provincial environmental authority or the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism) refers to the person who makes decisions in respect of applications for environmental authorisations pertaining to approval of authorisations of disposal sites. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry exercises its legal water resource protection mandate through the Competent Authority for section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) disposal site permit authorisations.

The Department3, in terms of section 22(3) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) may dispense with the requirements for a 21(g) licence for water use if the purpose of this Act is met through the disposal site permit in terms of the

3 Or a responsible authority as defined in this Act.

PREFACE

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 v

Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989).

Furthermore: “s.20(10) Anything done in terms of this section by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry prior to the commencement of the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003, shall be deemed to have been done by the Minister.”. The transfer of the disposal site permit function from the Department of Water Affairs to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism will therefore not impact compliance with and the application of the Minimum Requirements set out in the Waste Management Series.

Since 1984, the Minimum Requirements have proved to be both practical and implementable in upgrading waste disposal practices in Southern Africa. The Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill has been used as the basis for the Botswana Landfill Guidelines and is frequently used as the standard in Namibia and Swaziland. Furthermore, the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) Working Group on Sanitary Landfills has recognised the Minimum Requirements approach developed in South Africa in their document on landfilling in developing countries.

Comment received on the Minimum Requirements is highly valued and very welcome, as its inclusion has improved and augmented the document.

The Department therefore wishes to thank all those who have contributed to the document in the past and further written comment on the Third Edition is invited.

MS BP SONJIKA MP MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY

SYNOPSIS

vi Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

SYNOPSIS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL

The Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill forms part of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s Waste Management Series. This series establishes a reference framework of standards for waste management in South Africa. It also facilitates the enforcement of the disposal site authorisation system provided for in terms of Section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), amended by the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003).

The Amendment Act states that no person shall establish, provide or operate any disposal site without a Permit issued by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The issuing of a disposal site permit is subject to the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry and the conditions contained in a Record of Decision (RoD) issued by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. This applies to all new, operating sites and sites closed on or after 24 August 1990. Unacceptable impacts of unauthorised sites closed prior to 24 August 1990 could be controlled in terms of Section 19 of the National Water Act, 1998, (Act 36 of 1998) and/or section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).

In this document, the procedures, actions and information which may be required from an applicant when authorising a disposal site or written into the RoD as conditions, are set out in the form of Minimum Requirements. The objective of setting Minimum Requirements is to take pro-active steps to prevent the degradation of water quality and the environment, and to improve the standard of waste disposal in South Africa. To ensure environmental protection that is both practical and affordable, graded requirements are

applied to different classes of disposal site. (See the tables at the end of each section)

The class of a landfill is determined from the waste type, size of operation, and potential for significant leachate generation. The class of other disposal sites such as waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, waste treatment facilities and storage areas at incinerators is also determined from waste type, size of operation and potential for significant leachate generation. In addition, the name of the disposal site is added to the classification, e.g., G:S:B- (Transfer Station).

Where significant leachate is generated, leachate management is mandatory. Where hazardous waste is involved, the most stringent Minimum Requirements are applicable.

There is an important relationship between all aspects of the disposal site development process. Good site selection provides for simple cost-effective design, which, provided the site preparation is correctly carried out, provides for good operation. This, together with adequate buffer zones, ensures environmental acceptability, which often relates directly to public acceptance. Minimum Requirements are therefore set for all technical aspects of disposal site development, operation and closure. They are also set for involving Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) in determining site feasibility, monitoring, and end-use requirements.

The requirements for public participation are in support of public participation as reflected in the Department of Environmental and Tourism‘s Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIAR) proposed under section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) as amended and to be

SYNOPSIS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 vii

promulgated in 2005. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), together with other necessary stages in the landfill development process, forms part of the newly developed Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation procedure. This procedure briefly depicts the responsibilities of the Department, of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, of the relevant provincial environmental authorities, and of the applicants for EIA and disposal site permit authorisations.

The Permit Holder is primarily and ultimately accountable for the disposal site, the health and safety of workers and salvagers on the site, and any impact the site may have on the receiving environment. However, the Permit Holder may appoint a Responsible Person, for example, a consultant or operator, to ensure that the appropriate Minimum Requirements are applied throughout the development, operation and closure of the site. The Responsible Person must be qualified to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority4 and must be capable of understanding and correctly applying the Minimum Requirements.

The accompanying Figure (Landfill Process, see next page), provides an overview of the relationship between all aspects of the landfill process, for a number of different scenarios. It also provides an overview of the disposal site authorisation procedure. From the Figure, it can be seen that the first step in any scenario is to classify the site under consideration, whether it be proposed or existing. Thereafter all applicable Minimum Requirements are based on this classification.

In the case of new sites, site selection procedures eliminate sites with inherent Fatal Flaws, on a site-specific basis. Site selection requires the due consideration of alternatives, in that more than one site must be considered. Site feasibility is then based on both technical suitability and public acceptance.

Site investigation will vary, depending on the site classification. In most instances, however, it will involve a geohydrological investigation, an EIA, air dispersion modelling, determination of final landfill height and the extent of the buffer zone, and the determination of end-use requirements involving the IAPs. Based on this information, a site design, operating plan and monitoring plan will be prepared. The design may be a new site design, an upgrade of an existing design, or closure design. In most cases, however, the basic design parameters, together with the end-use plan, must be addressed.

The results of the investigations and the design, together with certain additional information and the plan of study, must be collated and presented as a Permit Application Report. Based on this, the Competent Authority will finally consider authorising the establishment and/or operation of the disposal site, either for a prolonged period, or with a view to closure.

Once authorisation is granted, new sites will be developed, prepared and commissioned for waste disposal, while existing sites may require upgrading and/or remediation. New sites can only be operated once the Competent Authority has approved the completed construction. Thereafter, the disposal site must be operated and monitored in accordance with the Minimum Requirements applicable to the class of site under consideration.

In the event of closure, the Permit Holder or operator must inform the Competent Authority of the intention to close the facility one year before the event. The end-use requirements are then considered and the closure requirements are determined. Based on this, and on an appropriate investigation, the design is upgraded and a closure report is drawn up. The latter compares the disposal site status with what is required and makes recommendations regarding remediation.

4 The Competent Authority in relation to an environmental authorisation application, is the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, or the MEC of a

Once the closure report has been accepted and the site has been remediated to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority, the site may close,

specific province, or their delegated officials or organs of state.

SYNOPSIS

viii Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

restrictions on the buffer zone may be lifted, and the end-use plan may be implemented. The closed landfill site then continues to be monitored for thirty years after closure. This period may, however, be shortened or extended, at the discretion of the Competent Authority.

Throughout the disposal site development, operation and closure process, a close liaison must

be maintained with the Competent Authority. At certain critical points, written consent must be obtained, before certain steps may be taken. In this way, the Competent Authority will use the Minimum Requirements to enforce disposal site authorisation. A close liaison must also be maintained with IAPs throughout the process, to ensure public acceptance.

SYNOPSIS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 ix

LANDFILL PROCESS

OPERATING LANDFILL (NO PERMIT/CONCEPT PERMIT)

NEW LANDFILL

CLOSED LANDFILL (NO PERMIT/CONCEPT PERMIT)

LEGEND:

Numbers represent Section numbers in text, where appropriate Minimum Requirements are presented. Landfill Sites without a permit (Any step here may have to be improved if the Permit Application is unsuccessful). Landfill Sites with Permit Involvement of Competent Authority (CA)

Classify Landfill (3)* Classify Proposed Landfill (3)* Classify Landfill (3)*

Determine Landfill Future (4)Identify and Rank Candidate Landfill Sites (4)

Consult CA (4)

Obtain CA Confirmation of Future (4)

Assess Landfill Feasibility (4)

Investigate (6) (7)

Apply for Closure (12) Continue Operation (10)

Obtain CA Confirmation of Feasibility (4)

Determine End-use and Closure Requirements (7)

Investigate (6) (7) Investigate (6) (7) Remedial Design (8)

Investigate (6) (7)

Design (8)


Closure Post Aug.1990 (12) Closure Pre Aug.1990 (12)Closure Design (8) Upgrade Design (8)

OBTAIN A LANDFILL SITE PERMIT FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (CA)

Obtain CA Approval (9) Obtain CA Approval (9)

Operate and Monitor Landfill in terms of Minimum Requirements (10) (11)

Apply for Closure (12)

Confirm/Determine End-use Requirements/Upgrade Design (12)

Draw up a Landfill Closure Report (12)

Obtain Written Acceptance from CA (12)

Remediate Landfill (12)

Obtain Letter of Approval from CA (12)

Close Landfill (12)

Monitor Closed Landfill Monitor Water Quality on an Ongoing Basis (13)

Prepare Site (9)Upgrade Site (9)

* G:C and G:S:B- sites can apply to be authorized using the Directions instead of a Permit Application.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

x Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE iii

SYNOPSIS vi

LIST OF TABLES xvi

LIST OF FIGURES xvii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................... xix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................. xxi

Section 1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS - AN OVERVIEW ....................................................................1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 The Minimum Requirements Programme..........................................................................................1 1.3 Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill ..................................................................1 1.4 Some Characteristics of Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill ...........................2 1.5 Flexibility of Standards ......................................................................................................................4 1.6 The Enforcement of Minimum Requirements....................................................................................4

1.6.1 Establishment of Competent Authority ................................................................................4 1.6.2 Interaction of the Departments .............................................................................................5 1.6.3 Enforcement of Minimum Requirements for Landfills ........................................................5 1.6.4 Enforcement of Minimum Requirements for Other Disposal Sites ......................................6

1.7 The Permit Holder..............................................................................................................................6 1.8 The Responsible Person .....................................................................................................................7 1.9 Classification of Disposal Sites..........................................................................................................7 1.10 Degree to which a Minimum Requirement must be Executed...........................................................7 1.11 Using this Document..........................................................................................................................8

Section 2 WASTE DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL........................................................................................14

2.1 The Role of Landfill in the Waste Management System ................................................................14 2.2 The Environmental Impact of Landfill.............................................................................................14 2.3 Overview of Environmentally Acceptable Landfilling ....................................................................14

2.3.1 Selecting a landfill site........................................................................................................15 2.3.2 Designing a landfill.............................................................................................................15 2.3.3 Operating a landfill .............................................................................................................16 2.3.4 Closing a landfill.................................................................................................................16 2.3.5 Monitoring a landfill...........................................................................................................16

2.4 Waste Management Facilities other than Landfills ..........................................................................17

Section 3 SITE CLASSIFICATION...........................................................................................................20

3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................20 3.2 Waste Class ......................................................................................................................................20 3.3 Size of Waste Stream or Operation ..................................................................................................22

3.3.1 General waste sites .............................................................................................................22 3.3.2 Hazardous waste disposal sites ...........................................................................................24

3.4 The Potential for Significant Leachate Generation and the need for Leachate Management ..........24 3.4.1 Determining whether significant leachate will be generated and if leachate management is

required...............................................................................................................................25 3.4.2 Determining the Climatic Water Balance ...........................................................................26 3.4.3 Site-Specific Factors affecting the Site Water Balance classification ................................27 3.4.4 Alternative methods of determining significant leachate generation..................................29

3.5 Application of the Landfill Classification System ...........................................................................29 3.5.1 Landfill classes ...................................................................................................................29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xi

3.5.2 Examples of landfill classes................................................................................................31 3.5.3 Amendment of site classification........................................................................................31

3.6 Application of the Classification System to Waste Management Facilities other than Landfills ....31

Section 4 SITE SELECTION .....................................................................................................................33

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................33 4.2 Initiating the Public Participation Process .......................................................................................34 4.3 Approach to Site Selection...............................................................................................................37 4.4 Elimination of Areas with Inherent Fatal Flaws ..............................................................................37 4.5 Identifying Candidate Sites ..............................................................................................................38

4.5.1 Economic criteria................................................................................................................38 4.5.2 Environmental criteria ........................................................................................................39 4.5.3 Public acceptance criteria ...................................................................................................39 4.5.4 Critical factors ....................................................................................................................40 4.5.5 Procedure ............................................................................................................................40

4.6 Ranking of Candidate Sites ..............................................................................................................40 4.7 The Feasibility Study and Report.....................................................................................................42

4.7.1 Basic information................................................................................................................43 4.7.2 Preliminary Geohydrological Investigation........................................................................43 4.7.3 Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................................44 4.7.4 Conceptual design and consideration of critical factors .....................................................44 4.7.5 Maps and plans ...................................................................................................................44 4.7.6 Further consultation with Interested and Affected Parties..................................................45 4.7.7 Consideration of unauthorised operating landfills ..............................................................45

Section 5 AUTHORISATION....................................................................................................................52

5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................52 5.2 Waste Directions ..............................................................................................................................53 5.3 The Permit Application Procedure...................................................................................................57

5.3.1 Definition of disposal site class and initial approach to authorities....................................57 5.3.2 Confirmation of site feasibility ...........................................................................................57 5.3.3 Site visit and directives.......................................................................................................57 5.3.4 Permit application report ....................................................................................................58 5.3.5 Issue of permit ....................................................................................................................59 5.3.6 Appeal.................................................................................................................................59 5.3.7 Site preparation...................................................................................................................60 5.3.8 Operation and control .........................................................................................................60 5.3.9 Salvaging at landfill sites....................................................................................................61 5.3.10 Change of ownership or operator........................................................................................62 5.3.11 Site closure (see Section 12)...............................................................................................62

Section 6 SITE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................65

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................65 6.1.1 The basic approach to site investigation .............................................................................65 6.1.2 The scope of a site investigation.........................................................................................66

6.2 Physical Geography .........................................................................................................................66 6.2.1 Extent of investigation........................................................................................................66 6.2.2 Topography and surface drainage.......................................................................................66 6.2.3 Infrastructure and man-made features ................................................................................67 6.2.4 Climate................................................................................................................................67 6.2.5 Vegetation...........................................................................................................................67 6.2.6 Existing land uses ...............................................................................................................67

6.3 Sub-surface Features ........................................................................................................................67 6.3.1 Soils ....................................................................................................................................68 6.3.2 Geology ..............................................................................................................................68 6.3.3 Geohydrology .....................................................................................................................69 6.3.4 Miscellaneous sub-surface issues .......................................................................................70

6.4 The Geohydrological Report............................................................................................................71

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

6.5 Potential for Landfill Gas and Air Quality Problems.......................................................................71 6.5.1 Landfill Gas ........................................................................................................................71 6.5.2 Air quality...........................................................................................................................72

Section 7 THE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS....................76

7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................76 7.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)........................................................................................77 7.3 Response Action Plan ......................................................................................................................80

Section 8 SITE DESIGN ............................................................................................................................86

8.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................86 8.2 Conceptual design ............................................................................................................................87

8.2.1 Confirmation of site classification......................................................................................87 8.2.2 Final landfill height, cover, airspace and site life ...............................................................88 8.2.3 Site layout ...........................................................................................................................90 8.2.4 Preliminary Closure Plan....................................................................................................91 8.2.5 IAP involvement.................................................................................................................91

8.3 Testing of Soils, Construction Materials and Waste ........................................................................92 8.3.1 Soil permeability.................................................................................................................92 8.3.2 Compaction properties........................................................................................................92 8.3.3 Shear strength tests .............................................................................................................92 8.3.4 Geomembrane and geotextile tests .....................................................................................93 8.3.5 Waste tests ..........................................................................................................................93

8.4 Technical Design..............................................................................................................................93 8.4.1 Design of upslope cut-off drain systems and contaminated drainage systems ...................93 8.4.2 Design of the separation between the waste body and the ground water............................94 8.4.3 Design of the lining system ................................................................................................94 8.4.4 Design of leachate collection, leakage detection and leachate treatment system ...............96 8.4.5 Design of hazardous waste lagoons ....................................................................................98 8.4.6 Gas management systems ...................................................................................................99 8.4.7 Design of final cover or capping.......................................................................................100 8.4.8 Stability of slopes .............................................................................................................101

8.5 Erosion from Landfill Surfaces ......................................................................................................101 8.6 Final Landfill Profile......................................................................................................................102

Section 9 SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING ..................................................................108

9.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................108 9.2 Boundaries .....................................................................................................................................108 9.3 Design Drawings, Specifications and Bills of Quantities ..............................................................109 9.4 Contractor.......................................................................................................................................109 9.5 Quality Control Programme and Supervision ................................................................................109 9.6 Environmental Requirements and Conservation of Natural Resources .........................................110 9.7 Extent of Site Preparation ..............................................................................................................110 9.8 Setting Out .....................................................................................................................................110 9.9 Occupational Health and Safety Act ..............................................................................................110 9.10 Approval of Preparation and Constructed Works ..........................................................................110

Section 10 SITE OPERATION ..................................................................................................................113

10.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................113 10.2 Facilities and Resources required for Operation ............................................................................114

10.2.1 Signposting and road access .............................................................................................114 10.2.2 Controls ............................................................................................................................114 10.2.3 Operating Plan ..................................................................................................................115 10.2.4 Resources..........................................................................................................................116

10.3 Landfill Operation..........................................................................................................................117 10.3.1 Principles of sanitary landfilling.......................................................................................117 10.3.2 Methods of landfilling: General waste.............................................................................118 10.3.3 Methods of landfilling: Hazardous waste ........................................................................120

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xiii

10.3.4 Co-disposal .......................................................................................................................122 10.3.5 Disposal of medical wastes...............................................................................................123

10.4 Other Elements of Landfill Operation............................................................................................124 10.4.1 Excavation for cover.........................................................................................................124 10.4.2 Drainage............................................................................................................................124 10.4.3 Management of landfill height and slope gradients ..........................................................125 10.4.4 Control of nuisances .........................................................................................................125 10.4.5 Waste salvaging................................................................................................................126 10.4.6 Leachate management ......................................................................................................127 10.4.7 Gas Management Monitoring and Control .......................................................................127 10.4.8 Progressive remediation of completed areas.....................................................................128 10.4.9 Final cover ........................................................................................................................128

10.5 Public Participation in the Operation .............................................................................................128 10.6 Hazardous Waste Lagoons.............................................................................................................129

Section 11 OPERATION MONITORING .................................................................................................133

11.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................133 11.2 Background ....................................................................................................................................133 11.3 The Required Extent and Frequency of Monitoring ......................................................................134 11.4 Disposal Site Auditing ...................................................................................................................134 11.5 Other Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................135

11.5.1 Gate or weighbridge recording procedures.......................................................................135 11.5.2 Volume, height and slope surveys ....................................................................................136 11.5.3 Collection and processing of other data............................................................................136 11.5.4 Leachate and water quality monitoring (see Section 13)..................................................137 11.5.5 Gas monitoring .................................................................................................................137 11.5.6 Air quality monitoring ......................................................................................................138 11.5.7 Monitoring of landfill stability .........................................................................................139 11.5.8 Monitoring of remediated areas (see Section 12.8) ..........................................................139 11.5.9 Health of workers .............................................................................................................139

Section 12 REMEDIATION, CLOSURE AND END-USE.......................................................................142

12.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................142 12.2 Determination of End-use Requirements .......................................................................................145 12.3 Investigation of the Landfill to Determine Closure Requirements.................................................145 12.4 Closure Design...............................................................................................................................146 12.5 Closure Report ...............................................................................................................................146 12.6 Written Acceptance........................................................................................................................146 12.7 Remediation of Landfill .................................................................................................................146 12.8 Closure and Implementation of the End-use Plan ..........................................................................147 12.9 Ongoing Inspections and Maintenance of the Landfill ..................................................................147 12.10 Ongoing Monitoring and Public Participation ...............................................................................148

Section 13 WATER QUALITY MONITORING.......................................................................................152

13.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................152 13.2 Pre-Operation Monitoring..............................................................................................................152

13.2.1 Surface water monitoring system .....................................................................................153 13.2.2 Ground water monitoring system .....................................................................................153 13.2.3 Leachate monitoring system .............................................................................................153 13.2.4 Parameters ........................................................................................................................153 13.2.5 Sampling...........................................................................................................................153 13.2.6 Reporting ..........................................................................................................................154

13.3 Operation Monitoring.....................................................................................................................154 13.3.1 Detection monitoring ........................................................................................................154 13.3.2 Investigative monitoring...................................................................................................154 13.3.3 Leachate............................................................................................................................154 13.3.4 Reporting ..........................................................................................................................155

13.4 Post-closure Monitoring.................................................................................................................155

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiv Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

13.5 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................155

LIST OF APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................159

Appendix 3.1 METHOD FOR CALCULATING MAXIMUM RATE OF DEPOSITION (MRD) AT A LANDFILL SITE (Section 3)..................................................................................................161

Appendix 3.2 PRINCIPLES OF DETERMINING THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE (Section 3) .......162

Appendix 3.3 EXAMPLES OF LANDFILL CLASSES (Section 3)..............................................................164

Appendix 3.4 DETAILED SITE WATER BALANCE AND EXAMPLES OF CALCULATIONS OF THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE (Section 3)..........................................................................168

Appendix 4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Section 4) ...................................................................................176

Appendix 4.2 AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION (Section 4)..............................................................................191

Appendix 4.3 BUFFER ZONES (Section 4) ...................................................................................................193

Appendix 5.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OTHER THAN LANDFILLS (Section 5)...........196

Appendix 5.2 INTEGRATED DISPOSAL SITE AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE (Section 5) ...............211

Appendix 6 NOTES ON EXPLORATION BOREHOLES (Section 6) ..........................................................222

Appendix 7 CHECKLIST OF DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS (Section 7) ......224

Appendix 8.1 CALCULATING LANDFILL SITE LIFE (Section 8).............................................................228

Appendix 8.2 DESIGN OF THE LINING SYSTEM (Section 8) ...................................................................235

Appendix 8.3 DESIGN OF LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND PIEZOMETERS (Section 8) ....242

Appendix 8.4 DESIGN OF THE FINAL COVER OR CAPPING SYSTEM (Section 8) ..............................245

Appendix 8.5 PERMEABILITY TESTS (Section 8) .....................................................................................247

Appendix 8.6 SLOPE STABILITY AND SHEAR STRENGTH TESTING (Section 8)................................249

Appendix 8.7 DETERMINATION OF LANDFILL HEIGHT (Section 8) .....................................................252

Appendix 8.8 LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Section 8.4.4) .........................................................260

Appendix 8.9 CHECKLIST OF LANDFILL DESIGN AND OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS (Sections 8 and 10) ......................................................................................................................................265

Appendix 10.1 WASTE BURNING (Section 10) ...........................................................................................267

Appendix 10.2 WASTE SALVAGING (Section 10) ......................................................................................269

Appendix 10.3 LANDFILL GAS (Section 10)................................................................................................280

Appendix 11.1 DISPOSAL SITE MONITORING COMMITTEE (Section 11)............................................297

Appendix 11.2 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING (Section 11).................................300

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xv

GLOSSARY ..........................................................................................................................................304

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................317

RECOMMENDED READING ........................................................................................................................319

INDEX ..........................................................................................................................................320

NOTES ..........................................................................................................................................321

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvi Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Minimum Requirements: The Typical Table Format ..................................................................9

TABLE 3 Disposal Site Size Classes .........................................................................................................24

TABLE 4 Minimum Requirements for Site Selection................................................................................49

TABLE 5 Minimum Requirements for Authorisation................................................................................63

TABLE 6 Minimum Requirements for Site Investigation..........................................................................73

TABLE 7 Minimum Requirements for Assessment & Mitigation of Environmental Impacts .................85

TABLE 8 Minimum Requirements for Disposal Site Design ..................................................................102

TABLE 8.1 Minimum Requirements for Liner Components.....................................................................105

TABLE 8.2 Minimum Requirements for Capping Components ................................................................107

TABLE 9 Minimum Requirements for Site Preparation & Commissioning............................................112

TABLE 10 Minimum Requirements for Landfill Operation......................................................................130

TABLE 11 Minimum Requirements for Landfill Operation Monitoring...................................................140

TABLE 12 Minimum Requirements for Remediation, Closure and End-use ............................................149

TABLE 13 Minimum Requirements for Water Quality Monitoring..........................................................156

TABLE 13.1 Suggested Parameters for Background and Investigative Monitoring.....................................158

TABLE 13.2 Suggested Parameters for Detection Monitoring .....................................................................158

LIST OF FIGURES

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Applying the Minimum Requirements to the Development of a New Landfill..........................10

FIGURE 2 Applying the Minimum Requirements to Non-Authorised/Concept Permitted Operating Landfills......................................................................................................................................11

FIGURE 3 Overview of the Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation (IDSA) Procedure ..............................12

FIGURE 4 The Role of Landfill in the Waste Management System ...........................................................18

FIGURE 5 The relationship between Climatic Water Balance and Site Water Balance ......................... 3-25

FIGURE 6 Method of Determining Sign (+ or -) of B.................................................................................27

FIGURE 7 Landfill Classification System............................................................................................... 3-29

FIGURE 8 IDSA Procedure Phase 1 – Need, Classification, Application and Screening..........................32

FIGURE 9 Determining the Feasibility of a Candidate Landfill Site ..........................................................35

FIGURE 10 IDSA Procedure Phase 2 – Scoping Report...............................................................................36

FIGURE 11 Example Candidate Disposal Site Ranking Matrix....................................................................41

FIGURE 12 IDSA Procedure Phase 3 – Feasibility Assessment ...................................................................47

FIGURE 13 Applying the Landfill Authorisation Procedure to Different Situations ....................................55

FIGURE 14 IDSA Procedure Phase 4 – Permit and EA Application Procedure ...........................................56

FIGURE 15 Environmental Impact Matrix....................................................................................................79

FIGURE 16 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Air Flow...................................................................81

FIGURE 17 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Surface Water Flow .................................................82

FIGURE 18 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Ground Water Flow .................................................83

FIGURE 19 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Natural or Artificial Voids.......................................84

FIGURE 20 IDSA Procedure Phase 5 – Prepare, Operate and Close ..........................................................111

FIGURE 21 Applying the Minimum Requirements to the Closure of Landfills .........................................144

FIGURE A.3.2 Principle of Determining Climatic Water Balance ..........................................................162

FIGURE A.3.4 Estimating Whether or Not Leachate will be Produced...................................................171

Figure A.5.1 Overview of Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation Procedure ...............................................218

FIGURE A.8.1 Liners: G:S:B- Landfills...................................................................................................237

FIGURE A.8.2 Liners: G:M:B- Landfills .................................................................................................237

FIGURE A.8.3 Liners: G:L:B- Landfills ..................................................................................................237

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xviii Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

FIGURE A.8.4 Liners: G:S:B+ Landfills ..................................................................................................238

FIGURE A.8.5 Liners: G:M:B+ and G:L:B+ Landfills............................................................................238

FIGURE A.8.6 Liners: H:h Landfills........................................................................................................239

FIGURE A.8.7 Liners: H:H Landfills and Encapsulation Cells ...............................................................240

FIGURE A.8.8 Hazardous Waste Lagoons...............................................................................................241

FIGURE A.8.9 Typical leachate collection system ..................................................................................242

FIGURE A.8.10 Suggested Method of Installing Piezometer Tube ...........................................................244

FIGURE A.8.11 Cover: G:C and G:S:B- Landfills .....................................................................................246

FIGURE A.8.12 Cover: G:S:B+ , G:M:B- and G:L:B- Landfills................................................................246

FIGURE A.8.13 Cover: G:M:B+ , G:L:B+ and Hazardous Landfills (and all sites with inadequate bottom liners) ........................................................................................................................................246

FIGURE A.8.14 Chart for Preliminary Slope Stability Assessment...........................................................249

Figure A.10.1 Initial simple estimate of gas generation .................................................................................295

Figure A.10.2: First Order Kinetics Model for Estimating Gas Generation in Landfills.................................296


Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xix


B- Water deficit climate, resulting in only sporadic leachate generation

B+ Water surplus climate, resulting in significant leachate generation

BATNEEC Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost

BPEO Best Practicable Environmental Option

C Communal Landfill

CA Competent Authority

CBO Community Based Organisation

CQA Construction Quality Assurance

CQC Construction Quality Control

CR Co-disposal Ratio

DANCED Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

DOH Department of Health

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

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

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

FML Flexible Membrane Liner

G General Waste or Landfill for General Waste

GCL Geomembrane Clay Liner

H Hazardous Waste or Landfill for Hazardous Waste

H:h Hazardous Waste Landfill that can receive wastes with hazard ratings of 3 and 4

H:H Hazardous Waste Landfill that can receive wastes with hazard ratings of 1 and 2

HELP Hydrological Evaluation of Landfill Performance

IAP Interest and Affected Parties


xx Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

IDSA Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation

IEM Integrated Environmental Management

IRD Initial Rate of Deposition

L Large Landfills

LDO Land Development Objective

LEL Lower Explosive Limit

M Medium Landfill

MRD Maximum Rate of Deposition

m/s Metre per Second

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

PI Plasticity Index

RBDM Risk-Based Decision Making

RoD Record of Decision

S Small Landfill

STP Standard Temperature and Pressure

VOC Volatile Organic Carbon

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xxi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Project Team Members L. Bredenhann Department of Water Affairs and Forestry J. Ball Jarrod Ball & Associates cc (First and Second Editions) R. de Jager Romy van Jaarsveld Consultants cc (Third Edition) G. Blight University of the Witwatersrand K. Langmore Jarrod Ball & Associates cc B.L. Wiid Consulting Engineering Geologist (First Edition) The Project Team wishes to acknowledge the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry for making this project possible. All contributors are gratefully acknowledged for their consistent support and technical input, received since the inception of the project. Kristien De Witte is also to be thanked for producing the first and second editions of this document. Specialist Consultants (Third Edition) J. Ball Jarrod Ball & Associates cc (Salvaging) G. Blight University of the Witwatersrand (Water balance, shear stability and liner systems) P. Dacomb PlanPractice Townplanners (Buffer zones) R. de Jager Romy van Jaarsveld Consultants cc (Public participation) A. Fourie University of the Witwatersrand (Co-disposal sewage sludge) I. Jameson PlanPractice Townplanners (Buffer zones) P. Legg Jarrod Ball & Associates cc (Quality control over landfill design materials and

design of liners and covers) J. Lombard Icando (Landfill gas management) R. Lombard Icando (Landfill gas management) R. Nortje Jarrod Ball & Associates cc (Final landfill height and Minimum Requirements for

storage areas, transfer stations and waste treatment plants) M. Saner Margot Saner and Associates (Air dispersion modelling) J. Skews Ardeer Engineering (Leachate management) F. Wimberley Zitholele Consulting (Integration of legal mandates) J. Wates Zitholele Consulting (Integration of legal mandates) Steering Committee Members Mr L. Bredenhann1 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry (Chairman/Project Leader) Mr J. Ball1 Jarrod Ball & Associates cc (Co-ordinating Consultant 1st and 2nd Editions) Ms R. de Jager5 Romy van Jaarsveld Consultants cc (Departmental Project Co-ordinator 3rd Edition) Mr T. Aab4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Dr H.A. Abbott2 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Mr G. Batchelor5 Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment: Mpumalanga Dr D. Baldwin1 Environmental and Chemical Consultants Ms S. Barkhuizen4 Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism - Free State Ms D. Borg4 National Waste Management Strategy (Observer) Mr A. Botha3 Association of Regional Services Councils (ARSC) Mr J. Botha4 Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism: Northern Province Ms C. Bosman4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Head Office Mr D. Brink4 SAICE/Jones & Wagner Ms J. Clarke5 Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) Mr P. Davies1 Institute of Waste Management/ Geosynthetics Interest Group of South Africa Ms D. Dold5 Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA) Mr F. Druyts4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Head Office Mr G. du Plessis3 Municipal Executive of SA Mr L. Eichstädt2 Western Cape Region, Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Dr T. Fasheun5 Department of Agriculture and Environment: KwaZulu-Natal Ms D. Fischer1 Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment Mr P. Fourie3 Department of Mineral & Energy Affairs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xxii Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

Dr O. Fourie1 Ockie Fourie Toxicologists Mrs L. Garlipp3 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Law Administration Mr M. Ginster5 Business Unity South Africa/Chemical and Allied Industries’ Association Mr L. Gravelet-Blondin5 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: KwaZulu-Natal Region Mr E. Grond2 Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism Mr E. Hanekom5 Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Western Cape Mr M.L. Hawke4 South African Chamber of Business Prof F. Hodgson1 Institute of Groundwater Studies Mr G. Hoon5 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Free State Region Mr I. Hopewell2 Institute of Waste Management Mr W. Johannes5 South African Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE) Mr C.S.W. Joubert2 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Natal Region Ms C. Kay5 Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA) Mr M. Keet3 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Highveld Region Dr T.S. Kok2 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Head Office Mr K. Legge1 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Civil Design Mr G. Le Roux1 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Head Office Mr M. Levin Africon Mr A.B. Lucas2 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Eastern Cape Region Mr P. Magane5 Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union Mr T. Mahola4 Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism: Free State Mr T. Mphahlele4 Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism Mr M. Marler1 Development Bank of Southern Africa Ms M. Matsipa5 Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, Environment and Conservation: N. Cape Ms N. Mdi5 Department of Tourism, Environment and Economic Affairs: Free State Mr R. Moatshe 5 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mr Z. Mokhine5 Earthlife Africa/iLima Mr D. Mofokeng1 Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism: Free State Mr T. Moremi5 Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environmental and Tourism: N.W. Province Ms W. Moolman4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Ms R. Munnik4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Gauteng Mr A. Mzamo4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Mr H. Naude Department of Minerals and Energy Mr H. Neetling4 Pretoria Metropolitan Council Mr J. Nel5 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: National Office Ms L. Nielson4 National Waste Management Strategy (Observer) Ms G. Nosilela-Twala4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry Mr P. Novella1 Cape Metropolitan Council / IWM Landfill Interest Group Mr B. Oelofse4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Northern Province Mr J. Parkin4 SA Local Government Association (SALGA) / Durban Solid Waste Mr A. Parsons5 Chamber of Mines of South Africa Mr R. Parsons3 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Mr T. Pather4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Gauteng Mr T. Pule4 Department of Health Mr C. Ratnam5 Department of Local Government and Housing: North West Province Mr R. Rimmer 3 Institute for Waste Management Mr A.G. Reynders3 Water Research Commission Mr J. Singh 3 Development Bank Mr S. Sokupa5 Department of Economic Affairs, Environmental and Tourism: Eastern Cape Mr D. Steyn3 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Transvaal Region Mr D. Steyn5 Ferro Alloy Producers Association (FAPA) Ms A. van der Merwe5 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Mpumalanga Region Dr J. van der Merwe2 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Free State Region Mr J. Streit 4 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry: Northern Cape Mr C. Theron4 Gauteng Province Metropolitan Council Mr B. Tladi4 Parks Board Environmental Affairs Mr J. Toudal4 National Waste Management Strategy (Observer)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 xxiii

Mr H. van Tonder3 ESKOM Mr F. S. Vivier3 Department of National Health & Population Development (DNHPD) Dr H. Wiechers4 Wiechers Environmental Consultancy cc Ms Z. Zincume5 Department of Health Legend: 1 Member of Steering Committee, First, Second and Third Editions 2 Member of Steering Committee, First and Second Editions 3 Member of Steering Committee, First Edition only 4 Member of Steering Committee, Second Edition only 5 Member of Steering Committee, Third Edition only

Representatives of the following organisations were also invited to form part of the Second Edition Steering Committee. However, they were unable to participate or decided rather to participate on a strategic level through the project steering committee of the National Waste Management Strategy of South Africa:

Chamber of Mines Chemical and Allied Industries Association (CAIA) COSATU Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF) / Earth Life Africa (ELA) Parks Board Environmental Affairs Regional Departmental Representatives South African National Civics Organisation (SANCO)

1: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS – AN OVERVIEW

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 1

Section 1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS - AN OVERVIEW

1.1 Background

The need for environmentally acceptable yet cost-effective waste disposal has become a priority in South Africa. This is because increasing population and urbanisation have resulted in growing waste generation, placing pressure on the environment. There is also an increasing awareness of environmental issues and a desire for a clean environment on the part of the public. To ensure a cleaner environment, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry5, with whom responsibility for waste disposal was vested, initiated a programme to meet both current and future waste disposal needs.

The aim of the programme is to protect the environment and the public from the impacts of bad waste disposal practices. The first step was to implement a control system, involving permits for disposal sites.

To be eligible for a permit, a disposal site requires to meet and maintain certain standards. To provide these standards therefore, the second step in the programme was the development of a set of standards in the form of Minimum Requirements which are applicable nationwide.

1.2 The Minimum Requirements Programme

Minimum Requirements are used to:

• Set out minimum procedures, actions and information required from a permit applicant during the disposal site authorisation process

• Provide a point of departure against which environmentally acceptable waste disposal practices can be distinguished from environmentally unacceptable waste disposal practices.

• Provide the applicable standards or specifications that must be followed in the absence of any valid motivation to the contrary.

1.3 Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill

The Minimum Requirements programme comprises projects dealing with waste management and disposal. This document covers the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, and it is the second document in the Waste Management Series. The other documents in the series cover the classification, handling and disposal of hazardous waste and water monitoring at waste management facilities. Further documents in the series will be published in the near future, see page ii.

In the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, criteria are established for the selection, investigation, design, authorisation, preparation, operation, closure, and monitoring of disposal sites. In the context of this document, a landfill is referred to as a disposal site and vice versa.

The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill are:

• To improve the standard of waste disposal in South Africa.

5 Hereafter termed ‘the Department’.

1: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS - AN OVERVIEW

2 Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

• To provide guidelines for environmentally acceptable waste disposal for a spectrum of landfill sizes and types.

• To provide a framework of minimum waste disposal standards within which to work and upon which to build.

In the Third Edition, Minimum Requirements are also established for waste management facilities other than landfills that can be legally defined as disposal sites, including waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants, and pre- and post-incineration areas. As the focus of this document is landfill, these Minimum Requirements are not included in the main text, but are presented separately in Appendix 5.1. The principles set out in the main text will, however, be applied to the authorisation of other disposal sites and so a further objective of this document is:

• To provide an approach for applying the Minimum Requirements to waste management facilities other than landfills that are legally defined as disposal sites.

The intention of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill project is to provide legislators, consultants, Permit Applicants and Permit Holders with guidelines and practical information that will assist them in complying with the Department's policy and any associated legislative requirements.

1.4 Some Characteristics of Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill

The approach to the Minimum Requirements is based on the Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) approach. This promotes, inter alia, the proactive control of pollution by integrating environmental aspects into the planning of developments. [Ref: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: The Integrated Environmental

Management Procedure, Pretoria, 1992.] This approach has been dovetailed with the Environmental Impact Regulations (EIAR); published in Government Gazette No. 18261 September 1989, (see Figure 3).

The required processes and activities must meet the ‘Best Practicable Environmental Option’ (BPEO). This is the option that provides the most benefit and least damage to the environment as a whole, in both the long and the short term. It is arrived at by the due consideration of alternatives and costs.

The methods and practices used to implement the above processes and activities must be the ‘Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost’ (BATNEEC), where ‘excessive cost’ is determined by a cost benefit analysis.

The Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill is an original document, i.e., it is not based on other documents. It was therefore necessary to establish certain principles on which the Minimum Requirements could be based before formulating the document. The general characteristics of Minimum Requirements, therefore, are as follows:

• The rule rather than the exception decides a Minimum Requirement

This is fundamental to the approach used in the formulation of this document and must be borne in mind when applying it. The principles involved in the Minimum Requirements cannot address every situation. Where exceptions exist, these must be identified and addressed in consultation with the Competent Authority.

• Minimum Requirements tend to concentrate on objectives and principles, rather than on detail

This means that, although explanatory detail is sometimes provided, Minimum Requirements generally specify the expected standard, rather than the method of achieving it.



• Numerical requirements have been used with discretion

An example of an historically accepted practice is the 2 m unsaturated zone separating the waste from the ground water.

Although a similar separation was widely used in the UK and the USA, there is no scientific justification for this specific thickness. Nonetheless, 2 m now represents the minimum permissible separation between the waste and the ground water, as this is preferable to a lesser separation. Greater separations may frequently be required to form an acceptable barrier on account of soil conditions and other factors (see Sections 8.2.2 and 8.4.2).

The reason for this is that each situation must be considered on its merits. The inclusion of too many numerical requirements would transform the document into a prescriptive handbook. Experience has also shown that numerical requirements can be misunderstood, misapplied and/or abused.

• The degree to which a Minimum Requirement is applicable is not specified

The degree to which a Minimum Requirement must be executed for the end result to be acceptable to the Department is not specified. This must be determined by site specific circumstances (see Section 1.10).

For example, a Permit is a Minimum Requirement for all operating disposal sites. However, the detail required for the Permit Application will vary for different classes of landfill. With increasing size, more detail is required and hence more investigation. This is even more so in cases where hazardous waste is disposed of.

• Accepted principles are adopted

Examples of accepted technical principles adopted would include the mandatory separation of the waste from the water regime, and the separation of contaminated and uncontaminated water drainage systems at a landfill site. Other examples of principles adopted would include the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle whereby additional provision is made in the case of risk or uncertainty.

• Historically accepted practice is the basis for certain Minimum Requirements

• Practicality often dictates substantially less than the ideal, so the Minimum Requirements will sometimes fall short of the ideal

The Minimum Requirements are frequently less stringent than standards applied in developed countries. This is to ensure practicability and sustainability under local conditions. At no time, however, will the protection of the environment be compromised.

An example of a ‘less than ideal’ requirement would be the number of exploratory boreholes at a given site. Although the ideal would be to drill sufficient boreholes to provide a full understanding of the site for the purposes of design, this is not always possible. Accordingly, a Minimum Requirement of at least one borehole is set for the majority of landfill sites. The rationale for this is that one borehole provides substantially more information than no borehole at all.

• The Minimum Requirements address basic administrative procedures

An example of a Minimum Requirement addressing a basic administrative procedure is the Minimum Requirement that a permit application be submitted, supported by the required technical reports (see Section 5).



1.5 Flexibility of Standards

Minimum Requirements are intended to raise the standard of waste disposal in South Africa to an environmentally acceptable level, on a national basis. They therefore provide uniform procedures, specifications and standards for waste management, to which all parties can work.

However, since site-specific conditions may vary, provision must be made for defensible flexibility. The Minimum Requirements therefore can be seen as a reference framework of minimum standards to be adhered to (the rule) or deviated from (the exception).

Where site-specific factors are such that the rule is not appropriate, provision is made for defensible deviation from the Minimum Requirements. Deviation from the rule may involve either an increase in standards or a relaxation. It is a Minimum Requirement, however, that any deviation be properly researched, motivated and recorded, so that it is indeed defensible, and that the environment is not threatened.

When site-specific conditions are such that the Minimum Requirements prove inadequate, the Competent Authority and the Department will prescribe higher standards.

Under exceptional circumstances, the Minimum Requirements may be relaxed. This may occur when, in the opinion of the Department, there is sufficient information to indicate that the Minimum Requirements can be safely amended. In such situations, the case must be properly researched and motivated, so that it can be assessed on its merits and any amendment can be defended.

1.6 The Enforcement of Minimum Requirements

Section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989) makes provision for the authorisation of landfills and other disposal sites. The Act states that any person who operates or

who intends to operate a disposal site must apply for a permit6. From the date that section 1 of the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act (Act No. 50 of 2003) comes into effect by Presidential proclamation, disposal site permits (Permits) will be issued by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The issuing of a disposal site permit will be subject to the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry and the conditions contained in a Record of Decision (RoD) issued by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. This applies to all new and operating sites.

Unauthorised closed sites are controlled in terms of Sections 19 and 20 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) and the Water Services Act, 1997 (Act 108 of 1997).

1.6.1 Establishment of Competent Authority

The Competent Authority, in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, is the person who makes decisions in respect of applications for environmental authorisations. In these Regulations, the Competent Authority is the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism or an MEC. However, in most cases these powers are delegated to an official in the national or provincial environmental departments. The Competent Authority therefore makes decisions in respect of the application process and whether to grant or refuse environmental authorisation.

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry exercises its legal water resource protection mandate for disposal site permits, in terms of section (20) of the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989), through the Competent Authority.

Disposal site permit applications (in terms of section 20 of the Act) should be submitted together with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

6 Communal and small sites can apply for exemption from obtaining a permit. If granted, these sites will be registered and controlled by the Directions, which are regulations drawn up by the Department in the form of standard Permit conditions, see Section 5.2.



application7 to the relevant provincial environmental authority as a single set of documents.

The provincial authority will then establish who the Competent Authority is. The Competent Authority is the department with which the Permit Applicant will communicate. Usually, the Competent Authority is the relevant provincial environmental authority, but it can be the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (National), see Appendix 5.2.

1.6.2 Interaction of the Departments

With regard to the issuing and enforcement of a disposal site permit and the conditions contained therein, the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry will be responsible for the protection of the water resource as defined in the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) whereas the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is responsible for the protection of the environment and matters connected therewith.

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry will work together in approving or refusing a Permit Application. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is the regulatory authority responsible for the review, consideration and approval of the Permit Application. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, however, will also review and comment on the Permit Application with regard to the protection of the water resource. The collaboration between the two Departments can be seen in Figure 3, ‘Overview of the Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation (IDSA) Procedure.’

From Figure 3, it can be seen that the integrated procedure consists of five phases:

Phase 1 (Need, Classification, Application and Screening): Phase 1 involves an application to establish, provide or operate a disposal site and

incorporates the integrated steps shown in Figure 8 (also see the first six steps shown in Figure 9)

Phase 2 (Scoping Report or Authorisation in terms of Directions and EIA Regulations): Phase 2 provides for authorisation in terms of Environmental Conservation Act Directions (for G:C and G:S:B- disposal sites), an Environmental Authorisation based on screening for certain scheduled activities, and/or a Scoping Report. The integrated steps for Phase 2 are reflected in Figure 10. On a site specific basis, where possible, Phase 3 may be integrated with Phase 2 after approval by the Competent Authority, provided that the Scoping Report is also based on Section 5 of Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition 2005.

Phase 3 (Feasibility Assessment): This phase incorporates the integrated steps shown in Figure 10 (and the remainder of the steps shown in Figure 9). Phase 3 covers the assessment of the feasibility of a proposed disposal site based on Section 5 of Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition 2005. Once approval of the feasibility of a disposal site has been obtained from the Competent Authority, the procedure will move into Phase 4.

Phase 4 (Permit Application Procedure): Phase 4 consists of Permit Application and Environmental Impact Assessment Reports. Phase 4 represents the permit application procedure component of the overall IDSA. The integrated steps are shown in Figure 14.

Phase 5 (Prepare, operate and close disposal site): Once a Permit has been issued by the Competent Authority, the stages of preparing, operating and closing a disposal site become relevant. The integrated steps for this are shown in Figure 20.

1.6.3 Enforcement of Minimum Requirements for Landfills

The Minimum Requirements are implemented through and enforced by the disposal site Permit. This is because the granting and retention of a Permit will depend on the disposal site meeting the appropriate Minimum Requirements.

7 In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998, Act 107 of 1998.



The Minimum Requirements programme is therefore implemented within an existing legislative framework. Once a Minimum Requirement is included in a disposal site Permit, it is legally enforceable.

The application of the authorisation system and the Minimum Requirements to different situations is set out in Figure 13 and discussed in Section 5.

In the case of a proposed site or an unauthorised operating site, the Minimum Requirements are enforced during the Permit Application procedure. Those pertaining to public participation and environmental impact assessment are enforced in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIAR) as promulgated under section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) and amended to be again promulgated in 2005. All applicable Minimum Requirements must be met before a Permit can be obtained. The Departments have the right to refuse to grant a Permit and, in the case of an operating site, to require that the site be closed.

In the case of an authorised site, the conditions appearing in the Permit represent enforceable standards for that specific disposal site. Since Permit conditions will usually conform to or exceed the Minimum Requirements, the Minimum Requirements will also, in effect, become enforceable standards. The Departments have the right to amend an existing Permit.

In instances where existing disposal sites are unable to comply with the appropriate Minimum Requirements within an agreed period, they may have to be closed in accordance with the Minimum Requirements for closure.

All landfill sites closed after August 1990, when the Permit system came into force, have to be authorised and will thus be subject to the Minimum Requirements. Any site closed prior to August 1990 may be required to be remediated in terms of the Minimum Requirements, depending on its potential environmental impact.

In the future, the enforcement of the Minimum Requirements will also be complemented and enhanced by regulations for the registration of generators and transporters of waste, and by a manifest system for the ‘cradle to grave’ control of hazardous waste.

1.6.4 Enforcement of Minimum Requirements for Other Disposal Sites

Waste management facilities other than landfills are also legally defined as disposal sites in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act 1989 (Act 73 of 1989). Such disposal sites include waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas. These facilities obviously play an important role in the waste management system (see Figure 4), and therefore are included in the system of control for disposal sites. As with landfills, a Permit is required for disposal sites other than landfills and Minimum Requirements will be implemented and enforced via the site permit, (see Appendix 5.1).

1.7 The Permit Holder

Before a Permit is granted, the Permit Applicant is responsible for ensuring that the applicable Minimum Requirements are met. These would include those relating to site selection, investigation, design and Permit Application.

Once a Permit has been granted, the Permit Holder retains primary legal responsibility for the disposal site, both during its operation and after closure. The Permit Holder retains this legal responsibility regardless of who develops or operates the site.

In executing this responsibility, the Permit Applicant or Holder may appoint appropriately qualified staff or consultants to co-ordinate, supervise and expedite different tasks. Different people will, therefore, act as the Responsible Person for different phases or facets of the disposal site development and will be accountable to the



Permit Applicant. Yet others will act in this capacity once the disposal site is operational and they will be accountable to the Permit Holder.

1.8 The Responsible Person

The Responsible Person must ensure that all facets of the work undertaken are properly and competently directed, guided and executed, and must therefore be appropriately qualified and experienced to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority. Being appropriately qualified would include professional registration, where applicable and required by the Competent Authority. In the case of EIAs, the Responsible Person is termed “Environmental Assessment Practitioner” (EAP) as defined in section 1 of National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).

As different people will act as the Responsible Person for different phases or facets of the disposal site development, the person responsible for the investigatory work and design will, in most instances, not be the same person responsible for the operation of the site. In every case, however, the Responsible Person will have to be capable of understanding and applying the principles and the Minimum Requirements contained in this document. Furthermore, in the event of a particularly complex and/or high-risk interpretation or design, a review by an independent consultant, acceptable to the Competent Authority, would be a Minimum Requirement.

In all phases of disposal site development, there must be a contact person with whom the Competent Authority or the public can liaise. This may be the Permit Holder or the Responsible Person. During investigatory and design work, for example, the contact person may be a consultant. During the operation, the contact person, whose name and telephone number must appear on the notice board at the site entrance, could be the site supervisor, a contractor or a manager.

1.9 Classification of Disposal Sites

Since disposal sites differ from one another in terms of size, type and potential threat to the environment, a classification system has been developed, whereby they can be differentiated (see Section 3). Graded Minimum Requirements have then been applied to the different classes of site. Once a disposal site has been placed in a class, only the requirements appropriate to that class need to be met. In this way the Minimum Requirements ensure environmental acceptability for the full spectrum of disposal sites, from a small communal operation to a regional hazardous waste site, in a cost-effective way.

It is the responsibility of the Permit Holder to amend the site classification appropriately, should a change in circumstances affect the classification of a disposal site.

1.10 Degree to which a Minimum Requirement must be Executed

The disposal site classification system provides a broad base from which the user can determine whether or not a Minimum Requirement is applicable to the site. It is not always possible or appropriate to set numerical requirements. The degree or extent to which the Minimum Requirement is applicable therefore must always be risk related and such that it meets the objective.

For example, the Minimum Requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Section 7) applies to both medium sized general waste landfills and to hazardous waste landfills. The amount of detail and the extent of the EIA will differ, however, with much more detail being required for the hazardous waste landfill.

The Responsible Person must therefore be capable of assessing the degree to which the Minimum Requirement must be carried out. It is the responsibility of the Responsible Person to ensure that the degree of detail provided is acceptable to the Competent Authority. In other



words, that sufficient information is provided to enable the Competent Authority to make a defensible decision.

If the Responsible Person is not capable of assessing the degree to which a Requirement must be executed, he or she must approach the Competent Authority for clarification. This does not, however, relieve the Responsible Person of any responsibility.

1.11 Using this Document

To be properly understood, this document requires careful and thorough reading. This is because of its scope and complexity.

In using this document, users must first familiarise themselves with the background and the characteristics of Minimum Requirements for disposal sites (Sections 1 and 2). They must then classify the existing or proposed waste disposal operation under consideration, using the Landfill Classification System (Section 3).

The subsequent sections (4 - 12) follow a logical sequence of procedures that can be seen in the development of disposal sites. Site selection, investigation, design, preparation, commissioning, operation, closure and monitoring are each dealt with, consecutively, in their respective sections. The Permit Application procedure is, however, inserted after site selection. This is because it is at this point that the Permit Application procedure is initiated.

Figure 1 shows the sequence to be followed for the development of a new landfill site in terms of the Minimum Requirements. Figure 2 shows how Minimum Requirements will be applied to non-authorised/concept permitted operating landfills.

A Concept Permit is any Permit issued before the promulgation of the Environmental Conservation Act and will require upgrading to a full Permit.

Figure 3 shows how the authority of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is integrated, and how the development of a disposal site and the Permit Application process dovetails with the EAIR.

Figure 20 (see Section 12) shows how the Minimum Requirements will be applied to the closure of landfills.

An overview of all of the above is provided in the Synopsis or Figure 13 (see Section 5).

The process depicted in these figures has been followed as closely as possible in the structure of this document and in setting the Minimum Requirements.

Important points have been bolded in the text. It was not, however, deemed practical to highlight all of the Minimum Requirements in the text.

The Minimum Requirements for each class of landfill are therefore summarised in the form of a table at the end of each section. Minimum Requirements for other disposal sites are summarised in Table A5 at the end of Appendix 5.1.

The user must refer to the Minimum Requirements tables to identify the Minimum Requirements applicable to the class of disposal site under consideration. It is mandatory that the objectives of the procedures and specifications listed as Minimum Requirements in the tables or text be met, where indicated as such.



TABLE 1 Minimum Requirements: The Typical Table Format

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

LEGEND

B– = No significant leachate produced

B+ = Significant leachate produced

R = Requirement N = Not a requirement F = Flag: special

consideration to be given by expert and/or representative(s) of the Competent Authority and/or the Department

C Communal

Landfill

S Small

Landfill

M Medium Landfill

L Large

Landfill

H:h Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1 - 4 MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS

B–

B+

B–

B+

B–

B+

B–

B+

Appoint Responsible Person R R R R R R R R R R Minimum no. of boreholes N N 1 1 3 3 5 5 F F Daily cover F F F F R R R R R R

Table 1 shows the typical format used in tabulating Minimum Requirements, based on the Disposal Site Classification System developed in Section 3. In this format:

An R on the Minimum Requirements Table indicates that the Minimum Requirement applies to the class of disposal site under consideration.

An N on the Minimum Requirements Table indicates that the Minimum Requirement does not apply to that class of disposal site.

An F, which represents a flag, indicates that special consideration is required. The Responsible Person must therefore approach a recognised expert and/or a senior representative of the Competent Authority, in this regard.

The text provides background to and explanation of the issues under consideration. Guidelines are also provided in the text, in order to promote good practice.

Adherence to these guidelines is not mandatory, but recommended. It is noted, however, that the Competent Authority could use these guidelines as a basis for setting site permit conditions, in which case they become mandatory.

It is essential to recognise that all phases of waste disposal are interrelated. For example, leachate generation at a landfill site is not only a function of climate; it may be affected by bad site selection (Section 4), inadequate diversion drainage design (Section 8), waste with excessive moisture content or poor operating and maintenance procedures (Section 10). All these aspects must be taken into account so as to minimise leachate generation. To facilitate this, cross-referencing, an index, figures, and a list of definitions (Glossary) have been included.

The language used in this document is colloquial English unless otherwise defined in the Glossary. For additional information regarding landfilling, a list of recommended reading has been included at the end of this document.



FIGURE 1 Applying the Minimum Requirements to the Development of a New Landfill

CLASSIFY PROPOSED LANDFILL (3) COMMENCE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (4)

IDENTIFY AND RANK CANDIDATE LANDFILL SITES (4)

DO FEASIBILITY STUDY ON BEST ALTERNATIVE (4) OBTAIN CA CONFIRMATIONOF FEASIBILITY

APPLY FOR PERMIT (5) INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION ON: • SITE INVESTIGATION (6) • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (7) • LANDFILL DESIGN (8) • END-USE PLAN (8) (12) • OPERATING PLAN (10) • WATER MONITORING PLAN (13)

IF PERMIT OBTAINED

PREPARE LANDFILL SITE (9) OBTAIN CA APPROVAL

OPERATE AND MONITOR LANDFILL (10) (11)

APPLY FOR CLOSURE (see Figure 21) (12)

LEGEND: Numbers represent section numbers in text, where the appropriate Minimum Requirements are presented. Landfill sites without permits Landfill sites with permits Interaction with the Competent Authority (CA) see Figure 7, Section 5



FIGURE 2 Applying the Minimum Requirements to Non-Authorised/Concept Permitted Operating Landfills

CLASSIFY EXISTING LANDFILL (3) COMMENCE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (4)

DETERMINE LANDFILL FUTURE

APPLY FOR PERMIT (5)INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION ON: • SITE INVESTIGATION (6)• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (7)• OPERATING PLAN (10)• CLOSURE AND END-USE PLAN (8) (12)• REMEDIAL LANDFILL DESIGN (8)• WATER MONITORING PLAN (13)

OBTAIN LANDFILL PERMIT (5)

UPGRADE AND/OR CONTINUE TO OPERATE LANDFILL (10) MONITOR LANDFILL (11)

APPLY FOR CLOSURE (see Figure 21) (12)

LEGEND: Numbers represent section numbers in text, where the appropriate Minimum Requirements are presented. Landfill sites without permits Landfill sites with permits Interaction with the Competent Authority (CA) see Figure 13, Section 5 In the event of closure, a landfill cannot close until it has been properly remediated and an alternative facility has been made available. Consequently, a landfill may continue to operate with a view to closure.

COMMENCE CLOSURE

CONTINUE OPERATION (4)


FIGURE 3 Overview of the Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation (IDSA) Procedure

Application completed to establish, provide or operatea disposal site and submitted to relevant provincial

environmental authority (a)

Decideon competent authority(b) and

verify assessmentprocess (f)

DEAT as competent authority Provincial department ascompetent authority

Copy application to relevantDWAF office

Consultation betweencompetent authority and DWAF

to review the application (c)

Furtherinformation

requiredPermit required in

terms of ECA and/orfurther investigation

required for EIA

Consideration ofapplication (f)

EIArequired

AcceptReject

Scoping Report includingPlan of Study for EIA (h)

Draft EA and authorisationin terms of ECA

Directions (d)

EA and ECA authorisation(finalised through

Directions)EA and ECA

authorisation issued

DWAF review

Appeal procedure

Rejectand/or furtherinformation

required

Competent authority review Comments DWAFreview

Accept

1

2

4a 4b

3

5

6

7a

7b 7c

8c 8a 8b

9

10

11

12 13

14

15a 15c 15b16a

16b

PHA

SE 2

Scop

ing

Rep

ort o

r Aut

horis

atio

n in

term

s of

Dire

ctio

ns a

nd E

IAR

egul

atio

ns

PHA

SE 1

Nee

d C

lass

ifica

tion,

App

licat

ion

and

Scre

enin

gNOTES:(a) From the date that section 1 of the Environment Conservation Amendment Act (Act No. 50 of 2003) comes into effect by the Presidentby proclamation, disposal site permit applications in terms of section 20 of the ECA should be submitted together with an EIA application(in terms of the Regulations (Section 24 (5)) of NEMA, Act No. 107 of 1998) to the relevant provincial environmental authority (seeAppendix 5.2, Authorisation Procedure for exceptions) .

(b) The provincial authority must refer the application to DEAT for consideration-

Where the disposal site concerned has direct implications for national environmental policy or international environmentalcommitments;Where the environment that may be affected by the disposal site concerned is demarcated as an area of national or internationalimportance;Where DEAT and the provincial authority jointly decide that the application should be considered by the DEAT;Where a national government department, the relevant provincial authority or a statutory body (other than a local authority) is theapplicant; orWhere the waste concerned has the potential to affect the environment across the borders of two or more provinces (e.g. ahazardous disposal facility where over 50% of the waste is sourced from provinces other than the province in which the facility isto be.

c) Upon receipt of the application, the competent authority will notify DWAF and consult with DWAF to ensure that the disposal siteapplication fully accommodates the provisions contained in section 20(6) of the ECA, namely, that the process provides all theinformation required for DWAF to make informed decisions regarding any measures that the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestryconsiders necessary to protect water resources as defined in the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998). DWAF or a responsibleauthority (as defined in the National Water Act) may dispense with the requirement for a 21(g) license if it is satisfied that the purpose ofthis Act will be met through a s20 ECA permit.

(d) Until such time as the Directions (promulgated in terms of section 20(4) of the ECA) have been amended to stipulate the provincialenvironmental authority as the competent authority, DWAF will be the mandated department for authorising in terms of the Directions.

(e) The scope of the feasibility report must be based on section 5 of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, ThirdEdition 2005. The scope of the EIA must be based on the EIA Regulations proposed in terms of s.24(5) of the NEMA as amended ,envisage for promulgated possibly in 2005.

(f) For G:C:B-; G:C:B +; and G:S:B - sites in terms Section 20(5)(b) of the ECA and the relevant schedules detailing such listed activities interms of Section 24 and 24D of the NEMA.

(g) In terms of the relevant schedules in terms of Section 24 and 24D of the NEMA.

(h) Where possible on a site specific basis, the procedure in Figure 12 could be integrated with the procedure in Figure 10.

Determine in which schedule of the EIA Regulationsthe disposal activity falls

Furtherinformation required

(go to work flowelement 2)

8d



Assessment of Feasibility

Study Report (e)

Further information

requiredCompetent authority review Comments DWAF

review

Acceptand request an

EIAR

Environmental ImpactAssessment Report and

Permit ApplicationReport (e)

Rejectand /or further information

required

Competent authority review Comments DWAFreview

Considerationof permit and EA

application

Draft EA and ECA s.20permit

EA and ECA s.20 permitfinalised

EA and ECA s.20 permitissued

Establish, Operate andclose disposal site

Appeal procedure

Accept

Reject

17

18a 18c 18b19a

19b

20

22a 21a 21c 21b

22b

23a

23b24

DWAFreview

DWAF comments itoamended ECA s.20(6)

RoD and on EIA (c)

25

26

27

28

PHA

SE 5

Ope

rate

and

Clo

se

PHA

SE 4

Perm

it A

pplic

atio

n Pr

oced

ure

(Aut

horis

atio

n in

term

s of

EC

A s

20 p

erm

it an

dEA

)

PHA

SE 3

Feas

ibili

ty A

sses

smen

t (h)

29

Key

AuthorityActivity

ApplicantActivity

Decisionmade byauthority

1

Normal flow

Possible process

Appeal flow

Work flow elements


2: WASTE DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL


Section 2 WASTE DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL

2.1 The Role of Landfill in the Waste Management System

The term ‘landfilling’ refers to the deposition of waste on land, whether it be the filling in of excavations or the creation of a landfill above grade, where the term ‘fill’ is used in the engineering sense.

Historically, wastes have been disposed of on land. This is because landfilling is the cheapest and most convenient method of waste disposal. It is estimated that in excess of 95% of the waste generated in South Africa is disposed of in landfills, while the world figure is believed to be in excess of 85%.

No matter what waste minimisation technologies are implemented, whether they be for volume reduction or resource recovery, some form of residue will always remain and waste will continue to be generated. As depicted in Figure 4, this is ultimately disposed of in a landfill, the most commonly used method for ultimate disposal.

2.2 The Environmental Impact of Landfill

Landfilling is environmentally acceptable if properly carried out. Unfortunately, if not carried out to sufficiently high standards, landfilling has the potential to have an adverse impact on the environment. This impact may be divided into short term impacts and long term impacts:

Short term impacts

Short term impacts include problems such as noise, flies, odour, air pollution, unsightliness and windblown litter. Such nuisances are generally associated with a waste disposal operation and should cease with the closure of the landfill.

Long term impacts

Long term impacts include problems such as pollution of the water regime, landfill gas generation and devaluation of adjacent land holdings. Such problems are generally associated with incorrect landfill site selection, design, preparation or operation, or inadequate buffer zones and may persist long after the landfill site has been closed.

The general objective of environmentally acceptable landfilling, therefore, is:

• To avoid both short or long term impacts or any degradation of the environment8 in which the landfill is located.

More specific objectives are pro-actively to:

• Prevent pollution of the surface and ground water.

• Ensure public acceptance by ensuring environmental acceptability.

2.3 Overview of Environmentally Acceptable Landfilling

As is evident from Figure 1, the commissioning of a new landfill follows at the end of a lengthy process.

This process includes long term planning and information gathering, as well as early consultation

8 ‘Environment’ is used in the holistic sense and includes cultural, social, soil, biotic, atmospheric, surface and ground water aspects associated with the landfill (see Glossary).



with interested and affected parties, stakeholders, and communities. This is ongoing and may therefore continue to affect landfill design, operation and remediation procedures throughout the landfill development process.

An important relationship exists between the siting, the design and the standard of operation of a landfill. In essence, good landfill site selection provides for simple cost-effective design, which, provided the site preparation is correctly carried out, provides for good operation.

2.3.1 Selecting a landfill site

The due consideration of alternatives is a basic IEM principle. Applied in this context, it means that a landfill site should only be selected after appropriate candidate sites have been identified and given due consideration.

The criteria that influence landfill site selection are discussed in Section 4. These will include economic, environmental and public acceptance considerations.

Economic considerations

Economic considerations include aspects such as haul distance from waste generation areas, site size, access, and land availability. These affect acquisition, haul and other costs.

Environmental considerations

Environmental considerations relate to the potential threat of the operation to the physical environment, specifically to water resources. These include, inter alia, criteria such as site topography, drainage, soils, geohydrology and adjacent land-use.

Public acceptance considerations

Public acceptance considerations relate to the possible adverse impact of a landfill on public health or safety, quality of life, and local land and property values. Well-founded public resistance

may prohibit the development of a landfill site. Adequate buffer zones are important for gaining public acceptance.

Experience has shown that it is often economic and public acceptance considerations that determine the general area in which a landfill is sited. Within these constraints, the optimum physical environmental option must be sought.

2.3.2 Designing a landfill

The design of a landfill is based on the outcome of the site investigation and environmental impact assessment, which are addressed in Sections 6 and 7, respectively.

The design of a landfill is covered in Section 8. If the best available site identified during the site selection process is sub-optimal from an environmental or geohydrological point of view, the subsequent site design must compensate for these shortcomings by means of appropriate engineering.

The objective in this instance is to reduce the risk to public health or the impairment of any ecosystem or resource in the receiving physical environment to an acceptable level. In particular, the design must minimise the risk of water pollution by leachate and make provision for sufficient cover to isolate the waste body from the environment. Sufficient cover must be provided for both the landfill operation and final closure and end-use.

Prevention of water pollution

A mandatory physical separation between the waste and the surface and ground water regimes, as well as an effective surface water diversion drainage system, are fundamental to all landfill designs. These elements represent the first steps in the prevention of environmental pollution by waste disposal. In the case of landfills that produce significant leachate, particular attention must be paid to the need for leachate management.


Provision of cover

As the proper landfilling of waste requires regular covering to isolate the waste from the environment, landfills should be so sited and designed that sufficient cover is conveniently available for the duration of the operation. Any cover excavations must also be planned to ensure an adequate separation between the waste and the ground water regime once the soil has been removed.

2.3.3 Operating a landfill

The Minimum Requirements for the operation of a landfill are set out in Section 10.

The concept of sanitary landfilling was developed in order to minimise adverse impacts of the landfill operation on the environment. It is a Minimum Requirement that landfills be operated in accordance with the following sanitary landfill principles:

• the compaction of waste, and

• the covering of waste on a daily basis.

The correct application of these two principles obviates most short term adverse impacts associated with the landfill operation.

Compaction

Compaction of waste is generally achieved by passing heavy equipment over deposited waste. This reduces voids in the waste, thus reducing the chances of channelling which promotes the rapid infiltration and migration of any leachate formed. It also reduces the risk of fires, discourages vermin, controls litter, reduces the amount of cover required and increases site life.

Cover application

The application of soil or other suitable cover to compact waste also reduces litter and the risk of fire, but its main purpose is to eliminate odour. It also reduces scavenging and generally improves

aesthetics. The sanitary landfill definition specifies daily cover, but, in certain instances, such as small or remote sites with a shortage of cover material, this Minimum Requirement might, with the proper motivation, be appropriately amended.

Other short term impacts, such as unsightliness, dust, noise and traffic, are addressed using methods detailed in Section 10.

2.3.4 Closing a landfill

All landfills, except those closed prior to August 1990 when the permit system came into effect, must be authorised before they can be considered legally closed.

Closure will involve, inter alia, the application of final cover, topsoiling, vegetating, drainage maintenance, and leachate management. In instances of poor landfill siting, design and/or operation, remedial work will be required prior to closure as part of the closure process. Any remedial design and remediation must be based on appropriate investigation. After closure, the landfill can then be utilised in terms of its end use.

Any landfill closed before 1990, the effective date of the Permit system, will also have to be remediated, if this is considered necessary by the Department.

2.3.5 Monitoring a landfill

Monitoring is a control mechanism that is applied throughout the development of a landfill.

During site preparation and liner placement, quality assurance and control are forms of monitoring that are implemented in terms of the Minimum Requirements objectives (see Section 9). The site is also monitored during operation, remediation and after closure. Considerations include monitoring the impact of the landfill on the receiving environment; this includes gas monitoring and water quality monitoring (see




Section 11 and the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities).

Both ground and surface water quality monitoring systems are set up at the landfill site investigation stage to provide pre-disposal background water quality data (see Section 13). During the design, these are formalised and expanded to address other facets of water monitoring. Water quality monitoring continues throughout the operation, and post-closure monitoring may continue for up to 30 years, or more if required, after the closure of the site.

Monitoring of landfill gas is recommended at all sites, with particular attention to methane because it can form explosive mixtures with air. It should be assumed that all landfill sites containing organic waste will generate methane. A landfill gas monitoring plan is required at certain designated sites in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix 10.3. Where landfill gas poses a significant risk, a landfill gas management plan might be developed to address site-specific needs.

The plan may contain, as needed, the elements described in Appendix 10.3. Landfill gas monitoring continues throughout the operation of the landfill site, and post closure monitoring continues until levels of landfill gas, specified in Appendix 10.3, are reached for at least a 24-month period.

2.4 Waste Management Facilities other than Landfills

While other waste management facilities differ from landfills in that a permanent body of waste does not remain after closure, they still have the potential for environmental and social impacts if poorly designed and operated. The principles governing landfill selection, investigation, design, authorisation, preparation, operation, closure and monitoring therefore also apply to these disposal sites (see Appendix 5.1).


FIGURE 4 The Role of Landfill in the Waste Management System

WASTE GENERATION

TEMPORARY STORAGE

COLLECTION

TRANSPORT

TRANSFER RECOVERY/TREATMENT

DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL

NOTE:

The purpose of this figure is to emphasize that landfill is the ultimate means of waste disposal. The elements and relationships depicted in the figure have therefore been simplified.


3: SITE CLASSIFICATION

Section 3 SITE CLASSIFICATION

3.1 Introduction

For waste disposal to be both affordable and environmentally acceptable, the Minimum Requirements have to be adaptable. They have to suit different needs and situations in a scientifically defensible way. A village with a population of 100, for example, cannot be expected to have the same waste disposal needs, or meet the same Minimum Requirements, as a city with a population of 1 000 000.

A system for classifying disposal sites was therefore needed, as a basis for setting and applying the appropriately graded Minimum Requirements. This system had to recognise the inherent qualities and differences that characterise any waste disposal operation, i.e., the types of waste involved, the size of the waste stream and the potential for significant leachate generation.

The landfill classification system in existence at the beginning of the project used only waste type, and made no provision for size of operation or for leachate generation. In particular, the potential for significant leachate generation, the main cause of water pollution from landfills, was disregarded. A new landfill classification system was therefore formulated.

The objectives of this landfill classification system are:

• To consider waste disposal situations and needs in terms of combinations of waste type, size of waste stream and potential for significant leachate generation.

• To develop landfill classes that reflect the spectrum of waste disposal needs.

• To use the landfill classes as the basis for setting graded Minimum Requirements for the cost- effective selection, investigation, design, operation and closure of landfills.

Using the classification system, landfills are grouped according to:

• the type of waste involved

• the size of the waste stream, and

• the potential for significant leachate generation.

Disposal sites other than landfills are also classified according to the type of waste involved, the size of the waste stream, and the potential for significant leachate generation, however the facility type is added to the wording of the classification, see Appendix 5.1.

Note that the disposal site classification system cannot address factors specific to a particular site, such as the sensitivity of the receiving environment. Such factors are addressed during site selection, investigation and environmental impact assessment, where any critical factor would be identified (see Sections 4.4 and 4.5). Before a disposal site can be developed or authorised for continued operation, it will have to be demonstrated that any adverse environmental impacts can be addressed in the site design and operating plan.

3.2 Waste Class

Waste types are grouped into two classes, General and Hazardous (see also the Minimum




Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste).

Landfills and disposal sites other than landfills are therefore also grouped into those suitable only for general waste, such as domestic refuse, and those suitable for hazardous waste.

The waste classes are defined as follows:

(i) General waste (G)

General waste is a generic term for waste that, because of its composition and characteristics, does not pose a significant threat to public health or the environment if properly managed. Examples include domestic, commercial, certain industrial wastes and builders' rubble. General waste may have insignificant quantities of hazardous substances dispersed within it, for example, batteries, insecticides, weed-killers and medical waste discarded on domestic and commercial premises.

General waste may be disposed of on any authorised landfill.

General waste can produce leachate with an unacceptably high pollution potential. This may result from waste decomposition, together with the infiltration and/or percolation of water. Therefore, under certain conditions general waste disposal sites must have leachate management systems. Therefore, in addition to being subdivided in terms of size of operation, general waste sites are subdivided in terms of their potential to generate significant leachate.

(ii) Hazardous waste (H)

Hazardous waste is waste that can, even in low concentrations, have a significant adverse effect on public health and/or the environment. This would be because of its inherent chemical and physical characteristics, such as toxic, ignitable, corrosive, carcinogenic or other properties.

The following types of waste should be regarded as potentially hazardous:

Inorganic waste

• Acids and alkalis • Cyanide waste • Heavy metal sludges and solutions • Waste containing appreciable proportions of

fibrous asbestos.

Oily waste

• Wastes primarily from the processing, storage and use of mineral oils.

Organic waste

• Halogenated solvent residues • Non-halogenated solvent residues • Phenolic waste • PCB waste • Paint and resin waste • Biocide waste • Organic chemical residues.

Putrescible organic waste

• Waste from the production of edible animal and vegetable oils, slaughterhouses, tanneries, and other animal and vegetable based products.

High volume/low hazard waste

• Waste that contains small quantities of highly dispersed hazardous substances. This waste presents a relatively low hazard. Examples are harbour dredge spoils, soils and builders' rubble, which are contaminated by heavy metals, oils and other pollutants.

• All sewage sludge types may be disposed of at appropriately lined GMB+ and GLB+ landfills, approved by the Department, on condition that it passes through the delisting process. General waste sites may not accept sewage sludge with a solids content less than 20% and must satisfy the requirements described in Section 10.3.2. Other uses, such as agricultural uses, may be considered for sewage sludge.



Miscellaneous waste

• Infectious waste such as diseased human/ animal tissues, soiled bandages and syringes, commonly referred to as ‘medical waste’

• Redundant chemicals or medicines • Laboratory waste • Explosive waste from manufacturing

operations or redundant munitions.

Hazardous wastes are grouped into nine classes, based on international danger groups. They are also allocated a hazard rating. The hazard rating is based on acute mammalian toxicity, ecotoxicity, environmental fate, chronic toxicity and other criteria.

Hazardous waste is thus classified into: Hazard Rating 1: Extreme Hazard Hazard Rating 2: High Hazard Hazard Rating 3: Moderate Hazard Hazard Rating 4: Low Hazard.

For more information, see Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Pretoria, 2005. In situations where significant quantities of hazardous waste are identified, this document must be consulted, to determine the hazard rating.

The hazard ratings have different treatment and disposal requirements. Hazardous waste sites are therefore divided into two types according to the hazard rating of the waste that they are designed to handle. H:H sites can accept all hazard ratings of waste, while H:h sites can only accept Hazard Ratings 3 and 4 and general wastes.

Certain hazardous wastes may be ‘delisted’ for disposal at an H:h landfill or an appropriately lined general waste site. This would be because the hazardous substance in the waste is of low mobility or concentration, or because the substance has been successfully treated to make it less hazardous. It must, however, be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department that the waste does not pose a risk to man or the environment.

This would involve additional investigative testing.

Once the waste class has been established, the class of site and the applicable Minimum Requirements for disposal can be determined.

In the case of waste treatment facilities, the classification of the treatment chemicals used must also be taken into account in classifying the facility.

3.3 Size of Waste Stream or Operation

3.3.1 General waste sites

The ultimate physical size of a disposal site, and in particular a 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 an EIA at an existing or proposed site. Ultimate size is not, however, important in the classification system.

The size classification focuses on the size of the waste stream and the consequent size of the operation. This is because the immediate impacts of a disposal site, the resources required to control them and, consequently, the Minimum Requirements applicable to the site will be dictated by the size of the operation.

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’ or ‘MRD’. This is simply the projected maximum average annual rate of waste deposition, expressed in tonnes per day, during the expected life of the site.

To calculate the MRD:



• Establish the ‘Initial Rate of Deposition’ or ‘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).

Calculating the IRD

There are several ways in which the IRD or existing waste stream can be calculated.

These are as follows:

If the waste stream already crosses a weighbridge at an existing site, an average daily tonnage for the latest 260 day year can often be calculated from historical data. This single figure is then the IRD.

If there is no weighbridge available, the average daily tonnage must be calculated on the basis of incoming volumes. This involves counting incoming vehicles and estimating the volumes carried in cubic metres.

Thereafter, to convert cubic metres to tonnes, an appropriate density factor must be applied. These factors may vary from 0,15 T/m3 to more than 0,60 T/m3, depending on waste constituents and compaction. The Responsible Person must therefore apply these factors with discretion, taking waste properties into account. In this way, an average daily tonnage or IRD can be arrived at for a given year.

If there is no weighbridge available, daily tonnages may also be obtained by applying per capita waste generation rates to the figures for the population

served. In general, these rates vary with the socio-economic standing of the population, from 0,5 kg per capita per day in the poor areas, to 3,5 kg per capita per day in the affluent areas. Again, the Responsible Person must use discretion in applying these factors to arrive at a single figure for daily tonnage or IRD.

Since waste frequently comes from different sources, it may be necessary to use a combination of the above methods in order to calculate the IRD and the MRD. It may also be useful to use more than one method for cross-checking purposes.

Calculating the MRD from the IRD

The following formula provides the basis for calculating the MRD from the IRD.

MRD = (IRD)(1+d)t (see Appendix 3.1)

where:

IRD = initial rate of deposition of refuse on site in T/day

d = expected annual development rate, based on expected population growth rate in the area served by the disposal site

t = years since deposition started at IRD

MRD = maximum rate of deposition after t years

Examples of the application of the formula are provided in Appendix 3.1.

Using the size classification

The following table, Table 3, presents the size classification based on the MRD. General waste disposal sites are divided into four size categories; Communal, Small, Medium, and Large. Where the MRD is borderline, the Responsible Person must always use the higher class.



TABLE 3 Disposal Site Size Classes

Disposal Site Size Class

Maximum Rate of Deposition (MRD) (Tonnes per day)

Communal C <25 Small S >25 <150 Medium M >150 <500 Large L >500

3.3.2 Hazardous waste disposal sites

The classification of hazardous waste disposal sites does not take size into account, but is based solely on the hazard rating of the waste (see Section 3.2(ii) and Section 3.5).

In the case of treatment facilities, the hazard rating of the treatment chemicals used will determine the hazard rating. Where waste is rendered less hazardous at a facility, the most hazardous state of the waste at the facility must be used for classification purposes, as this will determine the risk to the environment from the facility.

3.4 The Potential for Significant Leachate Generation and the need for Leachate Management

To avoid water pollution, it is essential that significant leachate generation from landfills be managed by means of leachate collection and treatment systems.

All hazardous waste disposal sites are assumed to require leachate management systems. Waste treatment plants (that produce effluence) and hazardous waste facilities other than landfills that are under cover may not generate leachate, but in

such cases the leachate generation potential of the waste and/or process must be considered.

General waste landfills are classified in terms of their potential to generate leachate. This ensures that the risk of water pollution from leachate is identified at the earliest opportunity, even before a landfill site has been selected.

General waste management facilities other than landfills are unlikely to generate significant leachate, particularly when under cover. Possible exceptions do exist, such as a waste storage area where waste is stockpiled in the open for extended periods in a B+ area, or a facility where the storage and handling of wet wastes result in leachate or highly contaminated seepage being generated. In such instances, the potential for leachate generation should be considered by the Responsible Person.

Any landfill has the capacity to generate sporadic leachate in excessively wet weather conditions. It is only necessary, however, to install leachate management systems (underliners, drains and removal systems) when leachate generation could impact adversely on the environment.

A distinction is therefore drawn between general waste disposal sites that generate significant leachate and those that only generate sporadic leachate. Significant leachate requires to be managed by means of a proper leachate management system. Sporadic leachate, on the other hand, while requiring some management, does not warrant a costly leachate management system.

Significant leachate generation

This may be either seasonal or continuous throughout the year. It results mainly from climate and/or waste with a high moisture content.

In the case of existing landfills that do not meet the Minimum Requirements, other factors may also exist. These include fundamental problems with the landfill siting and/or drainage that result in significant ingress of ground or surface water into


25

the waste body, and hence significant leachate generation.

Sporadic leachate generation

This is typical of arid climates and results from exceptional circumstances, such as a succession of excessively wet periods. This is often made worse by faulty site drainage. Sporadic leachate generation must always be minimised and controlled by drainage systems.

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005

3.4.1 Determining whether significant leachate will be generated and if leachate management is required

It is a Minimum Requirement that, even before a specific landfill site is considered, the potential for significant leachate generation be assessed and any need for leachate management identified.

The potential for leachate to be generated by a landfill depends on the water balance associated with the site, i.e., the Site Water Balance. This 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. Climate is the most common cause of leachate generation.

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 (see Section 3.4.3).

The Climatic Water Balance indicates whether the climate in which a landfill is located will cause it to generate significant leachate or not. It is thus a tool to alert the developer, as early as possible, to the need to address leachate management in the disposal site design and costing. In many instances, this may be applied even before the site is selected.

Thereafter, Site-Specific Factors, such as waste moisture content, and ingress of runoff and ground water into the waste body, must be taken into account (see Section 3.4.4).

The relationship between the Climatic Water Balance, Site-Specific Factors and Site Water Balance is set out in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5 The relationship between Climatic Water Balance and Site Water

Balance

CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE

SITE WATER BALANCE

SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS



3.4.2 Determining the Climatic Water Balance

The Climatic Water Balance is not a detailed water balance, such as one that would be used to determine ground water recharge. It is a simple determination that assists in deciding whether leachate management is required or not. It therefore provides a conservative means of determining whether or not significant leachate generation will occur.

The Climatic Water Balance (B) is determined using only two climatic components of a full water

balance, namely average annual Rainfall ( R ) and

average annual Evaporation ( ).E The data used are the average annual values of precipitation and A-pan evaporation or S-pan evaporation, obtain-able from Surface Water Resources of South Africa, 1990. (WRC Report Number: 298/4.1/94). The latest rainfall figures are obtainable from the South African Weather Service (www.weathersa.co.za). The Responsible Person must identify the most representative weather station, or stations, on which to base the calculations.

The Climatic Water Balance is determined by

selecting R and E A for A-pan evaporation and plotting the values on the chart shown in Figure 6. For some stations only S-pan (Symons pan)

evaporation ( E S) is available. To convert S-pan evaporation to equivalent A-pan evaporation, use

the relationship: E A = 1,26 E S.

• If the data point plots above and to the left of

the line 0,4 E A = R in Figure 6, the site classifies as B-. If so:

- There should be no significant leachate generation on account of the climate.

- If the Minimum Requirements for the siting, design and operation are met and only “dry” waste is disposed of, no leachate management system should be necessary. (Dry waste is defined as incoming waste that has a water content of 35% or less by dry mass.)

• If the data point plots below and to the right of

the line RE A =4,0 , the site classifies as B+

and:

- There will probably be significant leachate generation.

- As such leachate requires management, leachate management systems are a Minimum Requirement.

The basis for determining the Climatic Water Balance is described in Appendix 3.2.

Note: The approach to determining the Climatic Water Balance has changed in the Third Edition. This means that certain sites that were classified B- on account of the Climatic Water Balance will be classified B+ after the date of publication of the Third Edition. At this stage, authorised sites do not have to be reclassified unless the leachate detection system, which has always been a Minimum Requirement for B- sites, indicates that significant leachate is being produced, see Section 8.4.4. The Permit Holder must bring such a site to the attention of the Competent Authority and ensure that it is re-classified through a Permit amendment. The leachate management system, must be appropriately upgraded, see Section 8.4.4.

http://www.weathersa.co.za/



FIGURE 69 Method of Determining Sign (+ or -) of B

9 Please note that 0,4 R = E A should be used in the graph hereunder. An amendment to this effect will be made in subsequent drafts of this document.

Specific Factors affecting the Site Water Balance classification

factors he

ent of the incoming waste and the

ingress of either ground or surface water into the

water balance to the xtent that a site that is classified as B-, using the

Climatic Water Balance, does, in fact, generate

3.4.3 Site-

As noted in Section 3.4.2, it is possible that other than rainfall and evaporation could affect twater balance of a landfill site. These include themoisture cont

waste body, on account of poor siting, poor drainage design or maintenance.

These factors may affect thee

significant leachate.

In such instances, the Responsible Person must realise the situation, amend the classification to B+

and manage the leachate in accordance with the Minimum Requirements applicable to B+ sites. It may also be necessary to implement remedial leachate management measures in the case of



existing sites that do not meet the Minimum Requirements.

Typical examples of factors other than climate that affect the Site Water Balance are:

Co-disposal of high moisture content and/or

e

gh is

oisture content and/or liquid waste is intended or

ons

+

All sewage sludge types may be co-disposed at lined GMB+ and GLB+ disposal sites

(approved by the Department) on condition that

an t will

tailed

er loaded and unloaded conditions.

The pre gic aquifer would represent a ‘Fatal Flaw’ and prohibit the siting of a landfill

o a

f le

d sites

existin tions that penetrate the ground water or in areas of ground

ough leachate will , in the second case

ay also occur in existing landfill sites that are sited in a watercourse

he ere

has been rectified by remedial design.

te on may result. Examples could include

cover excavations that penetrate the ground water d infiltration from surface ponding on the ndfill. The failure of drainage systems would so permit run-off to enter the landfill.

Conclusion

An existing site classified as B– using the Climatic Water Balance may therefore have a B+ Site Water Balance and generate significant leachate. In this instance, the Responsible Person must amend the classification and either apply the appropriate

liquid waste

Any landfill where the co-disposal of liquids is permitted must be lined and equipped with leachate management systems that can contain, extract and treat the resultant leachate flow (see Section 10).

This is because the disposal of high moisture content and/or liquid waste adds extra moisture to the landfill. This superimposes a hydraulic loading on the Climatic Water Balance. Depending on thamount of additional moisture added, this results insignificant leachate generation. A method of examining the effects of liquid co-disposal or himoisture content wastes on leachate generationgiven in Appendix 3.4.

In cases where the co-disposal of high m

practised, more detailed water balance calculatiare required. In such instances, the classification of the landfill is usually found effectively to be Band leachate management is required.

Co-disposal of sewage sludge

appropriately

they pass through the delisting process, described in the Minimum Requirements for the Classification, Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. This may only be practiced at B+ sites, provided that the site is equipped withappropriate leachate management system. Ibe a Minimum Requirement to carry out a dewater balance study taking into consideration the moisture content of the sludge und

Sub-optimal siting

sence of a strate

(see Section 4.4). In the exceptional event that alandfill has to be developed above or adjacent tstrategic aquifer, the Department would require that the landfill be classified as a B+ landfill. Thiswould be an application of the Precautionary Principle and an example of the implementation ohigher standards in order to protect a vulnerabreceiving environment.

Badly selecte

Significant leachate generation will occur in g landfills sited either in excava

water seepage or springs. Althnot be obvious in the first caseit is likely that leachate will be observed emanating from the toe and the sides of the landfill.

Significant leachate generation m

or across the drainage feature of a catchment. Thisis because run-off water will dam up behind tlandfill and infiltrate the waste body, unless this effective diversion drainage. Where run-off, damming or water encroachment has occurred, leachate emission may continue long after the problem

Badly designed and operated sites

If the Minimum Requirements for design and operation are not adhered to, significant leachagenerati

anlaal



Minimum Requirements for the amended classification or undertake remenecessary. In all such instance

uthority must be kept informed.

3.4.4 Alternative methods of determining significant leachate generation

In sit atic a Balance method where Site pecific Factors are involved, a full, deta ater Balance calculation may be requi abliswhether or not a site will generate significant le as ELP uld useful in this regard [Ref. Schroeder, P.R. The H drologic f Landfill rform nce (HELP) Model ode, Vicksburg, 1989, Mississippi.].

3.5

3.5.1

The format for the Landfill Classification System based on the three parameters discussed in this

i.e., waste type, size of operation and Site gure 7).

As seen from Figure 7, the Landfill Classification System provides for ten different classes of landfill. These are G:C:B , G:C:B+, G:S:B-, G:S:B+, G:M:B-, G:M:B G:L:B+, H:h

. Of the ten landfil cater neral waste and two

isti os ill s en , the Re nts t y

to the class of landfill under ation can be nti , u th inimum Requirements

bles

FIGURE 7 Landfill Classification System

SS

G

General W

H

dial work as s, the Competent

section,Water Balance, (see Fi

A

uations where the Climis inconclusive or

W ter -S

iled Site Wred to est h

achate. A programme such H co be

y Evaluation o: Version 2, Source C

Pe a

Application of the Landfill Classification System

Landfill classes

is

-

+, G:L:B-, and H:Hfor ge

l classes, eight cater for hazardous

waste.

Once the exclassified

ng or propMinimum

ed landfquiremeconsider

ite has behat appl

ide fied sing e Mta .

WASTE CLA

aste Hazardous Waste

S

ll fill

zard

SIZE OF LANDFILL OPERATION

C

Communal Landfill

Sma

Land

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating

3&4

H:H

HaRating

1-4

SITE WATER BALANCE B-

B+

B-

B-

B+

B-

B+

B+

MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS


Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, 2005 3-

30

NOTES:B- = No significant leachate will be generated in t

calculations plus Site-Specific Ferms of t nce (Climatic Water Balance

actors), so that a leachate management system is not required. B+ = Significant leachate will be generated in terms of the e

te manageazardous was

all Hazardous w

he Site Water Bala

Site Wat r Balance (Climatic Water Balance calculation ment system is required. and Site-Specific Factors), so that a leacha

h = A containment landfill which accepts HH = A containment landfill which accepts

te with Hazard Ratings 3 and 4. aste, i.e., with Hazard Ratings 1, 2, 3 and 4.

four

ndfill are further sub-

that ll B sites, with

the exception of Communal sites, require leachate rising liners and

leachate collection systems. The Minimum

Any landfill that receives significant quantities of zardous by

dous

the ground water regime by a liner and a leachate

Such landfills have to be designed, engineered and

LandfiHazardThese loadings s. The design

es.

type

. Mono landfills are

disposed with other wastes, because of the risk of mobilisation of hazardous substances. In such cases, the delisted hazardous waste must be disposed of in a mono landfill.

Hazardous waste lagoons

Hazardous waste lagoons are not landfills. They are therefore not accommodated in the Landfill Classification System. As they do exist as a means of waste disposal, however, they are addressed, as an exception, in the Design section, Section 8.

General waste landfills

General waste landfills are sub-divided intoclasses, based on magnitude of waste stream and size of operation. These classes are Communal, Small, Medium and Large. The larger the operation, the more stringent the Minimum Requirements.

The above classes of ladivided on the basis of the Site Water Balance. A B– landfill is a landfill that generates only sporadicleachate and does not require a leachate management system. A B+ landfill is a landfillgenerates significant leachate. A +

management systems, comp

Requirements for B+ landfills are more stringent than for B- landfills.

Hazardous waste landfills

hazardous waste must be classified as a HaWaste Landfill. Because of the risk posedHazardous Waste Landfills, they must be conservatively lined containment sites, regardless of the Site Water Balance. Hazarwaste landfills must therefore all be separated from

collection system (see Section 8).

Landfills that receive all types of hazardous wastes, including the most hazardous waste with Hazard Ratings 1 and 2, are termed ‘H:H’ sites.

operated to the most stringent standards.

lls that receive less hazardous wastes with Ratings 3 and 4 are termed H:h sites.

sites are authorised to receive specific of hazardous waste

standards for H:h sites are higher than for G:L:B+ sites, but are not as stringent as for H:H sit

Mono landfills

A mono landfill is one in which a single waste is disposed. As in the case of multi-waste landfills, the waste type and hazard rating, the sizeof the waste stream and potential for generating significant leachate determine the class of landfillneeded for its disposaltherefore accommodated in the Landfill Classification System.

Certain ‘delisted’ hazardous wastes may not be co-



ctual case studies.

eration and final cover application. The examples in Appendix 3.3

The Permit Holder or Responsible Person must ensure at all times that the site is correctly classified. Should the class of the site change over time, the Competent Authority must be notified and the appropriate Minimum Requirements must be applied (see Section 3.4.3 and 3.4.4).

3.6 Application of the Classification System to Waste Management Facilities other than Landfills

The Landfill Classification System is also used to classify disposal sites other than landfills. However, the name of the type of facility is added to the waste type, size of operation and site water balance. For example, a transfer station might have a G:S:B- (waste transfer station) classification, which is included on the Permit. Similarly, a pre-incineration storage area might have a H:H (medical waste incinerator storage area) classification.

Unlike landfills, most of these disposal sites are unlikely to generate significant leachate, as waste will not be stored for extended periods, forming a

permanent waste body. Possible exceptions do exist, such as a waste storage area where waste is stockpiled in the open for extended periods in a B+ area, or a facility where the storage, handling or treatment of wet wastes result in leachate or highly contaminated seepage.

Site-specific factors are therefore important when classifying these sites. For example, a site in a B+ area that is unlikely to generate any leachate at all because of a site-specific factor such as a roof would be classified as B-.

Once the proposed or existing facility has been classified, the Minimum Requirements that apply to the type and class of facility under consideration can be identified, using the Minimum Requirements table included in Appendix 5.1.

3.5.2 Examples of landfill classes

The application of the classification system is illustrated by means of ten examples in Appendix3.3. Although not referred to by name, these examples are based on a

It must be noted that few general waste landfills inSouth Africa currently meet the Minimum Requirements for their classes. Examples of Minimum Requirements that are not met are liner design, sanitary landfill op

therefore represent examples of class rather thanmodels of landfills that fulfil the Minimum Requirements.

3.5.3 Amendment of site classification



FIGURE 8 IDSA Procedure Phase 1 –

Need, Classification, Application and Screening

Authority review(Competent authority

and DWAF)


required

Proceed to Phase 2

Integrated regulatoryprocedure 1

Classify proposed disposalsite (3)

Commence publicparticipation

MinimumRequirements

(Technical process)

Public participation

Implement the publicparticipation process 3

Plan the publicparticipation process

Activities

Report

Decisions

normal flowappeal flowpossible flow

LEGEND

1The integrated regulatory procedure is aligned with the EIA Regulations in terms of sections 22 and 26 of theEnvironment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) and the proposed regulations under section 24(5) of theNational Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998), Regulation Gazette No. 26503 of 25 June2004.2 For G:C:B-; G:C:B +; and G:S:B - sites in terms Section 20(5)(b) of the ECA and the relevant schedulesdetailing such listed activities in terms of Section 24 and 24D of the NEMA.3 Scheduled activities in terms of Section 24 and 24D of NEMA that only requires screening is subject to publicparticipation prior to an EA application.

Complete theapplication forms

Decideon Competent

Authority and verifyassessment

process 2

DEAT as competentauthority

Provincial departmentas competent

authority

ECA Permit and/or further EIA

investigationrequired

Considerationof application

Determine in which scheduleof the EIA Regulations

the disposal activity falls

4. SITE SELECTION


Section 4 SITE SELECTION

4.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for landfill site selection are summarised in Table 4, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for the site selection of waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

Disposal site selection is the fundamental step in the development of a site. This step has far reaching economic, environmental and public acceptance implications. The site selection process is only complete once the Competent Authority has found a site feasible on the basis of a feasibility study.

According to Section 24 of the Constitution: ‘Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being’. The establishment and operation of a disposal site must therefore not violate the constitutional right of the communities living in the vicinity of the site.

The objectives of disposal site selection are as follows:

• 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.

• To ensure that, because it is environmentally acceptable, it is also socially acceptable.

The site selection process begins in response to an identified need for a disposal site. The

classification system is then used to determine the class of site required to meet this need on the basis of the ‘givens’, i.e., the quality and quantity of the waste and the potential for significant leachate generation. Once the class, and hence also the required land area and potential impact, of the proposed site has been determined, candidate sites can be identified.

At this point, the Competent Authority must be contacted, and the correct authorisation process initiated, for example a Plan of Study for Scoping must be developed and approved (see Figure 8 and Figure 10). The public participation planning process should also commence at this point. Appendix 4.1 provides a detailed description of the principles of public participation as well as listing the Minimum Requirements for planning and implementing public participation.

As part of implementing the public participation process, the Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) must be notified of the necessity for and the intention to develop a landfill or other disposal site in the area. The IAPs are those people or groups concerned with or affected by the development of the proposed disposal site. They may be the local authorities, the relevant government departments, NGOs, adjacent residents or farmers, or a residential community.

Using primarily environmental and economic criteria, sufficient candidate sites must be identified to ensure the due consideration of alternatives. All the candidate sites identified must be evaluated to determine the most acceptable sites. These must be documented and presented to the IAPs as a ‘Proposal’. Using a consultative process, the candidate disposal sites are reviewed and comments obtained. If necessary, the top sites

4: SITE SELECTION


may be subjected to a more detailed investigation to confirm their suitability.

A Feasibility Study, involving a preliminary environmental impact assessment and geohydrological investigation, must then be carried out on the best site. This will determine whether or not the potential impact of the site is environmentally and socially acceptable. After this, the IAPs and communities must again be consulted for their input, and their issues and concerns regarding the proposed development must be documented and information provided on how these concerns have been appropriately addressed.

Should the site under consideration not prove feasible in terms of environmental or social acceptability, the next site is considered.

In the case of an operating landfill that is to be authorised, the Feasibility Study, which could include an EIA, will determine whether the site should be authorised for ongoing operation or for closure. The IAPs must be consulted during the study, to obtain their input regarding the future of the landfill.

The process of disposal site selection is only completed when a site has been accepted as feasible by the IAPs and the Competent Authority (see Figure 3). Thereafter, detailed site investigations and the authorisation process can commence.

4.2 Initiating the Public Participation Process

Public involvement in the process of developing a specific landfill site begins once other waste management options have been addressed and the need for a waste disposal site has been established. As waste disposal is an activity that may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment, if not managed, it is subject to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s EIA Regulations (EIAR) [Ref: Government Gazette No. 18261, 5th September, 1997]. Figure 9 and Figure

10 indicate how the Minimum Requirements for public participation in the development of a landfill are integrated in the EIAR process. For details, please refer to Appendix 4.1.

In terms of the EIAR, once the class of the required disposal site has been determined, a consultant must be appointed to undertake Public Scoping. An application form and the Plan of Study for Scoping must then be submitted to the relevant provincial environmental authority (see Figure 3) and the Department for approval. Once approval has been obtained, scoping can begin. Once approval for the activity and the public participation plan has been obtained, the public participation process should begin, see Appendix 4.1.

After generating an IAP list and identifying IAP representatives, the IAPs must be notified and informed of the need for a waste disposal facility in the area. Any alternative waste management solutions that have been explored should also be presented and discussed. The implications of the disposal site classification should be explained. For example, the size of the operation will provide a good indication of such changes as waste tonnages, infrastructure needed, vehicle movements, and land area.

The IAPs must be informed of the proposed site selection process and given the opportunity to define the extent to which they wish to participate therein. A committee may be established to facilitate IAP involvement in site authorisation, operation, monitoring and closure, once there is general satisfaction that the members of such a committee consist of mandated representatives of all relevant IAP groups (see Appendix 4.1).

At this stage, candidate disposal sites may be identified by the consultants, as well as the IAPs.

4. SITE SELECTION

FIGURE 9 Determining the Feasibility of a Candidate Landfill Site

Appoint Consultant to undertake Public Scoping in terms of EIAR

Determine waste disposal need and classify proposed landfill (see Section 3)

Apply to Competent Authority to undertake activity. Submit Plan of Study for Scoping

Pre

Su

Co

Obtain approval from Competent Authority for Plan of Study for Scoping and for thePublic Participation Plan

Notify IAPs of need for a waste disposal facility as part of implementing the public participation process

Consultants and IAPs identify and propose candidate landfill sites

Landfill specialists investigate and rank candidate landfill sites

sent candidate landfills to IAPs and get reasonable consensus on ranking (coarse screen)

Present

Sub

Continu

bmit Candidate Landfill Site Report to Competent Authority and make available to IAPs

Desk study to compare more than one of the top ranking sites (fine screen)

nfirm best site with IAPs and present results to Competent Authority in Ranking Report

Do Feasibility Study on best site: • Preliminary geohydrological investigation • Preliminary environmental impact assessment • Conceptual design (including input from IAPs)


draft Feasibility Report to IAPs for approval (revise if necessary)

mit Feasibility Report to the Competent Authority for approval

e with investigations for Permit Application as per Figures 1 and 12

4: SITE SELECTION


FIGURE 10

IDSA Procedure Phase 2 – Scoping Report

Competentauthority review

Accept


required

Proceed to Phase 3Feasibility Assessment 4

Integrated regulatoryprocedure 1

Revise ScopingReport and submit

MinimumRequirements

(Technical process)

Public participation

Present to I&APs;collate comments

Activities

Report

Decisions

normal flowappeal flowpossible flow

LEGEND

1The integrated regulatory procedure is aligned with the EIA Regulations in terms of sections 22 and 26 of theEnvironment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) and the proposed regulations under section 24(5) of theNational Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998), Regulation Gazette No. 26503 of 25 June 2004.2 The MR contextualises the Scoping Report for disposal sites and any deviation from this guidelines should benoted at this stage.2 a Authorisations (EA and General Authorisations), respectively in terms EIA Regulations and ECA Directions (forcertain classes of disposal sites). EA authorisations are issued for activities that only requires screening, in termsof the schedules of Section 24 and 24D of NEMA.3 If further information is required go to Stage 2 in Figure 3. If application is rejected, appeal procedure could befollowed.4 Where possible on a site specific basis, Phase 3 (Figure 12) could be integrated with Phase 2 (Figure 10) .

DWAF review

Comments

Scoping Reportincluding Plan ofStudy for EIAR 2

EA andECA

authorisationissued 2a

EIArequired Reject or

further informationrequired 3

Appeal

Considerationof application

(from Figure 1-1A)

Accept

4. SITE SELECTION


4.3 Approach to Site Selection

Early considerations in site selection are to identify the size and the general location of the required site.

Size of the site. When the site is classified, the size of the waste stream and hence the MRD is calculated (see Section 3). This calculation also gives a good indication of the physical size of the site and hence the area of land required. The size of the site inevitably affects the size of the anticipated buffer zone. In addition the cumulative effect of the areas potentially impacted by the disposal site project must be considered and adequate land area must be available beyond the site boundaries site to accommodate the future buffer zone

General site location. This is determined by the waste generation area(s) to be served. It is economically sound practice to establish the proposed facility as close to the generation area(s) as possible, with a view to minimising transport costs. Thus, the initial area of investigation is defined by the economic radius, which will vary depending on the existing or proposed mode of waste transport. Since the location of the site relative to the waste generation area(s) is an economic consideration rather than a Minimum Requirement, this is not addressed further. Existing and future land uses will, however, influence site location considerations, as incompatible land uses could prove to be a fatal flaw in the site selection process, see Appendix 4.3

The further phases involved in the approach to site selection are as follows:

- The elimination of all areas with associated Fatal Flaws (see Section 4.4)

- The identification of candidate sites, based on the site selection criteria provided in Section 4.5.

- The ranking of candidate sites

- The carrying out of a Feasibility Study on the best option(s).

4.4 Elimination of Areas with Inherent Fatal Flaws

It is a Minimum Requirement that no landfill site be developed in an area with an inherent Fatal Flaw.

The following situations may represent Fatal Flaws in that they may prohibit the development of an environmentally or publicly acceptable waste disposal facility except at excessive cost:

• 3 000 m from the end of any airport runway or landing strip in the direct line of the flight path and within 500 m of an airport or airfield boundary. This is because landfills attract birds, creating the danger of aircraft striking birds.

• Areas below the 1 in 100 year flood line. This eliminates wetlands, vleis, pans and flood plains, where water pollution would result from waste disposal.

• Areas in close proximity to significant surface water bodies, e.g., water courses or dams.

• Unstable areas. These could include fault zones, seismic zones and dolomitic or karst areas where sinkholes and subsidence are likely.

• Sensitive ecological and/or historical areas. These include nature reserves and areas of ecological and cultural or historical significance.

• Catchment areas for important water resources. Although all sites ultimately fall within a catchment area, the size and sensitivity of the catchment may represent a Fatal Flaw, especially if it feeds a water resource.

4: SITE SELECTION


• Areas characterised by flat gradients, shallow or emergent ground water, e.g., vleis, pans and springs, where a sufficient unsaturated zone separating the waste body and the ground water would not be possible.

• Areas characterised by steep gradients, where 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 (see Appendix 4.2).

• Areas characterised by shallow bedrock with little soil cover. These are frequently also associated with steep slopes, which may be unsuitable.

• Areas in close proximity to land-uses that are incompatible with landfilling. Land-uses that are incompatible with landfilling would attract community resistance. These would include residential areas, nature reserves and cemeteries.

• Areas where adequate buffer zones are not possible. Buffer zones are discussed in Appendix 4.3.

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

• Areas that, 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; e.g., Rand Water, ESKOM or Road Department servitudes.

• 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 (LDO) process and the Regional Waste Strategy.

4.5 Identifying Candidate Sites

All possible alternative sites must be considered before making a final choice. It is a Minimum Requirement that sufficient candidate sites be identified to ensure the due consideration of alternatives. This will include any site put forward by the IAPs.

In identifying candidate disposal sites, numerous economic, environmental and public acceptance criteria must be considered. These criteria inter-relate, as there are always economic implications when candidate sites are sub-optimal in terms of environmental and/or public acceptance characteristics. Also, the public will usually not accept an environmentally unsuitable site.

The distance of a site from the waste generation area is an example of opposing economic and public acceptance criteria. While increased distance from residential areas may be more desirable to the public, there is a cost penalty associated with increased haul distances.

4.5.1 Economic criteria

Economic criteria relate to the cost of obtaining, developing and operating a site. They include the following considerations:

• The possible incorporation of the site into a regional waste disposal system, either immediately or in the future. This tends to make a site economically more attractive.

• The economies of scale. Larger sites are economically more attractive.

• The distance of the site from the waste generation areas. This is directly proportional to transport costs.

4. SITE SELECTION


• The size of the operation. In general, if it is to be economical, a disposal site must cater for the disposal of the waste stream over at least the medium term to justify the capital expenditure. Expenditure will also include provision for the management of a buffer zone as discussed in section 5.3.5. In addition to the size of the landfill site proper, the anticipated extent of the areas of influence associated with the landfill project and the anticipated extent of the ultimate buffer zone should also be considered.

• Access to the landfill site. This has cost, convenience and environmental implications, especially if roads have to be constructed. Current land use in the vicinity of the site will have a direct bearing on accessibility. For example, an access route through a residential suburb may result in unacceptable impacts, such as increased traffic or the risk of spillage.

• The availability of on-site soil to provide low cost cover material. Importation of cover increases operating costs. Furthermore, cover shortage may reduce site life.

• The quality of the on-site soil. Low permeability clayey soils on site will reduce the cost of containment liners and leachate control systems.

• Exposed or highly visible sites. High visibility will result in additional costs being incurred for screening.

• Land availability and/or acquisition costs. These are often dependent on present or future competitive land-uses, such as agriculture, residential or mining.

• Other miscellaneous economic or socio-economic issues. These might arise in particular instances, e.g., where the displacement of local inhabitants must be addressed.

4.5.2 Environmental criteria

Environmental criteria relate to the potential threat to the biotic and abiotic environment, particularly to water resources. They include the following considerations:

• The distance to ground or surface water. The greater this distance, the more suitable the site is in terms of lower potential for water pollution.

• The importance of ground or surface water as water resources. The greater the resource value of the water, the more sensitive the establishment of a landfill on account of the potential for water pollution (see Appendix 4.2).

• The depth of soil on the site. The greater the availability of soil, the more cost-effective it will be for the landfill to meet the Minimum Requirements for operation. The landfill will thus be more acceptable in terms of cover material and therefore control of nuisances.

• The quality of on-site soil. Low permeability soils reduce pollutant migration and are therefore favoured.

• Valleys where temperature inversion could occur. This could promote the migration of landfill gas and odours into populated areas.

• The sensitivity of the receiving environment. The development of a site in a disturbed environment, such as derelict mining land, would be preferable to a development in a pristine environment.

4.5.3 Public acceptance criteria

Public acceptance criteria relate to such issues as the possible adverse impact on public health, quality of life, and local land and property values. They also relate to potential public resistance to the development of a waste disposal site. Failure to meet the public acceptance criteria may

4: SITE SELECTION


constitute a Fatal Flaw. The following are important considerations:

• The displacement of local inhabitants. This will usually arouse public resistance.

• Exposed sites with high visibility. These are less desirable than secluded or naturally screened sites.

• The sensitivity of the environment through which the access road(s) passes. The shorter the distance to the site through residential areas, the more acceptable the site.

• Prevailing wind directions. New landfills and certain other waste management facilities must be sited downwind of residential areas.

• The distance to the nearest residential area or any other land-use which is incompatible with the disposal operation. The greater the distance from incompatible land-uses, the lower the risk of nuisance problems and hence resistance to the facility.

To protect the public from any adverse effects of a waste disposal operation, adequate buffer zones must be provided around landfills (see Appendix 4.3). Buffer zones are ‘set back distances’ or separations between the registered disposal site boundary and incompatible land uses such as residential developments. Buffer zones vary in size, depending on the classification of the landfill, site-specific factors affecting the environmental impact, and the requirements of the Department, the relevant provincial environmental authority and the IAPs. In general, no or only specified development may take place within the defined buffer zone. If development does take place, this may be perceived as incompatible with the adjacent land use and lead to public resistance. For example, industrial development may appear appropriate within the buffer zone but may be incompatible with adjacent residential uses.

4.5.4 Critical factors

While not necessarily Fatal Flaws, economic, environmental and public acceptance criteria may be critical factors. This means that they may represent a severe constraint on the development or ongoing operation of a landfill.

A critical factor may, however, become a Fatal Flaw if it cannot be addressed to the satisfaction of the Department and/or its presence should prevent the landfill from meeting a Minimum Requirement.

4.5.5 Procedure

By eliminating all areas with associated inherent fatal flaws, and taking note of all the criteria and critical factors listed in this section, a number of candidate disposal sites can be identified. These may include or be supplemented by candidate sites identified by IAPs and should be presented on a map of suitable scale.

4.6 Ranking of Candidate Sites

Using the above criteria, the identified candidate disposal sites must now be technically evaluated and compared, to determine their acceptability.

In the early stages, when there are many candidate sites, a ‘coarse screening’ is carried out to eliminate the unsuitable sites and identify the top ranking sites. This exercise would initially be undertaken by specialists. The results will be presented to the IAPs in a report, the Candidate Disposal Site Report.

To do the coarse screening exercise, a discussion document and/or a matrix can be used.

Discussion document

A discussion document would discuss the facts pertaining to the candidate sites, using the main selection criteria, i.e., economic, environmental, and public acceptance. The ranking of the sites would be motivated on the basis of these.

4. SITE SELECTION

FIGURE 11 Example Candidate Disposal Site Ranking Matrix

Candidate Site

Economic Criteria

Environmental Criteria

Public Acceptance Criteria

Total Score

Distance

Size

Available area for buffer zone

Access

Etc

Ground water

Surface water

Soil

depth

Setting

Etc

Distance

Visibility

Wind

Buffer zone use

Etc

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site n


4: SITE SELECTION


Site ranking matrix

A matrix can be developed with candidate sites on the one axis and selected criteria on the other (see Figure 11). The criteria should be appropriately weighted in order to reflect their relative importance. For example, size may be scored out of 20 whereas access may only be scored out of 5. In general, the matrix should be so designed that the following aspects are addressed:

• Environmental impact • Safety risk (public safety, occupational

health) • Social impact • Costs (acquisition, construction, operation

and closure). When using the matrix, each site is evaluated. Scores are assigned for each criterion and added together to provide a total for each site. Thereafter, sites are ranked from the highest to the lowest.

Candidate disposal site report

Once completed, the technical ranking must be presented to the IAPs, possibly through the committee, for their input and for final ranking. Input may involve amendment of the ranking or the complete elimination of certain sites. The ranking will be presented in a draft Candidate Disposal Site Report.

Once the IAPs have provided comment on the ranking, the Candidate Disposal Site Report, documenting the technical ranking exercise and IAP comments and how these have been appropriately addressed, must be submitted to the Competent Authority and made available to the public.

The ranking report

The top ranking sites themselves must now be compared to one another in a ‘fine screening’ exercise. In this exercise, a desk study of available information would be undertaken and a different, more detailed, matrix would probably be used for ranking. For example, each site could be ranked

on an ABC system. For each criterion, the site rating best would receive an A, second best B, etc.

The results of this fine screening, including public participation must be documented in a draft Ranking Report

When the top site is confirmed, the Ranking Report must be submitted to the Department and the relevant provincial environmental authority and made available to the public.

After this, the top-ranking site is subjected to a more detailed investigation in the form of a Feasibility Study. This investigation is undertaken to confirm the environmental and public acceptability of the top-ranking site.

4.7 The Feasibility Study and Report

Input from the involved state departments may be desirable before subjecting the top ranking candidate landfill site to a more detailed investigation or the Feasibility Study.

The Feasibility Study is a Minimum Requirement for all G:S:B+ G:M, G:L, H:h and H:H landfill sites and G:M, G:L, H:h and H:H other waste management facilities. Its aim is to confirm that the site has no Fatal Flaws. To do this, any critical factors must be identified and addressed to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority. The site must be proven to be both technically feasible and acceptable to the IAPs, before the Competent Authority will consider the site feasible for development, (see Figure 10).

In the case of an operating site that is to be authorised, the Feasibility Study will be used to determine the future of the site, i.e., whether it should be authorised for ongoing operation or for operation with a view to closure (see Section 4.7.7). It is a Minimum Requirement that the IAPs be consulted before this decision is taken.

The extent of the Feasibility Study and its presentation will depend on the class of site proposed, the waste management facility type, the

4. SITE SELECTION


physical complexity of the actual site, and the sensitivity of the receiving environment.

Components of the study are provided below.

4.7.1 Basic information

Certain information is necessary in order to provide background; this should include the following:

Site classification

In this section, all the information pertaining to the waste classification, the magnitude of the waste stream and the climatic and site water balances is presented. Based on this, the proposed site is classified, using the disposal site classification system (see Section 3).

Indication of candidate landfill site procedure

In line with the IEM approach, more than one possible site should have been considered. In exceptional circumstances one site only can be considered, but these circumstances must be fully described and the exception must be motivated. In all other instances, the process of candidate waste disposal site identification and ranking must be described in the Feasibility Report, to the extent that the choice of the site under consideration is justified.

Site zoning

The current zoning of the disposal site under consideration must be indicated and the responsible local authority must guarantee that it will be possible to zone the site for waste disposal purposes in terms of the ruling statutory zoning scheme. The current zoning of the anticipated buffer zone must also be indicated and the local authority must guarantee that the land area falling within the buffer zone may be zoned for the purposes intended (i.e., compatible land use adjacent to a landfill site).

Site description

The information provided in this section is usually based on both desk study information and observations from site visits. It should also include aspects forthcoming from the Preliminary Geohydrological Investigation and Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as any other information relevant to the development, design and operation of the site, e.g., topography, drainage, aesthetics, wind direction, rainfall, existing vegetation, access, etc.

4.7.2 Preliminary Geohydrological Investigation

Normally, this is confined to the evaluation of existing information (maps and reports) and its confirmation in the field. Field confirmation will, in most instances, require test pits and, in certain instances, the drilling of a limited number of boreholes, and possibly blow yield tests. This investigation is considered the preliminary phase of the full investigation and is therefore carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Section 6. The information required is as follows:

Geology

This would include regional and local geology (stratigraphy and bedrock) as well as any structures (faults, dykes and lineations).

Soils

The soil on the site must be generally described and classified in terms of type, permeability, depth and volume available for cover material.

Borehole census or hydrocensus

All boreholes within a distance of one km from the site boundaries must be identified, with a view to recording ground water uses in the area. The purpose for which the water is used and borehole characteristics such as ground water levels, ground water quality, borehole yields, borehole depth, abstraction rates, geological logs, casing/screen details and drilling date, should be included if

4: SITE SELECTION


available. The reliability of such data should also be indicated.

From the borehole census and from consideration of any surface water usage, or potential usage, an indication should be given of the importance of water resources in the vicinity of the landfill.

Ground water

An indication of the minimum depth to ground water in the vicinity of the site, the yield and the probable flow direction must be provided from the borehole census. The importance of the ground water as a resource must also be indicated, based on a preliminary aquifer classification (see Appendix 4.2). Again, the reliability of the information provided should be indicated.

The vulnerability of any aquifer and the risk of its possible pollution should be interpreted to provide an overall assessment of the ground water regime. These issues are discussed from a monitoring point of view in the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities. [Ref. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities, Pretoria, 1998.]

Landfill gas

An overall understanding of surface and subsurface features will indicate the potential for landfill gas accumulation and migration, on account of geological or hydrogeological features (such as permeable earth or fault lines) or man-made features (such as mine shafts, roadways, sewers, or the backfill around pipes, cableways and other services) which could result in potential off-site health and safety risks, (see Appendix 10.3).

4.7.3 Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

The Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment is considered to represent a preliminary phase of the full EIA described in Section 7 and is therefore to be carried out in

accordance with the principles described in Section 7. While this is not a full EIA, it must re-address all the environmental siting criteria relating to the site that were considered during the candidate landfill site identification and ranking exercises.

Critical factors must be identified in the Preliminary EIA and must be discussed and addressed in the Feasibility Report. This assessment, based on the level of investigation conducted, must confirm that the identified critical factors can be addressed and that there are no Fatal Flaws.

4.7.4 Conceptual design and consideration of critical factors

The Feasibility Report must address any critical factors identified by discussing proposed solutions in the context of the envisaged conceptual design. In other instances, critical factors might be addressed by means of special operating procedures.

4.7.5 Maps and plans

The Feasibility Report must be illustrated with maps and plans. As a Minimum Requirement, the 1:50 000 topographical map and 1:10 000 orthophoto map, where available, must be included. Between them, both maps must indicate the position of the disposal site and must show the surrounding area to an adequate distance of not less than one kilometre or such extended area as may be required in the context of the anticipated impacts of the disposal site project, showing the 1 in 100 year flood line, position of boreholes, wells, springs, dams and water courses, archaeological, palaeontological, cultural and historical sites, important roads and transportation corridors, surrounding land uses, and waste generation area served. Existing and proposed land use and development must also be indicated.

Should any other relevant maps or plans be readily available at this stage of the investigation, these could be included.

4. SITE SELECTION


4.7.6 Further consultation with Interested and Affected Parties

It is a Minimum Requirement that at this stage, further attempts be made to notify and register IAPs who could be affected by the top candidate landfill. Even if a candidate landfill is found to be technically feasible, it is not feasible unless it is acceptable to the majority of the IAPs. Acceptance by the IAPs immediately affected by the project therefore represents a critical factor in determining the feasibility of the proposed candidate landfill site. Justified public resistance to a site may be regarded as a Fatal Flaw by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority may, however, also overrule unjustified public resistance.

It is therefore a Minimum Requirement that those IAPs who would be immediately affected by the site under consideration be included in the consultative process. The IAPs must be identified and fully informed of the proposed development and its potential implications, so that their input can be obtained, see Appendix 4.1. The objective of this would be to ensure that IAP concerns are addressed in a responsible manner. Once the concerns of the IAPs have been appropriately addressed, and hence acceptance obtained, the feasibility of a given candidate landfill site can be confirmed.

It is also essential that the local authority in whose area the site is located be fully involved in the consultative process. This is because, in terms of Section 39 of the Health Act 1977, the local authority is responsible for determining the zoning and/or the consent land-use associated with the proposed site. In doing this, the local authority is also responsible for controlling any future development within a buffer zone surrounding a site, (see Appendix 4.3).

The consultative process must be fully documented in the Feasibility Report. For large and hazardous sites, this includes the final public participation plan.

Once the Feasibility Report has been completed, it is a Minimum Requirement that it be submitted and, where practicable, presented to the Competent Authority and the IAPs, (see Figure 12). While the Competent Authority officially receives copies of the report, it must also be made freely available to the IAPs.

The Competent Authority will co-ordinate and liaise with all other relevant spheres of government to obtain confirmation of site feasibility, including the Department, (see Figure 12). Where there is any doubt regarding adequate consensus, the Competent Authority may also liaise with the IAPs.

If the Departments find the site feasible, the Competent Authority will communicate this to the applicant in writing. This communication could include specific directives from the respective departments.

Once written acceptance of feasibility has been obtained from the Competent Authority, the site selection process is complete. The applicant can then begin the authorisation procedure and the more detailed investigations of the site.

4.7.7 Consideration of unauthorised operating landfills

Approximately 20% of the known operating landfills in South Africa are not authorised in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989, (Section 20 of Act 73 of 1989), see Section 5.1. These range from well run operations that have not yet been authorised to situations where uncontrolled dumping of waste has occurred on a large scale. Examples of the latter would include ‘borrow pits’ which are situated adjacent to townships and which have been developed into substantial informal and uncontrolled landfills. All unauthorised landfills must be classified and assessed in consultation with the Competent Authority, to determine the environmental risk that they pose.

In certain cases, unauthorised landfills will pose little environmental risk. This may be because of

4: SITE SELECTION


sound siting, design and operation, or simply because of the high ash and low putrescible content of the waste, or because significant leachate is not generated. Such sites could be upgraded in terms of design and operation, and authorised for continued operation in accordance with the Minimum Requirements.

Some unauthorised landfills may pose a risk to the environment because of a high pollution potential. If these cannot be upgraded to comply with the relevant objectives of the Minimum Requirements and environmental legislation, they must be closed in accordance with the Minimum Requirements and relevant environmental legislation. This usually requires site remediation and the development of a replacement facility.

An appropriate buffer zone is a Minimum Requirement for unauthorised sites. Where the siting of an unauthorised site precludes retroactive imposition of an appropriate buffer zone or is economically unviable, forced closures may have to be considered by the Competent Authority.

Where unauthorised operating landfills are to be upgraded or to continue operation until closure, it is a Minimum Requirement that the IAPs be involved in the decision-making. This is also required in terms of the EIAR.

4. SITE SELECTION


FIGURE 12 IDSA Procedure Phase 3 – Feasibility Assessment10

10 Where appropriate, only a ranking report, which incorporates both the coarse and fine screening, may be submitted, subject to approval by the Competent Authority.

4: SITE SELECTION


Public Participation

Present to IAPs

Present candidatedisposal sites to IAPs

Reasonableconsensus on ranking

(coarse screen)

Furtherinformation

required

Competent authorityreview DWAF review

Comments

Accept and request an

EIAR

Proceed to Phase 4Permit and EA

Application Procedure

Identify and rankcandidate disposal site


Comments

Accept

Furtherinformation

required

Prepare and submitFeasibility Report

Desk study tocompare ranking

sites (fine screen) 2

Prepare candidatedisposal site Report

Assessment ofFeasibility Report

Furtherinformation

required


Comments

Accept Feasibility study on bestalternative site

Prepare rankingReport

Present to IAPs

Confirm best site

Activities

Report

Decisions

normal flow

appeal flwo

possible flow

LEGEND

Integrated regulatoryprocedure1

MinimumRequirements

(Technicalprocess)

1 The integrated regulatory procedure is aligned with sections 22 and 26 of the Environment Conservation Act(Act No. 73 of 1989) and the proposed regulations under section 24(5) of the National EnvironmentalManagement Act (Act No. 107 of 1998), Regulation Gazette No. 26503 of 25 June 2004.

2 This step does not appear in Figures 1 and 2. See Figure 9 for additional detail.

4. SITE SELECTION


TABLE 4 Minimum Requirements for Site Selection


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

LEGEND

B- = No significant

leachate produced B+ = Significant leachate

produced R = Requirement N = Not a requirement F = Flag: special

consideration to be given by expert or representative(s) of the Competent Authority and/or the Department

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+


H:H Hazard Rating 1-4

Consult Figure 9 and apply as appropriate

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Classify proposed site

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Implement public participation process as set out in Appendix 4.1

F F F F F F R R R R

Notify IAPs of the necessity and intention to develop a landfill

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Liaise with IAPs

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Eliminate areas with fatal flaws

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Identify candidate landfill sites

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Determine area of influence external to site boundary

N

N

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

Define buffer zone (based on area of influence and related risk as assessed through air quality modelling.)

200 m

200 m

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

4: SITE SELECTION



G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

LEGEND

B- = No significant




C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+



Minimum unsaturated zone

2 m

2 m

2 m

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Rank sites as indicated

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Present ranked sites to IAPs

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Site Feasibility Study

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Final public participation plan included in Feasibility Study

N N F F F F R R R R

Site description

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Complete Permit Application Form

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Preliminary Geohydrological Investigation

N

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Identify critical factors

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Assess critical factors

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Confirm no fatal flaws

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Confirm best site with IAPs and present results in Ranking Report

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Compile Feasibility Report and present to the Competent

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

4. SITE SELECTION



G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

LEGEND

B- = No significant




C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+



and present to the Competent Authority & IAPs

Competent Authority’s confirmation of feasibility

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

4: SITE SELECTION


Section 5 AUTHORISATION

5.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for the authorisation of landfills are summarised in Table 5, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for the authorisation of waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

Site authorisation has been placed at this point in the document because it is at this stage, i.e., after the site has been pronounced feasible, that the Permit Application Procedure begins.

Provision is made for the authorisation of landfill sites in terms of Section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989). This section of the Act, however, only became enforceable when the Minister officially defined ‘waste’, in Government Gazette No. 12703 of 24 August 1990.

This Act has been amended by the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003, (Act 50 of 2003). The Amendment Act states that no person shall establish, provide or operate any disposal site without a Permit issued by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The issuing of a disposal site permit is subject to the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry and the conditions contained in a Record of Decision issued by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Authorisation thus applies to both new and existing landfill sites and to sites closed after August 1990.

Landfill sites closed before August 1990, when Section 20(1) became enforceable, are controlled under Sections 19 and 20 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998), and the Water Services Act, 1997 (Act 108 of 1997). Sections 19 and 20 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998), address the control of water pollution through remedial procedure and court action. Landfills closed after 1990 are addressed in Section 12 of this document.

Prior to 1989, concept permits were issued to landfill sites in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1982 (Act 100 of 1982). The issuing of concept permits was an interim measure undertaken in the absence of regulations to provide some form of control. Because of the absence of uniform systems, standards and controls, the detail of investigation and information required for the Permit Application varied with time and geographical location.

Holders of concept permits are required to upgrade their permits to the full permits discussed in this document. For this reason, operating landfill sites with concept permits are dealt with together with unauthorised operating sites (see Figure 13). Depending on the detail of the concept permit application and the condition of the landfill, upgrading may, however, represent a minor exercise.

In terms of Section 20(1) and 20(6) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), waste management facilities other than landfills can be legally defined as disposal sites, given that no regulations prescribing such facilities, methods or conditions have been issued by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in terms of the said Act. This means that

5. AUTHORISATION


waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas require permits in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act.

These facilities, including landfills, may also be controlled in terms of Section 21(g) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998), which imposes penalties if: “Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource”.

The same authorisation procedure is therefore applicable to these facilities as to landfills, although the complexity of the applications would vary based on type, classification and sensitivity.

The objectives of disposal site authorisation are as follows:

• To register and permit all proposed disposal sites, operating disposal sites, and landfill sites closed after August 1990.

• To provide a means of control and a set of conditions that ensure that Permit Holders will design, prepare, commission, operate, close and monitor disposal sites nationwide, according to the relevant legislation and the Minimum Requirements.

The Permit Applicant may be the owner or operator of an existing or proposed disposal site. The application, however, is frequently made by a consultant or Responsible Person, on behalf of the applicant.

The Permit is a dynamic legal document and thus may, with time, require adaptation in order to manage the impact of the site on the environment. Throughout the life of the site, therefore, the Permit will be subject to revision and can be amended at any stage. It is the Permit Holder's responsibility to inform the Competent Authority of any changes in circumstances that may have an effect on the environment. These may be in the operation of the waste disposal site, or in the infrastructure associated with it. This is necessary

to enable the Competent Authority to amend the site-specific Permit conditions.

In terms of Section 35 of the Act, a Permit Application may be turned down. Should it be turned down, an applicant may appeal. In the case of a proposed facility, the site may not be developed if the appeal is unsuccessful. In the case of an existing landfill, should the appeal for the authorisation of the continued operation of the site be unsuccessful, the site must be closed in terms of the Minimum Requirements.

The Permit Application Procedure, the implementation of Minimum Requirements, and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process have been integrated (see Figures 3, 7, 9, 12 and 18) and cannot be considered in isolation. In other words, the Permit will only be granted if the landfill meets the relevant legislation, the Minimum Requirements, and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism EIA requirements11. At the same time, the authorisation procedure ensures control and that the legislation and appropriate Minimum Requirements are adhered to.

5.2 Waste Directions

There is a need to differentiate between disposal sites according to their potential for polluting the environment and impacting human health. For this reason, G:C waste sites and G:S:B- sites can apply to the Department to be authorised under the Directions in terms of Section 20(5)(b) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989). This arrangement will remain until such time that the Directions have been amended to stipulate the provincial environmental authority as the Competent Authority

The Directions set out the requirements for this class of site in a simplified form. The Directions

11 This procedure has been updated in the 3rd Edition to strengthen the legal mandates between the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Department of Enviroment Affairs and Tourism.

5: AUTHORISATION


are regulations, in the form of standard Permit conditions, drawn up for the control of communal and small sites. [Ref: Government Gazette, Volume 440, No 23053, 01 February 2002].

5. AUTHORISATION


FIGURE 13 Applying the Landfill Authorisation Procedure to Different Situations

OPERATING LANDFILL (NO PERMIT/CONCEPT PERMIT)

NEW LANDFILL

CLOSED LANDFILL (NO PERMIT/CONCEPT PERMIT)

LEGEND:

Numbers represent Section numbers in text, where appropriate Minimum Requirements are presented. Landfill Sites without a permit (Any step here may have to be improved if the Permit Application is unsuccessful). Landfill Sites with Permit Involvement of Competent Authority (CA)

Classify Landfill (3)* Classify Proposed Landfill (3)* Classify Landfill (3)*

Determine Landfill Future (4) Identify and Rank Candidate Landfill Sites (4)

Consult CA (4)

Obtain CA Confirmation of Future (4)

Assess Landfill Feasibility (4)

Investigate (6) (7)

Apply for Closure (12) Continue Operation (10)

Obtain CA Confirmation of Feasibility (4)


Investigate (6) (7) Investigate (6) (7) Remedial Design (8)

Investigate (6) (7)

Design (8)


Closure Post Aug.1990 (12) Closure Pre Aug.1990 (12)Closure Design (8) Upgrade Design (8)

OBTAIN A LANDFILL SITE PERMIT FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (CA)

Obtain CA Approval (9) Obtain CA Approval (9)

Operate and Monitor Landfill in terms of Minimum Requirements (10) (11)

Apply for Closure (12)

Confirm/Determine End-use Requirements/Upgrade Design (12)

Draw up a Landfill Closure Report (12)

Obtain Written Acceptance from CA (12)

Remediate Landfill (12)

Obtain Letter of Approval from CA (12)

Close Landfill (12)

Monitor Closed Landfill Monitor Water Quality on an Ongoing Basis (13)

Prepare Site (9)Upgrade Site (9)

* G:C and G:S:B- sites can apply to be authorised using the Directions instead of a Permit Application.

5: AUTHORISATION


FIGURE 14 IDSA Procedure Phase 4 – Permit and EA Application Procedure


Present Permit Applicationand Environmental Impact

Assessment Report toIAPs

Accept

Competentauthority review DWAF review

Comments

Furtherinformation

required

Activities

Report

Decisions

normal flowappeal flow

possible flow

LEGEND

Environmental Impact Assessmentand Permit Application Report


MinimumRequirements

(Technical process)

Proceed to Phase 5Prepare, operate and close

disposal site


Apply for permit and submitEnvironmental ImpactAssessment and PermitApplication Reports. ThePermit Application Reportshould containdocumentation on:

Site investigationsEnvironmental impactAssessmentDisposal site designEnd use planOperation planWater managementplan

EA and ECAs.20 permit

EA and ECAs.20 permitfinalised

EA and ECAs.20 permitissued Appeal procedure

Reject

DWAFreview


RoD and on EIA

IAPs Acceptance

5. AUTHORISATION


If there are critical factors associated with the site, the Competent Authority may refuse permission to use the Directions. The applicant will then have to apply for a permit or, in the case of an existing site, close in terms of the objectives of the Minimum Requirements (see Section 12).

5.3 The Permit Application Procedure

The Minimum Requirements and EIAR requirements are applicable from the commencement of the application, as shown in Figure 3, Overview of the Integrated Disposal Site Authorisation (IDSA) procedure. The Permit Application Procedure itself can only be concluded after the first three phases in Figure 3 have been completed, that is once a disposal site has been selected and after the Competent Authority has, on the basis of the Scoping Report and Feasibility Study, confirmed its feasibility. In the case of an existing site, the site may already be operational or even be closed before the Permit Application Procedure begins. Figure 13 depicts the application of the landfill authorisation procedure (which is also applicable to other disposal sites) to different situations.

5.3.1 Definition of disposal site class and initial approach to authorities

By means of the site classification system (Section 3), the applicant defines the class of site under consideration in terms of three parameters, i.e., waste class, magnitude of waste stream and Site Water Balance. From the waste class, it is determined whether a permit is required for a General waste disposal site, or for a Hazardous waste disposal site.

A disposal site permit application should be submitted together with the required documentation in terms of the EIAR (in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998, Act 107 of 1998), for example an EIA application to the Competent Authority as a single set of documents.

5.3.2 Confirmation of site feasibility

For the Competent Authority to conduct a preliminary appraisal and to confirm the feasibility of the site, Feasibility and Scoping Reports together with certain other information, must be supplied to the Competent Authority. This serves as formal notification to the Competent Authority of the intention to develop, or continue to operate, or close a disposal site. It also provides the Competent Authority with the information necessary for it to make a decision about the feasibility or the future of the site.

Communal (G:C) and and G:S:B- sites can apply to be authorised in terms of the Directions. If this is approved, they do not have to provide Feasibility or Scoping Reports.

5.3.3 Site visit and directives

Sites that are authorised in terms of the Directions (G:C and G:S:B-) are normally not subject to a site visit and Competent Authority directives. For all other sites, after considering the Feasibility and Scoping Reports, and the documentation submitted in support of the site's feasibility, representatives from the Competent Authority, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry together with relevant other state departments may visit the site together with the applicant.12

Following the site meeting, the Competent Authority, representing the other state departments, will notify the applicant, in writing:

(i) In the case of an existing site, whether the applicant should apply for a Permit for continued operation, or whether the disposal site must be closed and hence requires to be authorised with a view to closure13.

(ii) In the case of a proposed disposal site, whether it is feasible for waste disposal,

12 Site visits and directives can also take place at other times, as required. 13 In the case of abandoned sites or sites closed before August 1990, the Competent Authority may require remedial actions. In such cases, the Competent Authority will contact the erstwhile operator or owner.

5: AUTHORISATION


storage, treatment or transfer purposes. If the site is considered feasible, the applicant will be requested to submit an EIA Report and hence may proceed with the next phase, which involves preparing and submitting the Environmental Impact Assessment and Permit Application Reports. If the site is not feasible, the next best candidate site should be considered.

(iii) Whether certain site-specific requirements or environmental objectives must be met. These may relate to the interpretation of specific Minimum and EIAR Requirements, or to the detail that will be required in the Permit Application and Environmental Impact Assessment Reports.

In general, the amount of detail required in the reports and plans will vary with the site classification and with the complexity of the site. For example, relatively little detail will be required in the case of a G:S:B+ site, whereas comprehensive information will be required in the case of an H:H landfill. It is the responsibility of the Permit Applicant to ensure the provision of sufficient detail for the Competent Authority's purposes.

5.3.4 Permit application report

The objective of the Permit Application and EIA Reports (see Figures 1 and 2) are to provide the Competent Authority with the information necessary for it to make a decision as to whether or not to issue a Permit.

The extent of the investigation will depend on the site classification, and this must be decided by the Permit Holder and Responsible Person in consultation with the Competent Authority.

In all instances, but particularly where buffer zone requirements cannot be met, the acceptance of the disposal site by the majority of the IAPs in the area of influence, confirmation that all the issues have been addressed and compliance with the EIAR are pre-requisites to feasibility.

If a consensus among the IAPs cannot be reached, the Permit Applicant must defensibly demonstrate environmental conformance. This could be through appeal if the Permit is refused.

The Applicant will undertake all the investigations and exercises required to provide the necessary information using the Competent Authority directives, the Minimum Requirements, and EIARs.

These will include:

• Site Classification (see Section 3)

• Ongoing liaison with IAPs throughout the authorisation process (see Section 4 and Appendix 4.1)

• Rezoning of the site for waste disposal and amendment of the title deeds to prevent building on top of the site once it is closed. Certified copies of the relevant title deeds or notarial deeds of servitude are required as proof of compliance.

• The Geohydrological Investigation and Report (see Section 6)

• The determination of landfill height (see Appendix 8.7)

• The Environmental Impact Assessment Report (see Section 7). This must include demarcation of the area of influence and the anticipated buffer zone based on any identified impacts (see Section 7)

• The Air Quality Management Plan (see Appendix 11.2)

• The development of a Landfill Design (see Section 8)

• The formulation of the Development Plan (see Section 9). This must also include the determination of the buffer zone

5. AUTHORISATION


• The formulation of the Operating Plan, including a landfill monitoring programme (see Sections 10 and 11)

• The development of the Closure, Remediation and End-use Plans (see Section 12)

• The development of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (see Section 13 and Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities).

The above reports and plans are collated into the Permit Application and EIA Reports, which will include an executive summary containing a motivation for the authorisation of the site. The motivation must be signed by the Permit Applicant.

Three copies of the Permit Application and EIA Reports, supported by some or all of the above reports, are then prepared and submitted to the Competent Authority. Copies of the report must also be available to the IAPs14.

The Reports may also be presented orally by the Permit Applicant (or the consultant) to the Competent Authority, the relevant state departments and the IAPs.

5.3.5 Issue of permit

If the relevant state departments have reviewed and accepted the Permit Application and EIA Reports, the Competent Authority will issue and send an approved Permit and to the applicant by registered post, under a covering letter on the Competent Authority’s letterhead. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and other relevant state departments will also receive copies of the approved Permit.

Once the signed Permit has been accepted, the Permit Applicant becomes the ‘Permit Holder’.

The Permit Holder must as a minimum manage but ideally procure the areas external to the landfill site, which fall within the demarcated buffer zone by:

• Purchasing the land in title; or

• Registering appropriate servitudes to gain control over the buffer zone area.

• Managing compatible zoning. This must be done by the monitoring of rezoning applications in the bufferzone area and objecting against proposed non-compatible land-uses on the basis of the requirement for a buffer zone in the permit. The Permit Holder must ensure that the buffer zone area is rezoned to preclude land uses that are incompatible with the landfill project. The zoning shall accord with the written guarantee issued by the local authority, as required in terms of Section 4.7.1. The local authority must include the limitation(s) posed by the zoning of the buffer zone and restrictions in the permit into the Local Integrated Development plan and Spatial Development Framework..

Although the Permit Holder may, by a written agreement, use someone else (the Responsible Person, e.g., a contractor) to operate the landfill, the Permit Holder cannot relinquish responsibility and liability.

5.3.6 Appeal

Should the Permit Applicant not accept the Permit conditions, the Minister of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism may be appealed to in the prescribed manner, within the prescribed period and upon payment of the requisite fee [Section 35 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989]. If the appeal is successful, then the Permit conditions will be changed in accordance with the ruling. If the appeal is not successful, then the Permit Applicant will either abandon the project or accept the conditions as set out in the original Permit.

14 In terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 and with the consent of the Permit Applicant and the Competent Authority, certain confidential information that allows a Permit Holder a competitive business edge can be removed from the copies of the Permit Application Report that are available to the IAPs.

5: AUTHORISATION


5.3.7 Site preparation

In the case of new sites, the Permit Holder may only proceed with site preparation in terms of the Permit conditions or, alternatively, with the written consent of the Competent Authority.

Where complex engineering is involved, this must be undertaken in consultation with the Competent Authority. When preparation is completed, the Permit Holder must notify the Competent Authority, in writing, of the intention to operate the landfill or disposal site.

In the case of complex engineering, such as the laying of a liner at a B+ or a hazardous waste disposal site, Quality Assurance will be required. Particularly in the case of hazardous disposal sites, a suitably qualified representative of the Competent Authority must inspect and approve new developments. The Permit Holder must ensure that the resident engineer keeps records of procedures carried out and results of tests for example, the compaction of a liner or the field permeability testing. These records must be made available to the Competent Authority on request.

Before waste disposal can commence, the site must be inspected and, if it is approved by the Competent Authority, the Permit Holder will be provided with written notification of its acceptability and with consent to proceed with operations.

5.3.8 Operation and control

After site preparation, the disposal site must be operated in accordance with the Permit conditions. Any applicable Minimum Requirements not specifically stipulated in the Permit conditions should also be adhered to. During operation, the site may be inspected by Competent Authority officials and representatives of the IAPs on an ad hoc basis (see Section 11.2). For this purpose, a disposal site Monitoring Committee must be set up (see Appendix 4.1).

Any infringements of the Permit conditions will be noted and the Permit Holder will be notified

accordingly in writing. If there are any major transgressions or continued infringements, the Permit Holder may be prosecuted.

If a disposal site pollutes or is likely to cause pollution of the surface water or ground water, the Permit Holder must, in terms of Sections 19 and 20 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) take reasonable measures to prevent or remediate any further pollution. If the Permit Holder fails to comply with the directives, a Catchment Management Agency or the Minister of Department of Water Affairs and Forestry or his delegate may intervene and recover any expenses that the Department may have incurred.

In the case of a disposal site polluting the environment, section 28 of National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) applies. This section stipulates that every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment must take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation.

Anyone who contravenes the aforementioned Acts or who fails to fulfil a condition of a Permit issued to him under Section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989, (Act 73 of 1989) shall be considered guilty of an offence. In the case of the Environmental Conservation Act, on conviction, a person may be liable to a fine not exceeding R100 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years.

If a landfill exceeds the allowable final landfill height during the operation, this is regarded as non-compliance, and must be rectified. When reaching closure of the Site or a portion of the Site, the Permit Holder will be allowed to overfill to allow for settlement, and taking cognisance of the capping to ensure that final permitted height is not exceeded. The degree of overfilling should not result in a visual impact and should be agreed with the Monitoring Committee and the Competent Authority.

The Competent Authority may consider motivations for increasing the allowable final

5. AUTHORISATION


landfill height at their discretion, in accordance with the principles included in Appendix 8.7. Motivations to increase final landfill height must include, as appropriate, cover availability, manoeuvrability on working areas, stability, the likelihood and possible effects of seismic activity, environmental and social impacts, including visual impact, and any effect on loading rates that may occur. Where a Monitoring Committee is in place for a landfill, the committee must be consulted on the issue and minutes of meetings must be included in such motivations.

5.3.9 Salvaging at landfill sites

Although no waste salvaging is permitted at hazardous waste sites or sites where sewage sludge is co-disposed, salvaging does occur at many general waste landfill sites in South Africa. Details and guidelines to ensure controlled and safe waste salvaging are included in Appendix 10.2.

A Permit Applicant may exercise discretion regarding whether salvaging is permitted or not. At a new landfill, it is the Permit Applicant’s right to refuse to allow salvaging on site. At an existing landfill, where no salvaging takes place, the same applies. However, where salvaging is intended or exists at a disposal site, it is a Minimum Requirement that this be addressed in the Permit. The following situations may exist:

A Permit Applicant elects to introduce salvaging at a new site. In this case, the Applicant must address the proposed salvaging in the Permit Application Report under the heading of ‘Salvaging’. This must adhere to the guidelines set out in Appendix 10.2 and must include a description of the selected operation method and a copy of the contract drawn up between the Permit Applicant and the Salvagers Committee, (see Appendix 10.2). The subsequent Permit will state whether or not waste salvaging is to be allowed at the site, and, if allowed, the appropriate Minimum Requirements will be linked to the Permit Conditions.

A Permit Holder elects to introduce salvaging at an existing site. The requirements are as for a new site, but in this case the existing permit has to be amended to accommodate the proposed salvaging. If waste salvaging is to be allowed at the site, the appropriate Minimum Requirements will be included in the amended Permit Conditions.

A Permit Applicant wishes to authorise a site where salvaging already takes place. Alternatively, a Permit Holder cannot eliminate de facto salvaging on site and has to address and formalise it. In these cases, the Permit Applicant must address the existing salvaging in the Permit Application Report under the heading of ‘Salvaging’. As salvaging is already taking place, the Department must assess the situation. Based on this and the guidelines in Appendix 10.2, the applicant must provide a description of the historical situation and indicate the proposed operation method to ensure safe and controlled salvaging, including a copy of the contract drawn up between the Permit Applicant and the Salvagers Committee. The Permit will state whether or not waste salvaging is allowed to continue and, if so, the appropriate Minimum Requirements will be linked to the Permit Conditions.

Any new or amended Permit Application involving salvaging at the landfill site must include a section on salvaging based on Appendix 10.2 a contract, the design of any associated facilities, and a Landfill Operating Plan that clearly indicates how the salvagers will be accommodated in the operation.

Transforming uncontrolled to controlled salvaging may seem an added burden to the Permit Holder. However, the requirements related to controlled salvaging are already part of the responsibilities of any employer in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993), that is, to ensure that persons other than those in the employer's employment who may be directly affected by the employer's activities are not exposed to hazards to their health and safety. Therefore, should Permit Holders accommodate salvagers, this will merely imply protecting them

5: AUTHORISATION


in terms of their existing occupational health and safety responsibilities.

5.3.10 Change of ownership or operator

Should the Permit Holder intend to sell the landfill or lease the operation legally to another person, the Competent Authority must be informed, in writing, at least 60 days prior to the event. Should the Permit change hands, all legal responsibility associated with the landfill has to be vested with the new Permit Holder, who must be approved by the Competent Authority.

5.3.11 Site closure (see Section 12)

Should the Permit Holder intend to close the landfill, permission to do so must be obtained from the Competent Authority. Once all Minimum Requirements have been met, the appropriate office of the Competent Authority must be informed, in writing, at least one year prior to the intended closure date.

Closure must take place in accordance with the conditions of the Permit and the associated Minimum Requirements. Before final closure, officials of the Competent Authority and the relevant state departments, and members of the Monitoring Committee must inspect the site to determine whether closure should be permitted, based on factors such as the achievement of an acceptable final landform and height and the implementation of the closure design and remediation. Should further remediation measures be required, the Permit Holder will be duly informed of this in writing.

Prior to closure, the end use and buffer zone land use restrictions must be investigated once more and the IAPs consulted, as described in Section 7. Depending on the anticipated impacts of the site after closure (if any), the buffer zone may be rezoned, associated servitudes may be cancelled, and/or new servitudes may be registered with respect to a redefined buffer zone. The Permit Holder will be responsible for the rezoning and cancellation, to the satisfaction of the local authority and the Competent Authority.

A site will only be considered closed once closure has been authorised by the Competent Authority.

The Permit Holder will remain responsible for monitoring the landfill for up to 30 years after closure. This period may, however, be shortened or extended at the discretion of the Competent Authority.

Should fires, exposure of decomposing waste as the result of erosion, or other problems develop on the closed landfill, the Permit Holder will still be responsible and will have to undertake remedial action to rectify such problems.

5. AUTHORISATION


TABLE 5 Minimum Requirements for Authorisation

LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B- = No significant leachate produced




C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4

MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Permit all unauthorised and concept permitted landfills

R R R R R R R R R R

Consult and apply Figures 1, 2 and 8

R R R R R R R R R R

Appoint Responsible Person R R R R R R R R R R

Confirm site classification R R R R R R R R R R

Disposal Site Permit R R R R R R R R R R

Deal with Competent Authority R R R R R R R R R R

Permit Application Form R R R R R R R R R R

Site demarcated on a map R R R R R R R R R R

Determine area of influence associated with impact

N N F F R R R R R R

Demarcate amorphous buffer zone

200 m

200 m

R R R R R R R R

Indication of land availability for buffer zone

R R R R R R R R R R

Site visit by Competent Authority and state departments

F F F F R R R R R R

Full Permit Application Report

N N R R R R R R R R

Feasibility Study Report F F R R R R R R R R

Geohydrological Report N F R R R R R R R R

Geological Report N F R R R R R R R R

Environmental Impact Assessment

N F F R R R R R R R

Determine final landfill height N N R R R R R R R R

5: AUTHORISATION


LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4

MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Environmental Impact Report

N F F R R R R R R R

Landfill conceptual design R R R R R R R R R R

Landfill technical design N F F R R R R R R R

Approval of design by the Competent Authority

N F F R R R R R R R

Development Plan R R R R R R R R R R

Operation and Maintenance Plan

R R R R R R R R R R

Provision for salvaging as in Section 5.3.9 and Appendix. 10.2

R R R R R R R R N/A N/A

Closure/Remediation Plan R R R R R R R R R R

End-Use Plan N N F F R R R R R R Air Quality Management Plan N N F F R R R R R R

Water Quality Monitoring Plan N F F R R R R R R R

Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan F F F R R R R R R R

Amend title deed to prevent building development on closed landfill

F F R R R R R R R R

Rezone closed landfill site to accord with End use Plan

R R R R R R R R R R

Report change in operation infrastructure

R R R R R R R R R R

Report change of ownership R R R R R R R R R R

Site inspection prior to commissioning

N F N R R R R R R R

.

6: SITE INVESTIGATION


Section 6 SITE INVESTIGATION

6.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for site investigation are summarised in Table 6, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for site investigations for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

A site investigation is a Minimum Requirement for all disposal sites (see Figure 13). A preliminary investigation would have been completed as part of the Feasibility Study (Section 4). Now, further detailed investigations and reports are required for the purposes of the Permit Application. The detailed site investigation and the assessment of potential environmental impacts (Section 7) usually take place in parallel.

In the case of a new site, the site investigation required would be commensurate with the class of site under consideration. In the case of an unauthorised or concept permitted operating site, or a closed site, the Competent Authority may require a full site investigation similar to that required for a new site. The extent of the investigation would, however, depend on the amount of investigation already undertaken, what is required to meet the objectives of site investigation, and the potential environmental impacts associated with the site. This section outlines the investigation that would be required for a new landfill site.

Site investigations must also be completed for all waste management facilities other than landfills. The investigation will vary in complexity depending on the type of facility and its classification, (see Appendix 5.1).

The objectives of the site investigation are:

• To ensure that no Critical Factors or Fatal Flaws were overlooked in the preliminary investigation.

• To provide a sound basis for risk assessment and for the design, operation and monitoring of the disposal site by obtaining adequate geological, geohydrological and geotechnical information for the site.

6.1.1 The basic approach to site investigation

To ensure that a site investigation complies with the Minimum Requirements, the following criteria must be satisfied:

• The Responsible Person

The Responsible Person(s) in charge of all investigatory work shall be appropriately qualified and experienced in order to execute, direct and guide all aspects of the investigation in a professional manner.

• Extent and detail of investigation

Enough data must be gathered and analysed to ensure that additional exploratory work is unlikely to add significantly to the level of understanding considered necessary for the site under investigation. The scope of the investigation should also be such that all reasonable queries and requirements of the IAPs are adequately addressed.



• Liaison with the Department

The Responsible Person must liaise with the Competent Authority throughout the investigation. This is because the depth or extent of the investigation will vary, depending on the class of site. It is the duty of the Responsible Person to ensure the right levels of investigation and to ensure that the Competent Authority is provided with the information it requires to make a decision. Furthermore, under certain circumstances or at certain points in the investigation, the Competent Authority may have specific requirements. For example, the Competent Authority might require additional geophysical surveys, pump and recharge tests and even tracer studies, particularly where sites are proposed in or close to dolomitic areas or near other strategic water resources. Finally, the Competent Authority must be kept informed of progress.

6.1.2 The scope of a site investigation

Three areas are covered by the investigation and the subsequent report. These are:

• Physical geography, or the observable surface features associated with the site and surrounds

• Sub-surface aspects, or phenomena situated underground, which have to be exposed by means of excavation or drilling before they can be assessed

• Miscellaneous issues, such as surface or underground mining, associated with the site.

This section also serves as a general guide to waste disposal site investigation. Depending on circumstances, it may be necessary to investigate additional aspects.

6.2 Physical Geography

This part of the investigation deals with what can be observed on or adjacent to the site.

6.2.1 Extent of investigation

The Responsible Person must define and validate the physical area and the extent of the site investigation, taking all relevant issues into account. This would include consideration of potentially affected areas, e.g., the effect on the water quality of a dam downstream of the proposed landfill.

The area external to the proposed disposal site must also be considered, in particular those areas most likely to be affected by gas migration, odours and the infringement of views. Investigation will usually include a visit to the surrounding area to determine the prevailing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the disposal site.

6.2.2 Topography and surface drainage

Appropriate topocadastral data must be provided. This must include all significant topographic features. Most important are the drainage patterns, including seasonal and perennial streams, and the distances to the nearest important watercourses, wetlands and rivers. Rock outcrops and surface soil must also be recorded here.

Surface water quality (see Section 13.2.2)

Background water quality sampling will be required.

In the case of a proposed site, the pre-disposal background quality of the surface water must be determined prior to waste disposal. Surface water quality must be determined by sampling both upstream and downstream of the proposed site. Analysis of the samples must be performed to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority. This data will provide background information on surface water quality prior to any waste disposal activities.

In the case of operating or closed sites, a comparison of upstream and downstream surface water quality is necessary to indicate possible pollution of the surface water by the disposal site.



Surface water usage

A survey must be conducted to assess the purpose for which the surface water is used and to assess the strategic or community value of the water body.

6.2.3 Infrastructure and man-made features

Infrastructure such as waste generation areas, roads, railways or airports must be indicated. Of particular importance in the consideration of sites for landfill, are earthworks that affect the natural drainage system and/or result in spoil which could serve as cover. Elements such as sewage works, cemeteries or existing waste dumps that could cause or are already causing water pollution, should also be indicated.

6.2.4 Climate

Relevant climatic data must be provided to classify the site (see Section 3.4). Records of monthly rainfall and pan evaporation, wind speed and direction, preferably in the form of a wind rose, must be obtained from the nearest meteorological stations to the site.

6.2.5 Vegetation

All existing vegetation on the site must be described, whether it is original indigenous vegetation or exotic vegetation, plantations, crops or fallow agricultural land.

Most information in Section 6.2 can be obtained from published or easily obtainable works, including topographic and other maps, orthophotos, reports and books, climatic statistics, existing airphotos, etc. Published information must, however, be verified, updated and elaborated upon by on-site observation. The latest available information must always be used.

6.2.6 Existing land uses

Information on existing land use in the area of influence of the proposed site must be provided. Proposals or policies aimed at future changes to land use must be analysed to determine the possible effect of the disposal site and its buffer zone, with specific reference to compatibility.

6.3 Sub-surface Features

As indicated, access to sub-surface features such as soil and rock profiles or ground water is usually gained only by excavation. This could include testpitting, augering and percussion drilling.

Geophysical techniques may be used to guide the siting of testpits and boreholes. These give initial insight into the geological and geohydrological characteristics of a site. Geophysical techniques are particularly useful in the location of water-bearing features such as dykes, faults and geological contacts.

The principles relating to the drilling of exploration boreholes are discussed in Appendix 6, which addresses the location of the borehole(s), the depth of drilling and the construction of permanent monitoring wells.

Although the ideal would be to drill sufficient boreholes to provide a full understanding of the site for the purposes of design, this is not always possible. A Minimum Requirement of at least one borehole is therefore set for the majority of disposal sites. The rationale for this is that one borehole provides substantially more information than no borehole at all. This information would include accurate measurements of the depth to and characteristics of the ground water and some detail about the properties of the soil. It would also include insight into the geology, stratigraphy and geohydrology associated with the site. This borehole could also provide access to the ground water for both water quality monitoring and possibly for future extraction.



Where three dimensional information is required, for example when determining the phreatic surface and ground water flow direction, the Minimum Requirement is three boreholes. This is because three boreholes would, as a rule, provide this information, by triangulation. At most of the larger landfills, however, more than three boreholes would be necessary.

The depth of drilling must ensure that all geological and geohydrological structures relevant to the nature of the investigation are identified and adequately penetrated and probed. The depth must be such that subsequent deeper drilling would not reveal any new or unexpected information that could significantly alter or negate previously drawn conclusions.

6.3.1 Soils

Quality and quantity

Soil on a landfill site serves to provide cover material and to separate the waste body from the ground water. Consequently, it has to be properly qualified and quantified both for the purposes of design and for the Competent Authority's information.

Access to the first 3 m to 6 m of the soil profile is usually gained by properly shored testpits or trenches. If greater depths are required, auguring may be used. The soil profile is then defined using the MCCSSO System [Ref: Jennings et al, 1973].

In calculating the quantity of soil, data from testpits and trenches may be supplemented with information from the borehole profiles (see Section 6.3.2).

In situ permeability and other geotechnical tests (see Section 8.3)

Any natural soil layer that is suitable for use as a liner material, or that will separate the waste from the ground water, should be tested for permeability. Examples of suitable test methods are borehole infiltration tests of various types, double ring infiltrometer tests and tests using the Guelph in situ permeameter. Other tests may

include soil indicator tests for the purpose of soil identification (particle size analysis, Atterberg limits and clay content), as well as compaction tests (Standard Proctor).

It may be necessary to measure the shear strength of soils to establish the stability of cut slopes.

The compaction characteristics and permeability of any soils destined to be used as cover layers should also be determined.

6.3.2 Geology

Stratigraphy and lithology

The information required in this section is available from published or existing geological maps and reports. It must, however, be supplemented in all cases with field data, comprising borehole logs or profiles and the interpretation thereof.

The site must first be described in terms of the Regional Geology. This indicates where it fits into the regional stratigraphy, e.g., the Witwatersrand Super-group or the Karoo Sequence. Thereafter, the stratigraphic and lithological features adjacent to and immediately beneath the site must be examined and described. This should be illustrated with appropriate maps and cross sections.

The depth and extent of the investigation should be sufficient to provide the necessary understanding of the basic geology, commensurate with the nature of the investigation, and to identify any critical factors or potential Fatal Flaws (see Appendix 6).

All boreholes must be suitably examined and profiled according to accepted standards, as contained in the latest guidelines for profiling of percussion boreholes or diamond core holes. [Ref. SAIEG Sub-Committee for Standardised Percussion Borehole Logging. Ground Profile No. 59, July 1989].



Tectonics, lineaments and structures

The presence and disposition of any geological faults, joints and fractures and other linear features, resulting from the intrusion of dykes or from steeply dipping strata, must also be described and indicated on the maps and cross sections referred to above. Appropriate airphoto interpretation, using the best (not necessarily the latest) aerial photography should be undertaken and reported on where considered relevant.

6.3.3 Geohydrology

All available geohydrological data and any factors affecting the ground water in the area must be identified and must form part of the site investigation report. This information should also be sufficient to undertake the appropriate risk assessment in respect of potential future ground water pollution, (see Section 5, Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities).

Ground water morphology and flow

The depth of any aquifer, ground water phreatic surface or perched water surfaces must be determined. Where applicable, the seasonal fluctuations, particularly the position of the wet season high elevation, must also be determined. The gradient and general flow direction(s) of the ground water and other relevant data must be determined and possibly illustrated by appropriate maps and cross sections. In addition, all significant geological features and inferred structures must be explored to determine the possible presence and importance of preferential ground water flow paths.

Investigation of aquifers (See Appendix 4.2)

Since strategic aquifers (sole source, major or special) represent Fatal Flaws, any aquifer associated with a proposed site must be investigated to ensure that it does not represent a strategic water source (see Section 3, Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste

Management Facilities). The aquifer must initially be investigated to determine its yield, depth and other characteristics, as these are critical parameters when assessing its strategic value.

During drilling, blow yield tests are carried out, providing an initial indication of yield. Where yield is considered by the Responsible Person to be significant, step tests must be undertaken. Thereafter, a four-hour pump test, or less in the case of low yielding aquifers, is undertaken and recovery is monitored. The processing of this data provides a reasonable indication of the yields of boreholes in the vicinity of the site, and hence of the potential of the associated aquifer. Based on this initial assessment, aquifers must be classified using the system included as Appendix 4.2.

If yields are in excess of 5 l/sec, or if the aquifer is significant in terms of Appendix 4.2, the Department must be informed and further testing must be undertaken. To determine the yield of an aquifer accurately, extensive pump testing and monitoring over a long period are required. In such cases it might also be necessary to determine the type, depth, thickness and lateral extent of the aquifer. Aquifer vulnerability, in terms of the Department’s groundwater policy must also be addressed.

Ground water quality (see Section 13.2.1)

A clear understanding of the ground water regime in the vicinity of the site is a prerequisite to the establishment of a ground water monitoring system (Section 6, Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities).

By taking into account the requirements for future monitoring during the investigatory stage, it may be possible to avoid duplication and unnecessary expenditure at a later stage.

In the case of a proposed landfill, the background quality of the ground water, both upgradient and downgradient of the proposed site, must be determined prior to any waste disposal. A comparison of pre-disposal and post-disposal ground water quality then provides an indication of



the impact of the disposal site on ground water quality.

In the case of existing landfills, where no such pre-disposal background values exist, a comparison of upgradient and downgradient concentrations is used as a means of assessing the impact of the landfill on ground water quality (see Section 13). Results should be compared with the values and parameters set out in Government Notice No. R.991, 18 May 1984.

Ground water usage

A survey of existing boreholes and wells (a hydrocensus) must be conducted. Abstraction rates, yield, depth, age and the purpose for which the water is used must also be obtained, with a view to assessing the strategic or community value of the water resource. A clear indication must be given of the perceived reliability of such survey data and a definite distinction made between guesswork and factual information. Cognisance must also be taken of the source of the information.

Sensitive areas

Where landfill sites are considered or proposed in areas that are characterised by aquifers with potentially strategic value, or where ground water is or may be used in the future, special caution must be exercised. In such instances, the Competent Authority may require the services of a qualified geohydrologist who may use specialised techniques.

6.3.4 Miscellaneous sub-surface issues

Undermined areas

Underground mines must be identified, delineated and examined to establish the effect of their presence on ground water flows and potential subsidence. Where appropriate, a risk assessment must be undertaken by a recognised specialist.

Earth tremors

The risks and implications of mining-induced or other tremors must be addressed. If the waste site is to be sited in an area where natural earthquakes occur, their effect must also be taken into account in a risk assessment.

Remediated open-cast mines

Open-cast mines associated with the site, whether remediated or otherwise, must be identified, delineated and properly described.

Potential for future mining

The possibility of future mining activities should be assessed.

Sinkholes and surface subsidences

Areas where sinkholes or surface subsidences occur should have been avoided during the site selection process as these usually constitute Fatal Flaws (see Section 4.4). There are, however, instances where sinkholes or surface subsidences will occur, for example, in cases of existing sites or where subsidence occurs on an adjacent geological formation.

In these cases, a dolomitic risk assessment must be undertaken by a recognised specialist. The severity and the real extent of any sinkholes or surface subsidences in the vicinity of the site must be examined to determine their influence on the site and whether or not they constitute a Fatal Flaw. The risk of future occurrences of sinkholes and the formation of surface depressions must also be addressed.

Where sinkholes and surface subsidences do occur, the Council for Geoscience, the Dolomitic Water Association, the Government Mining Engineer, and the relevant divisions at regional and local authorities should be consulted for information. These and other authorities should also be kept informed with regard to the findings of the investigations and proposed developments.



6.4 The Geohydrological Report

As seen from Section 5.3.4, a Geohydrological Report is, in most instances, required as part of the Permit Application Report. This report should define the scope and objectives of the geohydrological investigation and indicate the methodology used.

The objective of the report is to demonstrate to the Competent Authority that the geohydrology associated with the site is such that a disposal site can safely be developed and operated in the environment under consideration. This is achieved using the information obtained from the investigations detailed in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. Alternatively, the Geohydrological Report might indicate certain areas of vulnerability that require further investigation or special attention. In such cases, these would be addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA Report) (see Section 7).

6.5 Potential for Landfill Gas and Air Quality Problems

6.5.1 Landfill Gas

During the process of waste decomposition, gases are generated which are collectively referred to as landfill gas. Landfill gas is typically malodorous and usually comprises a major component of methane, generated in the methanogenic phase of waste decomposition. Where methane concentrations reach between 5% and 15% by volume in air, landfill gas represents an explosion hazard, as well as a potential health risk.

The Responsible Person must be aware of the problems associated with landfill gas and must ensure, during the site investigation, that there is no way in which gas can migrate from the landfill site under consideration to a structure where it could accumulate and represent an explosion hazard (see Section 8.2.3).

The potential for the migration of gas beyond the site boundary will depend on whether or not the geological characteristics of the underlying rock and earth provide natural pathways, coupled with any man made pathways. Typical paths of migration could include porous rock or soil strata; openings such as faults, fissures and blasting fractures; cavities such as mines; and underground and near-surface service installations such as electricity, water, sewerage, telecommunications and street lighting or even paving.

With the prescribed buffer zones for new sites, gas migration problems are unlikely. However, at operating or closed sites potential gas problems must be investigated and addressed in the ElA and the EIA Report.

Regarding air quality problems, odours from landfills may migrate considerable distance under certain weather conditions, such as temperature inversion. The investigation must therefore address these eventualities, especially in the case of hazardous waste landfills.

To design an effective landfill gas management and monitoring system, information is required on many aspects of the landfill site and its operation.

The investigation should include, but not be limited to, a desk study and a field visit (see Appendix 10.3). All data relevant to the assessment of the environmental risk associated with landfill gas must be evaluated, including:

• Potential sources of landfill gas

• Gas migration pathways

• Potential receptors of landfill gas migration

• The risk of landfill gas migration and accumulation.

The following information, where relevant, should be included:

• Historical data about the site (its function in the past, site developments, etc.)



• Details of deposited waste (i.e., age and waste types)

• Topographical maps showing buildings, developments, water bodies etc.

• Planning history of the site (e.g., quarrying and mining activities)

• Geological and hydrogeological data

• Details of underground and overground services within and bordering the site

• Details of buildings and developments on and around the site

• Observations from site inspections, including a vegetation survey

• Leachate monitoring data (pumping and leachate level records)

• Existing on- and off-site landfill gas monitoring results.

6.5.2 Air quality

Odours and dusts from landfills may migrate considerable distances under certain weather conditions, such as temperature inversion. For larger and hazardous sites, therefore, an Air

Quality Management Plan must be included in the Permit Application together with the EIA and Environmental Impact Assessment Report, see able 5. This plan provides a framework for air quality risk assessment, management and monitoring. It includes the methods, procedures and actions to be implemented from site inception to site remediation, until the potential of emission of airborne contaminants from the site is mitigated or removed, (see Appendix 11.2).

As air quality impacts are almost impossible to attenuate, air quality risk assessment is also used to determine buffer zones and/or zones of influence, using such tools as air dispersion modelling or Health/Odour Analysis Surveys, (see Appendix 7.2).



TABLE 6 Minimum Requirements for Site Investigation

LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


B+ =Significant leachate produced

R = Requirement N = Not a requirement F = Flag: special consid-

eration to be given by expert or representative(s) of the Competent Authority and/or the Department

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Appoint Responsible Person R R R R R R R R R R

Examine scope to address requirements of IAPs

R R R R R R R R R R

Physical Geography Delineate physical area to be investigated, incorporating anticipated area of influence and surrounding land use regime.

N

N

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Describe topography and surface drainage

N F R R R R R R R R

Determine surface water quality

N F R R R R R R R R

Assess purpose and importance of water source by hydrocensus (1 km radius)

R R R R R R R R R R

Describe man-made features N N R R R R R R R R

Record of monthly rainfall N F F R R R R R R R

Describe wind speed and direction

R R R R R R R R R R

Describe vegetation existing on site

N N F F R R R R R R

Describe existing land use regime

R R R R R R R R R R

Sub-Surface Features Testpits to indicate depth of soil and/or the presence of ground water

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R



LEGEND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Geophysics N N N F F F R R R R

Drill one borehole N N F R R R R R R R

Drill three or more boreholes N N N R R R R R R R

Description of soil using MCCSSO

N N F R R R R R R R

In situ permeability tests N N N R R R R R R R

Geology Describe stratigraphy and lithology

N

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Identify tectonics, lineaments N N N R R R R R R R

Geohydrology Determine ground water morphology and flow

N

F

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Determine ground water quality

N F N R R R R R R R

Determine ground water usage R R R R R R R R R R

Investigation of aquifers N F N R R R R R R R

Appropriate pump testing N F N F R R R R R R

Investigate mining Subsidences

R R R R R R R R R R

Geohydrological report N F N R R R R R R R

Investigate potential gas migration

N N F F R R R R R R

Determine if methane generation from landfill waste is occurring, by monitoring subsurface methane concentrations.

F F F R R R R R R



LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Provide details of deposited waste (i.e., age and waste types, if applicable)

F F F R R R R R R R

Provide details of leachate monitoring data (pumping and leachate level records) if applicable

N F N R F R F R R R

Investigate historical data about the site (its function in the past, site developments etc.)

F F F R R R R R R R

Provide readings of existing on and off site gas monitoring results, if applicable

N N N F F F F F F F

7: THE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


Section 7 THE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts are summarised in Table 7, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

Once a candidate disposal site has been found feasible for development by the Competent Authority15, further detailed investigation and reporting are required as part of the Authorisation Procedure (see Figure 13).

The assessment of the environmental impact of a disposal site usually takes place in parallel with the detailed site investigation discussed in Section 6 (see Figure 3).

The objectives of the assessment of potential environmental impacts are:

• To identify the various ways in which an existing, proposed or closed disposal site will affect its receiving environment

• To ensure that the identified impacts can be eliminated or mitigated (minimised) by means of proper design and operation, combined with ongoing monitoring.

15 The Competent Authority in respect of high impact decisions may require a feasibility study on more than one candidate site.

There are two stages in assessing the potential impact of a disposal site on the environment. These are the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Assessment of the Environmental Consequences of Failure.

• Environmental Impact Assessment.16 This makes use of accepted methodology to assess the impacts of a site, determine the significance of each impact on the environment and to formulate mitigation measures. Since the environment includes the social environment, the EIA must include wide consultation with the IAPs.

The preparation of EIAs is stipulated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIAR) as promulgated by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. [Refs. Government Gazette, No.18261, 5 September 1997, No. R1182 and R1183].17 The EIA must comply with the EIAR and be approved by the Competent Authority, (see Figure 3 and Figure 13).

• Assessment of the Environmental Consequences of Failure. This assesses the consequences of the escape of contaminants from a disposal site in the event of design failure. Risk assessment is also discussed in Section 5, Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities.

16 An EIA may be required on more than one disposal site in instances that relate to high impact decisions. 17 The latest gazetted edition of the EIA Regulations must be used.



There are two stages in formulating appropriate responses to, or mitigation of, identified impacts or risks:

• Response Action Plan. This contingency plan outlines and records any rapid responses that should be carried out in the event of design or operational failure, or a natural disaster. Such a plan would be based on the examination of the Environmental Consequences of Failure.

• Environmental Impact Assessment Report. The Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA Report) indicates how the impacts are catered for in the design, operation and monitoring. It also includes the outcomes of the EIA, the Environmental Consequences of Failure and the Response Action Plan. These three stages are dealt with in more detail below. (The Environmental Consequences of Failure is addressed in Figures 16 to 19.)

7.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

The Environmental Impact Assessment involves the process of assessing the impacts of a site, determining the significance of each impact on the environment and formulating mitigatory measures that are relevant to the consideration of an application for a disposal site activity.

Based on this, the design, operation and monitoring of the disposal site are optimised, while taking economic considerations into account. This is to ensure that the surrounding environment and affected communities suffer the least possible adverse impacts. As a minimum, any adverse impact must comply with environmental standards.

Normally, the starting point includes a checklist of considerations that should form part of the design process. Appendix 7.1 provides a typical checklist of environmental and design considerations for

environmentally acceptable disposal sites. The checklist has been divided into a number of sections, dealing first with the selection and investigation of the disposal site, and second with the possible adverse impacts to be eliminated or controlled by the design, operation and monitoring. It may simply be used as a checklist, or, depending on the level of investigation, it may be used to identify interactions between site characteristics, design and operation, and their potential impacts on the environment.

In order to identify interactions, use is often made of a two dimensional environmental impact identification matrix (see Figure 15).

These matrices usually list the project results along the horizontal axis and the possible impacts on various aspects of the environment on the vertical axis. In order to be effective, the matrices normally have to be large and complex. A simple example is provided in Figure 15.

Actions and impacts would include those linked to the following phases of the project:

• Site preparation and construction • Operation • Closure and remediation • After-use.

The actions and impacts that make up the axes of the matrix must be selected by a qualified team with multi disciplinary representation. The team could also include representatives of the IAPs, i.e., the Monitoring Committee (see Section 4.6). The matrix must also be scored by the team, each rating being the result of rational discussion and consensus.

The impact of the disposal site should not be considered in isolation. Cognisance of the impact of other developments in the area should be taken into consideration, so that any cumulative impact is assessed. In the unlikely event that any Fatal Flaws were overlooked in the Feasibility Study, these should now become evident. As described in Section 4.4, a Fatal Flaw is any identified adverse impact that represents a ‘no go’ situation, i.e., any



impact that will, by itself, invalidate the use of the site. Negative impacts that cannot be eliminated or suitably mitigated by design at acceptable cost to the project, represent Fatal Flaws.



FIGURE 15 Environmental Impact Matrix

ACTIONS OR RESULTS OF

LANDFILLING

POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON:

Blowing Dust, Odour

and Air Quality

Noise during

Operational Hours

Additional Traffic

on Roads

Litter

Leachate Production and Water Pollution

Salvagers

Etc.

Agriculture Recreation Residential Areas Surface Water Ground Water Archaeological Site Indigenous Forest Industrial Development

Etc.

Once the EIA has been scored (significance of impact), the interpretation of the results must be documented in a report. The report must describe how each adverse impact and its implications will be monitored, mitigated or, preferably, eliminated, by the design, operation and monitoring of the disposal site. This report is referred to as ‘The Environmental Impact Assessment Report’.

Following the assessment of the adverse impact of the disposal site on the receiving environment, the disposal site design will have to be adjusted to reduce or eliminate these potential impacts. Thereafter, it is also necessary to consider the environmental consequences of the failure of any of the environmental defence measures, such as the liner or leachate collection system, or even failure in the case of a fire. These considerations must also be reported in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

There are three major possible pathways for the escape of contaminants from a disposal site.

Contaminants may escape via:

• Gaseous releases to the atmosphere or via subsurface lateral migration

• Aqueous releases to surface water or groundwater

• Particulate releases to air or water

Figures 16 to 19 provide flow charts for assessing the consequences of the escape of a contaminant by any of these three pathways. Where required, it is necessary to follow each chart through for the design of a particular disposal site and to justify the design, its environmental defence measures, and its backup measures in the event of failure. In other words, it must be demonstrated that any consequences of a failure of the first line of environmental defences will not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the environment, either in the short or long term. [Ref. Figures 16 to 19 are based on the USEPA document: EPA/540 -



Human Health Manual, Vol 1 "Risk Assessment Evidence for Superfund", 1989.]

As stated above, the EIA Report must also explain what steps will be taken to ensure that the disposal site will not have an adverse effect on any component of the receiving environment. The Report will therefore, inter alia, encompass the outcomes of the EIA process (issues, alternatives, impacts and significance of impacts), as well as the Design, the Operating Plan, the Monitoring Plan and the Closure Plan.

The more detailed components of the EIA Report include:

• The environmental impact identification matrix

• An interpretation of the matrix

• The assessment of the environmental consequences of failure

• The Response Action Plan, where

It will also include:

• The identification of the ultimate physical size of the disposal site.

• The final design height of a landfill site18 and the management and monitoring strategy proposed for ensuring that this height is not exceeded.

• The identification of the physical environment that may be affected by the disposal site.

• An assessment of the nature and extent of the physical, economic, and social interests that may be affected by the disposal site.

• The disposal site design and management principles proposed for the reduction of the above adverse environmental impacts.

• A description of the construction and operation of the site, with particular reference to environmental protection measures.

• A proposed monitoring strategy intended to substantiate the efficiency of the design and the management principles envisaged.

• Addressing occupational health and safety of salvagers should the Permit Holder opt for site salvaging.

• Air quality assessment, also in respect of buffer zone distances.

• Any other aspects in terms of the EIAR that are relevant to impacts and their control with respect to a specific disposal site authorisation application.

7.3 Response Action Plan

In the event of failure in the design and/or operation, it is appropriate in certain instances, specifically for hazardous waste disposal sites, to have a Response Action Plan to deal with the situation rapidly and efficiently. While this is a procedure that must be addressed in the Operating Plan (see Section 10.2.3), it should also be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

18The objective of including references to final landfill height is so that any specific impacts related to final landfill height are included in the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts for a landfill.



FIGURE 16 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Air Flow

Contaminant Escape by Wind Action

Potential volatilisation of contaminants from site

Potential release of hazardous dust/contaminated particles from site

Consider direction and rate of contaminant migration within air; major mechanisms: wind currents, dispersion

Consider direction and distance of particulate movement with wind currents; major mechanisms: wind speed, particle size, gravitational settling, and precipitation

Could settlement and rainout potentially result in sufficient soil contamination to bring about leaching to ground water?

Could contaminants potentially reach agricultural, hunting or fishing areas?

Determine probable boundaries of elevated concentrations

Could contaminants potentially reach surface water?

No Yes No Yes No Yes

Consider contaminant transfer to ground water

Consider transfer of contaminants to plants or animals consumed by humans

Identify populations directly exposed to atmospheric contaminants

Consider transfer of contaminants to surface water

If necessary formulate Response Action Plan and inform the Local Authority or the Department

After USEPA document, EPA/540 – Human Health Manual, Vol. 1, ‘Risk Assessment Evidence for Superfund’, 1989



FIGURE 17 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Surface Water Flow

Escape of leachate or spill of liquid or solid waste. Spill into surface water.

Consider direction and rate of contaminant migration within water-body. Assess distance downstream, or areas of lakes and estuaries. Major mechanisms: currents in affected rivers or streams; dispersion in impoundments; tidal currents and flushing in estuaries; partitioning to sediment.

Could exchange of water between surface water and ground water be significant?

Could water be used for irrigation or watering livestock, or does water-body support fish population?


Consider transfer of contaminants to ground water

Consider transfer of contaminants to plants or animals

Consider transfer of contaminants to air, assess fate in this medium

Identify populations directly exposed to sediment


Estimate concentrations in sediment

Estimate surface water contaminant concentrations. Major factors: spill strength, dilution volume

Consider sediment as a source of surface water contaminants

Are contaminants volatile?

Identify populations directly exposed to surface water




FIGURE 18 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Ground Water Flow

Escape of leachate

Release to soils beneath site: consider rate of leakage through liner, consequences of liner failure

Could contaminants reach a surface water body?

Could contaminants reach any wells located down gradient?


Consider transfer of contaminants to surface water

Identify human populations directly exposed to well water

Consider transfer populations directly exposed to contaminated soils

Identify human populations directly exposed to contaminated soils


Could contaminants potentially reach ground water or aquifer?

Is flow surface sufficiently near ground surface to allow direct uptake of contaminated ground water by plants or animals?

Consider transfer of contaminants to plants and animals consumed by humans

Consider rate of contaminant transport through unsaturated soils.

Are contaminants volatile?

Yes No YesNo Yes No

Consider direction and rate of ground water flow using available geohydrological data, or by assuming flow surface will approximate surface topography

Is well used for irrigation or for watering livestock or could it be?

No Yes

Does contaminated soilsupport crops?




FIGURE 19 Environmental Consequences of Failure: Natural or Artificial

Voids*

Could contaminants potentially reach ground water or aquifer?

Escape of leachate or contaminated surface or ground water or landfill gas

Consider direction, distance and rate of contamination migration through the void space. Assess distance down gradient of water bodies and other sensitive habitats including human habitation.

Consider geology and hydrogeology of surrounding area to determine risk of contaminant transport through permeable rock.

Consider man-made structures surrounding landfill site to determine risk of LFG migration below and above the ground surface.

Consider direction and distance of LFG movement with wind currents; major mechanisms: wind speed, wind dispersion

Determine probable boundaries of elevated concentrations.

Identify populations exposed to atmospheric contaminants

Consider direction and distance of LFG through man made void spaces i.e., mine shafts, roadways, sewers, service lines, pipes etc.

Could contaminants potentially reach surface water?

Refer to Figure 18 of this document: Environmental Consequences of Failure: Ground Water Flow

Refer to Figure 17 of this document: Environmental Consequences of Failure: Surface WaterFlow

If necessary formulate Response Action Plan and inform the Local Authority or the Department.

* Figure 19 developed by Lombard de Mattos & Associates



TABLE 7 Minimum Requirements for Assessment &

Mitigation of Environmental Impacts

LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste




consideration to be given by expert or representative(s) of the Competent Authority and/or the Department and/or DEAT

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Environmental Impact Assessment

F F R R R R R R R R

Environmental Consequences of Failure

N N N F N F R R R R

Response Action Plan N N N F F F R R R R

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

N N N F R R R R R R



Section 8 SITE DESIGN

8.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for landfill design are summarised in Table 8, followed by Tables 8.1 and 8.2, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for the design of waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

Once the site has been selected (Section 4), investigated and assessed (Sections 6 and 7), the next step is to carry out the design. The site design is based on the outcome of the Site Investigation and the EIA, including the demarcation of the anticipated area of influence and the resultant buffer zone external to the perimeter of the landfill site.

The general objective of the design is to provide a cost-effective, environmentally acceptable disposal facility.

More specific objectives are:

• To mitigate any adverse impacts identified in the Site Investigation and EIA.

• To prevent total solute19 pollution (including leachate) of adjacent ground and surface water. This includes the design of appropriate leachate management and treatment facilities.

• To ensure the provision of sufficient cover material to ensure an environmentally and aesthetically acceptable landfill operation.

• To ensure that minimum quality assurance requirements are met in the selection, design and installation of the liners and capping layers.

• To ensure that the scheduling of activities involved in the design, development, operation and closure of disposal sites is addressed.

• To reduce the risk of pollution by ensuring adequate drainage and containment.

If the best available site, identified during the site selection process, is sub-optimal from an environmental, operational or geohydrological point of view, the subsequent site design must compensate for these shortcomings by means of appropriate engineering and proven technology. Where there is an environmental risk associated with the chosen site, the design must be upgraded to compensate (see Section 1.3). Such compensatory design must be to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority and the Department, and will usually be in excess of the Minimum Requirements, in order to protect sensitive aspects of the environment.

In instances where the design of a disposal site can be directly related to the protection of the water resource, the applicant will obtain approval from the Department through the Competent Authority.

19 Total solute refers to the inorganic as well as the organic solutes (particularly volatile organic compounds) generated by the waste body, which can have a contaminating impact on the environment.

8: SITE DESIGN


In all other cases, the Competent Authority will be responsible for the approval of site design. Since the Competent Authority acts as a point of entry for all disposal site permit related correspondence, all approvals must be obtained through them.

In the case of operating or closed landfill sites, design upgrading or remedial design might well be required. In such instances, the principles and Minimum Requirements set out in this section must be applied.

In both the above instances, i.e., a sub-optimal site or an operating site requiring remediation, the design must take the risks to the environment into account and adequately mitigate such risks to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority.

The Responsible Person who carries out the design must have qualifications and experience that are acceptable to the relevant provincial environmental authority. For example, in the case of a B+ site and all hazardous waste disposal sites, the responsibility for the supervision of the design plans and construction has to be accepted by a registered Professional Engineer. Further-more, regardless of the site classification, the Responsible Person must be capable of interpreting and applying the results of the investigation. In particular, he/she must understand the implications of all aspects of the Site Water Balance. He/she must also be capable of providing the design details appropriate for the class of site in accordance with accepted international practice, and to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority.

This section takes the reader step by step through the design requirements. Not all sites will, however, require the same level of detail for their design.

There are two stages of design:

Conceptual Design

The Conceptual Design addresses the principles of the intended design, but does not include detailed specifications and drawings. It includes all aspects of the design that will affect the successful

operation and subsequent closure of the disposal site in an environmentally acceptable manner. In the case of most general waste landfills, the design submitted as part of the Permit Application is the Conceptual Design, which may then be upgraded to a technical design, showing measurements and levels necessary for construction.

Technical Design

The Technical Design is based on the Conceptual Design. Where necessary, it is also based on the results of tests on soils, construction materials and waste. The Technical Design includes detailed specifications of materials, measurements and procedures, detailed drawings, as well as a construction programme. In the case of all disposal sites for which engineered liners are required, a technical design must be submitted as part of the Permit Application. An engineered liner comprises layers of compacted clayey soils or geosynthetic materials or a combination of both. The Technical Design, together with the associated bills of quantities, also forms the basis for contractual tendering and construction, and may therefore be required when commissioning a disposal site.

Where no engineered liner is involved, only a conceptual design is required for authorisation and, indeed, commissioning. Where an engineered liner is involved, however, a technical design is a practical necessity as well as being a Minimum Requirement for authorisation.

8.2 Conceptual design

The following components, i.e., the site classification, airspace and site life, are common pre-requisites for all disposal site designs. They are therefore addressed under Conceptual Design.

8.2.1 Confirmation of site classification

It is a Minimum Requirement that confirmation of site classification, and in particular the Site Water Balance, precedes design. This is because the classification of a disposal site determines the

8: SITE DESIGN


Minimum Requirements applicable to its design. As set out in Section 3, the composition and magnitude of the waste stream, the potential for significant leachate generation and hence the need for leachate management, must all be confirmed. Any intended landfill disposal options, such as co-disposal and encapsulation must be addressed (see Section 9, Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste).

Type of waste

The present and projected future waste stream must be analysed to assess the types, composition and geotechnical characteristics of the waste involved. From this, the associated risk of disposing of these wastes by the proposed disposal method can be assessed. Where hazardous waste is involved, the hazard ratings must be confirmed (see Section 3.2).

Size of waste stream

The size class of the disposal site, and hence the projected size of the operation, is dependent on the magnitude of the waste stream. This is determined by calculating the Maximum Rate of Deposition (MRD), as explained in Section 3.3.1 and illustrated by means of examples in Appendix 3.3.

Reassessment of the water balance

In the case of a general waste landfill, it will have been classified as either B+ or B– (see Section 3.4). If, in the light of additional information, there is any doubt regarding a B– classification, i.e., if there is the possibility that significant leachate could be generated, then the water balance affecting the disposal site should be substantiated at this stage by means of a full water balance analysis. In the case of an existing landfill that is producing leachate, the water balance should include the quantitative results of leachate monitoring records. Appendix 3.4 gives an example of a confirmatory water balance calculation.

8.2.2 Final landfill height, cover, airspace and site life

Final landfill height

For the majority of general waste sites, the major factor in determining airspace and site life is the volume of suitable cover available on site. However, for a number of industrial and hazardous sites, alternative sources of cover may be available, e.g., ash; or the waste may be of such a nature that cover is not required, e.g., metal slag or ash blended with liquid wastes; or there may be an abundance of soil available for use as cover material.

Determining a suitable final landfill height must therefore be based on a number of factors:

• Cover availability

• Size of the site

• Manoeuvrability at the working face (see Section 10.2.3)

• Site stability (see Section 8.4.8)

• The potential effects of seismic activity

• Allowance for good drainage off the final landform

• Allowance for settlement of the waste (see Section 8.6 and Appendix 8.7)

• Hazardous and de-listed waste total loading rates (see Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Section 8.4.3)

• Environmental, social and aesthetic impacts.

It is unlikely that stability, the potential effects of seismic activity and hazardous waste loading rates would need to be considered for smaller general sites in gently sloping to flat areas. However, such factors should be considered for larger general sites and hazardous sites, where the Permit Holder

8: SITE DESIGN


would prefer to maximise the available airspace on the liners constructed.

For all sites, the final landfill height must be such that:

• There is acceptable manoeuvrability for the vehicles using and operating the landfill at final height

• Drainage off the final landform is efficient

• Allowance is made for settlement of the waste so that ponding and damage to the final cover is avoided

• Environmental, social and aesthetic impacts are taken into account.

Environmental, social and aesthetic impacts resulting from the final landform would be assessed in the EIA, and this could inform decisions regarding final landfill height. However, the EIA would not influence the determined final landfill height where the height is limited by technical factors such as hazardous or delisted waste loading rates or available cover material.

For sites where stability is identified as a design concern, a professional engineer must carry out a stability assessment. Examples would be sites where co-disposal is practised, or the final landfill height is considerable, or steep outer slopes are motivated as part of the design, or a landfill sited on steep terrain. For sites where hazardous and/or delisted wastes are accepted for disposal, the approved monthly and total load rates of the waste and the area of the site must be taken into account when determining final landfill height, so that the monthly and total load rates for the landfill are unlikely to be exceeded

Airspace and cover

For the majority of general landfills, suitable cover availability is a major factor determining the airspace, if the site is to be operated in accordance with sanitary landfill principles.

The cover excavation design and programme must therefore make provision for adequate cover material. This cover is for use both as daily cover in the operation and for final capping. Particular attention must be paid to providing sufficient material for capping the landfill timeously, as this is a deficiency at many operating landfills and can have costly economic implications.

The volume of soil available for excavation is therefore calculated, taking into account the soils required for liners, starter berms, outer berms and final cover. Careful attention must be given to the Minimum Requirement that there must always be an acceptable minimum physical separation between the waste body and the potential highest seasonal level of the ground water (see Section 8.4.2).

For landfills where alternative sources of cover are used, such as ash, bark or sawdust, the percentage of available cover in the waste stream must be sufficient to effectively cover the other wastes accepted at the landfill. For example, at a paper mill site, ash could be used to cover waste paper pulp and office wastes. As it is typically generated in equal quantities to the paper pulp, this allows for effective daily covering.

The total airspace is then calculated by applying a cover to waste ratio of between 1:4 and 1:6 by volume, with 1:4 applicable to smaller sites and 1:6 applicable to large sites. This means that for every 1 m3 of daily cover available, between 4 and 6 m3 of compacted waste can be disposed of, depending on the size of the operation.

The available airspace can also be dictated by the shape of the final landform, which depends on the base area or ‘footprint’ of the landfill, the slopes of the sides, the final landfill height and the type of loading (e.g., seismic loading). There is therefore a balance between the cover availability and the physical airspace available.

Landfill site life

The potential life of the landfill can be estimated by comparing the airspace utilisation with the available airspace. Airspace utilisation is based on

8: SITE DESIGN


the quantities of waste to be received, projected over the estimated period during which the landfill will operate. Various methods for calculating landfill site life are included in Appendix 8.1.

8.2.3 Site layout

The site layout must be designed with the disposal site's closure and end-use closely in mind. The extent and shape of the buffer zone will also influence the site layout and the eventual design. In particular, the end-use may decide the final shape or contours of a landfill, and this may influence the site layout and the Operating Plan. For this reason, the IAPs must be consulted to determine the preferred end-use of the site.20

The site layout design will typically comprise plans and sections, indicating existing, excavated and final contours. The following aspects would be addressed and in many instances would have to be indicated on plans:

Access

The requirements for road access to the site and other necessary infrastructure must be assessed (see Sections 10.2 and 10.4).

Surface hydrology and drainage design

Surface hydrology design will include surface drainage and storm water diversion drains, to meet the requirements of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998). This includes the separation of unpolluted from polluted surface water and the containment of polluted water on site in impoundments. Also, where leachate is generated, it must be contained separately from water that is only slightly polluted through contact with the waste.

Containment (hazardous waste disposal sites)

In the case of hazardous waste disposal sites, the design must make provision for containment of hazardous waste. This implies the complete

separation of the waste body and any associated leachate and solute from the surrounding soil or rock strata, by means of composite liners and a leachate collection and leakage detection system.

This is necessary as there are two pathways for solute to move through composite liners:

• Advection and diffusion of inorganic and organic solutes through defects in the geomembrane and subsequently through the clay liner

• Diffusion of the volatile organic compounds in the solutes through the intact geomembrane and subsequently through the clay liner.

The compacted clay liner provides some attenuation capacity for escaped solutes, whilst the leakage detection layer provides a monitoring layer for volatile organic compounds in the solutes, as well as a collection system for leachate leakage through the composite liner.

Leachate management system (B+ landfills)

Leachate management is necessary in the case of B+ and hazardous waste disposal sites, where significant leachate is anticipated. The design includes a liner underlying the site, as well as leachate collection and treatment measures. It must make provision for the control of significant seasonal or continuous leachate generation, predicted by means of the Climatic Water Balance, or the Site Water Balance. (Refer to Appendix 3.4 for method of calculation.)

Leachate collection and detection system (B- landfills)

Leachate management is not necessary at proven B- disposal sites, provided that they are properly designed and operated. However, if this is not the case, and significant leachate is generated as a result of poor operation, poor drainage or the disposal of high moisture wastes, it must be detected as soon as possible by means of at least a rudimentary leachate detection system.

20 The agreed end-use may need to be reconsidered at closure time, to take into consideration development around the site and changing IAP needs, see section 12.

8: SITE DESIGN


Leachate detection systems at B- landfills comprise rudimentary liners with leachate collection drains (see Table 8.1 and Appendix 8.2). These are sloped toward toe drains at the lowest point of the landfill, unless site topography also dictates the use of finger drains21 to channel any leachate to the lowest point.

Monitoring systems

Monitoring systems for surface and ground water pollution should be indicated (see also Section 13). This will include the positions of both surface water sampling points and monitoring boreholes.

Gas management (see Section 8.4.6) and gas and air quality monitoring systems are required if either:

• the Site Investigation and the Risk Assessment find that landfill gas migration and accumulation represent a potential safety hazard (see Appendix 10.3) or odour problem, or,

• an operating or closed site is situated within 250 m of residential or other structures or conveyance routes.

Landfill gas and air quality monitoring systems are not required to be incorporated into the design of existing and proposed landfill sites. Where these are installed, landfill gas monitoring systems may consist of monitoring probes, boreholes or other devices approved by the Relevant provincial environmental authority. These devices should be situated outside of the waste footprint, and beyond the site boundary, but within the buffer zone. Their positions must be indicated on the layout plan.

Layout and development plans

The Layout and Development Plans should have a scale of 1:1 000 and a contour interval of 1 m. They must show where the following aspects of

21 Finger drains are perforated pipe drains within the zones of selected free draining waste, initially placed on the base of the landfill.

the disposal site operation will be situated, and/or how they will be staged:

• Infrastructure, including buildings, ablutions, sanitation and salvaging facilities, and fences)

• Site access and drainage

• Excavation and stockpiling of cover

• Demarcated buffer zone external to site boundaries and development restrictions applicable within such zone

• Screening berms and screening vegetation (tree belts)

• Cell construction sequence

• Deposition sequence and phases (including physical dimensions and timing for each phase).

• In the case of hazardous waste disposal sites, the laboratory, treatment and encapsulation facilities.

Progressive remediation plan

The Progressive Remediation Plan must indicate when areas should reach their final level and how and when they will be progressively restored, by means of final cover of capping, topsoiling and vegetating. The type of vegetation envisaged should also be described.

8.2.4 Preliminary Closure Plan

A Preliminary Closure Plan, including an End-use Plan and possibly a Landscaping Plan, should be indicated.

8.2.5 IAP involvement

The Layout, Development and Progressive Remediation Plans should take into consideration the needs of the IAPs. For example, the deposition sequence should ensure the least possible impact on the IAPs living in an area affected by the disposal site.

8: SITE DESIGN


When the Conceptual Design is complete, the design should be presented to and discussed with the IAPs, in order to inform them and to obtain any further input that might be forthcoming. Such input could include making opportunities for job creation during design implementation.

All significant deviations from the Minimum Requirements must be communicated to the IAPs, together with the Competent Authority’s response and IAP comments submitted.

8.3 Testing of Soils, Construction Materials and Waste

Please refer to Appendix 8.6.

Some in situ and laboratory testing of on-site soils and rock may have been done during the site investigation (Section 6), to assess the suitability of soils for cover and linings. In the design stage, more specific testing may have to be performed, to enable the technical design of the site to be carried out. This could include testing of geosynthetic materials to be used in the landfill liner or final capping designs. All such testing must be carried out in accredited laboratories approved by the Competent Authority.

8.3.1 Soil permeability

In situ permeability testing, using a double-ring infiltrometer or Guelph permeameter, may have to be performed on some, or all, of the following:

• The soil and/or rock immediately underlying the waste disposal site. It may be necessary to seal the rings to the surface being tested

• The unsaturated zone that will ultimately separate the waste from the ground water. This may require the testing of different soil strata

• The completed compacted soil liners.

Testing for compatibility of soils and leachate may also be necessary to assess the effect of leachate on permeability (see Section 8.4.3 and Appendix 8.6).

Such tests would be performed in an accredited laboratory.

8.3.2 Compaction properties

The compaction properties for any soil or modified soil proposed for use in lining or capping layers must be established according to the Standard Proctor Compaction Test (see Section 8.4.3).

8.3.3 Shear strength tests

Please refer “Load-carrying capacity and stiffness of polymeric (plastic) and rubber components” in Appendix 8.6.

Where appropriate, shear strength testing of the waste, the soils and any geosynthetics to be used in the lining system must be performed, to enable the overall stability and the permissible angle of slopes to be assessed. This is especially the case where extensive cut slopes or trench systems are envisaged.

Where excavated areas require lining, the side slopes should be such that it is possible to lay the required liner. Some geomembranes have a low interfacial friction with soil, as well as with waste. Any inclined surface covered by a liner incorporating a geosynthetic liner must be investigated for possible interlayer slippage. This could be, for example, slippage of the geomembrane on its supporting layer, slippage between the geotextile and a protective geofabric, or slippage of a soil protective layer overlying the geomembrane.

All three types of interface can have very low angles of interface friction. Designs should be based on residual shear strengths of interfaces within the lining system, measured under saturated conditions. These are best measured by means of a ring shear apparatus, which is taken to a shear deformation of at least 360o rotation or similar. Slopes must be graded to achieve a factor of safety against slippage of at least 1.3. This should also take into account the effects of pore pressure arising from an accumulation of liquid or leachate

8: SITE DESIGN


above the liner, and time dependant effects such as creep, thermally induced changes and degradation.

8.3.4 Geomembrane and geotextile tests

Geomembrane liners (sometimes referred to as flexible membrane liners or FMLs) must comply with the requirements of South African National Standard SANS 1526:2003 and the Standard Specifications of the Geosynthetics Research Institute, GRI – GM13 (for HDPE) and GM17 (for LLDPE). The geomembrane thicknesses specified in Appendix 8.2 shall be nominal thicknesses, as measured in accordance with the SANS 1526:2003. Where adequate relevant data is not available, geo-membranes, composite liners and geotextiles (or geofabrics) will have to be tested for strength, interface friction, durability and compatibility with identified components of waste and leachate. Depending on the details of the proposed site, the Relevant provincial environmental authority may call for additional performance criteria.

Where geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) are to be used in landfill liner and/or final capping designs, the GCL must be a reinforced GCL with at least equivalent performance (for instance, permeability, toughness and chemical resistance) to a 600 mm compacted clay liner, and as approved by the Relevant provincial environmental authority.

Because of potential clogging by biological slimes and chemical precipitation, geotextiles through which landfill leachates must seep should be used with caution.

Testing and quality assurance of geosynthetic liners are Minimum Requirements in the case of B+ and hazardous waste disposal sites. Any geomembrane used in a capping layer should also comply with the requirements of SANS 1526:2003, taking into account site conditions, to ensure that biaxial strains due to settlement of the waste body are accounted for.

8.3.5 Waste tests

Testing of waste may be performed to assess likely leachate composition, field capacity, compressibility under load, compatibility with materials of construction used in the landfill, and compacted density. If necessary, shear strength tests must be performed on the waste to assess the overall stability of the landfill. Please refer to the section on “Shear strength tests on waste” in Appendix 8.6.

8.4 Technical Design

The Technical Design quantifies all necessary aspects of the Conceptual Design. It also gives predicted answers concerning the future performance of the disposal site. Specifically, it takes into account the vulnerability of the environment to pollution and the conceptual design to failure. It thus provides the necessary protection from all potential impacts identified in the EIA and in the Risk Assessment, and forms part of the EIA Report.

The Technical Design must be signed off by the responsible Professional Engineer, and then approved by the Competent Authority either in the Permit or in an official letter before construction may begin. The aspects of the design that follow are considered to require particular attention.

8.4.1 Design of upslope cut-off drain systems and contaminated drainage systems

These must be designed to the requirements of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998). Drains must divert or contain the peak design storm of 100-year return period for the particular catchment area. The system must effectively separate unpolluted water that has not come into contact with waste, from potentially polluted water. The upslope cut-off drains must divert clean storm water around the site and into the natural drainage system.

8: SITE DESIGN


Potentially polluted water, on the other hand, must be collected in toe drains, retained on the site and managed in accordance with the Relevant provincial environmental authority’s directives. This may include controlled release, recycling and evaporation or treating with any leachate that has been collected.

The liner design for a contaminated water pond at a general waste disposal site must correspond with those for a G:B+ site of the same size, minus the leachate collection layer (see Appendix 8.2). The liner design for a contaminated water pond at a hazardous waste disposal site must correspond with the liner design for the landfill itself, minus the top leachate collection layer. A relaxation can be considered on the basis of historical storm water quality.

The design of all such impoundments must also ensure a 0,5 m freeboard in the event of a 1 in 100- year storm of 24 hours duration.

8.4.2 Design of the separation between the waste body and the ground water

It is a Minimum Requirement that there always be an acceptable physical separation between the proposed waste body and the wet season potential high elevation of the ground water. This applies whether cover excavations take place on site or not.

The minimum permissible separation is 2 m. This is to ensure that, particularly in rural areas, waste is not deposited into excavations where the unsaturated zone has been significantly reduced or where the water table has been breached. The minimum separation layer is also necessary to provide some attenuation capacity for potential leachate seepage from the waste body. While this separation is likely to be acceptable in the case of clayey soils, a substantially thicker separation may be required in the case of more permeable, sandy soils or fractured rock.

It must be emphasised that the primary protection of the environment from the effects of a disposal site is the result of careful siting (Section 4).

However, cases may arise where siting of a landfill near an important aquifer is unavoidable. In such cases, the separation between the waste body and the ground water may require to be upgraded to provide additional protection. This may take the form of supplementing the thickness or upgrading the liner (see Section 8.4.3).

At this stage there is no set methodology for calculating the thickness of the separation between the waste body and the seasonal high elevation of the ground water. Consequently, there is frequently controversy and/or uncertainty associated with determining this separation. The design of the separation should therefore be treated as a ‘flag’, i.e., it must receive special attention by a recognised expert and be acceptable to the Competent Authority.

Depending on site and ground water conditions, it may be necessary to address the problem of seepages from perched water tables and springs, entering the site. This can be achieved through various means such as sound drainage or barrier engineering.

8.4.3 Design of the lining system

As seen from Section 8.4.2, a mandatory physical separation between the waste body and the surface and ground water regimes is fundamental to all designs. Because of the potential toxicity of leachate, it can be seen (Section 3.4) that all B+ sites, i.e., those that generate significant leachate, require leachate management that involves the construction of liners. Similarly, adopting the Precautionary Principle, the Minimum Requirements require at least minimal liners at B- landfills. This is, however, not to manage, but to detect the presence of leachate. In the case of all hazardous waste sites and lagoons, however, the Minimum Requirements require a substantial composite liner and leachate management system to be provided, regardless of the Climatic Water Balance.

In the case of hazardous waste sites, the liner design also takes cognisance of the hazard rating of the waste that can be accepted (see Sections 6 and 7, Minimum Requirements for the Handling,

8: SITE DESIGN


Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste). For instance, an H:H landfill can accept all hazardous waste with a hazard rating of 1 through to 4, while an H:h landfill is limited to less hazardous substances with ratings 3 and 4. The liner design for hazardous waste encapsulation cells shall be as for an H:H landfill.

Furthermore, temperature shall also be a design assessment parameter for hazardous waste disposal sites. Hazardous waste sites, which are not free draining under gravity, should be considered for design as a hazardous waste lagoon system.

The lining system is additional to the separation or unsaturated zone comprising soil or rock between the wet season high elevation of the ground water and the landfill. Soil used for the construction of the liner may be excavated from the unsaturated zone. However, any soil used for a compacted soil liner must have a minimum Plasticity Index (PI) of 10 and a maximum that will not result in excessive desiccation cracking. The maximum particle size must not exceed 25 mm, and the soil shall not be gap-graded.

A lining layer, constructed of compacted soil of low permeability, must be so constructed that it permits no more than a specified maximum rate of flow of leachate to pass through its layers. Clay liners must be compacted to a minimum dry density of 95% Standard Proctor maximum dry density, at a water content of Proctor optimum to Proctor optimum +2% (see Appendix 8.2).

In addition, the following supplementary information is required:

• Full particle size analysis (sieve and hydrometer tests)

• Double hydrometer test

• Atterberg limits

• Shear strength tests in terms of effective stresses on soil compacted at Proctor optimum water content to Proctor maximum dry density. Soils are to be either drained or undrained, with measured pore pressures on saturated soil

• Permeability measurements in triaxial cells are also required on saturated soil, compacted as above

The maximum outflow rates in the clay layers are measured in metres per year and are as follows:

G:B+ landfills: Measured outflow rate must not exceed 0,3 m/y (1 x 10-6 cm/s)

H:h landfills: Measured outflow rate must not exceed 0,1 m/y (3 x 10-7 cm/s)

H:H landfills: Measured outflow rate must not exceed 0,03 m/y (1 x 10-7 cm/s)

Because the liner will usually have to be designed at a time when only laboratory test data are available, the expected outflow rate will usually have to be based on permeability coefficients measured in the laboratory on specimens constituted in the laboratory (requirements for laboratory permeability tests are given in Appendix 8.2). These estimates must, however, be validated by field tests once the liner has been constructed and before waste is deposited over the liner. It must also be remembered that small-scale laboratory measurements could underestimate the permeability of a liner by as much as two orders of magnitude.

To validate the design, in situ permeability tests using double ring infiltrometers must be carried out on every compacted soil layer that forms part of a liner. The diameter of the inner ring of such an infiltrometer must be at least 600 mm, while the diameter of the outer ring must be twice that of the inner ring. The infiltrometer must be covered and sealed with plastic sheeting to prevent the evaporation loss of moisture.

Liners for H:h and H:H landfills and for hazardous waste lagoons are composite and geomembrane and GCL or clay liners. The clay components of these liners or their alternatives must fully meet the above maximum outflow rates and must be shown to comply with these prior to

8: SITE DESIGN


installing the overlying geomembranes. Similarly, the design report must show that the lining system is competent to contain volatile organic compounds.

Every liner system is made up of a series of elements that can be assembled in various ways to provide the necessary degree of protection to the ground water system. The detail and variation associated with each liner component is described in Appendix 8.2, which includes diagrams depicting the liner systems for each class of landfill, as well as the specifications for the various component liner layers.

Depending on the nature of the waste, it may be necessary to install an appropriate geotextile separation layer between the leachate collection layer and the waste body, to protect the long-term performance of the leachate collection layer. This separation layer could be necessary to reduce the risk of biochemical clogging of the drainage media, or to prevent ingress of fines from the waste into the drainage media.

Table 8.1, at the end of this section, indicates the minimum liner requirements for each class of landfill. Liner profiles in Table 8.1 and Appendix 8.2 are from the waste body downwards, however, in Table 8.1, the construction sequence is indicated by the numbers in the left hand margin.

8.4.4 Design of leachate collection, leakage detection and leachate treatment system

As stated in Section 3, all landfills have the potential to generate sporadic leachate. In all landfills, therefore, the base must be so sloped that any leachate formed, even sporadic leachate, is directed to a control point.

In cases of significant leachate generation, a leachate management system is a Minimum Requirement. This involves keeping significant leachate out of the environment by means of leachate collection, removal and treatment.

Leachate collection

Leachate collection is usually achieved using a graded underliner and drains that lead to a collection point or sump. Depending on soil quality, the underliner may be an engineered low permeability natural soil or clay liner, a GCL, a geomembrane liner, or a combination of these barrier components.

The leachate collection system is a system of drains, bunds or trenches covered by the leachate collection layer (referred to in Table 8.1 and Appendix 8.3). It is equipped with suitable drains or collection pipes that direct the gravity flow of leachate or leakage to defined collection points or sumps, from which it can be collected for treatment (see Figure A.8.9 in Appendix 8.3).

The leachate collection system must have adequate flow capacity to allow all leachate to be removed, as it is generated and percolates into the leachate collection layer (the A layer in Figures A.8.4 to A.8.7 of Appendix 8.3). No appreciable head of leachate can be allowed to accumulate on any area of the liner, as this will increase the outflow rate. For example, it has been calculated that if the head of leachate over a liner is allowed to increase from 30 mm to 300 mm, the outflow rate will increase by a factor of as much as 5. There is also a danger that in landfills built on steeply sloping sites, a build-up of leachate levels will adversely affect the shear stability of the landfill.

A detailed water balance calculation (see Appendix 3.4) must be used to estimate the leachate flow that the leachate collection system must be designed to handle. Standpipe piezometers must be installed close to all leachate collection points to allow for regular inspection and reporting of leachate levels above the liner (see Appendix 8.3.)

Collected leachate must be treated to a quality standard that complies with the relevant legislation and is acceptable to the Competent Authority, before being released into the environment.

The liner design for leachate ponds at hazardous waste disposal sites must be the same as the liner

8: SITE DESIGN


for a hazardous waste lagoon, except that the 150 mm soil protection layer is increased to 200 mm to act as a ballast layer over the upper geomembrane liner (see Appendix 8.2.). In the case of leachate ponds at G:B+ sites, these must be lined to the same specification as the landfill liner, minus the leachate collection layer, but with the addition of a 2 mm thick geo-membrane liner, laid directly on the surface of the uppermost clay layer or equivalent GCL barrier. A 200 mm soil ballast layer is to be placed over the geomembrane liner.

Any drain, whether open or covered, that is used to transfer leachate from the leachate collection system to the leachate ponds or to the sewer must be properly lined. In the case of an open leachate drain, this lining should be to at least the same performance standard and hydraulic design as the leachate pond liner. In the case of a piped leachate drain, the pipe shall be of a material resistant to the leachate, be designed as a medium pressure pipeline, and have a suitable leakage detection system. Manholes on piped leachate drains shall also be suitably lined to prevent leakage and chemical attack. The design of all leachate drains must be to the approval of the Competent Authority.

Leakage detection system

The leakage detection system is designed to intercept any leachate that passes the barrier of the upper liner. This leakage is then directed to separate leakage collection sumps, where the quantity and quality can be monitored and from which accumulated leakage can be removed. This system should be designed to fulfil the requirement for the ‘early warning’ monitoring of total solute including leachate given in Section 6 of the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities. To do this in B- landfills, finger and toe drains are used for leachate detection, in the event that leachate does appear, contrary to the site classification.

In the case of B- landfills, significant leachate should not be generated, so that leachate management systems are not required (see Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). If, however, it is found

that a site which is classified B- does generate significant leachate, it must be reclassified to B+

(through an appropriate permit or license amendment) and appropriately mitigated. The appropriate Minimum Requirements for G:B+

landfills, especially those for leachate management systems, must then be applied (see Section 3.5.3).

As the approach to determining the Climatic Water Balance has changed in the Third Edition, permit applications for new and existing unauthorised sites or applications for permit amendments must be classified or reclassified according to the new approach. Authorised sites do not have to be reclassified unless the leachate detection system (which has always been a Minimum Requirement for B- sites) indicates that significant leachate is being generated. Significant leachate generation should be picked up by the Permit Holder or through regular audits and must be reported to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority will then determine the extent to which the leachate management system must be upgraded.

Leachate treatment system

Leachate treatment systems are a Minimum Requirement for all hazardous waste and G:B+ landfill sites. Where a G:B- site produces leachate because of unforeseen factors, leachate treatment is also a Minimum Requirement.

The leachate treatment system will depend on the leachate composition and on the most appropriate method of treatment. This could be on-site chemical, physical or biological treatment, and/or off-site treatment where leachate is passed into a sewer or pipeline for treatment elsewhere. The aim of the leachate treatment system is to produce an effluent of an acceptable water quality. Sludge or concentrate (brine) streams will be produced as ‘by-products’. The quality of the effluent is determined by the water quality objectives set by the Competent Authority for discharge to surface watercourse or by the relevant local authority if the effluent is to be discharged to sewer or pipeline for further treatment elsewhere.

8: SITE DESIGN


The design and construction of the system must be based on adequate data, which must be provided together with the technical design. This data would usually be obtained from a paper study, laboratory scale experimental work, and pilot scale experimental work. The paper study would include an estimate of the leachate quantity and quality, the desired effluent quality, a literature study of the available technologies, and an assessment of which technology or combination of technologies may be required. The study would produce a block diagram of the proposed treatment system.

The technical design of the system must be agreed with the Competent Authority prior to construction. This also applies to contaminated water ponds or evaporation ponds (see Section 8.4.1).

Quantity of leachate

For a new landfill site, the quantity of leachate that will be generated can be estimated from the climatic water balance, see Sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4. For an existing landfill site, the flowrate of leachate from the landfill can be measured using the appropriate flow measuring equipment. In addition, any leachate stored or accumulated at an existing site must be taken into account, if these lagoons or dams are to be emptied for a period of time.

Quality or composition of leachate

The quality or composition of leachate is affected by waste type, the age and history of the landfill (e.g., the quality of leachate generated shortly after disposal differs from that generated in the acetogenic or methanogenic stages of waste degradation) and the operation (e.g., co-disposal of liquids with high salt content would affect leachate quality). See also Appendix 8.8.

For a new landfill site, the likely quality of the leachate can be determined from the waste type and the composition of leachate produced at similar landfills. In the case of an existing landfill, the composition must be measured by chemical analysis.

Required composition and disposal of effluent

A leachate treatment system will produce one or more streams of sludge or concentrate (brine), and the required quality of this will depend mainly on available options for dealing with it or disposing of it. It is a Minimum Requirement that the effluent be analysed, classified (if it is to be disposed of on a landfill), and disposed of in an appropriate manner, approved by the Competent Authority and other relevant authorities.

Possible ways of dealing with leachate treatment effluent are described in Appendix 8.8. These include disposal to an appropriate class of landfill, disposal at sea, use of evaporation ponds, concentration, vitrification, and use of chemicals and fixation agents to stabilise sludges prior to disposal at landfill. The treatment process (combination of treatment technologies) required to achieve the required effluent quality will vary from site to site. The process should, however, be appropriate, reliable, and robust (i.e., adaptable to changing circumstances). It should also be cost effective. Table A8.1 in Appendix 8.8 provides a number of examples of treatment technologies that can be applied for particular leachate and required effluent qualities.

8.4.5 Design of hazardous waste lagoons

Lagooning of hazardous waste liquids is not regarded as a form of landfilling. Nonetheless, lagoons are controlled under Section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) and thus require a Permit. Until separate requirements are developed, therefore, hazardous waste lagoons must follow the full landfill site Authorisation Procedure.

This form of disposal is not encouraged, and will only be condoned if can be proven that unaccept-able odours or hazardous vapours will not arise from the evaporating liquid. At the end of its operating life, a lagoon must either be emptied or be filled with an absorbent solid material so that it can be sealed by a capping layer and remediated.

8: SITE DESIGN


In view of their importance, design requirements for the lining of lagoons have also been included in this section and in Appendix 8.2.

Lining for hazardous waste lagoons

The Minimum Requirements for the linings of hazardous waste lagoons are shown in Appendix 8.2. The requirements are similar to those for H:H landfills, but more stringent, in that two geomembrane liners are required in the lining system, as well as a 200 mm soil ballast layer over the upper geomembrane liner. These more stringent requirements are set because the hazardous waste in a lagoon is not dispersed, absorbed and ameliorated by dry general waste, as in the case of a co-disposal landfill and also because of the hydraulic head on the primary liner.

Slopes of sides and floor

The floor of a hazardous waste lagoon, and hence its leakage detection and collection layer, must slope at a minimum of 5% towards the leakage collection sump.

The side-slopes of the impoundment must not be steeper than 1 vertical on 3 horizontal (18o) and, depending on geotechnical and loading factors, may have to be flatter than this. Referring to Figure A.8.8 in Appendix 8.2, there is a possibility that the upper part of the liner may slide at the interface between the lower cushion layer and the 1 mm FML/Geomembrane, or at the FML to compacted clay interface below the FML. The factor of safety (F) against slipping of any portion of the geomembrane liner on its underlying layer (compacted clay or GCL) must be calculated to be at least 1.5, using values of the interface shear parameters for large displacements. The following expression for F should be used:

F = (γ -γw) . tan δ γ . tan β

where:

γ = bulk unit weight of compacted soil liner layer

γw = unit weight of liquid in lagoon or leachate in mono-landfill (10 kN/m2, at least).

δ = effective angle of interfacial friction (soil on geomembrane), measured by means of special shear box tests for the soil, geosynthetics, and geomembrane interfaces under consideration (see Section 8.3.3).

β = angle of side slope.

Cover or capping

Hazardous waste lagoons must either be emptied or filled with absorbent material, before they can be capped. The design specification and programme for implementation must be based on site-specific conditions and agreed with the Competent Authority. The design will be at least as stringent as that for hazardous waste landfills in Appendix 8.4.

8.4.6 Gas management systems

Landfill gas management at most sites in southern Africa is currently limited to passive venting of gas.

Landfill gas control systems

Landfill gas management systems may be passive or active. Passive systems include perforated pipes, gravel-filled trenches, geomembrane barriers, or other engineering measures. Active systems consist of vertical wells or horizontal collectors for the purpose of gas collection, (the collected gas is transported by a header system to a combustion device, such as a flare, boiler, or engine). If desired, the gas can be used as an alternative energy source. Such active landfill gas extraction significantly reduces the odour problem and the potential explosion hazard.

Landfill gas management plan

If there is a need to control the migration or accumulation of landfill gas on a site, the control system, its design specifications and monitoring must be agreed with the Competent Authority prior

8: SITE DESIGN


to construction (see Section 8.2.3) and incorporated into a Gas Management Plan (see Appendix 10.3).

The key elements of a Gas Management Plan are:

• Risk assessment • Control measures • Operational procedures • Monitoring plan • Action plan • Closure and after-care • Emergency response procedures

Landfill gas monitoring system

A site-specific monitoring programme should be established at operating landfill sites (see Table 8) to determine if landfill gas generation is likely to affect public health and the environment or give rise to a nuisance. Where control measures are installed at a site, monitoring should check that the applied measures continue to be effective and measure any loss of efficiency in the control system. For sites without control measures, monitoring should measure changes in gas evolution and migration patterns. When monitoring establishes that adverse changes are taking place at a site, further assessment will be required to determine the action to be taken. Monitoring will be required at most sites for a number of years after site has been closed and remediated.

The landfill Gas Monitoring Plan will include provision of monitoring points beyond the site boundary, but within the buffer zone, and particularly between the landfill and any nearby developments. The frequency of monitoring will be site-specific (see Appendix 10.3).

8.4.7 Design of final cover or capping

The capping layer of a landfill serves the following purposes:

(i) It separates the waste body from the atmospheric environment. The cap is the only layer protecting and isolating the waste

from the long term effects of wind and surface water erosion, burrowing animals, etc.

(ii) It limits and controls the quantities of pre-cipitation that enter the waste. For general waste landfills, it should also allow water to leave the landfill by evapo-transpiration and vent landfill gas in a safe manner. This is providing that the base liners are in accordance with the Minimum Requirements.

When comparing the capping designs with the corresponding liner design, it must be realised that the cap works in conjunction with the liner by limiting the long term generation of leachate.

As is the case for a liner system, a landfill capping or final cover system is also made up of a series of elements. The capping system is designed to maximise run-off of precipitation, while minimising infiltration and preventing ponding of water on the landfill. In the case of all hazardous waste landfills, the capping system is also required to contain total solutes that may rise by capillary action and/or diffusion.

The landfill cap should not, however, be completely impervious as, particularly in B-

regions, a supply of moisture is necessary for the decomposition and ultimate stabilization of the waste. It must be emphasized that landfills are not intended only to store and isolate waste, but also to act as biological reactors that reduce the pollution potential of the waste by microbiological action. Moisture has an important effect on the rate at which biological stabilization proceeds. In B- regions, there is no abundance of rain to exclude from the waste, and what rain there is can be allowed to enter the waste in a controlled way during the wet season to promote biological activity, in the knowledge that it will re-evaporate through the cap during the dry season. In B+ regions, some re-evaporation will also occur, but any infiltration that eventually reaches the liner will, in its passage through the waste, have assisted the biological decomposition process.

Table 8.2 at the end of this section uses the landfill classification system to indicate how the number of components will vary with class of landfill. The

8: SITE DESIGN


details and variations associated with each cover component are described in Appendix 8.4. This appendix also includes diagrams depicting each of the cover or capping systems under consideration.

8.4.8 Stability of slopes

The construction of landfills usually involves ex-cavating into natural soils. This can be unsafe, particularly with trench systems. It is therefore necessary to analyse the stability of these cut slopes to ensure that they are safe against shear failure.

The stability of a slope depends on its slope angle or inclination, on its overall height and on the properties of the material of which it is composed. In the case of slopes cut into natural soils, the geotechnical properties of the soils should be determined by means of in situ or laboratory shear tests. The stability of the slope must be analysed by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer.

The stability of the outer slopes of landfills should also be checked, especially when the slopes are steep and/or high, the moisture content of the waste is high, or co-disposal is practiced. It is imperative that where assumptions have been made in slope stability calculations, for example on the moisture content of incoming wastes, or on the co-disposal ratio employed, that these are clearly stated in reporting, so that these can be monitored and audited during the landfill operation.

Data on the slope design properties of solid waste is not readily available and may have to be determined for the particular waste stream. A survey has shown that the following values are appropriate to slope stability calculations for potential shearing through the waste:

Cohesion : c1 = 25 kPa Angle of shearing resistance : Φ1 = 15o

Unit weight of refuse : γ = 10 kN/m3

Note that these parameters will not apply to waste/liner or waste/soil interfaces, but apply only to shearing through waste.

A stability chart for preliminary assessment of landfill slope stability by shearing through the waste is given in Figure A.8.13 in Appendix 8.6.

It is, however, very likely that the critical zone for shearing may be the underlying natural soil, or a geomembrane to soil surface. This possibility must be carefully investigated (see also Section 8.3.3).

The strength parameters given above are in terms of effective stresses. This implies which implies that leachate pore pressures may arise and may affect the stability of a landfill. Experience in South Africa and elsewhere during the past decade have shown that leachate pore pressures are particularly likely to occur in landfills where liquids are co-disposed or where leachate is recycled. It has also become evident that landfilled waste that is close to or above the field capacity (see Appendix 3.4) may liquify, if it fails in shear, resulting in a flow failure. This type of shear failure is particularly dangerous to life and the environment. Please refer to Appendix 8.6 for further information.

8.5 Erosion from Landfill Surfaces

Soil slopes can erode very severely through the action of both wind and water. The outer slopes of a landfill should be equipped with crest walls and stormwater channels to prevent water from cascading down the slopes from the next horizontal top surface. Outer slopes should be made as flat as possible and should not have an uninterrupted length along the slope exceeding 20 m. Wherever possible, the length of an outer slope should be broken into shorter lengths by incorporating berms or step-backs.

The stormwater channels to which surface water flow on slopes should be directed must be paved or armoured. The channels are laid on the completed surface of the landfill by grading the surface

8: SITE DESIGN


towards the drains. Berms on outer slopes should also be provided with collection drains where it is necessary to drain water down a slope, e.g., to drain the top surface of the landfill. The surface between drains should be stabilised by means of well-established vegetation, in order to avoid erosion. It is important to prevent erosion of the newly completed final landfill surface until vegetation has established, with the possible initial use of silt fences and/or temporary erosion nets. (See also Section 10.4.8.)

8.6 Final Landfill Profile

The final landfill profile should comprise gentle slopes as described in Section 8.5 and should be moulded unobtrusively into the surrounding topography. Slopes should, however, be

sufficiently steep to ensure free drainage of surface water, taking into account long-term settlement effects.

The final profile should facilitate the implementation of the End-use Plan.

Where the landfill is sited in an excavation or on sloping ground, allowance must be made for the fact that more surface settlement will occur where the depth of waste is greater. If such allowance is not made, drainage gradients on the final surface of the landfill may be altered or even reversed as settlement takes place, and hollows may develop, resulting in ponding of storm water.

Post-closure settlement may be calculated as shown in the example in “Calculating Landfill Site Life” in Appendix 8.1.

TABLE 8 Minimum Requirements for Disposal Site Design


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B- = No significant



consideration to be given by expert or representative(s) of the and/or the Department

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

H Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H Hazard Rating 1-4

Appoint a Responsible Person

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Conceptual Design Confirm site classification

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Determine final landfill height N N R R R R R R R R

Assess cover volume

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Indicate unsaturated zone after cover excavation

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

8: SITE DESIGN



G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B- = No significant




C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+


H Hazard Rating 1-4

after cover excavation

Determine available airspace

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Estimate airspace utilisation

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Estimate site life

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

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

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Site layout design

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Surface drainage design

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Development Plan

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Progressive Remediation Plan

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Design of leachate management system

N

N

F

R

F

R

F

R

R

R

Design of the toe drains

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Monitoring system design

N

N

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

End-use Plan

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Testing of soils and materials

N

N

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Technical Design Surface hydrology and drainage design

N

N

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

8: SITE DESIGN



G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B- = No significant




C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+


H Hazard Rating 1-4

Consult lining requirements in Table 8.1 /Appendix 8.2

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Water quality monitoring system

N

F

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Leachate detection system

N

F

F

N

R

N

R

N

N

N

Leachate treatment system

N

N

N

F

N

R

N

R

R

R

Leachate management and monitoring system

N

F

N

R

N

R

N

R

R

R

Gas management system

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Gas monitoring system

F

F

F

R

R

R R R R R

Consult cover requirements in Table 8.2/Appendix 8.2

R R R R R R R R R R

Stability of slopes N N F F F F F R R R

Erosion control design N N F F R R R R R R

Design drawings and specifications

N N N R R R R R R R

R

R

R

R

R

R Approval of Technical Design N N N R

8: SITE DESIGN


TABLE 8.1 Minimum Requirements for Liner Components


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B– = No significant

leachate produced


R = Requirement N = Not a

requirement

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

LINER COMPONENTS

B–

B+

B–

B+

B–

B+

B–

B+

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating 1-4

Lagoons

14 Geotextile

separation layer

N

N

N

F

N

F

N

F

F

F

N

13 Waste body

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

12 Leachate

detection system (finger drains)

N

N

R

N

R

N

R

N

N

N

N

11 Dessication

protection

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

N

N

N

N

10 Leachate

collection layer

N

N

N

R

N

R

N

R

R

R

N

9 Cushion layer

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

R

R

R

8 1,5 mm or 2 mm

geomembrane

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

R

R

R

7 Compacted clay

liner or equivalent GCL on sand support layer

N

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

R

R

R

6 Geotextile layer

N

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

R

R

R

5 Leakage

detection layer

N

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

R

R

R

4 Cushion layer

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

R

8: SITE DESIGN



G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


leachate produced



requirement

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

3 1 mm geo-

membrane liner

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

R

2 Compacted clay

liner

N

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

1 Base preparation

layer

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Note: Numbers 1 - 14 indicate order of construction.

8: SITE DESIGN


TABLE 8.2 Minimum Requirements for Capping Components

LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


leachate produced



requirement

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

CAPPING COMPONENTS

B– B+ B– B+ B– B+ B– B+



7 Layer of Topsoil

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

6 Compacted Clayey

Soil Layer (300 mm)

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

5 GCL Barrier layer 22

N

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

R

R

4 Compacted Soil

foundation Layer (150 mm)

N

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

R

R

3 Geotextile Filter

Layer

N

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

2 Gas Drainage and

Capillary break Layer

N

N

N

N

N

R

N

R

R

R

1 Shaped and

Compacted Waste Surface

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Note: Numbers 1 - 7 indicate order of construction.

22 The Competent Authority must be consulted in cases of sites with inadequate bottom liners for which GCL barrier layers are not required in terms of Table 8.2.

9: SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING


Section 9 SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING

9.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for landfill site preparation and commissioning are summarised in Table 9, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for site preparation and commissioning of waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

This section sets out the Minimum Requirements for the preparation of a landfill facility or any extension to an existing landfill. The preparations must ensure that the commissioned facility will conform to the intended design, operational requirements, and end-use, as stated in the Permit.

Site preparation and commissioning are also necessary for waste management facilities other than landfills, and the principles set out in this section also apply to these facilities.

The objectives of site preparation and commissioning are:

• To establish the infrastructure and facilities necessary for the disposal site to be operated in terms of the Permit conditions; and

• To prepare the site to the stage that it is ready to receive waste and to operate as an environmentally acceptable disposal facility for a pre-determined minimum period.

The development of a landfill site is a process that will continue throughout its operating life (see Section 10). Site preparation and commissioning represent the first stages of landfill site development. The need for site preparation will exist at all new landfill sites or extensions, but the degree and complexity will vary from site to site. In general, larger B+ general landfill sites and hazardous waste landfill sites will require more preparation than B- and smaller general waste landfill sites. It is up to the Responsible Person to confirm the site classification and to ensure that the standard of preparation meets the appropriate Minimum Requirements.

If they differ from the Permit, the final details of the site design must be approved by the Department before construction may begin.

9.2 Boundaries

The co-ordinates of the disposal site must be accurately indicated on a diagram prepared by a registered land surveyor and certified by the Surveyor General.

In addition, where the buffer zone is outside the registered survey boundaries of the disposal site proper, servitudes registered to contain the buffer zone on adjacent properties must be accurately indicated on servitude diagrams prepared by a registered land surveyor and approved by the Surveyor General. Where required, the title deeds of such properties must be endorsed to the satisfaction of the Registrar of Deeds, to appropriately record the existence of the buffer

9: SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING 9: SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING


zone servitudes and refer to the relevant notarial deeds of servitude.

The Permit Holder must submit certified copies of all these diagrams and deeds to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism before construction can begin.

9.3 Design Drawings, Specifications and Bills of Quantities

The design drawings, specifications and bills of quantities will have been produced according to the Minimum Requirements for landfill design (see Section 8), certified by a suitably qualified Responsible Person and approved by the Department. The drawings, specifications and bills of quantities together form the basis for the site preparation, and none shall be read independently from the others.

9.4 Contractor

Where a contractor is used, he/she must be competent and able to carry out all the works in full conformity with the design, specification, drawings and bills of quantities. Suitably qualified specialist sub-contractors may also be used to carry out any special work. The contractor must be a registered employer and must be in good standing with the relevant authorities.

9.5 Quality Control Programme and Supervision

Before any construction begins, the Responsible Person must provide the contractor with the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Programme for all activities to be carried out on the site. The contractor and any specialist sub-contractors must prepare a Construction Quality Control (CQC) Plan. This plan must comply with the requirements of the CQA Programme, and must be approved by the Responsible Person before construction begins. The CQA programme,

which includes independent checks carried out by the Responsible Person and representative(s) of the Competent Authority and relevant state departments, together with the Contractor’s CQC Plan shall be sufficient to ensure conformance with the design, specifications and drawings. On completion of the construction activities, the Responsible Person must attest to the correctness of the facility and the quality of the construction.

The construction of leachate containment elements must be supervised on a full time basis by the Responsible Person or his/her delegated representative.

The construction of all elements of hazardous and G:L sites as well as all liner construction must be supervised on a full time basis by the Responsible Person or his/her delegated representative.

Particular attention must be paid to the quality assurance and quality control of any liner system. The CQA Programme and CQC Plan must be in accordance with the requirements of SANS 10409, Code of Practice for the Design, Selection and Installation of Geomembranes.

In the case of hazardous waste disposal sites and lagoons, the CQA Programme for the construction of the liner and all its components shall be monitored by an independent third party, suitably qualified in CQA.

Before the construction of a landfill, the contractor must carry out a minimum of four sand replacement density tests per 3000 m2 of any compacted 150 mm thick layer. Sufficient Standard Proctor compaction tests must be performed to cover any variability of material that may arise. Density tests using a nuclear device will be considered acceptable, provided the results have been proved to be consistent with sand replacement tests. Sand replacement tests will be considered to be the reference standard for measurement.

Because the permeability of a soil depends on both the density and the compaction moisture content, the results of all density tests must satisfy the following requirements:



9.8 Setting Out (i) Dry density equal to or greater than 90 % of Standard Proctor maximum dry density

The works shall be set out according to the design drawings and specifications, and setting out shall be confirmed prior to the start of actual construction.

(ii) Moisture content within the range Standard Proctor optimum to Standard Proctor optimum plus two percent.

For capping layers, the compaction water content requirements are the same, but the density requirement is relaxed to 85% of Proctor maximum dry density.

9.9 Occupational Health and Safety Act

All operations shall be carried out in strict conformity with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993) and the Machinery and Occupation Safety Act, 1983 (Act 6 of 1983), General Safety Regulations 1 and 5, Work in confined spaces.

Other earthworks must comply with the requirements of the appropriate SABS 1200.

Geomembrane liners must comply with the requirements of SANS 1526 or meet with the requirements relevant to the category of liner required, and must be supplied, delivered and installed in accordance with the requirements of SANS 10409, and the requirements contained in the addenda to the specification.

Operators and contractors must be clearly informed of the hazards associated with the accumulation of landfill gas in confined spaces or voids on landfill sites, see Table 10.

9.6 Environmental Requirements and Conservation of Natural Resources

9.10 Approval of Preparation and Constructed Works

On completion of the construction phase, all the works shall be approved by the Responsible Person. The Competent Authority may then carry out a full inspection of the site and an examination of all relevant records. It is a Minimum Requirement that, where critical work such as the construction of liners is involved, all CQA and CQC records be maintained. Such quality assurance and quality control records must include details of materials used and the results of field tests. Provided all construction has been carried out in full conformity with the design specifications and drawings, and to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority and the Department, a letter giving permission to commence the operation of the waste disposal site will be handed over by the Competent Authority.

The contractor must conform to the environmental requirements of the site and the design at all times during the preparation of the disposal site. The minimum of disturbance to the local flora and fauna, as well as the generation of minimum nuisance, must be ensured. Natural resources, such as topsoil and general cover, shall be stockpiled and maintained for future use where necessary and as directed by the Responsible Person.

9.7 Extent of Site Preparation

The site preparation will include the construction of the initial works and sufficient development to allow for the effective commissioning and operation of the site for a pre-determined minimum period.

9: SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING 9: SITE PREPARATION AND COMMISSIONING


FIGURE 20 IDSA Procedure Phase 5 – Prepare, Operate and Close


Competent authorityinspection

CommentsAccept

Present to IAPs

IAPs acceptance

Operate and monitordisposal (10) (11)

Apply for closure (12)

Prepare disposal site

Activities

Report

Decisions

normal flowappeal flow

possible flow

LEGEND


MinimumRequirements

(Technical process)

Submit closure report tocompetent authority (12)


CommentsAccept

Close disposal site


Obtain DWAFapproval

Monitor disposal site



TABLE 9 Minimum Requirements for Site Preparation & Commissioning


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+

Competent contractor N N F R R R R R R R

Quality Assurance Programme and Quality Control Plan and supervision

N N F R R R R R R R

Independent 3rd Party CQA for liner construction

N N N N N N N N R R

Boundaries certified N N F F R R R R R R

Conservation of natural resources and environmental requirements

F F F F R R R R R R

Compliance with Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993)

F F F F R R R R R R

Records be kept of materials and tests during construction

N N F R R R R R R R

Approval of constructed works by the Competent Authority

N N F R R R R R R R

10: LANDFILL OPERATION


Section 10 SITE OPERATION

10.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements applicable to the different classes of landfill are summarised in Table 10, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for site operation for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

This section sets out the Minimum Requirements for the operation of landfill sites. Additional information regarding landfill operation may be found in Chapter 9 of Landfill Design, Construction and Operational Practices [Ref: UK Department of Environmental Waste Management Paper 26B, HMSO Publications, 1995].

While the objectives and many of the principles contained in this section apply to waste management facilities other than landfills, an expert must draw up operating procedures for these facilities on a site-specific basis where complex processes require this.

In terms of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), amended by the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003), only an approved disposal site, which has been issued with a Permit in terms of Section 20(1) of the Act, may operate (see Figure 13). In the case of new sites and extensions, site preparation and construction have to be approved by the Competent Authority prior to the operation commencing.

The objectives of the Minimum Requirements for disposal site operation are:

• To ensure that all waste is disposed of in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner.

• To ensure that the disposal operation including that of the leachate management and treatment system is acceptable to those whom it affects.

• To ensure that the disposal operation does not impact negatively on the health and safety of workers and waste salvagers.

The operation must thus conform to both the Permit conditions and to the Minimum Requirements associated with the site classification.

It is the duty of the Responsible Person to ensure that the Minimum Requirements for the operation of a disposal site are applied to the degree commensurate with its class and hence to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority. Waste management facilities other than landfills must also be operated in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. The operation of these facilities varies considerably based on the type of facility and the facility classification. For example the operation of a G:C:B- waste storage area is simple, while the operation of a H:H waste treatment facility is complex, and has the potential for catastrophic failure.



10.2 Facilities and Resources required for Operation

There must be sufficient facilities and resources to ensure that the disposal operation can conform to both the Permit conditions and the relevant Minimum Requirements. For example, there should be sufficient trained staff to monitor, control and record incoming waste where required.

10.2.1 Signposting and road access

Signs in the appropriate official languages must be erected in the vicinity of the disposal site, indicating the route and distance to the site from the nearest main roads. These traffic signs must conform to the requirements of the Road Ordinance. Suitable signs must also be erected on site, to direct vehicle drivers appropriately and to control speed.

A general notice board must be erected at the site entrance. This must also be in the appropriate official languages, stating the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the Permit Holder and the Responsible Person, the hours of operation, and an emergency telephone number. It is of particular importance that the sign clearly states the class of the disposal site and the types of waste that can be accepted. Wastes that cannot be accepted must also be stated. It must be stated that disposal of non-acceptable waste types is illegal and can lead to prosecution.

In the case of hazardous waste sites, clearly visible signposts warning of the associated hazards must be erected along the fence line at intervals not exceeding 100 m.

Road access to the site must be maintained at all times, in a manner suitable to accommodate the vehicles normally expected to utilise the facility. All roads, particularly on-site roads, must be so surfaced and maintained as to ensure that waste can reach the working face with the minimum of inconvenience in all weather conditions. Two-way traffic must also be possible in all weather conditions. Unsurfaced roads must be regularly

graded and watered to control dust. No mud from the site may be tracked onto public roads.

10.2.2 Controls

Waste acceptance

One of the purposes of the disposal site classification system is to ensure that general waste disposal sites receive only the general waste for which they are designed and that all hazardous waste is disposed of only on hazardous waste disposal sites.

Prior to waste being accepted at general waste disposal sites, it must be inspected by suitably qualified staff and the transporter must confirm that it is general waste. In the case of doubt, any industrial waste should be considered as potentially hazardous until proven otherwise, see Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. The operator at the working face of a landfill site must also ensure that no hazardous wastes (e.g., hazardous liquids, sludges, solids or even sealed drums) are disposed of. Such controls are particularly important at general waste landfill sites in the vicinity of industrial areas and where there are salvagers on site. In the event of hazardous waste being intercepted at a general waste site, it must be diverted to a hazardous waste site. The source, vehicle registration and a description of the waste must be reported immediately to the relevant provincial environmental authority.

In the event that medical wastes are intercepted at either a general or a hazardous waste site, it is a Minimum Requirement that the Responsible Person or the Permit Holder immediately contact the relevant provincial environmental authority for a directive in this regard.

At hazardous waste sites, all new enquiries for disposal of dry and liquid hazardous waste must be submitted to the Responsible Person with representative samples and a completed waste information sheet. Each load of such waste that subsequently arrives at the site must be sampled and tested for correlation with results of the original enquiry, prior to disposal. Waste that does



not conform to the original specifications must be properly identified by testing in a laboratory, prior to its disposal on site. Any discrepancies must be reported to the client and appropriate steps must be taken to ensure the proper disposal of the waste.

If a waste cannot be identified, the precautionary principle must be applied and the waste must be regarded as falling into the most hazardous category. This is particularly important in the case of H:h sites, which are only authorised to accept waste with Hazard Ratings 3 and 4. Any unidentified wastes or wastes with Hazard Ratings of 1 and 2, arriving at an H:h site, may not be accepted and must be referred to an H:H site.

A report on all wastes received by the hazardous waste disposal site must be sent to the relevant provincial environmental authority on a quarterly basis by the Site Operator. It must classify all hazardous wastes in terms of the hazardous waste classification system and outline the disposal method used, see Minimum Requirements for Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste.

Special care and consultation with the relevant provincial environmental authority are necessary in the disposal of delisted hazardous wastes at H:h, G:L:B+ and G:M:B+ sites (see Section 10.3.3).

Access control

In order to facilitate the above waste acceptance procedures, access to the site must be controlled. It is therefore a Minimum Requirement that vehicle access to a site be limited to a single controlled entrance, to prevent the unauthorised entry and illegal dumping of waste on the site. The site entrance must comprise a lockable gate, which must be manned during hours of operation. Additional security, after operating hours, is required at all hazardous waste disposal sites, and general waste disposal sites where appropriate. This is also to prevent unauthorised salvagers from accessing the waste.

In addition to the gate, all sites must have the portion of the site currently in use adequately

fenced and/or secured. In the case of medium and large general landfills and hazardous landfills, fences must be 1,8 m with an overhang and must be constructed of galvanised steel wire, or of other suitably sturdy and durable material. Where normal fencing is removed, or is not practicable because of continued theft despite security measures, barbed wire fences, earth berms and/or shallow trenches must be used to prevent vehicle access. In all events, however, the site boundaries must be clearly demarcated and measures must be taken to prevent unauthorised vehicle access.

Collection of disposal tariffs

Since the Minimum Requirements increase the standards of waste disposal, they also increase the cost. In order to offset these costs, waste disposal tariffs should be levied and collected at all disposal sites, from medium size upward. Tariffs should be displayed on the notice board. They should be based on mass, where a weighbridge exists, or on estimated volumes.

Security

In addition to access control, suitable security must be provided to protect any facilities and plant on site.

It is a Minimum Requirement that unauthorised pedestrian access be strictly prohibited at hazardous waste disposal sites, although this may be difficult in some instances. Primarily for the purpose of protecting public health and safety, waste salvaging and squatting should be discouraged at general waste disposal sites. It is a Minimum Requirement that no salvaging be allowed at hazardous waste disposal sites. Since fencing is not always effective, additional measures may be necessary in order to achieve this Minimum Requirement.

10.2.3 Operating Plan

An Operating Plan is a site-specific document that will be developed as part of the Disposal Site Permit Application Procedure (see Figure 1 and figure 2). It describes the way in which the



disposal site is to be operated. In the case of a landfill, it will commence at the level and detail of daily cell construction and continue through to the projected development of the landfill with time. Everything pertaining to the operation of a disposal site should therefore be included in the Operating Plan, which is subject to regular update.

The complexity of the Operating Plan will vary with the class of site. This varies from a very simple plan, in the case of a G:S site, to a very detailed and sophisticated document for an H:H site.

The Operating Plan for a landfill site would include, inter alia, the phasing, the excavation sequence, manoeuvrability at the working face, maximum allowable landfill height, allowable slope gradients, the provision of wet weather cells, site access and drainage. It would describe the operation in detail and where salvaging takes place on site, this would be formally addressed (see Appendix 10.2).

Where a risk assessment and/or the design has been based on certain assumptions, these should be stated in the Operating Plan, to be managed or taken into account by the disposal site operator. Such assumptions may include the co-disposal ratio, characteristics of incoming waste or climatic conditions. It would also include all operation monitoring procedures (see Section 11.5) and a plan for mitigatory actions in response to problems detected by monitoring.

In drawing up the Operating Plan, the input of IAPs during the Feasibility Study and Permit Application Procedure must be taken into account. If necessary, certain issues, for example, the phasing of the operation, must be discussed and agreed with the IAPs, to whom access to the final plan will be given. In addressing the monitoring of operation, the Operating Plan must make reference to the role of the Monitoring Committee, which is to include IAPs (see Section 11).

Hazardous waste disposal sites

For all hazardous waste disposal sites, a Response Action Plan is required to form part of the

Operating Plan (see Section 7.3). The Response Action Plan will detail procedures to be followed in case of failure in the design or operation. It will also include an emergency evacuation plan. For hazardous waste sites, the Operating Plan must also address all items stipulated in the Major Hazard Installation Regulations, governed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993). All failure modes and effects must be quantified in a risk assessment, and on-site and off-site emergency plans developed.

10.2.4 Resources

Adequate facilities, equipment and suitably trained staff are required in order to ensure an ongoing environmentally acceptable waste disposal operation. It is therefore a Minimum Requirement that there be sufficient resources to meet the Minimum Requirements relating to the operation.

Infrastructure

The facilities at a disposal site will vary in accordance with the size of the operation. In the case of a G:C landfill site, only access control would be a Minimum Requirement. Larger landfill sites would typically have services such as water, sewerage, electricity, telephones, security and infrastructure such as weighbridges, site offices and plant shelters. In the case of hazardous waste landfills, an on-site laboratory would be a Minimum Requirement.

Plant and equipment

The plant and equipment on site must be commensurate with the size and type of the operation. The type of equipment employed for all phases of the operation must therefore be of suitable capacity and construction. Typically, larger landfill sites would have a combination of purpose-built landfill compactors, bulldozers, front-end loaders and trucks to transport cover material. In the case of smaller landfill sites, however, less would be required. For example, a small bulldozer or a tractor combination system would be sufficient to compact and cover waste at a G:S site.



The Minimum Requirement is to provide sufficient suitable equipment, drivers and back-up to ensure environmentally acceptable waste disposal at all times. The plant and equipment must provide the means whereby the waste can be disposed of in accordance with the Minimum Requirements. It must also be maintained in good order, so as not to cause nuisances such as noise and air pollution.

Staff

It is a Minimum Requirement that the operation of all disposal sites be carried out under the direction of a Responsible Person. This may be a gate controller in the case of a G:C site, a site foreman in the case of a G:S site, a site superintendent in the case of a G:M site and a landfill manager with a post-matric or tertiary qualification in the case of a G:L site. In the case of H:h sites and H:H sites, the Responsible Person must have the academic equivalent of a BSc Degree with a Chemistry major and suitable experience. He/she must also be fully au fait with the Hazard Rating system and its application.

The Responsible Person must, in all cases, be supported by suitably qualified and competent staff. This staff complement would be commensurate with the size and type of the operation, as well as with the facilities and plant involved.

In cases where salvaging takes place at a landfill, this must be rigidly controlled by a marshal and/or spotters. These people must be suitably trained and able to exercise authority, and will be responsible to the Permit Holder and/or Employer.

Sufficiently qualified staff and back-up are required to ensure that the Minimum Requirements relating to the operation are met. Where applicable, the Responsible Person must also ensure that the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993), are met, with regard to visitors and site staff.

10.3 Landfill Operation

Waste deposition is considered mainly in terms of sanitary landfill principles. In the case of hazardous waste, however, more stringent waste acceptance procedures, pre-treatment, co-disposal and encapsulation are addressed.

As indicated in Section 2, the majority of waste in South Africa is disposed of by landfill. Some 90% of this waste is general waste. The principles of sanitary landfilling and the variations on this method thus apply predominantly to general waste. These principles are, however, also applied to hazardous waste landfills in conjunction with other procedures, such as co-disposal, waste load allocations, pre-treatment etc.

10.3.1 Principles of sanitary landfilling

Landfills must be operated in accordance with the following sanitary landfill operating principles (see also Section 2.3.3):

- waste must be compacted, and - covered at the end of each day's operations.

Compaction

Compaction is best achieved if the waste is spread in thin layers and compacted by a purpose-built landfill compactor. This compaction procedure is a Minimum Requirement at G:M, G:L and hazardous waste disposal sites. At smaller sites, where purpose-built equipment is not available, the best practicable compaction is required. Where salvagers operate on a site, it is to be expected that the compaction process will be delayed. Methods of addressing this situation are presented in Appendix 10.2.

Daily cover The sanitary landfill definition specifies daily cover. It is therefore a Minimum Requirement that the waste be fully covered at the end of each working day. In certain instances, such as existing small or remote sites with a shortage of cover material, the Competent Authority may allow this Minimum Requirement to be appropriately



amended. The consent of the IAPs would, however, be necessary before relaxation could be considered.

Most sanitary landfill operations are based on a series of trenches or cells that are prepared to receive the waste. In either case, the general layout must be in accordance with the Operating Plan. Waste is deposited in trenches or cells, spread, compacted and covered, so that each day's waste is effectively isolated from the environment.

The material to be used for cover may be on-site soil or builders' rubble. With the approval of the Competent Authority, ash or other artificial covering can be used. In all cases, a strategic stockpile of cover, enough for at least three days, should be maintained close to the working face for use in emergencies. Suitable equipment and resources must also be available to ensure that there is sufficient cover material, so that no area is left uncovered at the end of the day's operation.

In the case of proposed sites, it is a Minimum Requirement in terms of both siting and design that provision be made for sufficient cover for a sanitary landfill operation, throughout the projected life of the facility.

It is a Minimum Requirement that daily or periodic cover be sufficient to isolate the waste from the environment. A minimum thickness equivalent to the effective covering of 150 mm of compacted soil is required. This thickness may, however, have to be increased in the case of poor quality cover. The presence of salvagers operating on a site and their need to prolong access to the waste should not compromise covering in terms of the Minimum Requirements. Methods of addressing this situation are presented in Appendix 10.2.

If the area is to be left for an extended period, but ultimately to be covered again with waste, the compacted thickness of this intermediate cover must be increased to 300 mm. This is not as thick as final cover, but affords the additional protection required in the longer term.

10.3.2 Methods of landfilling: General waste

Sanitary landfilling principles can be applied using the following methods:

Trench system

In Class G:C and G:S landfills, where relatively small volumes of waste are disposed of, trenches are often made in preference to cells. Such trenches must be excavated on an ongoing basis during the operation.

Nonetheless, this must always be done in accordance with the original design parameters and the Operating Plan. There must always be sufficient trench capacity on site to accommodate at least two week's waste.

Trenches must always be suitably fenced or protected, and off-loading must be such that persons or vehicles cannot accidentally fall into the excavation. Guidelines are provided in Section 10.4.5 and in Appendix 10.2 for sites where waste salvaging takes place.

Waste is deposited into the trench, spread and compacted as much as possible, until it reaches a depth of between 0,5 m and 1,0 m. With the trench method, daily covering is always a Minimum Requirement, as spoil from the excavation makes this possible.

Standard cell operation

The basic landfill unit is a cell of compacted waste which, when completed at the end of each day, is entirely contained by cover material. The sides are usually formed by 1,5 m to 2,0 m high berms, constructed from soil, rubble, or sloped waste covered by daily cover. A series of adjoining cells of the same height is termed a lift.

The working face is the active part of the landfill, where incoming vehicles deposit waste. The working face must be kept as small as possible for control and covering purposes. The width, however, is determined by the manoeuvring requirements of the vehicles depositing waste. It should thus be sufficiently wide to avoid traffic



congestion. There must also be sufficient cell capacity on site to accommodate at least one week's waste. Where waste salvaging takes place at a landfill, this system has to be modified to ensure the safety of the salvagers. This is elaborated upon in Section 10.4.5 and in Appendix 10.2.

Where the cell system is applied, best compaction results are obtained when the waste is deposited at the bottom of the working face and worked up a 1 in 3 slope. Cover is then deposited and spread on the top of the cell during the day and extended to cover the working face at the end of the day. This is termed the Ramp Method.

Wet weather cell

An easily accessible wet weather cell must be constructed close to the site entrance or close to an all weather road, for use under abnormally wet weather conditions. The wet weather cell must have sufficient capacity to accommodate one week's waste.

The cell should be constructed in the same manner as the standard cell. It should, however, have a well-drained gravel type base in order to ensure vehicle access in wet weather. As far as possible, the wet weather cell should be operated in the same manner as the standard cell.

Special cells for putrescible waste

Special cells may be constructed for the disposal of putrescible general wastes, food or restaurant wastes. Such waste should be deposited and covered immediately with a layer of soil at least 0,5 m thick. This is to prevent odours and to discourage uncontrolled salvaging. Alternatively, such waste may be deposited at the base of the working face and covered immediately with other waste. The latter method has the advantage of not disrupting the standard operation.

Methods other than cell operation

‘End tipping’ is the method whereby waste is pushed over the edge of an extended advancing face. This is not permitted on a normal landfill because it results in slope instability, minimal

compaction and many other related problems. Exceptions to this may include some G:C and G:S sites, where waste has to be end-tipped into trenches.

The Area Method may be used at certain waste disposal sites, where large volumes of non-putrescible dry general waste are disposed of and where compaction is not critical. This method involves the spreading of waste in a 0,5 m layer over a large area. Wastes suited to such disposal methods include ash, slag, rubble, bark and shredded fibre. This method differs from end tipping in that the waste is spread laterally in thin layers in a controlled manner, as opposed to being pushed haphazardly over an extended slope.

Co-disposal of sewage sludge

Sewage sludge may be co-disposed at appropriately lined and approved GMB+ and GLB+ disposal sites. The co-disposal ratio may not exceed 1:10 (mass of wet sewage sludge to mass of refuse), calculated on a daily basis and solids content of sewage sludge no less than 20% by mass.. The minimum solids content of 20% should be ensured through results from an accredited laboratory. The Permit Holder must verify the results before the sludge is accepted at an approved disposal site.

The following methods will be acceptable for sludge disposal:

• Area method: Spread sludge as a thin layer on waste body, cover with a relatively thin layer of waste and compact with landfill compactor to achieve reasonable mixing.

• Toe method: Spread the sludge in a layer at the toe of an advancing cell . Waste is placed at the top of the slope and compacted down the slope to cover the sludge.

• Trenching: Sludge is deposited in trenches and filled over with waste immediately after filling.

For the area and the toe disposal methods appropriate measures must be implemented to manage odour problems and fly infestations. For



the trenching method the following precautions should be considered:

• The spacing and orientation of trenches must be considered in 6-monthly stability assessments. As a precautionary principle the shear strength of sludge should be assumed to be zero.

• As a general rule, trench orientation should be perpendicular to the crest of a landfill and no trenching should occur within 30m of the crest.

• In calculating an acceptable co-disposal ratio in terms of leachate generation the effective degree of mixing that is achieved with trenching should be taken into account.

• It must be ensured that trenches in successive lifts of waste do not coincide in plan with any trench in the previous lift.

The ratio of 1:10 is an absolute maximum but sludge specific conditions may require a lower ratio (e.g., 1:20 or even lower). This possibility must be assessed by carrying out leaching tests according to the TCLP methodology outlined in Appendix 8.5 of Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste and following the procedure outlined in Section 8.4.2 of Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste.

10.3.3 Methods of landfilling: Hazardous waste

Hazardous wastes are disposed of on H:H or H:h landfills, depending on their hazard ratings.

H:H landfills are specifically designed to accept wastes of Hazard Rating 1 or 2. They may, however, also accept all other wastes, including those with Hazard Rating 3 or 4 and general waste.

H:h landfills are designed to accept hazardous waste with Hazard Rating 3 or 4. They may also accept general wastes, but they may not accept wastes with Hazard Rating 1 or 2. In cases where a waste is unidentified, the precautionary principle is applied and the worst case is assumed, see

Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. The waste would therefore be assigned a hazard rating of 1 and diverted to a H:H site.

It is a Minimum Requirement that hazardous waste landfills be designed and lined to the standards for H:H and H:h sites set out in Section 8.4.3 and Appendix 8.2. The requirements for hazardous waste site design and construction are intended to provide the most stringent level of containment. These requirements may apply to the whole site, to a specially lined or engineered cell, or to a section of the landfill designed specifically to accommodate hazardous waste.

Pre-treatment of hazardous wastes

The properties of certain hazardous wastes are such that they cannot be safely deposited directly into a landfill. In such cases, the wastes must be pre-treated to render them immobile, less toxic or less reactive. See also Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste.

A variety of treatment options exist. These are often interrelated but may be generally categorised into physical, chemical and biological treatment methods. Chemical processes include neutralisation, precipitation, fixation and oxidation. Physical processes include incineration, blending and encapsulation. Biological processes include aerobic and anaerobic degradation of organic materials. Once a waste has been pre-treated, the residue is disposed of in accordance with its hazard rating on an appropriate landfill.

Unidentified wastes are also regarded as unacceptable for landfilling and will require identification, followed by appropriate treatment, pre-treatment or encapsulation.

Delisting of hazardous wastes

Delisting of hazardous wastes involves treatment and/or hazard rating tests to confirm that the waste is of such low mobility or concentration, that it can be reclassified to a lower hazard rating. Such delisted wastes can then be safely disposed of on a



lower class of landfill. In this regard, however, the landfill may not have less than a G:M:B+ liner and leachate management system design.

Co-disposal

Co-disposal refers to the mixing of liquid and dry wastes or to the mixing of general and hazardous wastes. Permissible co-disposal ratios of dry waste to liquid can be calculated as set out in Appendix 3.4, Example 3.3.5.

Sewage sludge with Hazard Rating 1 must be disposed of at a H:H site. In exceptional cases, it may be disposed of on a H:h site, with written permission from the Competent Authority. This permission will specify volumes and other necessary parameters. Co-disposal of sewage sludge on a general waste landfill is dealt with in Section 10.4.2.

Liquid wastes are co-disposed with dry wastes so that the liquids can be absorbed and held by capillary action within the voids in the dry wastes. The preferred method of co-disposal is to mix the liquid and dry wastes uniformly at the allowed co-disposal ratio and then to spread and compact the mixture.

The method of co-disposal by creating trenches and pouring the liquid waste into the trenches to allow it to seep into the dry waste should be avoided as it results in random concentrations of liquid and possible generation of zones of pore pressure that may threaten the shear stability of the landfill. It is not possible to achieve a uniform co-disposal ratio by trenching, as the compacted waste is too heterogeneous to allow the liquid waste to seep away uniformly. If sludges are co-disposed by trenching, the solids deposited in the trenches represent zones of low shear strength, which may also threaten shear stability. The calculated co-disposal ratio is intended to apply uniformly over the whole of any landfill cell that is used for co-disposal of liquids. Every effort should be made to ensure that the liquids are co-disposed uniformly, without the formation of any zones in which the co-disposal ratio is less than that permitted. If the use of trenches is unavoidable, it must be ensured that

trenches in successive lifts of waste do not coincide in plan with any trench in the previous lift.

Miscellaneous

Three alternative types of waste disposal are grouped under this heading, as they do not constitute standard landfilling practice. These are mono-disposal, lagooning and encapsulation.

Mono-disposal refers to the disposal of a single waste type into a dedicated facility. Where a waste can be re-used, mono-disposal is a preferred option as it allows the waste to be easily reclaimed in the future. Mono-disposal may also be used as a way of delisting certain hazardous wastes, by ensuring that they are not disposed of with other wastes, which enhance their mobility. Although only one waste type is involved, a mono-disposal landfill must meet all the Minimum Requirements associated with its class.

Lagooning, which is the practice of disposing of liquid wastes in lined lagoons, is sometimes classed as landfilling. Although lagooning is considered to be beyond the scope of this document, Section 8 and Appendix 8.2 do refer to the design of lagoons. Since there are no set procedures for the operation of lagoons, it is a Minimum Requirement that such operations be approved by the Competent Authority prior to commencement, to ensure environmental and public health protection.

Encapsulation is the practice of containing waste in concrete capsules. This is because, on account of the extreme hazards involved, certain wastes cannot be disposed of directly into a landfill. Where encapsulation is practised, it is a Minimum Requirement that the Permit Holder submit the specifications to the Competent Authority for approval, prior to commencement (see Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Section 9.2.3.).

Standard operating procedures

It is a Minimum Requirement that the off-loading of hazardous waste and co-disposal operations be executed under the jurisdiction of the Responsible Person. The Responsible Person must ensure that



appropriate standard operating procedures are adhered to. Aspects include ensuring:

• the use of protective clothing (e.g., gloves, goggles and breathing apparatus) by workers

• that no incompatible wastes, for example those which could cause explosions or the generation of poisonous gas, (e.g., cyanide and hydrochloride acid) are co-disposed

• that the hazardous waste load allocation as specified in the Permit is not exceeded, see also Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste

• that the correct liquid/solid co-disposal ratio is adhered to

• immediate and/or daily covering

• that there are no free liquid surfaces left at the end of the day's operation.

It is also essential that the Responsible Person and the workers know and can execute the content and requirements of the Response Action Plan for the site, in case of an emergency.

10.3.4 Co-disposal

To regulate the practice of co-disposal, it is a Minimum Requirement that documentation be drawn up describing the waste load allocations and liquid co-disposal ratios. An operating procedure and a Response Action Plan, suitable for the hazardous waste disposal operation under consideration, are also Minimum Requirements. The waste load allocations, liquid co-disposal ratios, operating procedure and Response Action Plan must be written into the Environmental Impact Assessment Report. This must be presented to, and accepted by the Competent Authority before the operation commences.

Co-disposal of General and Hazardous waste

Where general waste is disposed of on hazardous waste landfills, the standard cell operations at a general waste landfill apply. Co-disposal could be by mixing general and hazardous waste at the working face; spreading on deposited waste prior to covering. Co-disposal by mixing in trenches should be avoided, as uniform mixing cannot be achieved by this method.

Co-disposal of liquid and solid waste

Any landfill where the co-disposal of liquids is permitted requires to be lined and equipped with a leachate management system that can contain, extract and preferably treat the resultant leachate flow.

Co-disposal operations must be managed so that areas of mixed co-disposed waste are trafficable and can be covered at the end of the working day.

If sewage sludge is to be co-disposed at a H:H landfill site, the sludge is to be regarded as hazardous waste and treated in the same way as the liquid waste described above.

Calculation of the site-specific solid/liquid co-disposal ratio

The variation of the co-disposal ratio, i.e., the ratio of solid to liquid waste, has both economic and environmental implications.

Increasing the volume of dry waste reduces leachate generation, potential environmental impacts and leachate management costs. However, the dry general waste uses up expensive landfill airspace associated with lined landfill sites. Reducing the volume of dry waste saves airspace utilisation, but creates a greater need for leachate management, including additional lined airspace for storage of leachate in leachate ponds. If too much liquid is disposed of, the situation could prove environmentally unacceptable and leachate management could become very expensive.

It is therefore in the interests of the landfill operator to optimise the co-disposal ratio by minimising the



sum of the airspace utilisation and liquid management costs. The co-disposal ratio used, however, must ensure that the operation is environmentally acceptable, i.e., that all leachate is managed and that there are no free liquid surfaces, causing odour and possibly air pollution problems. Also, the build up of a hydraulic head within the landfill can affect its stability and therefore must be avoided by operating the landfill at the appropriate co-disposal ratio.

In order to take site-specific factors into consideration and to allow efficient utilisation of additional liquid storage capacity in landfills situated in arid B- areas23, no co-disposal ratio is prescribed. The approach rather is to link co-disposal to the concept of the Water Balance and to limit leachate generation to manageable quantities, taking local climate into account. This applies to the co-disposal of hazardous liquids in hazardous waste landfills as well as the possible co-disposal of non-hazardous or delisted liquids at G:M:B+ and G:L:B+ sites.

It is therefore a Minimum Requirement that no more than 200 mm/year over the area of the waste body of leachate be generated at a given landfill site.

The rationale behind this approach is that a landfill that receives liquids in a B- climate will (all things being equal) produce less leachate than an identically operated landfill in a B+ climate. It is therefore possible to co-dispose of more liquid per ton of dry waste in a B- area without necessarily producing any more leachate than is produced under identical conditions in a B+ area.

In general, a landfill in a B- area may produce leachate sporadically, but will not necessarily produce leachate in an average year. However, in wetter B+ areas of the country, significant leachate will be produced even in a drier than average year, even if no liquids are co-disposed. In either case, the approach is to limit leachate generation to 200 mm/year over the area of the waste body, or to

23 Any landfill in a B- area that practices co-disposal must be equipped with an appropriate liner and leachate management system.

a figure for which the leachate treatment capacity may be designed.

Because there may be an existing or future need to dispose of liquid wastes in wet areas, a nominal limit to leachate produced, under typical wet season weather conditions at any co-disposal site, is set at 200 mm per year. This allows for limited co-disposal of liquid wastes in wet areas such as Richards Bay, but very much more effective liquid waste co-disposal in drier areas such as Gauteng.

The limit of 200 mm per year is a figure that will ensure socially and environmentally acceptable conditions. It may only be exceeded if it can be shown that the overall design of the landfill, the leachate management system and the leachate treatment system can easily accommodate this flow.

Regardless of the co-disposal ratio used or the amount of leachate generated, it is a Minimum Requirement that there be no free liquid surfaces on the landfill and that the fill be trafficable.

Refer to Appendix 3.4, example 3.4.5 for the method of calculating the co-disposal ratio.

10.3.5 Disposal of health care wastes

The disposal of health care waste at any landfill site is prohibited. Treatment of health care waste is a prerequisite to disposal through incineration or an alternative approved technology (also see Appendix 9.1 in Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, 2005). The residue must be disposed of under dry conditions at an approved hazardous waste site, unless agreed otherwise with the Competent Authority.

In the event of an emergency, and in the interests of public health and the environment, however, the Competent Authority will consider applications for the disposal of health care risk waste into a specially constructed dry cell within an approved site. Such disposal would be under controlled conditions and for a limited period of time, and it is



a Minimum Requirement that the Competent Authority be approached for directives in this regard and that all key role players and IAPs be consulted.

Where past practice has been to dispose of health care risk waste on general waste landfills, the Competent Authority must be informed and consulted for directives for the future management of the situation. Where salvagers operate on a site, disposal of medical waste is not allowed in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993, (Act 85 of 1993) (see the Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Section 9.4.1.).

10.4 Other Elements of Landfill Operation

10.4.1 Excavation for cover

Where cover is excavated on site, the Responsible Person must ensure that the separation between the floor of the excavation and the wet season high elevation of the ground water, as specified in the design, is maintained (see Section 8.2.2). This will ensure that an adequate separation between the future waste body and the ground water will be maintained, should the excavation be used for waste disposal in the future.

Excavations must also be properly drained to avoid ponding of accumulated surface water, especially near the waste body. Where the base of such an excavation forms the base of the landfill, it should be sloped to direct leachate to a control point. In all cases, but particularly in the case of B+ and hazardous waste landfills, the base should also be appropriately lined (see Section 8.4.3).

10.4.2 Drainage

The principles of landfill site drainage are as follows:

• Upslope run-off water must be diverted away from the waste, to prevent water contamination and to minimise leachate generation.

• Where contaminated water or leachate does arise on a site, it must be managed. This means that it must be kept out of the environment. This also applies to the drainage from wash bays and spills at hazardous waste landfills.

• Clean, uncontaminated run-off water must not be permitted to mix with, and increase the volume of, contaminated water.

The principles of the main drainage system are presented in the site design (see Section 8.4.1). All upslope cut-off and toe drains must be in place before the landfill is commissioned.

The following are Minimum Requirements:

• Run-off and storm water must always be diverted around one or both sides of the waste body, by a system of berms and/or cut-off drains.

• Water contaminated by contact with waste, as well as leachate, must be contained within the site. If it is to be permitted to enter the environment, it must conform or be treated so as to conform to the Special or General Effluent Standards in terms of the Permit. [Ref. Government Gazette, No. 9225, 18 May 1984].

• The bases of trenches and cells must be so designed that water drains away from the deposited waste. Alternatively, cells must be so orientated as to facilitate drainage away from deposited waste. The resulting contaminated water, together with all other contaminated run-off arising from the landfill, must be stored in a sump or retention dam. It may be pumped from the dam and disposed of if it conforms to the Special, General or Specific Effluent Standards stipulated in the Permit.

• A 0,5 m freeboard, designed for the 1 in 100 year flood event, must always be maintained in the case of contaminated water impoundments and drainage trenches.



• All temporarily and finally covered areas must be graded and maintained to promote run-off without excessive erosion and to eliminate ponding or standing water.

• Clean, uncontaminated water, which has not been in contact with the waste, must be allowed to flow off the site into the natural drainage system, under controlled conditions.

• All drains must be maintained. This involves ensuring that they are not blocked by silt or vegetation.

10.4.3 Management of landfill height and slope gradients

A stable final landfill height will have been determined in the design process, discussed with IAPs, and approved by the Competent Authority. The final landfill height is generally included as a permit condition. Similarly, appropriate slopes will be designed, and the Permit will either specify an acceptable gradient, or refer to safe maintenance of slopes. The landfill operator must ensure, through proper controls on the operation, that the allowable final landfill height is not exceeded, and that safe side slopes are maintained. To this end, regular surveys and the use of batter boards on site are recommended to check the landfill height and side slope gradients.

In addition, the operator must ensure that the means by which the final landfill height and safe outer slopes were determined are not changed, or where changes do occur, the impacts on stability (and potentially loading) are considered. Changes could include the co-disposal ratio used (this could impact the loading rate and the water balance) and changes to the incoming waste streams, with wastes of different characteristics being accepted (this could impact the water balance and stability).

10.4.4 Control of nuisances

Nuisances resulting from the landfill operation should be controlled as follows:

Burning of waste

At present, the burning of waste takes place at many small landfills in South Africa, to reduce the volume of waste and its attraction to vermin and livestock. The burning of waste is considered unacceptable, however, because of aesthetics, odours, and the potential of health dangers from air pollution. On account of these adverse impacts, therefore, the Competent Authority prohibits the burning of waste at landfill sites.

Possible exceptions to this Minimum Requirement would be G:C and G:S landfills in rural areas, provided that they are at least a 1,000 m downwind of residential areas. In such cases, special permission to burn waste must be obtained. This would be subject to the acceptance of the IAPs, the local authority and the Competent Authority.

Where burning is permitted, proper procedures must be followed to protect public health and safety, and to prevent the degradation of the environment as reflected in relevant legislation, for example the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004. Efficient burning to obtain complete combustion without smouldering would therefore be a Minimum Requirement and all relevant occupational safety requirements would have to be met. Details and guidelines in this regard are included in Appendix 10.1.

Accidental fires on landfills where burning is not permitted must be extinguished immediately. Appropriate operational procedures, involving the spreading and smothering of burning waste, rather than the application of water, must be implemented.

At a hazardous waste landfill site, a major fire may be classified as major incident in terms of the Major Hazard Installation Regulations governed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993). The employer shall therefore implement all items of these regulations, which include, among others, a risk assessment and development of on-site and off-site emergency



plans. The risk assessment must include studies on dispersion of possible hazardous combustion products and on-site and off-site exposure levels.

Litter

It is a Minimum Requirement that all litter be contained within the site. This may be achieved by applying the sanitary landfill principles of compaction and cover. On sites characterised by high winds, however, movable litter fences are a Minimum Requirement. Windblown litter must be picked up and removed from fences and vegetation on a daily basis.

Odours

Odours must be combated by good cover application and maintenance. Furthermore, the prompt covering of malodorous waste to reduce odour problems is a Minimum Requirement. In extreme cases, odour suppressants such as spray curtains may be required.

Where breaches in the cover from which significant volumes of landfill gas escape are identified by their odour, proper investigation is a Minimum Requirement. This may be followed by properly engineered passive or active gas venting and flaring, to alleviate odour problems.

Noise

All equipment used on site must conform to the local authority’s by-laws concerning noise levels and hours of operation. In the absence of by-laws, national regulations on noise control must be complied with.

Vermin and disease vectors

It is a Minimum Requirement that landfill sites be kept free of vermin. Appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate or minimise disease vectors such as rats or flies.

Dust

Unsurfaced roads and ungrassed or unpaved areas that give rise to dust problems must be regularly

watered to restrict dust to levels that do not pose a nuisance to workers or users of the facility.

10.4.5 Waste salvaging

This section must be read in conjunction with Appendix 10.2, Waste Salvaging, especially the section pertaining to Landfill Operation.

Waste separation and recovery at source (i.e., at the waste generator's premises) is recognised in South Africa and internationally24 as the most efficient way of reclaiming from the waste stream. Waste generators producing reclaimable material should therefore be identified and wherever possible reclamation should take place before the waste arrives at the disposal site.

At present, both uncontrolled and controlled salvaging takes place at many landfills. While the ethic of salvaging from the waste stream is supported, salvaging at landfills can endanger the health and safety of the salvagers. On account of the risks to health and safety, therefore, the Competent Authority discourages uncontrolled waste salvaging at landfill sites and wishes to see salvaging at disposal sites gradually brought to an end. In the interim, however, the Competent Authority wish to professionalise salvaging to ensure the dignity and protection of salvagers.

24 Surveys in Johannesburg [REF: Jarrod Ball & Associates Consortium, December 2001,"Informal Salvagers Survey on the Landfills of the City of Johannesburg", Report No. 1b, Danced Environmental Capacity Building Project, Johannesburg] have shown that approximately 2% of the total waste stream entering a landfill is reclaimed by salvagers. The potential for waste reclamation is approximately 45%. Source separation is recognised internationally as the most efficient way of reclaiming from the waste stream. Some local authorities encourage householders to separate and place their (dry) recyclable materials in an issued coloured bag (separation at source). At the landfill, the salvagers focus on these bags and salvaging efficiency improves.

Source salvagers also focus on them, thus reducing the recyclable components in the waste reaching landfill. Waste separation at source is therefore encouraged, first because it is in line with sound recycling principles and second because it could eventually reduce the occurrence of salvaging at the landfills, as ‘landfill’ salvagers become ‘source’ salvagers.



It is a Minimum Requirement that no waste salvaging be permitted at hazardous waste sites or general waste sites where co-disposal of sewage sludge is practiced.

In the case of general waste sites, the Permit Holder may exercise some discretion regarding whether salvaging is permitted or not. At a new facility or a facility where no salvaging takes place, it is the Permit Holder’s right to refuse to allow salvaging on site. Where de facto salvaging has begun, the Permit Holder may either eliminate it, which is difficult, or accommodate the salvagers in terms of the Minimum Requirements.

In all cases, salvaging must be authorised in the Permit. In the case of an existing site with a Permit, this may require application for an amendment. For new sites, this would be included in the Permit Application. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993, (Act 85 of 1993), responsibility for the safety of any salvagers on the site vests with the Permit Holder and/or Employer, who will be required to enter into an indemnity agreement with the Competent Authority.

Detailed guidelines to ensure safe and controlled working conditions for salvagers are provided in Appendix 10.2.

It is a Minimum Requirement that any waste salvage operation be formalised in the Landfill Operating Plan. This would include regular interaction and consultation between the Permit Holder and/or Employer and the salvagers. It also includes registration of salvagers and the provision of appropriate safety measures. Safety measures would include the maintenance of an appropriate buffer zone, and the physical separation of salvagers from compaction and covering activities at the active working face using trained marshals and spotters. Alternatively, salvaging facilities outside the active working area could be provided. In either event, it is a Minimum Requirement that the operator ensures strict control of the salvaging operation and there is adequate signposting to identify the active (working) and passive (salvager)

cells. The operator must also provide protective clothing, drinking water, and ablution and sanitation facilities. (See Appendix 10.2 for details).

10.4.6 Leachate management

In B+ disposal sites, significant leachate is generated and leachate management is mandatory. The design for such sites will include a leachate management system. As with the drainage system, the leachate management system for a landfill site requires to be maintained and continuously adapted and developed, as the landfill develops.

Where treatment of leachate is involved, a whole separate operating procedure must also be adhered to. This procedure would be written up in the Operating Plan (see Section 8.4.4. and Appendix 8.8).

At B– sites, any sporadic leachate generated on account of unusual circumstances must be reported to the Competent Authority and properly controlled (see Section 10.4.2). This could also include leachate recycling.

10.4.7 Gas Management Monitoring and Control

A Gas Management Plan is not required at the design stage of a landfill site, as the landfill gas produced at this stage may not be at levels that pose a potential risk to human health or the environment. Such a plan may, however, be required during the operational and closure stages should the landfill gas produced be considered a risk. Levels of landfill gas that indicate potential risk and the need for gas management are provided in Appendix 10.3.

Landfill gas management includes any activity or system that manages the risks associated with the generation, migration or accumulation of landfill gas.

Landfill gas monitoring allows for quantifying and assessing the risks associated with the generation, migration, or accumulation of landfill



10.4.9 Final cover

Immediately on completion of an area, the final cover must be applied. The thickness of the final cover must be consistent and in accordance with the design (see Appendix 8.2). The final cover must comprise material capable of supporting the vegetation called for in the End-use Plan. In order to prevent erosion and improve aesthetics, re-vegetation should commence as soon as possible after applying the final cover.

gas and, where control measures are in place, monitoring the performance of the system.

Gas control measures include containment, collection and treatment. The method of gas control will depend on the landfill development and, where appropriate, the collection system, condensate management, utilisation, flaring and treatment, inspection, maintenance and servicing. These measures are decided upon under the guidance of the Competent Authority.

Where a gas management system exists at a site (see Section 8.4.4), it must be correctly operated, maintained and monitored to ensure that any landfill gas emanating from the site is properly managed.

10.4.8 Progressive remediation of completed areas

The progressive remediation of landfills by means of capping and the subsequent establishment of vegetation is a Minimum Requirement. Capping should be implemented on all areas where no further waste deposition will take place, and vegetation should commence as soon as possible.

Screening berms are the first areas where vegetation must be established. This ensures that waste disposal operations take place behind vegetated berms. These are extended upwards in advance of the disposal operation to ensure continued screening. This is referred to as the ‘rising green wall’ approach.

To minimize erosion of the outer slopes of the landfill and to facilitate remediation and maintenance, outer slopes must be no steeper than 1 on 3 (18o). All slopes must be subdivided by storm water control berms at vertical intervals of no more than 10 m. Berms must be a minimum of 3 m wide and must be accessible for vehicles via ramps sloping at not more than 1 on 5 to allow for the passage of fire-fighting and other emergency and service vehicles. Storm water must be drained from the berms and access ramps by means of erosion resistant lined channels. See also Section 8.5.

All covered surfaces on the landfill must be so graded as to promote run-off to prevent ponding. Re-vegetation must commence as soon as is practically possible after the final cover has been placed, in order to remediate on an ongoing basis.

The final levels and profile of the landfill must include allowances for post-closure settlement. Refer to Appendix 8.1 for the method of calculating these allowances.

10.5 Public Participation in the Operation

As noted in Appendix 4.1, the standard of operation at a given disposal site may be monitored and enforced by a Monitoring Committee. This should comprise representatives of the Competent Authority and the Department, the operator and representatives of those affected by the site. Where salvaging takes place on a site, ‘those affected by the site' includes salvagers. They must therefore be represented on the Monitoring Committee (see Appendix 10.2).



The objective of this committee is to provide a mechanism whereby the needs and concerns of the IAPs can be addressed in the operation of the facility. In the interests of transparency, IAPs should, through the Monitoring Committee, be given access to the site and information relating to the operation, including the results of gas monitoring.

10.6 Hazardous Waste Lagoons

As discussed in Section 8, lagooning is not regarded as a form of landfilling. Nonetheless, hazardous waste lagoons are controlled under Section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) amended by the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003).

This form of disposal is not encouraged, and is regarded as an exception. Operating procedures for lagooning have not yet been drawn up. Consequently, the Responsible Person should liaise with the Competent Authority regarding the operation of lagoons. Lagoons can only be considered for approval if nuisance related odours or hazardous vapours do not arise from the evaporating liquid.



TABLE 10 Minimum Requirements for Landfill Operation


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





n/a = Not applicable

C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+

Facilities & Resources R

R R R R Signposting

R R R R R

All weather roads N F R R N F R R R R

Controls R

Waste acceptance procedure R R

R R R R R R R

Fencing R R R R R R R R R R

Control of vehicle access R R R R R R R R R R

Site security N N F F F F R R R R

Operating Plan N N R R R R R R R R

Response action plan N N N N F F F F R R

Waste load allocations N N N N N F N R F R

Liquid co-disposal ratios N N N N N F N F R R

Encapsulation specifications N N N N N N N N R R

Resources & Infrastructure

Weighbridge N

N

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

Collection of waste disposal tariffs

N N F F R R R R R R

Site office N N R R R R R R R R Laboratory N N N N N N N N R R Adequate plant and equipment R R R R R R R R R R

Responsible Person R R R R R R R R R R




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste






C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Sufficient qualified staff R R R R R R R R R R

Landfill Operation Compaction of waste

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Daily cover F F R R R R R R R R

Two week's cell or trench capacity

R R R R R R R R R R

Management of landfill height and slope gradients

N N R R R R R R R R

Protection of unsafe excavations

R R R R R R R R R R

One week's wet weather cell capacity

N N F R R R R R R R

Immediate covering of putrescibles

R R R R R R R R R R

End-tipping prohibited N N N N R R R R R R

Three days stockpile of cover F F R R R R R R R R

Final cover R R R R R R R R R R

Uncontrolled waste salvaging prohibited

R R R R R R R R R R

Any salvaging operation on site to be authorised, formalized in the Operating Plan, and to meet the objectives and requirements set out in Appendix 10.2.

R R R R R R R R n/a n/a

No salvaging at an active working face. Marshals and spotters to control the operation


All bona fide salvagers to be registered and given ID


Protective clothing provided for and worn by salvagers


Protective clothing for workers R R R R R R R R R R




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste






C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Clearly inform operators, contractors, workers, salvagers and regarding gas hazards (see other Section 9.9)

Control of nuisances R R R R R R R R R R

Waste burning prohibited F F F F R R R R R R

Draining water away from the waste

R R R R R R R R R R

Contaminated run-off contained F F F F R R R R R R

Leachate contained N F F R F R F R R R

Storm water diversion measures R R R R R R R R R R

0,5 m freeboard for diversion and impoundments

F F R R R R R R R R

Grading cover/avoiding ponding

R R R R R R R R R R

General site maintenance R R R R R R R R R R

Sporadic leachate reporting R R R R R R R R R R

Landfill gas control N N F F F F F F F F

Remediation and vegetation F R F R R R R R R R

11. OPERATION MONITORING


Section 11 OPERATION MONITORING

11.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for landfill operation monitoring are summarised in Table 11, at the end of this section.

• To function as a control measure to ensure that the operation conforms to the required standards.

• To serve as an early warning system, so that any problems that arise can be timeously identified and rectified.

Monitoring serves to quantify any effect of the operation on the environment, especially the water regime, and act as an early warning system, so that any problems that arise can be identified and rectified. Such problems would include malfunctioning drainage systems, cracks in the cover, leaking liners, and ground or surface water pollution. Any problems identified must be rectified as soon as possible.

11.2 Background

• The Competent Authority undertakes routine inspections of disposal sites throughout the country and identifies unacceptable situations.

The Minimum Requirements for operation monitoring for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration areas are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

The general objective of operation monitoring is to verify that all aspects of the disposal site, including any leachate management and treatment systems, conform to the required standards and the site Permit conditions. More specific objectives are:

• To ensure that the accepted site design is properly implemented.

• To quantify any effect that the operation has on the environment and, in particular, any effect on the water regime.

The standards referred to in the second objective are those required by the Minimum Requirements and the Permit. In the case of a landfill, they might include the proper compaction and covering of waste, the integrity of drainage systems and the consideration of site impact.

In addition, monitoring serves as a performance indicator, and hence as a control or management tool, for the disposal site operator. In this context, monitoring is a general term. Monitoring may be carried out by means of site inspections or audits, data collection, sampling, analysis and interpretation. It also involves monitoring the response of IAPs.

At present, there are six ways in which disposal sites may be monitored or audited:

• A disposal site Monitoring Committee that includes IAPs may be formed to assist in monitoring site operations, to identify problems and to keep the public informed of activities/developments at the site (see Appendix 11.1 and Appendix 11.2). Monitoring Committees are a Minimum Requirement at all hazardous and large sites.

11: OPERATION MONITORING


• Clients frequently audit the operation of private sector hazardous waste disposal sites to ensure that their waste is being properly disposed of. This is because they remain responsible for the waste that they generate, in terms of the Duty of Care principle.

•

• The Institute of Waste Management may be used by a Permit Holder to audit a site for the purposes of accreditation.

• Permit Holders use consultants to conduct external audits of their facilities or to monitor their operations or those undertaken by contractors on their behalf. It is a Minimum Requirement, for example, that all hazardous (H) and large (L) landfills have two external audits each year.

Finally, Permit Holders may undertake internal inspections or audits of their own facilities.

The above applications of auditing, or monitoring, may be used individually or in various combinations. However, they all provide means of control. Minimum Requirements for auditing and monitoring of disposal facilities are addressed in a separate document as part of the Waste Management Series (see Minimum Requirements for Waste Management Facility Auditing).

11.3 The Required Extent and Frequency of Monitoring

The extent and frequency of monitoring will depend on the site classification and will be indicated in the Permit. It is the duty of the Responsible Person to ensure that the Minimum Requirements for operation monitoring are applied to a degree commensurate with the class of disposal site, the situation under consideration and the risk of polluting the environment, more specifically the water regime. See also Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of this document, and Section 5 of the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities. Given that transfer stations, materials recovery plants and waste storage areas often have less of a buffer zone than

landfills, the potential for impacts from these facilities on surrounding communities is significantly higher compared to landfills.

Monitoring must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority and the Department, and the Responsible Person may be required to provide additional information. This could include detail about airspace utilisation and cover volumes used or waste stream data analyses. The information required would be determined by site-specific needs and the Responsible Person would have to liaise with the Competent Authority in this regard.

11.4 Disposal Site Auditing

The waste disposal operation is usually monitored by means of a site audit. All disposal sites should be audited and inspected to ensure the maintenance of acceptable standards.

At hazardous waste landfills, the audit committee may consist of the Permit Holder or the Responsible Person, the Competent Authority, the Department and, where applicable, the relevant consultant(s). In some instances, IAPs from the Monitoring Committee may also be included. At general waste landfills, the audit committee may be reduced. All audit committees should be set up in consultation with the Competent Authority.

The initial frequency of the audit must be agreed upon by all the parties concerned, during the planning stages when the IAPs are consulted. For landfill sites, audits should occur at twelve month intervals for small sites, six month intervals for medium sites, three month intervals for large sites and monthly intervals for hazardous waste sites. Where problems occur, this frequency may be reviewed in consultation with the Competent Authority and the IAPs.

General aspects of a disposal site audit would include consideration of site security, site access, condition of roads and traffic control. The actual waste deposition at a landfill would be addressed in terms of cell construction, waste deposition, spreading, compaction and covering. At hazardous



waste sites, pretreatment and co-disposal would also be addressed.

Operating procedures as specified in the Operating Plan would also be carefully appraised, as would aspects such as drainage, landfill height25, outer slope gradient, litter control and aesthetics. Where there are salvagers on site, the audit must address this aspect of the operation, see Appendix 10.2 and the Minimum Requirements for Training, Auditing and Operation for Disposal Sites.

All site-specific Permit conditions and design requirements would be addressed. Where a risk assessment and/or the design have been based on certain assumptions, the management of those factors for which assumptions have been made should be audited. These could include the co-disposal ratio, characteristics of incoming waste and climatic conditions. The management of such factors must be included in the Operating Plan, so that the document can be used as one of the audit criteria.

The audit programme should include the following:

- A report on the findings of the audit

A record of any identified problem areas and the recommended actions to rectify these problems must be submitted to the Responsible Person for implementation.

- A checklist of items to be audited

- A record of performance.

The audit results must be made available to the IAPs through the Disposal Site Monitoring Committee, so that any problems identified can be discussed and addressed. In the case of salvaging, this may include interacting with the Salvagers

25 Landfill height must be monitored and audited during the course of the landfill operation, to ensure that it does not exceed the final landfill height. Where assumptions have been made during the design phase in establishing the likely stability of a landfill when achieving a certain final landfill height, these must be monitored to ensure that the assumptions made are reasonable and that there are no evident threats to stability before final landfill height is reached.

Auditing should also include evaluation of the effectiveness of the buffer zone, with particular reference to the ongoing development of land in the vicinity of the disposal site. Compliance regarding buffer zone restrictions will be enforced through local town planning or zoning. The Competent Authority may report any transgression to the regulating authority (usually the local authority) who, in turn, will take steps in terms of the ruling legislation. This may include a Court Order to prohibit the ongoing transgression.

11.5 Other Monitoring

Committee, see Appendix 10.2. A record of complaints received and actions taken must also be maintained.

Where the Permit Holder is not the registered owner of the land on which the buffer zone exists, the responsibility to remedy a land use transgression will primarily rest with the owner of the land. However, the notarial deed of servitude will place a specific responsibility on the Permit Holder to report any land use transgressions within the buffer zone. The buffer zone also remains the responsibility of the Permit Holder as a result of the conditions imposed as part of the Permit.

In addition to the disposal site audit, monitoring may comprise the collection, processing and interpretation of certain data. The required data, the format and the frequency with which it must be presented to Competent Authority would be specified in the Permit conditions. Most of the procedures outlined here would be included in the Operating Plan, which would also make provision for certain actions to be taken in response to any problems identified during monitoring.

11.5.1 Gate or weighbridge recording procedures

Disposal site operators, facility users and the Competent Authority will all require waste disposal records for different reasons. Over and above the measurement of incoming waste for commercial purposes, records are also necessary for site



management and control. Such records are obtained from record keeping at the gate or weighbridge.

The method of waste recording must be appropriate to the nature and the volume of the wastes entering the site. Such databases are sometimes termed ‘dynamic records’. The degree of sophistication required will be dependent on the class of site involved. In general, however, records must be kept of all waste entering the site. Waste must be categorised by the number of loads (defined by volume or mass), the type of waste and the source. Hazardous waste must also be defined in terms of its hazard rating (see Section 3). Records must be kept on both a daily and a cumulative basis. Such historically factual records are sometimes termed ‘static records’. These should be maintained and archived.

With the accumulation of records, a database must be established and maintained at the disposal site. In the case of hazardous waste landfills, this must be extended to the recording of the position of all hazardous waste disposed on site, on a weekly basis, in terms of both plan and elevation, i.e., in three dimensions. In the case of the encapsulation of waste with a Hazard Rating of 1, the exact co-ordinates of the encapsulation cells must be recorded.

11.5.2 Volume, height and slope surveys

At all landfills, some idea of the remaining volumetric capacity is required. In the case of G:C and G:S landfills, distances may be paced or tape-measured. At all other landfills, however, surveys must be performed with the appropriate instruments and accuracy. The entire site must be surveyed prior to commencement of waste disposal and annually thereafter. The surveys performed must also be used to monitor landfill height and outer slope gradients.

11.5.3 Collection and processing of other data

Climatic data

Certain climatic statistics must be collected and analysed for control purposes and for the successful operation of landfills where co-disposal of waste with high moisture content or liquids takes place. These may include rainfall from rain gauges, wind speed and direction, and A-pan evaporation rates. Such information would provide the insight required to manage the site water balance.

Data must also be collected and recorded on a monthly basis for leachate flows and leachate levels in piezometers situated near leachate collection points (see Appendix 8.2, Section A.8.2.2.). This is required for all GLB+, H:h and H:H landfills. This information, together with the climatic data mentioned above must be used to check the site water balance for the landfill on a six monthly basis, followed by a report to the Competent Authority. Particular attention must be paid to any liquid quantities that cannot be accounted for, particularly if liquid outputs appear to be less than the corresponding inputs. Leachate levels, as indicated by the piezometers, should remain within the thickness of the leachate drainage layer (the layer(s) in Figures A.8.5, A.8.6 and A.8.7).

Slope movement data

Any slope of landfilled waste that exceeds 30 m in height, or sites described in Section 11.5.7, must be monitored for movement, and the observed movements must be considered and analysed to ensure that the slope is safe from shear failure.

To monitor slope movement, lines of steel survey pegs set in concrete must be established along the toe and crest of the slope and at approximate mid-height. A landfill slope should have several intermediate berms that can be used to establish the movement-survey pegs. Pegs should be spaced longitudinally at 50 m intervals or as advised by the Responsible Person to suit actual site topography. Monitoring consists of levelling each peg with reference to a stable benchmark and establishing its



plan position (both to an accuracy of ± 10 mm). The data is then used cumulatively to record vectors of maximum movement for each peg in plan and in elevation. Observed maximum movement vectors should be compared with calculated movements based on analyses of the deformation of the slope. These could be analyses based on limit state equilibrium or they could be finite element analyses. In either case, they should incorporate realistic stress-strain parameters for the landfilled waste.

Surveys and movement analyses should be carried out 6-monthly, followed by a report to the Competent Authority

The Permit Holder must ensure regular sampling and analysis of ground and surface water, leachate, and the effluent, sludges or concentrates from any treatment system. The Permit Holder must also ensure interpretation of the findings. Records must be maintained of any impact caused by the disposal operation on the quality of the water regime in the vicinity of the site. This is required in terms of the Permit conditions. Additional samples may be taken at other times, if this is considered necessary.

11.5.5 Gas monitoring

While gas monitoring is a Minimum Requirement at all hazardous and large landfills, monitoring systems must be installed whenever potential gas problems exist (see Section 8.2.3). These must be monitored at 3-monthly intervals during the operation and at the discretion of the Competent Authority after site closure. If the soil gas methane concentrations exceed 1% by volume at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), the Competent Authority must be informed.

Methane levels on landfill boundaries should not exceed 5% in air (i.e., the LEL).

11.5.4 Leachate and water quality monitoring (see Section 13)

Leachate and water quality monitoring is also addressed in Section 13 of this document and the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities.

Landfill gas has a distinctive and unpleasant odour, which is frequently the reason for complaints by IAPs. Landfill gas can, however, also result in an explosion hazard, where methane gas reaches concentrations of between 5 % and 15 % by volume of atmospheric gas composition. The risk of gas explosion must therefore be continually monitored. If monitoring indicates that there is any safety risk on account of landfill gas accumulation and/or migration, controls must be considered in consultation with the Competent Authority.

Methane concentration in the atmosphere inside buildings on or near the site should not exceed 1% (by volume) in air, i.e., 20% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL). If the methane levels are found to be between 0,1% and 1% in air (i.e., between 2% and 20% of the LEL) then regular monitoring must be instituted. If levels above 1% (i.e., 20% of LEL) are detected, then the building must be evacuated and trained personnel consulted.

If the methane levels are found to be between 0,5% and 5% in air (i.e., between 10% of LEL and LEL) then regular monitoring of the boundary must be instituted. If the methane levels are found to be greater than 5% in gas probes around the boundary, then monitoring should be initiated and an investigation to determine lateral migration should be commissioned.

Apart from explosion potential, however, landfill gas also contains a wide range of volatile organic compounds that are classified as hazardous air pollutants. Where significant landfill gas is present, therefore, samples must be taken at various positions at the landfill site, and characterised for volatile organic compounds. Sampling can be direct at gas wells, or using the techniques outlined in Section 11.5.6. The volatile organic compound compositions of the landfill gas must then be subjected to occupational and environmental health risk assessments. This must be done at the discretion of the Competent Authority to ensure against unacceptable health risks to workers or communities.



Gas monitoring should continue after landfill closure, until the Competent Authority is satisfied that landfill gas no longer represents a risk.

11.5.6 Air quality monitoring

At all landfills there is some risk of dust and the escape of contaminants by wind action (see Figure 16). Hazardous air pollutants may therefore be dispersed from a landfill site as dust, or as gaseous substances. These have to be monitored separately.

Dust monitoring

Because of many sources of dust and variations in wind characteristics and other meteorological parameters, ambient air monitoring for dust concentrations at landfill sites has limitations. It is preferable to characterise the possible sources of dust on the landfill site in terms of hazardous metals, anions, and semi-volatile organic compounds that are normally particulate-associated, and then to model dispersion. This approach entails sampling of dust that can be suspended. The approach should ensure statistically that samples are representative of all possible sources of hazardous substances.

Chemical analyses must cover all substances that may be relevant to the materials and activities, using validated methods in a formal quality assurance structure. Mathematical modelling of dust released from an area source, using the source profiles of hazardous substances, must then be conducted to provide the necessary information to assess human exposure and health risks. The mathematical dispersion modelling has to be done at the beginning of the monitoring programme, and the model can then be used with new input data after each analytical survey. The on-site dust at the landfill site must be characterised at least once per year, or more frequently when activities on the site may change the dust compositions.

The Competent Authority may request analyses of dust sources followed by mathematical dispersion modelling and human health risk assessment at more frequent intervals if hazardous substances are present at levels that may lead to unacceptable health risks to workers or communities.

Monitoring for releases of volatile substances

Volatile substances include organic and inorganic substances. These may be released as constituents in the landfill gas, or through mass transfer from the liquid or solid phases of the waste to the gas phase.

There are four basic approaches for assessing emission rates of hazardous substances from landfill sites, namely:

(i) Direct measurement technologies

(ii) Indirect measurement technologies

(iii) Fenceline monitoring and modelling technologies

(iv) Predictive emission modelling

Direct measurement using a surface emission isolation flux chamber is the preferred technique in the USA for characterising area source facilities with hazardous fugitive emissions. It is also recommended for use in South Africa. It can be used on any liquid or solid surfaces that are accessible for testing. The location and number of test points must be adequate to enable calculation of the emission rates of substances from the total area. Sampling and analysis must cover the complete range of substances that are relevant to the source. The data must then be used in a mathematical dispersion model to predict exposure levels for quantifying occupational and environmental health risks.

Sampling and analytical techniques that are used to monitor emission rates of hazardous substances must satisfy data quality objectives, i.e., the technologies must be applicable for testing area source emission rates, and must account for the key factors that influence the variability in the area source estimate. The frequency of sampling and analysis would depend on the level of identified risk, but must be at least once per year when activities and waste profiles do not change. After changes that could influence the emissions profiles, measurements must be made to establish the new



profiles and associated occupational and environmental health risks.

11.5.7 Monitoring of landfill stability

For landfills where stability is a concern, landfills with steep and/or high slopes, landfills situated on steep terrain, and landfills where co-disposal of liquids is practiced or wastes with high moisture contents are accepted, monitoring of stability is a Minimum Requirement. Regular stability assessments are to be carried out annually for such sites by a professional engineer, or more frequently where data indicates cause for concern.

11.5.8 Monitoring of remediated areas (see Section 12.8)

Completed areas at landfill sites require ongoing inspection and maintenance. This includes the repair of cracks and erosion gullies that allow water to access the waste and from which malodorous gases escape, and the filling in of settlement depressions and/or cavities caused by fire. Ongoing maintenance of the established vegetation is required for a period specified by the Competent Authority (see Sections 12.7 to 12.9).

11.5.9 Health of workers

Whenever workers or salvagers are exposed to waste on a regular basis, a health risk may exist, particularly where they may be exposed to hazardous substances. The Permit Holder and/or Employer must apply the terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993) and monitor the health of workers and salvagers. This may include, but not be limited to, blood and urine samples. A plan for monitoring the health of workers and salvagers must be included as part of the Operating Plan when submitting the Permit Application.



TABLE 11 Minimum Requirements for Landfill Operation Monitoring


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

Landfill





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B+

B- B+ B- B- B+ B- B+

Responsible Person R R R R R R R R R R

Landfill Monitoring Committee N N F F F F R R R R

Conduct Audits N N R R R R R R R R

Conduct external Audit twice per annum

N N N R R N N N R R

Appropriate records and data collection

R R R R R R R R R R

Record deposition rate N R R R R N R R R R

Waste stream records, including cover

F R R R R F F R R R

Height and slope surveys F F R R R F F R R R

Volume survey F F R R R R R R F R

Collect climatic statistics N F R R R N N N N R

Water quality monitoring F R R R R F F R R R

Gas management system F F F F F F F F F F

Gas monitoring system F F R R F R R R R R

Air Quality Management and Monitoring Plan

N N F F F F F R F R

Stability monitoring N N N N F F F R R R

Monitoring of progressively remediated areas

F F R R R R R R R R

Ongoing maintenance R R R R R R R R R R




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B- = No significant leachate

produced B+ = Significant leachate



C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4


B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

B-

B+

Monitor health of workers F F F F F R R R R R

Monitor health of salvagers F F F F F N/A F F F N/A

12: REMEDIATION, CLOSURE AND END-USE


Section 12 REMEDIATION, CLOSURE AND END-USE

12.1 Introduction

Based on the results of the investigations, a closure or upgrade design may be drawn up and presented in a Closure Report. Also in this report, the current status of the landfill is compared with the identified end-use and closure requirements, and recommendations are made regarding required remediation. The Closure Report must be approved by the Competent Authority in consultation with the IAPs before remediation can commence.

The Minimum Requirements for remediation, closure and end-use are summarised in Table 12, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for closure, de-commissioning and remediation of waste management facilities other than landfills are summarised in Table A5, at the end of Appendix 5.1.

In addition to the Minimum Requirements in Table 12, remediation and closure design should also account for site-specific considerations. The Department is also in a process of formulating a remediation strategy, which will provide further guidance on site- specific remediation once completed, see Section 1.5.

Closure is the final step in the operation of a disposal site. In order to close a site properly, however, closure must be preceded by remediation, to ensure that the site is environmentally acceptable. The site must also be rendered suitable for its proposed end-use, as determined during authorisation and set out in the End-use Plan (see Section 8.2.4). Where bad practice has occurred, this must be rectified by means of remedial measures.

Once the operation has ceased, aftercare is necessary to ensure sustained acceptability.

The objectives of disposal site closure are:

• To ensure public acceptability of the implementation of the proposed End-use Plan.

• To remediate the site so as to ensure that it is environmentally and publicly acceptable and suited to the

implementation of the proposed end-use.

Where it is intended to close a landfill, the Permit Holder must inform the Competent Authority of this intention at least one year prior to closure. This is because certain procedures must be implemented and criteria met before closure.

If the site is authorised, it must be remediated in accordance with the Permit conditions and the relevant Minimum Requirements for closure. If, however, the site does not have a Permit, it must be authorised with a view to closure*. In this event, the emphasis of the Permit Application is on closure design and remediation.

Regardless of whether a landfill is authorised or not, it must be investigated before remediation and closure can commence, so as to identify any closure requirements that must be implemented, see Figure 21.

Once the disposal site has been remediated in accordance with the Closure Report, the Permit Holder must notify the Competent Authority in

* All landfills except those closed prior to August 1990, when the legislation came into effect, must be permitted before they can be considered closed.



writing of the intended closure of the site, at least 60 days prior to the event. Should the Competent Authority approve the condition of the disposal site, the Permit Holder will be provided with written permission to close the site. The site may then be closed and the End-use Plan may be implemented. Thereafter, the site must be monitored on an ongoing basis.



FIGURE 21 Applying the Minimum Requirements to the Closure of Landfills

DETERMINE END-USE REQUIREMENTS FROM ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: • THE PERMIT APPLICATION REPORT • THE PERMIT CONDITIONS • THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY • INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES

INVESTIGATE LANDFILL TO DETERMINE CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

CLOSURE/UPGRADE DESIGN

COMPARE EXISTING LANDFILL STATUS WITH CLOSURE AND END-USE REQUIREMENTS. DRAW UP A LANDFILL CLOSURE REPORT.

OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

IMPLEMENT CLOSURE REPORT AND REMEDIATE LANDFILL



CLOSE LANDFILL AND IMPLEMENT THE END-USE PLAN

MONITOR CLOSED LANDFILL

MONITOR WATER QUALITY ON AN ONGOING BASIS



The remediation, closure and end-use of landfills differ from other disposal sites, as landfills are permanent and have the potential for long term environmental effects following closure. Disposal sites such as waste storage areas, transfer stations, treatment facilities and incinerators do not have a finite life set by the airspace available, and can be completely removed on closure. However, if pollution has occurred from the facility, investigations, remediation measures, and long-term monitoring, as set out in this section, would be required.

The end-use of a landfill refers to its after-use, i.e., how it will be developed after closure, to fit into the environment.

No public access will be permitted onto closed hazardous waste landfills, because of the hazardous nature of the wastes contained therein. This must be clearly indicated by signposting. In exceptional circumstances, where very conservative designs are involved, relaxations may be motivated and considered.

12.2 Determination of End-use Requirements

The most common landfill end-use is open space, which may be used for sport and recreation. Other end-uses also exist and will be accepted if they are safe. Only approved structures will, however, be permitted on top of or adjacent to a closed landfill, because of the problem of ongoing settlement and the possible generation of methane gas.

The end-use requirements are determined from the requirements of the IAPs and the Permit. The IAPs are consulted regarding their end-use requirements during the feasibility study. The End-use Plan is then drawn up as part of the design and included as part of the Permit Application Report. With the granting of a Permit, the Competent Authority endorses the End-use Plan and may include additional requirements.

The Permit Application Report, together with the Permit, therefore represents the initial source from

which end-use requirements can be determined. With time, however, the situation associated with the landfill may well have changed. The end-use requirements must therefore be reassessed and redefined. Consequently, before closure, the IAPs must again be consulted regarding the end-use.

12.3 Investigation of the Landfill to Determine Closure Requirements

The closure investigation must be carried out to identify the causes of any existing problems and to provide the basis for the closure requirements. The extent of the investigation will depend on the amount of investigation already completed, the existing problems and the potential environmental impact of the site. The investigation would adhere to the principles set out in Section 7.

Closure requirements are those remediation measures that must be taken to render a landfill environmentally suited to its proposed end-use. Where problems have resulted from bad practice, remediation is required. This may include remedial work with regard to drainage, steep outer slopes, allowable final landfill height being exceeded, leachate management, landfill gas management, and cover integrity. The closure requirements are included in the remedial or Closure Design.

The Gas Management Plan should be reviewed, to revise the requirements for landfill gas management during the closure stage. The plan should define the measures for continued management and monitoring of landfill gas at the site, including maintenance requirements following closure of the site until the accepted levels of landfill gas are reached (see Appendix 10.3).

Restrictions on use of land included in the buffer zone beyond the site boundaries must also be reviewed and the relevant local authorities and IAPs must be consulted regarding possible lifting of restrictions and development of the land.



12.4 Closure Design

The Closure Design takes all closure requirements into account and should adhere to the design principles set out in Section 8. In the case of unauthorised operating or closed landfills, it may represent the first landfill design submitted, while in the case of an authorised landfill it will involve amendment to an existing design. Closure Designs usually entail remedial design. In some cases, where landfills were not designed or operated in accordance with the Minimum Requirements, significant remediation may be required. In all cases, the Competent Authority must be consulted.

Aspects addressed in the Closure Design would typically include the following:

• Remedial design to address identified problem areas

• Final landfill height, final shaping, landscaping and revegetation

• Final landfill cover or capping design

• Any infrastructure relating to the End-use Plan

• Future extent and use of the buffer zone.

In the case of a landfill that was not designed in accordance with the Minimum Requirements, it will be necessary to assess all the above features. If these are non-existent or inadequate, they must either be designed from the beginning or appropriate remedial measures must be designed

which, when implemented, will ensure that the closed landfill complies with the Minimum Requirements for closure.

The state of a landfill at closure will seldom comply with the desired end-use and closure requirements, reflected in the Closure Design. The Closure Report therefore compares the current status of the landfill with the Closure Design and End-use requirements. Based on this comparison, recommendations are made regarding measures to upgrade the existing condition of the landfill to that desired.

12.6 Written Acceptance • Permanent storm water diversion measures, run-off control and anti-erosion measures

• Review of the Gas Management Plan and definition of the measures for continued management and monitoring

In considering each of the above aspects, reference must be made to any earlier End-use Design. Any variations from the original concept must be noted and their effect analysed. The design must ensure that the closed landfill complies with the Minimum Requirements and the relevant legal requirements.

12.5 Closure Report

Recommendations of the Closure Report involve the implementation of the Closure Design and would typically include details of remediation measures. The Closure Report would also include details of management, inspection, monitoring and maintenance plans.

Written acceptance of both the Closure Design and the Closure Report must be obtained from the Competent Authority. In order to obtain this, an inspection of the landfill by the Responsible Person and representatives of the Competent Authority will be required. Once the Closure Design and the Closure Report have been accepted by the Competent Authority and the IAPs, site remediation may commence.

12.7 Remediation of Landfill

The remediation of the landfill will ensure that the final condition of the site is environmentally acceptable and that there will be no adverse long term effects on the surrounding areas, the water regime or the population. It includes final cover, capping, topsoiling and vegetating. Any long term leachate, gas, storm water and erosion control systems required should also be in place and in working condition before the landfill is closed.



In a landfill designed and operated in accordance with the Minimum Requirements, progressive remediation will have been carried out (see Sections 8 and 10). In instances of poor landfill siting, design and/or operation, however, extensive remedial work may be required prior to closure. This will be detailed in both the Closure Design and the Closure Report.

12.8 Closure and Implementation of the End-use Plan

The closure of a landfill will only be considered once the Competent Authority is satisfied that the remediation of the site has been properly carried out. This will include the implementation of the Closure Design and the carrying out of all the recommendations contained in the Closure Report. This will be assessed at a final site inspection attended by representatives of all the relevant state departments and the Monitoring Committee.

It is seldom possible or necessary to implement the End-use Plan prior to gaining approval for closure. However, all of the preparations necessary to implement the End-use Plan and to maintain the landfill in an environmentally acceptable condition must have been completed before closure. This includes determination of the future use of the buffer zone. If the buffer zone is to be reduced, the Permit Holder must apply to the responsible local authority for amendment of the zoning provisions.

Once the Competent Authority is satisfied with the status of the remediated landfill site, it will issue the Permit Holder with a letter approving the closure of the facility. This letter will allow the operator to physically close the landfill and will state that no further waste can be accepted. It will also set conditions for the implementation of the End-use Plan and for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the landfill.

12.9 Ongoing Inspections and Maintenance of the Landfill

The long term environmental impacts, public health, safety and nuisance problems associated with a landfill may persist long after the site has been closed. Ongoing inspections and maintenance are therefore required after site closure to ensure that such problems do not continue unidentified and unabated, and that the End-use Design is properly implemented.

Ongoing inspections must be carried out at regular intervals to monitor cover integrity, subsidence, fires, vegetation, drainage, erosion, and any other aspects of the closed site, which could cause nuisances. Post-closure water quality monitoring must also take place (see Section 13). The inspections will be carried out at six or twelve monthly intervals, as specified in the Minimum Requirements Table 12.

In the case of hazardous waste disposal and G:L:B+ sites, the frequency of inspections or post closure audits will be determined by the Competent Authority. The frequency will be determined on a site-specific basis, and monitoring will continue for a period stipulated by the Competent Authority, as written into the approval of the Site Closure report.

Based on the findings of the ongoing inspections, maintenance would address the following aspects:

The integrity of a landfill cover can be breached by several mechanisms, including settlement, fires and erosion.

Integrity of cover

Settlement takes place continuously in a landfill because the waste is subject to ongoing decomposition. While good compaction will ensure that such settlement is reasonably uniform, any uneven settlement will result in cracks or depressions in the cover. In landfills where fires have occurred, it is possible that smouldering fires can undermine areas that then either subside or collapse. Alternatively, erosion caused by surface water run-off can also expose waste.



In the event of the landfill cover being breached, three main effects may occur. First, relatively large concentrations/volumes of flammable landfill gas may vent to the atmosphere, with associated odour problems and a danger of fire or even explosion. Second, exposed and/or undermined smouldering waste may create dangerous, unsafe situations. Third, surface water may be channelled into depressions, where it may collect and infiltrate the waste, or it may gain access to the waste directly via the breaches. Both of these situations could result in the generation of leachate.

Drainage systems

Subsidence

Fire

Post-closure monitoring must therefore address all the above aspects of landfill cover integrity. Wherever there are breaches, these should be identified, the cause investigated and the situation rectified by infilling.

It is essential to ensure that drains are not excessively eroded or filled with silt or vegetation. They must function in order to ensure that excess surface water does not enter the waste body.

Any subsidence or cracks, due to settlement or any other cause, must be identified and rectified by infilling.

Any fires that result on the site should also be identified, exposed and smothered with soil as soon as possible.

Vegetation

Vegetation planted for the purposes of remediation, erosion control, beautification or the end-use must be maintained to ensure that it achieves its purpose.

Security

It is essential to ensure that illegal access and dumping does not occur on the closed waste disposal facility.

12.10 Ongoing Monitoring and Public Participation

Any gas or water monitoring systems must be maintained and monitored on an ongoing basis, after the landfill site has closed, (see Appendix 10.3). Gas monitoring should comply with both the Permit conditions and those set out in Section 11.5.5 of this document, while water monitoring should be carried out in accordance with Section 13.

Post closure monitoring may be carried out under the auspices of a Monitoring Committee. Where this is the case, the results of ongoing monitoring should be submitted to the Monitoring Committee and made available for public scrutiny.

The public may, through the Monitoring Commit-tee, also monitor the landfill and report any problems that are observed to the Responsible Person.

Change in land use resulting from the reduction or amendment of the initial buffer zone is a post-closure impact that must be considered by controlling authorities such as the municipality.



TABLE 12 Minimum Requirements for Remediation, Closure and End-use


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous

Waste

LEGEND B- = No significant

leachate produced

R = Requirement

F = Flag: special consideration to be given by expert or representative(s) of the Competent Authority and/or the Department

Landfill

S

Small

Landfill


N = Not a requirement C

Communal

Landfill

M

Medium

L

Large Landfill

REQUIREMENTS

Rating

MINIMUM B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+


H:H

Hazard

1-4

Determine/reassess End-use Requirements

N R

N

R R

R

R

R

R

R

Investigate landfill to determine closure requirements and to identify impacts

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Obtain input on End-use Design by IAPs

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Confirmation of End-use Design by the Competent Authority

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Design for upgrade/ remediation, if necessary

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Design final landfill height, final shaping and landscaping

R

R

R

R

R

R

R R

R

R

Design final cover or capping R R R R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Design permanent storm water diversion

R

R

R

R

R

R R R R

R

Design anti-erosion measures F

F R R

R R

R

R

R

R

Closure Report

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R




G H

General Waste Hazardous

Waste


leachate produced

R = Requirement


Landfill

S

Small

Landfill



Communal

Landfill

M

Medium

L

Large Landfill

REQUIREMENTS

Rating

H:h H:H Hazard Hazard Rating 3 & 4 1-4

B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ MINIMUM

Written acceptance of Closure Report

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Ongoing leachate management

N

N

F

R

F

R

F

R

R

R

Ongoing gas management

N

N

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Ongoing inspection and maintenance

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Implementation of Closure Report/Remediation

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Partially or completely cancel buffer zone servitude and rezone (where necessary)

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Application for Permission to Close Letter approving closure

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Inspection and Monitoring Frequency intervals (in months)

12

12

12

12

6

6

F

F

F

F

Cover integrity

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Integrity of drainage

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Control of ponding

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Control of fire

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Monitoring vegetation

N

N

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Monitoring security and prevention of illegal dumping

R




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous

Waste


leachate produced

R = Requirement


Landfill

S

Small

Landfill



Communal

Landfill

M

Medium

L

Large Landfill

REQUIREMENTS

Rating

MINIMUM B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+


H:H

Hazard

1-4

prevention of illegal dumping R R R R R R R R R

13: WATER QUALITY MONITORING


Section 13 WATER QUALITY MONITORING

13.1 Introduction

The Minimum Requirements for water quality monitoring are summarised in Table 13, at the end of this section.

The Minimum Requirements for water quality monitoring at waste management facilities other than landfills are summarised in Table A5 at the end of Appendix 5.1.

In this section, water quality monitoring at waste disposal facilities is addressed. It is also addressed, in more detail, in the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities.

Water quality monitoring at a landfill site, as has been indicated at relevant points in the text, begins before the commissioning of a landfill site and continues throughout and beyond its operation. Since post-closure water quality monitoring may continue for up to 30 years after the closure of a landfill, it can be seen to represent the final step in the landfill process.

The objectives of water quality monitoring are:

• To enable the Permit Holder to comply with the relevant Permit conditions and legislation.

• To indicate any escape of leachate into the water environment.

• To serve as an early warning system, so that any pollution problems that arise can be identified and rectified.

• To quantify any effect that the disposal site, including any leachate treatment systems, has on the water regime.

The Competent Authority requires a Water Quality Monitoring Plan as part of the authorisation requirements. This involves background analyses, detection monitoring, investigative monitoring and post-closure monitoring. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan ensures that the water quality in the vicinity of a disposal site is regularly monitored and reported upon throughout its life, so that, where necessary, remedial action can be taken.

Water quality monitoring is the responsibility of the Permit Holder, who must ensure that the level and the extent of monitoring is commensurate with the class of site under consideration, and hence in accordance with the Competent Authority's requirements.

13.2 Pre-Operation Monitoring

Water quality and level monitoring must commence before the waste disposal operation begins and before any waste is disposed of. Monitoring will therefore start during the site investigation, when all accessible surface and ground water in the vicinity of the proposed landfill is sampled and analysed (see Section 4.7.2). The objective of this is to provide the pre-disposal background or datum against which future water quality can be measured.

Pre-operation monitoring sampling points must, together with any proposed monitoring points, be formalised and indicated as the monitoring systems in the site design (see Section 8.2.3). This would then be submitted as part of the authorisation procedure.

It is at the investigation and design stages that the future monitoring systems are established and



recorded. Pre-operation monitoring therefore forms the basis for water quality monitoring during the operation and even after closure.

13.2.1 Surface water monitoring system

During the site investigation, surface water quality in any associated drainage feature is monitored both upstream and downstream of the proposed disposal site. Sampling points must be selected at representative, easily identified sites. While a single upstream sampling point may suffice, the size and complexity of the site, i.e., its class, will determine the number of downstream sampling points required.

The sampling points upstream of the proposed site will provide ambient background values. The sampling points downstream of the proposed site will ultimately indicate any pollution resulting from the site.

13.2.2 Ground water monitoring system

The ground water monitoring system, which comprises boreholes, is addressed in Sections 6 and 8, as well as in Appendix 6. For more detail in this regard, the reader is referred to the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities.

13.2.3 Leachate monitoring system

The Permit Holder must ensure that the extent of the proposed monitoring system is commensurate with the class of site under consideration. Cases in point would be B+ and hazardous waste disposal sites, which would require leachate management systems. In such cases, leachate collection systems would form part of the design and provision would have to be made for future leachate monitoring.

13.2.4 Parameters

For consistency and for comparative purposes, the same water quality parameters are analysed for in both surface and ground water monitoring. Table 13.1 sets out the parameters. Other parameters

should, however, be added by the Responsible Person, should they be relevant at a specific site.

13.2.5 Sampling

Ground water sampling methods and the treatment and storage of samples are those advocated in the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities and those advocated by Weaver in ‘Groundwater Sampling’. [Ref. Weaver, J.M.C., Groundwater Sampling. Water Research Commission Project No. 339 TT 54/92.] Surface water sampling methods are somewhat simpler, however, in that grab samples may be taken from the surface water sampling points.

In the case of both surface and ground water sampling, clean bottles should be used. These should be rinsed with the sample water, prior to taking the sample. Sample treatment prior to analysis would be the same in both cases and is indicated in the above references.

The analysis of the samples must be performed in accordance with the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) methodology. [Ref. Standards Act, Act 30 of 1982.] Alternatively, the analyses may be performed using an equivalent method that is to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority. In instances where the design of a disposal site can be directly related to the protection of the water resource, the applicant will obtain approval from the Department through the Competent Authority. In all other cases, the Competent Authority will be responsible for the approval of site design. Since the Competent Authority acts as a point of entry for all disposal site permit related correspondence, all approvals must be obtained through them.

In the case of operating or closed landfill sites, design upgrading or remedial design might well be required. In such instances, the principles and Minimum Requirements set out in this section must be applied.

In both the above instances, i.e., a sub-optimal site or an operating site requiring remediation, the design must take the risks to the environment into account and adequately mitigate such risks to the



satisfaction of the Competent Authority.Competent Authority and the Department.

13.2.6 Reporting

The ground and surface water quality results from the pre-operation monitoring, together with the annotated designs of the monitoring systems, must be submitted to the Competent Authority as part of the Permit Application Report, i.e., the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (see Section 5.3.4).

13.3 Operation Monitoring

Once a disposal site is operational, water monitoring for level and quality must take place in accordance with the Permit Conditions and any subsequent requirements that the Competent Authority may have.

Operation monitoring involves monitoring the water regime in the vicinity of the disposal site. This is done by means of the monitoring systems included in the design section of the Permit Application Report (see Section 13.2.1). Monitoring may include the sampling and analysis of surface water, ground water and leachate. The above systems may, however, have to be expanded to accommodate changed circumstances.

The impact of the disposal site on water quality is assessed by making a comparison between the pre-disposal, upgradient, or ambient background, and the downgradient concentrations monitored. This will indicate whether there is a pollution problem due to contaminated surface water or leachate leaving the site. Where complex situations are involved, a specialist should be consulted.

The methodology for sampling both surface and ground water at an operating disposal site would be the same as that used during pre-operation monitoring.

Operation monitoring may comprise two types of monitoring, i.e., detection monitoring and investigative monitoring.

13.3.1 Detection monitoring

Detection monitoring is routine monitoring carried out every six months. The parameters used in detection monitoring are limited to indicator parameters, intended to indicate the presence of pollution, see Table 13.2.

Detection monitoring should also include any substance that has or will be disposed of on the disposal site in significant concentrations.

13.3.2 Investigative monitoring

If detection monitoring indicates possible pollution, with an increasing trend in the parameter concentrations with time, the Competent Authority may require further monitoring.

This would be referred to as investigative monitoring and would involve monitoring the range of parameters included in Table 13.1, together with any other parameters deemed necessary. The sampling interval in the case of investigative monitoring would generally be monthly, or as determined by the Competent Authority.

Investigative monitoring may be enhanced by tracer or isotope studies, and the interpretation of water quality monitoring results may be enhanced by the use of Piper or Durov Diagrams. (See also Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities.)

13.3.3 Leachate

Where significant leachate is generated at B+ or hazardous waste disposal sites, it must be sampled from the appropriate places in the leachate collection system. Sampling frequency and the parameters tested for should be the same as for surface and ground water monitoring, unless otherwise stipulated in the Permit or by the Competent Authority.

Where leachate treatment systems are installed, the raw leachate effluent as well as the sludges or concentrates from the treatment system must be sampled. The sampling frequency and the



parameters tested for should be the same as for surface and ground water monitoring, unless otherwise stipulated in the Permit or by the Competent Authority.

Where sporadic leachate is generated at a B– site, the Competent Authority must be informed. If directed by the Competent Authority, the Permit Holder may have to have such leachate sampled and analysed.

13.3.4 Reporting

The above analyses must be presented in the format stipulated in the Site Permit, and the Permit Holder must maintain records of all analyses undertaken.

13.4 Post-closure Monitoring

Since a landfill can continue to pollute the ground and surface water regime long after the site has been closed, post-closure water quality monitoring of landfill sites must be ongoing.

The approach and systems for ground and surface water monitoring, described in Sections 13.2 and 13.3, should be used for this purpose. The emphasis in the case of post-closure monitoring, however, would be more on ground water monitoring, unless circumstances or the Competent Authority dictated otherwise.

In the case of some B– landfill sites, most B+ landfill sites and all hazardous landfill sites, post-closure water quality monitoring must continue for 30 years after site closure, unless otherwise agreed with the Competent Authority. Ongoing liaison with the Competent Authority must continue throughout this period, with regular reports as specified in the Permit.

13.5 Public Participation

The results of the water quality monitoring results must be available for scrutiny by the Monitoring Committee.



TABLE 13 Minimum Requirements for Water Quality Monitoring

LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill


B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+



Designate a Responsible Person

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

Pre-operation Monitoring Surface water monitoring

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Ground water monitoring

N

N

F

R

F

R

R

R

R

R

Background results reported in Permit Application Report

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Water analysed in accordance with parameters in Table 13.1

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Sample analysis in accord with SABS methodology or equivalent

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Operation Monitoring Surface water monitoring

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Ground water monitoring

N

F

R

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

Leachate treatment effluent/sludge/concentrate monitoring

N

F

N

R

N

R

N

R

R

R

Report sporadic leachate

F

F

F

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Post-Closure Monitoring Post-closure surface water monitoring

N

F

N

R

F

R

R

R

R

R



LEGEND


G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste





C

Communal Landfill

S

Small Landfill

M

Medium Landfill

L

Large Landfill


B- B+ B- B+ B- B+ B- B+



Post-closure ground water monitoring

N

F

N

R

F

R

R

R

R

R



TABLE 13.1

Suggested Parameters for Background and Investigative Monitoring

Ammonia (NH3 as N) Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Alkalinity (Total Alkalinity) Free and Saline Ammonia as N (NH4-N)

Lead (Pb) Magnesium (Mg)

Boron (B) Mercury (Hg)

Cadmium (Cd) Nitrate (as N) (NO3-N)

Calcium (Ca) pH

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Phenolic Compounds (Phen)

Chloride (Cl) Potassium (K)

Chromium (Hexavalent) (Cr6+) Sodium (Na)

Chromium (Total) (Cr) Sulphate (SO4)

Cyanide (CN) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

TABLE 13.2 Suggested Parameters for Detection Monitoring

(a) Bi-annually for:

Alkalinity (Total Alkalinity)

Ammonia (NH3 - N)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

Chlorides (Cl)

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Nitrate (NO3 - N)

pH

Potassium (K)

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

(b) Annually for:

Calcium (Ca)

Fluoride (F)

Magnesium (Mg)

Sodium (Na)

Sulphate (SO4)

LIST OF APPENDICES


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 3.1 METHOD FOR CALCULATING MAXIMUM RATE OF DEPOSITION (MRD) AT A LANDFILL SITE (Section 3)..................................................................................................161

Appendix 3.2 PRINCIPLES OF DETERMINING THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE (Section 3) .......1 62

64

68

6

91

93

96

11

22

24

28

35

42

45

7

49

52

60

65

67

9

80

97

00

Appendix 3.3 EXAMPLES OF LANDFILL CLASSES (Section 3)..............................................................1

Appendix 3.4 DETAILED SITE WATER BALANCE AND EXAMPLES OF CALCULATIONS OF THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE (Section 3)..........................................................................1

Appendix 4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Section 4) ...................................................................................17

Appendix 4.2 AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION (Section 4)..............................................................................1

Appendix 4.3 BUFFER ZONES (Section 4) ...................................................................................................1

Appendix 5.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OTHER THAN LANDFILLS (Section 5)...........1

Appendix 5.2 INTEGRATED DISPOSAL SITE AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE (Section 5) ...............2

Appendix 6 NOTES ON EXPLORATION BOREHOLES (Section 6) ..........................................................2

Appendix 7 CHECKLIST OF DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS (Section 7) ......2

Appendix 8.1 CALCULATING LANDFILL SITE LIFE (Section 8).............................................................2

Appendix 8.2 DESIGN OF THE LINING SYSTEM (Section 8) ...................................................................2

Appendix 8.3 DESIGN OF LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND PIEZOMETERS (Section 8) ....2

Appendix 8.4 DESIGN OF THE FINAL COVER OR CAPPING SYSTEM (Section 8) ..............................2

Appendix 8.5 PERMEABILITY TESTS (Section 8) .....................................................................................24

Appendix 8.6 SLOPE STABILITY AND SHEAR STRENGTH TESTING (Section 8)................................2

Appendix 8.7 DETERMINATION OF LANDFILL HEIGHT (Section 8) .....................................................2

Appendix 8.8 LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Section 8.4.4) .........................................................2

Appendix 8.9 CHECKLIST OF LANDFILL DESIGN AND OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS (Sections 8 and 10) ......................................................................................................................................2

Appendix 10.1 WASTE BURNING (Section 10) ...........................................................................................2

Appendix 10.2 WASTE SALVAGING (Section 10) ......................................................................................26

Appendix 10.3 LANDFILL GAS (Section 10)................................................................................................2

Appendix 11.1 DISPOSAL SITE MONITORING COMMITTEE (Section 11)............................................2

Appendix 11.2 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING (Section 11).................................3

LIST OF APPENDICES


FIGURE A.8.2 Liners: G:M:B- Landfills .........................................................................................................237

FIGURE A.8.9 Typical Leachate Collection System ......................................................................................242

FIGURE A.3.2 Principle of Determining Climatic Water Balance ..........................................................162

FIGURE A.3.4 Estimating Whether or Not Leachate will be Produced...........................................................171

FIGURE A.8.1 Liners: G:S:B- Landfills...........................................................................................................237

FIGURE A.8.3 Liners: G:L:B- Landfills..........................................................................................................237

FIGURE A.8.4 Liners: G:S:B+ Landfills .........................................................................................................238

FIGURE A.8.5 Liners: G:M:B+ and G:L:B+ Landfills ...................................................................................238

FIGURE A.8.6 Liners: H:h Landfills...............................................................................................................239

FIGURE A.8.7 Liners: H:H Landfills and Encapsulation Cells ......................................................................240

FIGURE A.8.8 Hazardous Waste Lagoons......................................................................................................241

FIGURE A.8.10 Suggested Method of Installing Piezometer Tube .................................................................244

FIGURE A.8.11 Cover: G:C and G:S:B- Landfills ...........................................................................................246

FIGURE A.8.12 Cover: G:S:B+ , G:M:B- and G:L:B- Landfills.................................................................246

FIGURE A.8.13 Cover: G:M:B+ , G:L:B+ and Hazardous Landfills (and all sites with inadequate bottom liners) ......................................................................................................................................246

FIGURE A.8.14 Chart for Preliminary Slope Stability Assessment.................................................................249

Figure A.10.1: Initial Simple Estimate of Gas Generation ...............................................................................295

Figure A.10.2: First Order Kinetics Model for Estimating Gas Generation in Landfills.................................296

APPENDIX 3.1: METHOD FOR CALCULATING MRD AT A LANDFILL SITE


Appendix 3.1 METHOD FOR CALCULATING MAXIMUM RATE OF DEPOSITION (MRD) AT A LANDFILL SITE (Section 3) It is assumed that the site will expand annually at a constant growth rate and that the maximum rate of deposition will be attained during the final year of operation. Under such circumstances, the Maximum Rate of Deposition (MRD) can be calculated from the relationship:

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 (constant) annual increase in the rate of deposition and would usually be based on the anticipated population growth rate.

t = the period or planned life of the site expressed in years.

Example 1 A site is required to serve a community for a period of 15 years. The IRD = 350 T/day and the expected annual growth rate, d, is 3%. What will be the MRD and, hence, the site classification?

MRD = 350 (1 + 0,03)15

= 350 x 1,558 = 545 T/day The MRD is greater than 500 T/day and the site therefore will classify as Large (L).

Example 2 A trench site currently receives 0,3 T/day of refuse. It will obviously start as a communal operation and compaction of the refuse will be minimal. A comparatively high (constant) growth rate of 5% is assumed. Determine the MRD after a period of 10 years:

MRD = 0,3 (1 + 0,05)10

= 0,3 x 1,629 = 0,5 T/day. Hence, for d = 5% the site will remain a ‘C’ site. But suppose d rises to 10%? Then

MRD = 0,3 (1 + 0,10)10

= 0,3 x 2,594 = 0,8 T/day

The site will therefore remain a ‘C’ or Communal classification as the MRD of 0,8 T/day is less than 1T/day.

APPENDIX 3.2: PRINCIPLES OF DETERMINING THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE


Appendix 3.2 PRINCIPLES OF DETERMINING THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE (Section 3)

On a long term basis,

Annual rainfall and pan evaporation in South Africa are approximately normally or log-normally distributed. The decision on whether a site should be classified as B- or B+ is based on the probability that the distribution of annual rainfall R will overlap the distribution of 0,4 EA where:

EA is the annual A-pan evaporation and 0,4 EA is an approximation of the annual evaporation (E) from a landfill surface.

E cannot exceed R , where E and R are, respectively, the mean values of annual evaporation and rainfall, unless there is an additional source of water in the waste. Pictorially, as shown in Figure A.3.2, the probability of overlap is represented by the area of overlap of the distributions of R and E, the annual rainfall and evaporation respectively.

FIGURE A.3.2 Principle of Determining Climatic Water Balance

Because rainfall and evaporation are highly variable natural systems, the boundary probability of overlap between B- and B+ cannot be determined with certainty, and a boundary probability of about 1 in 5 has been

APPENDIX 3.2: PRINCIPLES OF DETERMINING THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE


selected. In other words, if th1 in 5, the site is classified as

The probability of 1 in 5 closely corresponds with the line 0,4

e probability of the distribution of R overlapping that of 0,4 EA is greater than B+ and if less than 1 in 5, the site is classified as B-.

E A = R betweeFigure 5. This line represents the statement: “0,4 times average annual A-pan evcannot exceed averageactual evaporation, usi

n the B- and B+ regions in aporation may be less than but

annual rainfall on a long-term basis.” This statement has evolved from measurements of ng energy balance methods, at a limited number of sites. The factor of 0,4 may be

revised in future editions, as additional information becomes available.

ite water balance and example of calculations of the climatic water balance are given in Appendix Detailed s3.4.

APPENDIX 3.3: EXAMPLES OF LANDFILL CLASSES


Appendix 3.3

(Section G:C:B–

tic

= 0,86 T/day

Rainfall an vaporation records for Johannesburg International Airport weather station show ĒA =

ear and

EXAMPLES OF LANDFILL CLASSES

3)

This is a site situated on the East Rand. The site receives only general waste from a rural community (domesand no high moisture content waste) and has an IRD of 0,80 T/day. The site life is only expected to be 7 years and therefore the MRD is 0,86 T/day. This is calculated as follows:

MRD = IRD (1 + d)t d = 1% per annum = 0,80 (1 + 0,01)7 t = 7 years

d e

2230mm/y R = 540mm/year. Hence from Figure 6, the site is classified as G:C:B–.

This site is situated close to Durban and serves a small farming community. The site receives only general w o hig as . The RD is 0 T/ and pected to last twelve years. The RD i

MRD d = 3% per annum = 0,40 (1 + 0,03)12 t = 12 years

G:C:B+

aste and n h moisture w te I 0,4 day the site is ex M s therefore calculated as follows: = IRD (1 + d)t

= 0,57 T/day

Rainfall and evaporation records for Durban International Airport show ĒA = 1780mm/year and R = 1010mm/year. Hence from Figure 6 the site classification is therefore G:C:B+.

G:S:B–

his site serves a small town in the northern Free State near Kroonstad. Dry domestic waste is disposed of on

MRD = IRD (1 + d) d = 1% per annum = 13,6 (1 + 0,01)2 t = 2 years

The site is only expected d therefore the size remains S. Rainfall and evaporation

records for Kroonstad show ĒA = 1950mm/year (1.26 × ĒS = 1950) and

Tthe site. The IRD is 13,6 T/day and the MRD is calculated as follows:

t

= 13,9 T/day

to last another two years an

R = 600mm/year according to Figure 6, the site is classified G:S:B–



G:S:B+

This site is a landfill serving an industry on the East Rand. It has an IRD (current rate of deposition used as the IRD in this example) of 22,0 T/day. The site has a remaining life of 3 years and no significant growth is anticipated. For the purpose of calculating the MRD, however, an annual growth rate of 1% has been assumed.

MRD = IRD (1 + d)t d = 1% per annum = 22,0 (1 + 0,01)3 t = 3 years = 22,7 T/day

isture content of 71%. The remaining 9% comprises generally dry waste. According to the IRD of 22,0T s tha 3

moisture content t the fand that significant leach as G:S:B+.

:M:B

gional site in the northern Free State. Only dry general (domestic and industrial) waste will be f on the site. When the site was authorised in 1991, the IRD was 305,5 T/day. The MRD was

d = 3% per annum = 305,5 (1 + 0,03)17 t = 17 years

Because MRD just exceeded the 500 T/day limit, the site was classified in 1991 as a Medium operation.

This means that the site falls into the Small category. The Climatic Water Balance, based on Johannesburg International Airport weather station statistics, indicates a B- classification. However, 91% of the waste disposed has a high mo

, this implie t 8,3T (m ) of water is disposed of daily. It is clearly evident from the high of 71% 4) tha ield capacity of the waste will be consistently exceeded (see Figure A.3.

esult. Thus, regardless of Figure 6, the site is classifiedate will be generated as a r

–G

This is a redisposed ocalculated for the projected 17 year life with an annual growth rate of 3%:

MRD = IRD (1 + d)t

= 504,9 T/day

the

R = 600mm/yeaBased on Kroonstad statistics of ĒA = 1950mm/year and r, the site was classified as G:M:B- when the Permit Application was submitted. However, due to the delays in implementing the design,

ite serves a town in the Eastern Cape Border region. General domestic and industrial waste is disposed of e. The current IRD is 415 T/day. With an expected 1% annual growth rate, the MRD is calculated as

llows:

MRD = IRD (1 + d) d = 1% per annum

the size of the site should be confirmed. The classification may change to G:L:B–.

G:M:B+

This son the sitfo

= 415 (1 + 0,01)16 t = 16 years = 487 T/day



The MRD remains within the Medium size classification. The climate statistics from East London show that

ĒA = 1710mm/year and R = 930mm/year and according to Figure 6, classifies as B+. Furthermore, the site was constructed over a natural drainage course, which resulted in the waste body becoming saturated and

gnificant leachate being produced by water penetration from the watercourse. The site is therefore classified

his site is a regional facility in Gauteng. The site only receives domestic and general industrial waste. The

MRD = IRD (1 + d) d = 1,5% per annum = 600 (1 + 0,015)20 t = 20 years = 808 T/day

c Water Balance for the area, based on Johannesburg International Airport statistics, is B-. The site classified as G:L:B–.

n Mpumalanga bordering Swaziland and Mozambique. The site receives waste from an dustrial plant, offices and a few residences where no further growth is expected. The IRD, and hence the

e initial 5 year phase is 300 T/day.

g

Based on the statistics for Nelspruit, ĒA = 1810mm/year and

sias G:M:B+.

G:L:B–

TIRD is 600 T/day. The site is expected to last 20 years at a growth rate of 1,5% per annum. The MRD is calculated as follows:

t

The Climati

therefore is

G:L:B+

The site is situated iinMRD, for th From year 6 onwards, the IRD will become 615 T/day. As no growth is expected, the MRD for the remainin

2 years of the expected site life is therefore also 615 T/day. 1

Although the site classifies as an M for first five years of its life, i.e., the first phase, the MRD for 12 out of 17projected years is in excess of 500 T/day. The site is therefore classified as L.

R = 790mm/year. From Figure 6, the climatic classification is borderline between B+ and B-. However, the majority of the waste has a high moisture content (more than 50%). This would affect the hydraulic load and thus the water balance, contributing to the generation of significant leachate. The site is therefore classified as G:L:B+.

H:h Example 1 This is a large, well run site in Gauteng. The site receives predominantly domestic waste. Sewage sludge, however, is co-disposed with the solid waste on the site. The additional water introduced with the sludge results in leachate being generated. The sewage sludge in this case is classified as a hazardous waste, with hazard rating of 3 or 4, according to ‘Minimum Requirements for Handling, Classification and Disposal of



Hazardous Waste’, and therwhich accepts hazardous wco Example 2 This site is a large waste disposal site on the False Bay coast. Data for the Seekoeivlei weat

that Ē

efore the site is classified as H:h. The landfill is classified as a containment landfill aste with hazard rating of 3 or 4 and it must therefore be lined and have a leachate

llection system.

her station shows

A = 1790mm/year and R = 560mm/year. Figure 6 shows site has several experimental containment cells, lined with geomemThe waste disposed of

the climatic classification to be B+. The brane for the disposal of hazardous waste.

in the lined cells has hazard ratings of 3 or 4 and the site is therefore classified as H:h.

he two examples given above are situated in different Climatic Water Balance areas, one water deficit and the

leachate collection and a liner, is necessary when waste with hazard ratings of 3 or 4 are disposed of.

te receives mainly domestic waste. Hazardous ting 1 is also disposed of on the site. According to the Minimum

equ en s ould be designed, engineered and operated to the most stringent standards. The o fill, i.e., with a liner and a leachate collection system. The site is therefore

Example 2

a sit h Hazard Ratings 1 to 4. The site has a ner le containment site. The site is classified as H:H.

oth he ov in water deficit areas. The Climatic Water Balance is again not

taken into account, as containment is a prerequisite regardless of the Climatic Water Balance.

Tother water surplus. This is to illustrate that, regardless of the Climatic Water Balance, containment, i.e.,

H:H Example 1 This landfill serves a large town in the central Free State. The siwaste, however, with Hazard RaR irem ts, uch a landfill shsite must be a c ntainment landclassified as H:H.

This landfill is e in Gauteng which handles hazardous waste witli and achate collection system to ensure that it is a

B of t ab e examples are sites situated

APPENDIX 3.4: DETAILED SITE WATER BALANCE


Appendix 3.4 DET ILEA D SITE WATER BALANCE AND EXAMPLES OF CALCULATIONS OF THE CLIMATIC WATER BALANCE

tion.

all (mm)

runoff (mm)

m surface of landfill (mm)

he water balance should always be evaluated over a period of at least a year because a short-term omponents.

d storage capacity, or field water capacity. For waste, this is taken to correspond with a degree of saturation of the waste SR equal to 0,35 or 35%. (This will be explained in more detail, later.) For hazardous

.

taken as:

(Section 3) This appendix discusses both weather-related leachate generation and non-weather-related leachate genera

Weather-Related Leachate Generation

An expression describing the site water balance for a landfill is as follows:

ΣR – ΣRO + ΣW – ΣE = Σ(L + S)

Where Σ indicates quantities accumulated over a year

R = rainf

RO =

W = water content of incoming waste (mm)

E = evaporation fro

L = leachate exiting base of landfill (mm)

S = water stored in waste (mm)

Note that tchange in any one component does not have an instantaneous influence on other c

In order to be conservative, run-off is usually ignored and the upper limit to the storage S is taken to be the so-calle

wastes, the field water capacity must be established by measurement

For conservatism, the annual rainfall should be

RR 60,1+ ΣR = σ

Where R is the mean annual rainfall and

Rσ is the standard deviation of the rainfall (both in mm).



( RR σ6,1+The factor 1,6 ensures that the probability of the rainfall exceeding ) is 5% or 1 in 20.

taken as: For the same reason, the mean annual A-pan evaporation should be

E A – 1,6σE

E A is th ean annual A-pan evaporation and Ee m σ is the corresponding standard deviation. where

The water content of the incoming waste should (if possible) be based on monthly samples taken over a period or supplement.

To be representative, each sample should be dug from the compacted waste and should have a volume of at ast . The ust be loaded on the back of a small truck (bakkie) and weighed on a

weighbridge immediately after sampling, spread out on a plastic sheet in a closed dry shed for at least one ryin e

rametaken

ld be estimated from its levelled depth in the back of the bakkie and the plan dimensions (length x width) of the bakkie body. The hole must be filled

ie re-weighed to determine the weight of sand required to fill the hole, and hence find the volume of the hole. Other methods of determining water content

Calculations:

Water content = (wt. of wet waste – wt. of dried waste) ÷ wt. of dried waste

= w (ratio or percentage).

Initial wt. of bakkie + sand – wt. of bakkie empty = initial wt. of sand.(kg)

Initial volume of sand = length x breadth of back of bakkie (allowing for wheel arches) x depth of levelled nd (m

kk + sand – f sand in hole. (kg)

le. 3)

aste (kg) ÷ volume of hole (m3)

kg)

ry d aste ÷ volume of hole

of a year from the landfill that the planned landfill or landfill extension is intended to replace

le 0,5 m3 excavated waste m

month to air-dry, and then re-weighed after d g to ascertain the water content. The compacted density of thwaste is another important pa ter and this can be found by measuring the volume of the hole from which each water content sample is . This is most easily done by loading a small bakkie with dry sand and weighing the bakkie plus sand. Then the volume of sand shou

loosely with sand to level with the landfill surface and the bakk

and compacted waste density may be used, provided they have been approved by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

sa 3)

Initial wt. of ba ie final wt. of bakkie + sand = wt. o

(Wt. of sand in hole ÷ initial wt. of sand) x initial volume of sand = volume of sand in hole = volume of ho(m

Bulk density of waste = wt. of wet w

= γ kg/m3 (or T/m3, where 1T = 1000

d ensity of waste = wt of dried w

= γd kg/m3 = γ/(1 + w)

The dry density γd represents the mass of dry solids in the waste in a volume measuring 1 m2 in plan and 1 m high. This volume of waste will contain a mass of water of



wγd kg/m3 = wγd litres/m2 = wγd mm of water depth

The water in the incoming waste accumulated over a year will be

ΣW = hw dγ

w and dγ arWhere e the mean values of w and γd over the year and h is the depth of waste deposited over the

year.

The expression describing the site water balance is, incorporating the above considerations:

hw ΣR + dγ - ΣE = Σ(L + S)

ΣE can be taken as a maximum value of 0,4( E A – 1,6σE) where E A is the mean annual A-pan evaporation,

xceed (ΣR + dwγbut ΣE cannot e h), i.e., the left hand or net input side of the site water balance equation must

The components of waste can be divided into solids with volume V and voids with volume VV. The voids in turn are partly filled with volume VW of wat he degree of saturation SR is defined by

SR = VW/VV = VW/(V – VS)

tal volume of waste, taken as 1 m3.

1 m of compacted waste has a bulk density of 800 kg/m (or 0,8T/m3) and a water content of 20% (0,20).

always be positive, and can have a minimum value of zero.

Non-Weather-Related Leachate Generation

S

er and partly with volume VG of gas. T

Where V is the to

Example 3.4.1

3 3

dγ = 800/1,20 = 667 kg/m3 = MS

V = 667/γ S γ S is the solids density of the waste S

γ S = 2340 kg/m (The3 solid’s unit weight is 23,40 kN/m3 and is taken as the same for all G wastes.)

V – VS = 1 – 0,285 = 0,715 m3/m2

t and density. Figure A.3.4 shows this relationship and allows SR to be determined for any pair of values of bulk density and water content. It also shows the region for which

roduced.

VS = 667/2340 = 0,285 m3/m2

VW = 0,20 x 667/1000 = 0,133 m3/m2

SR = VW/(V – VS) = 0,133/0,715 = 0,186 = 18,6%

SR is obviously a function of water conten

leachate will be p



As successive lifts of waste are placed, the load on a particular 1 m3 element of waste will increase and the waste will compress. The void ratio (e) of the waste is defined by

e = VV/VS

For the example above:

e = (V – V )/V

= (1,0 – 0,285)/0,285 = 2,51 (=eo)

As the waste compresses under an increment of load ∆p, the void ratio will change according to the

-∆e = ∆p/100

with p in kPa

∆ indicates a change and the minus sign indicates that e decreases as p increases.

This equation is taken as the same for all general wastes. Using this expression, the compression of the waste nde l th ding settlement can be calculated.

FIGURE A.3.4 Estimating Whether or Not Leachate will be Produced

S S

relationship

u r the weight of successive ifts, as well as e correspon



Example 3.4.2

The 1 m3 of compacted waste considered above (γ = 800 kg/m3) has a 5 m lift of identical compacted waste 3 press vertically?

∆p = 5 x 8 kPa = 40 kPa

placed above it. By how much does the 1 m com

∴∆e = - 40/100 = - 0,4

e = eo - ∆e

e = 2,51 – 0,4 = 2,11

m

As a check: (V – VS)/VS = (0,886 – 0,285)/0,285 = 2,11 and (V – VS) = 0,601

SR becomes 0,133/0,601 = 0,221 = 22,1%

Example 3.4.3

upp

Then VS = 975/2340 = 0,417 m3/m2

V – VS = 1 – 0,417 = 0,583 m3/m2

For SR to reduce to 35%, Vw must reduce to 0,35/0,401 x 0,234 = 0,204 m3/m2 {(V-Vs) remains constant.}

and (0,234 – 0,204) = 0,030 m3/m2 or 30 mm per m height of waste, and this quantity of water will drain out of

(Alternatively, Vw must become 0,35(V – VS) = 0,204m3/m2)

The original 1 m height of the waste is now reduced by

-∆e/(1 + eo), i.e., by – 0,4/(1 + 2,51) = 0,114 m

i.e., V is now 0,886

S ose that γd = 975 kg/m3 and w = 0,24

Vw = 0,24 x 975/1000 = 0,234 m3/m2

SR = 0,234/0,583 = 0,401 = 40,1%

the waste as leachate.



Example 3.4.4

A new la owing information:

Annual average rainfall:

ndfill is being planned on the basis of the foll

R = 770 mm, Rσ = 180 mm

Annual average A-pan evaporation: E A = 1340 mm, Eσ = 180 mm

Water content of incoming waste = 35%

Compacted bulk density in landfill = 800 kg/m3

Run-off from the landfill will be ignored

n height of landfill: 2.5 m

Calculate the expected annual production of weather-related leachate:

Average annual increase i

dγ = 800/1,35 = 592 kg/m3

∴ΣW = 0,35 x 5 x 2,5 = 518 kg/m2 = 518 litres/m2 = 518 mm

ΣR = 770 + 1,6 x 180 = 1058 mm

ΣE = 0,4(1340 – 1,6 x 180) = 420 mm

92

∴Σ(L + S) = 1058 + 518 – 420 = 1156 mm

S is the water content expressed in mm, corresponding to SR = 0,35

For the incoming waste (per m height)

VS .= 592/2340 = 0,253 m3

Vw = 0,35 x 592 = 0,207 m3

Hence SR = 0,207/(1 – 0,253) = 0,28

For SR = 0.35, Vw = 0,35 x 0,747 = 0,261 m3

Hence 0,261 m3 per m depth of waste can be stored at storage capacity and

ΣS = 2,5 x 0,261 = 0,652 m3/m2 or 652 mm

Finally,

ΣL = Σ(L + S) – ΣS = 1156 – 652 = 504 mm per year

An allowance for the compression of the waste under its self-weight must be added to this to get an estimate of the total weather-related and non-weather-related leachate.



Example 3.4.5

A new landfill is being planned for co-disposal of liquids with general waste. The following information is available for the site and the waste characteristics:

Average annual rainfall: R = 480 mm, Rσ = 120 mm

Average annual A-pan evaporation: E A = 2310 mm, Eσ = 155 mm

Water content of incoming waste = 20%

Compacted bulk density = 800 kg/m3

Run-off from the landfill will be ignored

Expected annual increase in height of landfill: 2.5 m

As the Minimum Requirements limit the leachate generated at a co-disposal landfill to 200 mm/y,

(Here “dry” waste is understood to be the G-waste at its incoming water content of 20%)

From example 3.41, we have:

calculate the permissible co-disposal ratio CR, defined by

CR = mass of “dry waste”/mass of liquid co-disposed

γ d = 667 kg/m3

VS = 0,285 m3/m2

Vw = 0,133 m3/m2

SR = 0,186

ΣR = 480 + 1,6 x 120 = 672 mm

ΣE = 0,4(2310 – 1,6 x 155) = 825 mm

∴Σ(L + S) = 672 + ΣW – 825 = ΣW – 153 mm

SR = Vw/(V - VS) = Vw/0,715 and for SR = 0,35, Vw = 0,250 m3/m2

ΣS at field capacity is thus 0,250 x 2,5 = 0,625 m3/m2 = 625 mm

The allowable leachate generation ΣL is 200 mm

∴ 200 + 625 = ΣW – 153, or

ΣW = 978 mm



The water entering as the water content of the waste is 0,2 x 667 x 2,5 = 334 mm, and hence the water permitted to be co-disposed is:

978 – 334 = 644 mm or 644 kg/m2

and the co-disposal ratio is:

1,3644

8005,2==

xCR

APPENDIX 4.1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION


Appendix 4.1 PU(Se

ublic Participation is also required for waste management facilities other than landfills, most of which are 5.1.

The Con titution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996), inter alia, sets out the Government’s

their li

Publicwaste object partici

For this reason, this appendix describes the objectives, principles, planning and implementation of public rtici l

series

Effectbe reas rests are approp

The prsustai the Permit Applicant, the consulta s, the decision-making authorities and the IAPs), representing a wide range of perspectives, be

llingto themauthorithat th

Other

• al

• Identify the public participation principles that underpin and guide the public participation process.

BLIC PARTICIPATION ction 4)

Palso subject to the EIA process, see Appendix

Introduction

sresponsibility to provide the public with the opportunity to be involved in Government decisions that affect

ves. This responsibility is also mirrored in the Minimum Requirements series.

participation forms an integral part of waste management, and therefore all roleplayers involved in management must understand the purpose of public participation practice, including the processives and principles. This will ultimately contribute to the efficient and effective implementation of publicpation in the development, authorisation, operation, monitoring, and closure of disposal sites.

pa pation and also identifies mechanisms for involving Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs). The logicaof steps that must be taken to ensure that the IAPs are adequately involved are indicated.

ive participation requires time and commitment from all roleplayers. It is therefore important that there onable consensus regarding what constitutes ‘sufficient’ public participation, so that public interiately protected whilst ensuring that the process does not continue indefinitely.

imary objective of this appendix is to establish public participation practice that aims at attaining nable development of disposal sites. This requires that all roleplayers, (i.e.,

ntwi to make trade-offs between economic growth, social equity and ecological integrity that are acceptable

in order to achieve sustainability. Where sustainability is not pursued as the common goal, the ties tend to receive “wish-lists” from different sectors of society without any indication of the trade-offs

ey are willing to make.

objectives of this appendix are to:

Give effect to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa as supported by the EnvironmentConservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), the National Environmental Management Act, 1998, and the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000.



•

egi The Cnational

ectiopublicsphereanotheaccoun Section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998, lists the principles that apply to the actions of

org ese princip ve the op nd effecti icipation, and participation by disadvantaged persons must be ensured. Section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) requires that no person shall establish, provide or operat provid tion. The Pr(Sectio hat informincludsuch d Public participation is also required in terms of the EIA Regulations (EIAR), which were promulgated in

provid irs and TourismConser

The D Water A oria, September 2001]. These guidelines provide a generic approach to public participation and aim to assist with the implementation of public participation. This

pend

Obje The prdispos

Optimise decision-making by addressing the process objectives, such as trust and shared vision. This in turn will enhance the technical content of the project.

Provide minimum requirements that will optimise public participation in decision-making regarding disposal sites.

L slation and Guidelines Regarding Public Participation

onstitution defines the role of the public in the activities of all three spheres of government, namely , provincial and local government (Sections 59, 72, 118, 152 and 154). Chapter 10 of the Constitution

(S n 195) states that the basic values and principles governing public administration include encouraging participation in policy-making and responding to public need. Chapter 3 (Section 40) requires all s of government to adhere to the principles (Section 41) of co-operative governance by informing one r of and consulting one another on matters of common interest and providing effective, transparent, table and coherent governance for the Republic as a whole.

all ans of state that may significantly affect the environment. Section 2(4)(f) states that one of thles is the promotion of the participation of all IAPs in environmental governance. All people must haportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable ave part

e any disposal site without a Permit. In this appendix, guidance and Minimum Requirements areed, regarding what is required from a Permit Applicant or Permit Holder in terms of public participa

omotion of Access to Information Act, 2000, recognises that everyone has the constitutional right n 32 of the Constitution) of access to any information held by the State and by another person when tation is needed to exercise or protect any rights. The objectives of the Act, as stated in Section 9(e), e empowering and educating people to participate in decisions made by public bodies, especially when ecisions affect their rights.

Government Gazette No. 18261, 5th September 1997. A description of the public participation process is ed in the Guideline Document regarding EIA regulations [Ref: Department of Environmental Affa: Guideline Document, EIA Regulations, Implementation of Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Environmental

vation Act, Pretoria, 1998.]

epartment published the Generic Public Participation Guidelines in September 2001 [Ref: Department offfairs and Forestry: Generic Public Participation Guidelines. Pret

ap ix is based on the generic step process presented by the guidelines.

ctives of Public Participation

imary objectives of public participation in the authorisation, operation, monitoring and closure of al sites are to:

•



• Integrate issues raised by IAPs with technical assessments during decision-making.

Promote the concept of sustainability within the public participation process by enabling decision-makers to incorporate the views, opinions and perspectives of those affected by the development.

Facilitate empowerm

•

• ent, especially with regard to disadvantaged groups who should acquire skills, are

The foinvolv

• n, operation, monitoring and

n

ed to be allowed to dominate the public participation

process.

anning stages of a

ticipation should take place in successive phases, incrementally building the information base and understanding of issues. IAPs should be involved

new

he decision

have timely access to information that is accessible in terms of language and terminology, so as to build their capacity, understanding and knowledge.

The opportunity to participate should be announced in ways that are appropriate for a particular IAP ensure the broadest spectrum of IAPs is aware of

opportunities to participate as well as the importance of their participation. The public participation process should be designed to ensure the full participation of IAPs in accordance with their ability and

knowledge and experience through their participation. Public participation can ensure that people not excluded from power and resources and provide them with the basis for direct involvement in their own development.

Public Participation Principles

llowing principles underpin the public participation process and should provide guidance to those ed in the process.

The IAPs must be consulted during the dcvelopment, authorisatioclosure of disposal sites. The public participation process must provide an opportunity for all relevant IAPs to participate. Although it is not practically possible to involve every individual, representatives of all relevant sectors, perspectives and interests should be included. Special measures must also be taketo ensure the involvement of disadvantaged IAPs (this is discussed later in this appendix). IAP representation in terms of race, gender, age, cultural group and demographic area should be ensurachieve sustainable solutions and no group should

• The IAPs must be given the opportunity to be involved during the earliest plproject and there must be continuity in their participation. IAPs must receive adequate notification of the envisaged waste management facility and must be allowed to reasonably define the extent to which they wish to be involved. In particular, IAPs must not be confronted with an accomplished fact.

Continuity must be ensured and therefore par

throughout the authorisation, operation, monitoring and closure stages of the project as this inspires ideas and expertise, legitimises decisions and enriches outcomes.

• The IAPs must be informed and empowered, so that they can contribute effectively to tmaking process. Informed and empowered IAPs contribute effectively and on an equal basis. Public participation empowers IAPs because it provides the opportunity to develop knowledge and skills. IAPs should

sector. This should be done over a period of time to

desired level of participation. It is thus necessary to be familiar with the IAPs’ level of knowledge before the process starts.



The info• rmation provided to IAPs on which their decisions are based must be sufficient. Information provided to the IAPs must be sufficiently detailed, accurate and understandable, and cover

s can contribute effectively. All relevant policy, plan and programme issues must be clearly and truthfully articulated at the beginning of the process to make IAPs aware of

on and the

• The development proposal must provide for ‘the due consideration of alternatives’. It must therefore contain alternative options for reaching the same

be allowed to add more options. The n nt to enable sound evaluation.

• The decision-making process must be fair and just. The Competent Authority is the decision-making te issues and must remain objective during their involvement in the public

participation process. Decision-making must be transparent. Therefore, reasons for decisions should always be given and must be sufficient to illustrate that the input of all parties was taken into account

• nderstand each other’s rights and roles in the public participation process. Both government and civil society should take a pro-active role in creating an environment in which

nce their i

s as onment. This assists the authorities to fulfil their obligations in a

uraged to take ownership of it and

T tives and provide them with information that can be distributed to their constituents. The role of the Competent Authority also entails providing

y, procedures and guidelines regarding the authorisation of disposal sites.

• l

ged to put forward problems or complaints in a positive way, wherever possible, and positive suggestions for change or solutions to

ust

• E

municated to all roleplayers, se

all relevant aspects, so that the IAP

how they are affected. There should also be transparency and honesty about the real impacts benefits to IAPs.

There must be consideration of alternative options.

goal, including the option of no development. The IAPs must also i formation supplied in support of the different options should be sufficie

authority on disposal si

and given appropriate weight. This requires that public participation practitioners and technical specialists co-operate with each other to appropriately inform the decision-makers

Roleplayers must u

public participation supports the right of all individuals to be part of the decisions that influel ves.

Roleplayers should understand their own and others’ rights and roles so that respective responsibilitiere clear. IAPs have the right to participate and the responsibility to co-operate with government in haping the future of their envir

sustainable manner. The IAPs involved in a project should be encomust share responsibility for the outcomes of the public participation process with other roleplayers.

he project team should support and encourage IAP representa

guidance on the interpretation of government polic

The success of the public participation process relies on the bona fide actions of all roleplayers. Alroleplayers must have bona fide intentions and focus on achieving environmental justice and sustainability. It is important to ensure that time is not wasted by, for example, those who have unreasonable objections or hidden agendas. IAPs should be encoura

identified problems should be sought. The different roleplayers in a public participation process mrespect each other’s perspectives and cultural diversity.

The public participation process must be planned in order to be efficient and effective ffectiveness of process is maintained by keeping to a plan for the entire public participation process.

The plan must consist of clear phases, each with a milestone, which should be come the section on planning that follows.



is importaIt nt to maintain the momentum of the process and therefore the time and cost of the process

• to unique circumstances. Local . The public participation process must

n ue circumstances. Monitoring the process throughout could ensure that unique circumstances are identified and that the process is suitably adapted.

• ts

have been considered and, if not, receive an explanation. IAPs should be given the opportunity to comment on the public participation process and their involvement.

• roc uat s d adj E or s of ecified in adva

pendix can be used as indicators against which a public participati aluated). Evaluation usually takes place ct. Publicmonitored and evaluated by all utcomes

• anc vital ic es e

to l isesadvantag en

sufficient time and resources should be allocated.

P in tion

T ing Public Pa nimum R L:B+, H:h and H:H sites. They are flagged for es of disposal site. P anning the public participati Once th ed for a disposal site has been identified, the planning of the public participation process must begin. T is plan must form part of the development of the Scoping Report (see Figure 10) in terms of the EIAR. The public participation plan should be synchronised with the steps in the development process of the waste m ment facility, as different decisions will have to be made at the various stages of the development process.

requirements and responsibilities

should be efficient without compromising the quality of the outcome.

The public participation process must be flexible and able to adaptsocial dynamics and diversity must be understood and respectedbe flexible and able to adapt to this diversity. The process should be sufficiently flexible to include i puts at all stages, to adjust to new information and to be sensitive to uniq

There must be feedback to and from IAPs. There must be a flow of information by means of feedback to and from IAPs to establish trust. IAPs must have the opportunity to verify that their inpu

The public participation passessment of progress anfailure of a process in termap

ess must be monitored and evalusting the process where necessary. objectives that were sp

ed. Monitoring involves continuouvaluation measures the successnce. (The principles outlined in thison process can be ev

after completion of the proje roleplayers to optimise the o

participation processes should be .

Sensitivity to the circumstparticipation. The techniquappropriate and responsiveprocesses aimed at di

es of disadvantaged groups isused to facilitate the involvement of docal conditions. It should be recogned groups are time consuming and l

to implementing successful publisadvantaged groups should bd that public participation gthy processes. Therefore,

lanning and Implement

he steps set out here for the plannequirements for G:L:B

g the Public Participa

and implementation of the

Process

rticipation Process are Mi other class-, G:

l on process

e neh

anage

The public participation plan should include detailed action plans describingas follows:



1.

ly includes the public participation practitioners, the technical consultants, officials from the decision-making authority

ere possib

2. relim

The planning team velop a preliminary list of IAPs by answering questions such as:

otent• Who is likely • Who are influe the area of the activity and have local knowledge?

xpero are disad

aviour and attitude may cause the activity to fail? 3. y

The planning team should undertake an IAP analysis to clarify the social and cultural realities that should o

be informed by th l of public participation (see step 4). IAPs may be analysed by:

• Assessing how• Assessing the

groups • Assessing the capacity of different IAP groups to participate (in terms of access to technology and

literacy levels

Identifying the cultural and geographical diversity of the IAPs

4. ion is necessary

ic and the public

sensitivity of

The appropriate to the specific activity:

Establish the Public Participation Planning Team

The public participation planning process should be undertaken by a team that preferab

and, whprocess.

le, IAP representatives. This will support the objectivity of the public participation

Develop a p inary list of IAPs

should de

• Who is p ially affected by and interested in the activity and who are their representatives? to mobilise for or against the activity? ntial figures in

• Who are e• Wh• Whose beh

ts on the area and the expected key issues? vantaged and may require support to participate?

Do an IAP anal sis

be taken into acc unt during the activity. This should be done to the level that is most practical and maye outcome of determining the appropriate leve

the different IAP groups may be affected by and interested in the activity relations between IAP groups and the real or potential conflict of interest between

services, previous experience with public participation processes and similar activities, and language preference)

• • Identifying and defining socio-economic characteristics as well as the social dynamics of the area (in

terms of politics, culture, demographics and quality of life).

Determine what level of participat

The need to involve the public is directly related to the significance of the decision to the publextent to which the issue under consideration is controversial. As such, the appropriate level of participation (low, medium or high) is a function of the degree of the predicted impacts, the the receiving environment, and the sensitivity of public perceptions.

planning team may use the following criteria to determine the level of participation that is



•

•

• o what level will the activity result in certain groups benefiting more than others economically, olitically, environmentally or culturally?

implement the activity? What level of biophysical and/or social impact is expected?

Table A.4.1

E 26

To what level does the activity involve finding a compromise between economic growth, social equity and ecological integrity?

• To what level does controversy already exists around the issues of the activity? To what level does public perception exist that people stand to lose or gain significantly from the activity? Tp

• To what level is public support necessary to•• To what level does the decision-making authority have credibility in the specific area of the activity? • To what level were previous activities imposed upon the relevant IAPs?

xamples of low, medium and high level of public participation

Low level of PP Medium level of PP High level of PP

Advertise the project and public partici tion process in local print a erably broadcast

Advertise the project and public participation process in local print and broadcast media

Advertise the project and public participation process in local, regional and national print and broadcast media

pand pref

media

Possibly distribute briefing information to IAPs

Distribute briefing information to IAPs.

Liaise with direct neighbours in most practical manner to gather issues (e.g., telephone calls and

tt

Liaise with identified IAPs to gather issues. Possibly hold community meetings, focus group discussions and an IAP workshop.

Liaise with broad range of IAPs in local languages to gather issues. Hold community meetings, IAP workshops and public meetings

le ers, and/or interviews)

Possibly distribute proceedings of meetings to IAPs for comment

Distribute proceedings of meetings to IAPs for comment

Disneiin plibrtradi

tribute project information to ghbours and make it available ublic places such as the local ary, community hall or tional authority office.

Distribute project information directly to IAPs and make it available in public places.

Distribute project information widely and make it available in public places and in local languages.

Possibly hold a public meeting Hold a public meeting

26 After: Manyaka Greyling Meiring, October 2001. Guide to Public Participation in South Africa. Table 3, p22.



5. Select appropriate public participation methods to engage with IAPs

Appropriate methods may be selected by determining which methods will maintain the credibility and legitimacy of the process, develop team-building opportunities with the public, and can be accommodated within the project budget. Various combinations of methods may be used to meet the different needs of

The foll

ublic Public meetings are open gatherings used to present information to and exchange views

different groups. Specific methods should be matched with particular IAP groups.

owing are examples of methods that may be used to communicate with IAPs:

Pmeetings with IAPs on a specific aspect of an activity.

Open days An open day consists of displays and printed material made available to the public. Members of the project team should be present to have one-on-one discussions with IAPs.

Workshops A workshop is a structured meeting aimed at defining issues, evaluating criteria or creating options. It is useful for bringing together IAPs with different values and perspectives.

Community This involves presentations to IAP groups that are alreadygro p presentations

u assembled for their own

purposes and is useful for disseminating information to disadvantaged groups.

Media releases and feature

Information is prepared and distributed to the print and broadcast media to encourage general interest in the activity.

articles

Advertisements This may entail brief notices informing the public about particular events or detailed advertisements addressing particular issues.

Focus groups Focus group are discussion-based interviews of small groups who are either randomly selected or represent the demographics of an area. These discussions produce qualitative data and are especially useful for liaison with disadvantaged groups (which may include waste salvagers).

6.

he public participation process should be monitored on a continuous basis and evaluated at set points.

le process and thus com itment from those involved.

and

What information should be forthcoming from the monitoring and evaluation process?

Develop a framework for monitoring and evaluation of the public participation process

TAll role players may be involved in monitoring and evaluating and should reflect on the participation process and the resources expended. This promotes a transparent and accountab

m

The public participation team should therefore develop a framework for monitoring and evaluation, identify objectives and indicators. For example, the framework could include the following:

•



• This could include: were IAPs involved; was their understanding of the issues enhanced; were thereadequate opportun

ities for public participation; was there feedback on decisions made; were legal

lic The principles of public participation are ideal indicators

• e players to

7. Fin

Thsel the

pe

• umber of IAPs involved, the use of consultants, the extent to which IAPs are organised, the number

elopment of communication material and translation costs. Timeframe and target dates of the public participation process.

Imp

The he propImpl

1. Generate a final IAP list

s of the artments, provincial government departments, local and

tra tional authorities, waste generators, residents in the nearby vicinity, water users, the local water aut rity, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) (especially the typical watchdog NGOs), Community

nagement, and others. In disposal sites that have dered to be IAPs.

2.

ntatives. IAP groups or sectors that are less rganised will have to select persons to act as their representatives for the duration of the activity. The

requirements met (both in terms of public participation procedure and people’s rights); were pubconcerns incorporated in the decision made. against which the public participation process can be monitored and evaluated. Who is the information for and how will it be used? The information should enable all rolvalidate the public participation process, also in terms of specific legal objectives within the mandatesof different role players. alise a detailed public participation plan

e final public participation plan should specify details of the activities and methods that have now been ected and include goals and deadlines for each step of the public participation process (as linked to

ste s in the development process of the waste management facility). The final plan should also include th following:

The budget of the public participation process. The budget will be influenced by, inter alia, the nof feedback sessions to and from IAPs, dev

• • The roles and responsibilities of all the role players within the public participation process. • A plan and goal for each IAP meeting (public meeting, workshop, etc).

lementing the Public Participation Process

public participation process can be implemented once the regulating authorities have accepted tosed public participation plan as outlined in the required EIAR documents (see Figure 10). ementation involves the following steps:

The preliminary IAP list developed during the planning phase should now be finalised although it is often necessary to revise a list throughout the process. IAPs would typically include the representativeCompetent Authority, national government dep

diho

Based Organisations (CBOs), the Institute for Waste Maready been developed, existing waste salvagers would also be consial

Identify IAP representatives

IAPs that are organised may already have their own represeofollowing are important considerations when identifying representatives:



• The representative must have a mandate from the group to act on its behalf. • As the choice of representative is linked to particular issues of the project, it should be clear what is

expected of the representative. Representatives should take responsibility by familiarising themselves with documents for discussion, submitting comments and contributions by target dates, distributing

• he individuals who represent groups and sectors of IAPs should, as far as reasonably possible, ject and the public participation process.

3.

g

ld ,

ion, timing, method of operation, and likely impacts.

by

4. Meetings with IAPs include the initial briefing meeting followed by, for example, workshops, open days

d inating the process. Therefore, it is good practice to establish what systems

already exist within a community or group of IAPs that can possibly serve as a representative structure.

ad

consist of mandated representatives of all relevant IAP groups. This committee would act as a representative body of the IAPs, transfer information back to the IAPs, help to resolve issues relating to

Ps with whom the developer and the Competent Authority can communicate. Isin

A m, the EIAR require that IAPs be notified and asked to come forward by advertising in the lo e fo

information to their constituents, ensuring feedback to and from constituents, and participating in public participation meetings. Tremain the same throughout the pro

Prepare and disseminate briefing information IAPs must be notified and informed of the need for and intention of a specific activity. This could entailsending out personal invitations to attend a briefing meeting, accompanied by a concise briefindocument. The briefing document forms the information base from which the IAPs will enter the process. It should therefore be in the language(s) that IAPs are comfortable with. The briefing document shouprovide the IAPs and their representatives with background on the purpose of and need for the facilitythe proposed actions, general locat

It may be necessary to undertake fieldwork to ensure that disadvantaged IAPs who cannot be reachedformal communication channels are reached. This may entail giving a presentation based on the briefing document to the local structures and inviting them to the briefing meeting.

Meet with IAPs

or public meetings (see point 5 of ‘Planning and implementing the public participation process’).

It is preferable to communicate with IAPs through existing local structures for as long as this proves effective. “New” structures for the purposes of IAP liaison should not be established unnecessarily or too soon during the public participation process as this may create confusion and division among IAPs anlead to certain groups dom

However, a committee could be established once there has been sufficient communication with the brorange of IAPs (by means of selected methods) and general satisfaction that the committee members

the development of the waste management facility and provide a stable body of IA

sues of concern to the IAPs should be identified and discussed during meetings. These would usually clude health, property values, aesthetics or other environmental concerns.

s a minimucal or regional press. Such advertising would normally be an insufficient method on its own. Thllowing should be kept in mind to ensure proper attendance and participation of IAPs at meetings:



•

• e working days before the meeting.

• he

• t of

• lingness to participate. Comfortable

lationships facilitate participation. The team should therefore strive to implement the principles of ublic participation, as outlined in this appendix.

c. Skilled external facilitators are preferable. It helps if the facilitator is familiar with the subject matter, but the facilitator must not be seen to

e. • If necessary, a cut-off date may be set after which no further inputs will be accepted unless it can be

n why

t their inputs have been carefully considered. Inputs mu therefore be acknowledged, carefully listened to, debated, and reasons for decisions should be

l

on of puts in the decision-making process. Other mechanisms for providing feedback can include

newsletters to IAPs, media releases (print and broadcast media), or meetings with IAPs.

eir involvement, their comments on information regarding matters that

affect them, and whether or not their views, comments and opinions were accurately and fairly

Monitoring and evaluation can assist with identifying problems early on in the process and relevant

For example, the public participation process may be monitored in terms of the degree to which IAPs trust decision-makers, the level of empowerment of different sectors, the degree to which sectors are

IAPs should be notified of the meeting at least six weeks in advance and a formal registration process may be followed. The objectives of the meeting should be clear. IAPs should receive documentation or be briefed at least fivCare should be taken to ensure that the venue is accessible to all IAPs in terms of transport. Tdifferent languages preferred by IAPs should be used in ways that are most practical. Project team members could undertake a practice session or ‘dry-run’ so as to agree on the contentheir presentations and to plan discussion sessions. IAP meetings need to both build relationships and develop the content of the issues at stake. The conduct of the project team members will influence the IAPs’ wilrep

• Facilitators should be used during meetings with the publi

favour any one outcom

demonstrated that the information is new; the information is important, and there is good reasoit was not brought forward previously. Adequate prior notification of the cut-off point must be given.

5. Ensure feedback to and from IAPs It is very important that the IAPs are satisfied tha

stprovided. Public input may be evaluated in terms of its relationship to government policy; local provinciaand national interests; technical feasibility; and potential impacts.

Feedback should always be given to all IAPs in a form and language that is appropriate to the particular group. IAPs must receive feedback on decisions that were made, the consequences of such decisions and the way in which their inputs have been considered in the decision-making process. Feedback mechanisms such as Issues and Response Reports form a useful way of facilitating the incorporatiIAP in

The public participation process must also allow IAPs to provide feedback to the decision-makers on thsatisfaction with the process and their

incorporated in the decision-making process.

6. Monitor and evaluate the public participation process

changes can therefore be made if necessary. The monitoring and evaluation framework that was developed during the planning phase can now be implemented and the relevant data can be gathered and analysed. The results should be documented and reported.



organised and represented, and efficiency and effectiveness of process. The performance of representatives may also be monitored and evaluated during the process to ensure that constituents receive relevant information and are satisfied that their needs and views are accurately conveyed.

Requirement for all large and hazardous sites that a public participation report be submitted as part of the Permit Application Report. This is not a requirement for communal sites, but a

luding on provided to IAPs, all contact sessions

with IAPs, all issues raised by IAPs as well as the decision-making authorities’ responses to the issues,

will not come to an end once the waste management facility has been completed but will continue during the operation of the facility by means of the Monitoring Committee

ittee should be established once operation of the facility ommittee members should preferably comprise the IAPs representatives

inv ess.

articipation in Disadvantaged Communities

ublic participation processes should appropriately support disadvantaged IAP groups so they can participate

background on the community’s general history, the munity practices (including

ultural practices), existing community groups (including migrant workers), gender relations, literacy levels,

e

st e

disabled. hoice mostly driven by need. Therefore, it is good practice to spend

sufficient time and resources on explaining to people how the project will affect their lives and how

An evaluation process may also be followed to assess IAP input and determine the way in which it should be incorporated in the decision-making process.

7. Submit a public participation report

It is a Minimum

public participation report may be requested at a set point during the process for small and medium sites. The report should contain record of, inter alia, a list of all role players involved in the process incthe final list of IAPs, all correspondence with IAPs, all informati

proof that public resistance does not represent a Fatal Flaw, and all decisions that were made (results of the public participation process).

The public participation process

(see Appendix 11). The Monitoring Commcommences upon approval. C

olved in the public participation proc

Implementing Public P

Pin waste management facility projects on a level that is comparable to that of advantaged IAPs. This entails approaching disadvantaged IAPs and including them in a manner consistent with their circumstances and desired level of participation.

Therefore, the participation process must be informed byprevious involvement of external organisations, local leadership, relevant comcetc. The following are good practice recommendations for including disadvantaged IAPs: • It is good practice to establish what systems already exist within a community that could possibly serv

as a representative structure for the duration of the project. Effective community-based organisations that are non-politicised can play a dynamic role in mobilising the community to participate. Care mube taken to ensure the representation of marginalised groups such as women, youth, the elderly and th

• Participation is a personal c

they could benefit from participating. • Community representatives require appropriate support and co-operation from the project team to



promote the community’s capacity to participate. Such support may include encouraging the greater community to work with their representatives by raising awareness about the purpose of the participation process and the role of the representatives. The representatives may need capacity-building training.

people are comfortable with participating and have the confidence to participate. In settings where advantaged and disadvantaged

xample of Public Participation at a Landfill

Site The ent process of a landfill site begins in response to a defined need for such a facility. The

e basis of the ‘givens’, i.e., the type w efined, a

cons ted to undertake Public Scoping in terms of the EIAR. The public participation planning rocess also begins at this point. An application form to undertake an activity and the supporting EIA

and the public participation plan has been obtained, the implementation of the ublic participation process begins. After generating a final IAP list and identifying IAP representatives, the

d include health, property values, aesthetics or other environmental

ncerns.

andfill consultants now investigate and technically rank the candidate landfills, taking into consideration prevent

l sites has been completed, further IAPs who could be ffected by the top candidate landfills are notified and registered.

g of the candidate landfill sites is reviewed using a consultative process and the top ranking sites are bjected to a more detailed investigation to confirm the ranking. IAP input could also involve the complete

limination of certain sites and the addition of others. The local authority is fully involved at this stage, as it is

• It is good practice to use techniques that will ensure that illiterate

groups need to interact, it is particularly important to establish rapport between the groups, using a medium that is suited to both. Visual methods, such as mental mapping and diagramming, may enablenon-literate and literate people to work with each other in the process as equals and may generate pictorial or symbolic representations of different relevant aspects.

E

selection (Section 4)

developmclassification system is used to determine the class of facility required on thof aste, the size of waste stream, and the ambient climatic conditions. As soon as the need has been d

ultant is appoinpdocments are submitted to the Competent Authority.

Once approval for the activitypIAPs are notified and informed of the need for and intention to develop the required class of landfill in the area. This is done by disseminating briefing information and holding meetings with the IAPs. The IAPs andtheir representatives are informed of the purpose of and need for the waste disposal site, the proposed actions,general location, timing, method of operation and likely impacts. Issues of concern to the IAPs are identifieand discussed. These would usuallyco

The IAPs are registered to establish formal record of continued participation. Sufficient candidate landfill sites are identified to ensure the due consideration of alternatives, including any sites put forward by the IAPs at meetings or in writing to the developer. Lissues identified by the IAPs. The developer takes out an option on the top ranking sites at this stage to the sudden escalation of land prices. Once the provisional ranking of candidate landfila The candidate landfills are presented to the IAPs and acceptance by the majority on the ranking is obtained. The rankinsue



responsible for determiningauthority is also responsible Once the ranking of candidate landfill sites has been accepted to a more detailed investigation in the form of a Feasibility Stuacceptability of the site. As part of the Feasibility Study, those IAPs who wisite under consideratio

the zoning and/or the consent land-use associated with the candidate site. The local for controlling any future development within the buffer zone surrounding the site.

by the IAPs, the top ranking sites are subjected dy. This confirms the environmental and public

ll be immediately affected by the n are included in the consultative process. The consultative process, and proof that

ublic resistance does not represent a Fatal Flaw, together with the geohydrological investigation, the

nce the draft Feasibility Report has been drawn up, it is presented to the IAPs for comment and input. After P comments has been included and addressed, the Feasibility Report is submitted to the Competent

so made available to the IAPs.

ces. e kept informed of progress.

Site Authorisation (Section 5) The Perm ication Report ents the: - Site estigation - ental Im- l Design

End-use Plan Operating Plan

oring Plan.

sented to formation

Permit Application Copies are then made available to the IAPs.

Investigation, impact assessment, and design (Section 6, 7, 8) The site investigation addresses all the queries and requirements of the IAPs. During the Environmental Impact Assessment, a team that includes representatives of the IAPs selects the actions and impacts that make up the Candidate Landfill Site Ranking Matrix (see Figure 9). The team also score the matrix. The site design then addresses the negative impacts identified during the investigations or by IAPs. The site layout is designed with the landfill's closure and end-use in mind. For this reason, the IAPs are consulted to determine the preferred end-use of the site. When the Conceptual Design is complete, it is presented to and discussed with the IAPs, in order to inform them and to obtain any further input that might be forthcoming

Site preparation (Section 9) During site preparation and commissioning, the necessary infrastructure and facilities are established and the site is prepared to receive and dispose of waste. On completion of the construction phase, the Department, the

ppreliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Report, and the Conceptual Design, are included in the Feasibility Report. OIAAuthority The Feasibility Report is al When the IAPs and the Departments have accepted a site as feasible, the authorisation procedure commenThe IAPs ar

it ApplInv

docum

Environm pact Assessment Landfil

- - - Water Monit The Permit Application Report is written in such a way that it is easily understandable and is also prethe IAPs in an oral presentation. With the consent of the Competent Authority, certain confidential inthat allows a Permit Holder a competitive business edge is removed from the copies of the Report.



Competent Authoronstruction has be

ity and the IAPs inspect the site and examine all relevant records. Once satisfied that all en carried out in full conformity with the design specifications and drawings, the

fill operat ormance with ns. Therefore, a Landfill Monitoring Committee is formed to maintain

or fears that they may have concerning tandard of operation, or impacts such as odours, can be readily addressed.

The Landfill Moni ommittee determines its own terms of reference, including:

itorindisposed of, a investigations on the site and the quality of life of people affected by the

• The identification, investigation and remediation of problems on site. inating consensus

information.

more regularly when problems are experienced and expert advice is sought as required.

jective of the landfill closure procedure is to ensure that the End-use Plan is publicly acceptable in both rt and the long term. Thereafter, the objective is to ensure that the landfill is remediated so that it is

is nearing the end of its life, so that they can be included in the determination of mediation, closure and end-use.

A Closure Report that takes into consideration the results of consultation with the IAPs is then drawn up. This is submitted to the Competent Authority as part of the closure procedure, and made available to the public. The landfill is only considered closed once the Competent Authority, the Department and the IAPs are satisfied that the remediation of the site has been properly carried out. This is assessed at a final site inspection attended by representatives of all the relevant government departments and the IAPs. After closure, the Monitoring Committee continue to monitor the integrity of cover, drainage systems, subsidences, fire, vegetation and security and related environmental impacts, e.g., landfill gas release. Water quality monitoring (Section 13) Water quality monitoring is carried out in terms of the Minimum Requirements and the permit conditions. Records of monitoring results are maintained and are available to the IAPs or Monitoring Committee, when required.

cDepartment gives permission to commence operation. Site operation and operation monitoring (Section 10 & 11)

ion must ensure that all waste is disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner and ine permit conditio

The landconf thcontact with the IAPs throughout the operation, so that any complaintsthe s

toring C • The mon g of operations on the site, including hours of operation, gate controls, types of waste

t the site, leachate management, air and water quality complaints about the site, anyand remedial action required

site.

• Keeping the public informed of activities/developments on the site and dissem

The committee meet

Site closure (Section 12) The obhe shot

environmentally acceptable and suited to the implementation of the proposed end-use. The IAPs are notified and informed that the sitere

APPENDIX 4.2: AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION


Appendix 4.2 AQUIFER CLASS(Section 4)

IFICATION

ir

ields from boreholes are used as a basis for a quantitative aquifer classification. The following index is

Aquifers must be classified in terms of their existing and/or potential value as a resource, and hence thesensitivity to pollution. The criteria for classification are potential sustained yield, water quality and significance:

Potential Sustained Yield Ysuggested:

Yield

Low Medium High*

Very high

Range

<1l/sec 1-5l/sec 5-20l/sec

>20l/sec

Potential

usage

Stock, garden,

Limited develop-

Small

Large-scale water

domestic ment potential community supply

Water Quality For an aquifer to be considered for one of the above uses, which may include agricultural, domestic, ecological, industrial or recreational, the water quality must be suited to the proposed use.

* It is noted that yields in excess of 5l/sec are seldom found. Where such yields are encountered, the holes have

usually been sited scientifically and are located on very favourable structures, such as faults or along igneous

dykes.[Ref. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities, Pretoria, 1998].

APPENDIX 4.2: AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION


Significance The significance or potential significance of an aquifer is assessed as follows:

An aquifer that is used to supply 50% or more of urban domestic water for a given area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources should this aquifer be impacted

Sole source aquifer

upon or depleted. Major aquifer

High-yielding aquifer of acceptable quality water.

Minor aquifer Moderately yielding aquifer of acceptable quality or high yielding aquifer of poor qu

water.

ality

Non-aquifer Insignificantly yielding aquifer of good quality or moderately yielding aquifer of poor

quality or aquifer which will never be utilised for water supply and which will not contaminate other aquifers.

Special aquifer

An aquifer designated as such by the Minister of Water Affairs after due process.

Source: Aquifer Classification Project. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. January 1998.

Classification Aquifers are classified first by their yield, i.e., low, medium, high and very high, and thereafter by their significance. Note: The hydraulic characteristics of any aquifer that could be affected by landfill leachate must be ascertained by means of pumping tests.

APPENDIX 4.3: BUFFER ZONES


Appendix 4.3 BUFFER ZONES

he establishment and maintenance of buffer zones are enforceable in terms of the Health Act, 1977 (Act 63 of 1977), which makes provision for measures to prevent any nuisance, unhygienic or offensive condition that may be harmful to health. A buffer zone must be approved by the relevant government departments, surveyed, registered in the office of the Surveyor General and the Registrar of Deeds by way of servitudes or subdivided portions of land. Buffer zones will vary in size, depending on the disposal site classification, and the nature and extent of the anticipated environmental impacts. Factors that may influence the size of a defined buffer zone include topography, micro climatic conditions, waste types, the operating plan and the results of consultation with interested and affected parties IAPs. Scientific investigations, which may include any dispersion modelling and health risk assessments, will be used to define the various areas of influence associated with the disposal site. The extent to which these areas of influence could result in a health impact defines the size of the buffer zone. The shape of the outer perimeter may not be regular (i.e., a straight line or circle), resulting in an amorphous buffer zone form. In certain cases, it may be possible to meet buffer zone requirements by progressively moving the landfill operation away from future sensitive land uses. In this way, the required setback distance can be maintained as the operation moves away before encroaching development occurs. Mitigatory measures, including site screening, special operational measures and restricted operating times, can serve as motivation for reducing setback distances associated with defined buffer zones. Present and future land uses must be taken into consideration. A buffer zone should preferably comprise unpopulated land. No land use that is deemed to be incompatible with the proposed disposal operation may be allowed within the buffer zone. The local authority and the relevant government departments may permit certain land uses within the buffer zone, subject to such conditions as they may impose. Agriculture or limited industrial developments may typically be found to be compatible with landfill operation. To guard against undesirable land use encroachment and to prevent conflict of interests in the future, measures to control development within the buffer zone should be implemented as soon as a candidate site is found to be feasible. The Permit Holder could obtain ownership of the land affected by the defined buffer zone or enter into an appropriate contractual agreement with the owner. Such agreement should result in a notarial encumbrance being registered against the affected land portion by way of a servitude registered against the title deed. The servitude must limit the use of the area affected by the buffer zone, as stipulated in the Permit. The local authority must include the limitations posed by the buffer zone in the Integrated Development Pland and/or Spatial Development Framework for the area. Maintenance of the buffer zone and ongoing monitoring of land use associated with it must form part of the ongoing operation of the disposal site.

(Section 4) Buffer zones are areas of land separating the registered surveyed boundaries of disposal sites from the registered surveyed boundaries of identified sensitive land use categories (both existing or proposed) such as residential, educational, health and social activities. T



Two historic case studies arplanning and the demarcatio

Landfill A This case study illustrates hpurposes, disappear anbe required.

e included to provide perspective on errors that have occurred in terms of land use n of conceptual buffer zones around landfill sites.

ow, on remediation of a disposal site, the buffer zone will, for all intents and d a new approach to land use planning and regulation in the area (i.e., the end use) will

developed, a theoretical radius was imposed as a buffer zone, measured from the centre of the ndfill site and extending over adjacent land beyond the perimeter of the landfill site boundaries. The buffer

one was not quantitatively imposed as a condition of the landfill Permit and the title deeds of the land beyond that fell within the buffer zone were not endorsed to reflect that they were encumbered

y the buffer zone. As a result, development of this land could not be restricted, as it had no legal binding

ocal

the rrounding area (small holdings) and the nuisances typically associated with an operating landfill site.

site, End- dential development. This was based, inter alia, on the

pinions of occupational hygienists acting as consultants to the local authority responsible for waste na ,

the adevel hysical separation of the closest residential properties from the landfill site proper

as sufficient to negate any effect associated with odours, gasses or other nuisances which might possibly an

andfill B

A cohazar gn, an ardetai d that the cumulative effects of wind dispersion

f dust particles and possible groundwater pollution and other factors required the Permit Applicant to provide

Landfill A is located on the fringe of an existing metropolitan urban area and is bordered by a national highway. Surrounding land uses include agricultural smallholdings and industrial developments. When first lazthe perimeter boundarybeffect on third parties. The imposition of the buffer zone beyond the perimeter boundary of the landfill site therefore had little if any practical application. When Landfill A was originally identified, it was far from urban development. The local authority and lresidents association had determined that the area to the immediate east should be used for industrial and commercial purposes, because of the perceived incompatibility of the rural residential nature of suSubsequently, substantial development led to a difference in opinion on the end use of the remediated landfill

between residents in the immediate vicinity and the local authority (Planning Division). As a result, the use Plan was amended to fairly high-density resi

oma gement and disposal. The relevant specialists believed that, upon closure and remediation of Landfill A

nticipated nuisances normally associated with a landfill were not likely to affect the nearby residential opments and that the p

wem ate from the closed site.

L

mpany in Mpumalanga was involved in a protracted site selection process and the authorisation of a dous waste landfill site. Based on the projections of the consulting engineers responsible for the desiea of land sufficiently large to accommodate the landfill was procured by the Permit Applicant. Further led environmental analysis by specialists then determine

ofor an amorphous buffer zone around the landfill. This amorphous buffer zone extended beyond the surveyed boundaries of the original site in certain instances.



The Department27 required the Permit Applicant to procure the external areas of the buffer zone by way of servitudes before the Permit would be issued. At this point in the site selection process, neighbouring propertyowners (farmers) were aware of the permit requirements and, when approached to allow the registr

ation of the

rvitudes (external to the Landfill B site) insisted that their entire farm portions be procured at prices far

he Permit Holder now owns a large tract of land surrounding the original waste disposal site and is unable to

sebeyond the market value. Tsell it at a price that would reasonably cover its purchase. This typical dilemma should be taken into account when planning a landfill, especially because the protracted site selection process and the involvement of IAPs(most notably adjacent land owners) can militate against the reasonable procurement of sufficient land to cater for the disposal site and the associated buffer zone.

27 Before the transfer of the disposal site permit function to the Ministerof Environmental Affairs and Tourism

APPENDIX 5.1: WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OTHER THAN LANDFILLS


Appendix 5.1

y the end of this

ppendix.

ntroduction

to provide Minimum Requirements for environmentally acceptable waste disposal for a ectrum of landfill sizes and types, and to provide a framework of minimum waste disposal standards within

f

g

plemented, resulting in increased re-use, materials recovery and treatment, and the establishment of increasing numbers of waste storage areas, materials recovery plants

t

• Disposal costs have increased, applying economic pressure on organisations to reduce the quantities and improve the characteristics of waste streams for disposal. This has resulted in increases in materials recovery plants and treatment plants. Economic pressure has also resulted in regional landfills being established, rather than a number of small landfills, with additional transfer stations established to transfer waste from generation areas to these regional landfills.

The definition of a disposal site in Section 1 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), states, “ ‘disposal site’ means a site used for the accumulation of waste for the purpose of disposing or treatment of such waste”. Reference in the definition to “accumulation” and “disposing” of waste must be interpreted both in terms of its dictionary meaning and the overall purpose of the Act. The overall purpose of

WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OTHER THAN LANDFILLS (Section 5) This appendix discusses the application of the Minimum Requirements to waste management facilities, other than landfills, which fall under the definition of “disposal sites”. The Minimum Requirements for water qualitmonitoring at waste management facilities other than landfills are summarised in Table A5 ata

I The Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill was originally developed to improve the standard of waste disposal, spwhich to work and upon which to build. As such, the scope of the document’s first and second editions specifically encompassed landfill sites. However, a number of factors have led to an increase in the number owaste management facilities other than landfills being developed. These include the following:

• New technologies have become available, providing more advanced treatment techniques than landfillinfor certain waste types, such as vacuum pyrolysis and incineration of health care risk wastes. Additional technologies can be expected in the future.

• The waste hierarchy is being better im

and treatment plants.

• As existing landfills have filled to capacity and land for further development close to generation areas is more difficult to find, so transfer stations are used from which waste is transferred to more distanlandfills.



the Act is: “To provide for the effective protection and controlled utilization of the environment and for matters incidental thereto”. Treatment may include physical (e.g., bailing, compaction and shredding), chemical (e.g., coagulation and neutralisation) and biological (e.g., anaerobic and denitrification) operations and processes. Therefore, disposal sites as per definition include sites used as waste storage areas, transfer

aste treatment facilities and storage areas at incinerators.

son shall

emains landfill, however, the princ itting the sites on which other

s. This

n,

Permit Holders on the application of the Minimum Requirements to all waste management facilities defined as disposal

ent system, where waste is generated, stored, collected, and then

ion, a materials recovery centre, a treatment plant, a vacuum pyrolysis plant, an i of waste management facilities can exist in the waste management

ste ansfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants idues from treatment, recovery, incineration and vacuum pyrolysis are generally

n , while wastes from transfer stations could be transported to either a landfill or a aterials rec

it of a disposal site, a Permit is required for all areas where

waste is accumulated for the purposes of storage, materials recovery, treatment, incineration, vacuum pyrolysis or disposal.

Disposal Site Classification (Section 3) As in the case of landfills, disposal sites other than landfills are classified according to the type of waste accepted, the size of the waste stream, and the potential for significant leachate generation. In addition,

stations, materials recovery plants, w

According to Section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), "no perestablish, provide or operate any disposal site without a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs...". The primary focus of Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill r

iples and processes it sets out are largely applicable to selecting and permwaste management facilities are to be established, and have been applied to these facilities in recent yearappendix therefore sets out Minimum Requirements for other waste management facilities. These Minimum Requirements are to be applied in conjunction with the principles and processes set out in this document. The Minimum Requirements for other waste management facilities have not been included in the main text to ensure that the focus of the landfill document is not diluted and because, in the future, a separate document may be developed. The objectives of extending the application of the Minimum Requirements to include other waste management facilities in the third edition of Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill are:

• To apply the Minimum Requirements for site classification, investigation, authorisation, desigoperation and monitoring to all waste management facilities classed as disposal sites, and

• To provide guidance to Legislators, Consultants, Permit Applicants and

sites.

The Role of Other Waste Management Facilities in the Waste Management System

Figure 4 outlines the waste managemtransported to a transfer statinc nerator, or directly to landfill. A number sy m, including landfills, waste storage areas, trand incinerators. Restra sported to landfillm overy centre or a treatment plant. Materials recovered on landfills through salvaging would typ cally be stored on site until sufficient quantities are available for collection, and then transported to ma erial recovery plants. In terms of the definition



however, the type of facility is included in the wording of the classification. For example, a transfer station could have G:S:B- (waste transfer station) classification, which is included on the Permit. Similarly, a pre-incineration storage area could have an H:H (medical waste incinerator storage area) classification.

ll disposal sites must therefore be classified according the system set out in Section 3 of this document. here treatment chemicals are used, these should be considered in the classification. In addition, at treatment

g must be carried out on e maximum waste stream expected, except for hazardous facilities. The potential for significant leachate

he

nerated. ding

ity, in

aw to nt

ver an important aquifer. Depending on the type of facility, factors to be considered include proximity to

e case of communal storage areas. In all cases, liaison with the authorities is required. The submission of a

rmal Feasibility Report to the authorities is required for facilities classed as medium, large or hazardous. For the communal classes, the Minimum Requirement for feasibility studies is that representatives of the

petent Authority and relevant government departments or, if required, an expert, should give onsideration to the need for such a study based on site specifics.

er generated, and the incinerator itself is

AWfacilities, the classification must be carried out on the waste prior to treatment. Sizinthgeneration is likely to be low for most of these facilities, given that most do not involve permanent waste bodies, and waste is typically stored for short periods of time. Possible exceptions do exist, such as a wastestorage area where waste is stockpiled in the open for extended periods in a B+ area, or a facility where tstorage, handling or treatment of wet wastes result in leachate or highly contaminated seepage being geThis should be considered by the Responsible Person. Once the classification has been determined accorto the landfill classification system, the name of the facility type is added to the classification.

Site Selection (Section 4) The Minimum Requirements for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration storage areas regarding site selection are included in Table A5, at the end of this appendix. As for landfills, a number of candidate sites must be identified for these facilities. The candidate sites should then be evaluated, in terms of relevant factors, and ranked. For all sites, drainage, environmental sensitivaccess and buffer zones should be considered. The fatal flaws listed in Section 4.4 should be consideredrelation to the type of facility and suspected impacts. Fatal flaws are unlikely to apply to facilities such as storage areas, but may well apply to facilities with greater expected impacts, e.g., it would be a fatal flsite a general waste transfer station within 3 km of the end of a runway or a hazardous waste treatment plaowaste generation areas, markets for recyclables, and/or landfills. For treatment plants and incinerators, air pathways should be considered. (For incinerators, this would be more relevant to the incinerator itself, and not the pre- and post- incineration areas.) Once ranking has been carried out, the results of the ranking exercise must be presented to IAPs, except in th

fo

Comc

Public participation is also required for waste management facilities other than landfills, see Appendix 4.1, and most of these facilities are also subject to the EIA process. The public participation process required will vary in depth according to the classification and type of disposal facility. For example, a public participation process may not be required for a G:C:B- landfill storage area, while such a process is likely to be extensive for a H:H waste treatment facility or incinerator. It is noted that, for incinerators, the Minimum Requirements only extend to the pre-and post-incinerator areas and the scrubber watsubject to the Atmospheric Pollution Control Act, 1965 (Act 45 of 1965). An EIA and public participation would be required for the total project, in this instance, with the Minimum Requirements taking a secondary



role. For complex technologies, such as incineration, vacuum pyrolisis and waste treatment, education and empowerment of the public on the issues and effects of these technologies must form part of the public participation process.

Authorisation (Section 5)

The same authorisation processes as outlined in Figure 13 of this document must be applied to the

s

n

etermined during site selection must be confirmed, and a Permit Application form must be completed. For certain classifications and facilities, geological and geohydrological investigations and reports are required. An

ations for the majority of waste management facilities (see Section 7). A preliminary environmental overview should be undertaken during the

, etailed reports for the investigations required for

particular classification of a facility must be attached to the Permit Application. A topocadastral map (1:50 00) must be included, indicating the location of the following (if present) within a 5 km radius of the site

boundary:

neration areas are included in Table A5, at the end of s ll sites, the physical geography of the site must be described, test pits must be excavated to

development and authorisation of facilities other than landfill. The Minimum Requirements for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants, and pre- and post-incineration storage arearegarding authorisation are included in Table A5, at the end of this appendix. As with landfills, for general waste facilities, the Permit Applicant will deal with representatives of the Competent Authority. Permit Application reports are required for all facilities, but the detail of investigatiovaries according to site classification as well as according to the type of facility. The site classification d

environmental impact assessment is required in terms of the EIA regul

scoping process, which addresses the surrounding land uses, ecology and conservation worthiness of the site,as well as any other relevant factors such as the need for a buffer zone. The land use upon which these waste management facilities are to be developed should be approved and correctly zoned in terms of local and provincial legislation. Where anticipated environmental impacts indicate the need for a buffer zone, the landthat would fall within the buffer zone should be surveyed and registered in the office of the Surveyor General and the Registrar of Deeds by way of servitudes or subdivided portions of land. As a minimum, Permit Application reports would include sections on site classification, the existing waste management system, climatic conditions, a description of the site, an initial environmental impact assessmenta conceptual design, and an operating and monitoring plan. Da0

• the waste management facility • the area served • existing residential and industrial areas • possible future developments • transport routes • other waste management facilities in the area • zoning and land use of the waste management facility and surrounding area within a 5 km radius, and • the 1:100 year floodline of all watercourses.

Site Investigation (Section 6) The Minimum Requirements for site investigations for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials

covery plants, treatment plants, and pre- and post-incirethi appendix. For a



determine the depth of soil and the presence of groundwater, and any mining subsidences must be investigated. Depending on the classification of the facility and the facility type, surface water quality may need to be

te oles drilled, groundwater usage determined, the geology described, in situ permeability tests d CSSO, groundwater characteristics determined and a Geohydrological

Report drawn up.

h itigation of Environmental Impacts

pact assessment is required in terms of the EIA regulations for the majority of waste management facilities. The disposal of waste is identified under Section 21 of the Environmental

onservation Act, 1989 (GN 1182 of 5 September 1997) as an activity "which may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment". As a result, the Regulations regarding environmental impact assessment reports (GN 1183 of 5 September 1997) are applicable to the disposal of waste, and written authorisation in terms of Section 22 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), must be obtained from the Competent Authority before a waste disposal operation may be undertaken. The identification of waste for the purposes of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) xcludes wastewater and effluent, building rubble used as fill material, radioactive materials, mining waste and

is Government Gazette Notice was gain amended (by means of GN 292 of 23 February 2003) to include building rubble as a waste. In this

Notice, it is identified as, “building rubble used for filling or levelling purposes”. As a result, disposal of these materials is not subject to the requirements of Section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) but may require a license from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in terms of Section 21(g) of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998. Section 21(g) reads: “For the purposes of this Act, water use includes – 21(g) disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource.” Updated EIA regulations are currently available for public comment, and are likely to be promulgated following appeal, in which the activities listed and limitations on such activities could change. It is therefore recommended that the latest gazetted edition of the EIA regulations be referred to, and the provincial environmental authority be consulted, to confirm whether or not an EIA is required for a certain facility. For medium, large and hazardous sites, an Environmental Impact Assessment Report should be compiled to ddress the impacts identified during the environmental scoping process. In many cases, the impacts identified

at these facilities are ground and surface water pollution, odour, nuisance and visual impacts. These impacts ous waste facilities, the n Plan must be submitted.

Disposal Site Design (Section 8) The Minimum Requirements for design for waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration storage areas are included in Table A5, at the end of this appendix. A conceptual design is required at all facilities, while a technical design including specifications and design drawings is required for medium, large and hazardous facilities. For all designs, the facility classification must be confirmed, any impacts identified by the investigations or IAPs must be addressed, and site layout and surface water design is required. The impacts of any processes at the facility, such as materials recovery or treatment, must also be taken into account in the design. Pollutants can escape into the surrounding environment via surface water, groundwater and/or air/wind flow.

de rmined, borehun ertaken, the soil described using MC

T e Assessment and M An initial environmental im

C

eash resulting from power generation (GN 1986 of 24 August 1990). Tha

a

must be addressed in the design and management of the site. For large and hazardenvironmental consequences of failure must be determined, and a Response Actio



Measures to prevent floodwater from entering the facility should be addressed. Storage areas should be built above minimum allowable floor level. Contaminated water must be kept out of the environment at all facilities.

acilities, measures should be in place to prevent leachate entering the surrounding nvironment. If leachate and contaminated stormwater is pumped to municipal sewers, written authorisation

e hemicals must also be stored with suitable containment structures. Such designs should take account of the

e considered for transfer stations and other facilities where significant traffic is expected. would be required at facilities where significant odours are expected. For incinerators,

cineration storage area design, as well as the scrubber water containment and anagement design, are required for the Permit Application report. The design of the incinerator itself would) l un t, 1965 (Act 45 of 1965). Conceptual designs st bS:B

Site Preparation and Commissioning (Section 9) T ted pre in e s o a gh nd , so at pot ial adveri vented. The Minimum Requirements for site preparation for waste storage are ecovery plants, treatment plants and pre- and post-incineration s A.5, at the end his appe . For al s, natur esources must be

onmental requirements given consideration in site preparation. The Occupational Health nd Safety Act, 1993, (Act 85 of 1993) must be complied with for all construction projects. The boundaries of

the site must be certified by a registered land surveyor for medium, large and hazardous sites. For G:S:B+ and larger facilities, a quality control programme and supervision are required, records must be kept of testing during construction, as well as of the materials used, and approval of the constructed works is required from the Competent Authority before the facility can be used.

Disposal Site Operation (Section 10) Operations at waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants, and pre- and post-incineration storage areas will differ considerably in nature and complexity, depending on the facility. For these facilities, efficient and effective operation is the major factor preventing potential impacts from occurring and limiting the pollution potential of the facility. All facilities must have fencing, controlled access, and signposting. Storm water management is required at all waste management facilities. In instances where a facility is under cover, storm water should be simply managed by diverting storm water away from the area. Depending on the facility type and classification, other Minimum Requirements apply, such as access to a laboratory, leachate or scrubber water management, and the development of a Response Action Plan for the operation. These Minimum Requirements are specified in Table A5 at the end of this appendix.

A site-specific operating plan is required for facilities of classification G:S:B+ and larger. For waste storage areas, this would take the form of a waste deposition and recovery plan, which is likely to be relatively simple for the majority of storage areas. The Operating Plan for a waste management facility must be drawn up on a site-specific basis, and should include, as relevant:

For B+ and hazardous fefrom the municipality must be submitted together with the Permit Application. Design of containment structures is necessary for G:M:B+, large and hazardous facilities. Where treatment chemicals are used, thesclandfill lining requirements, or an equivalent bund design developed. Traffic design must b

dour control designOonly the pre- and post-inmfal der the auspices of the Atmospheric Pollution Control Ac

-mu e approved for communal and G:S:B facilities. Fully specified (technical) designs are required for + truction can commence. G: sites and larger sites. These must be approved by the authorities before cons

he approved design must be implemenmpacts are mitigated, and pollution is pre

by par g th ite t hi sta ard th ent se

as, transfer stations, materials rtorage areas are included in Table

erved, and envirof t ndix l site al r

consa



• access control • equipment requirements • sta• ma• • traffic con• waste han

transportation final disposal procedures

• w and reporting procedures • environmental control

safety and emergency response.

f waste management facilities does no e odour control. For ssuch as treatment facilities and transfer stations, odour management may b ed.

the Perm Holder should respond in an appropriate manner. Methous se of aeros eodorisers, biologic ltration a chemical scrubbin

Disposal Site Operation Monitoring (Section 11) Monitoring o n of a facility is g d cti ou sure th cc bl vels of performan peration. The Minimum Requirements for facility operation monitoring for waste

rials re trea nts d pre- and post-i eration 5, at th nd h ppe . M ntenance is required at waste

ities. Depending on the facility ty e a d classification, a facility monitoring committee may internal and external auditing must be dertaken, ppro riate ecords mu t be kep climatic

cility is under cover) and water and air quality monitoring may be ud pe d anti of om g w te, exce eacha

and odours. For incinerators, air quality monitoring is important, as perature, although such monitoring would fall under the Atmospheric Pollution Control Act, 1965 (Act

missioning and Remediation (Section 12)

er waste management facilities can be closed, decommissioned and removed entirely. As a minimum, once a site is closed and re d, no waste may ain on s The Minim Requirements for closure, de-commissioning and remediation of waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, treatment plants, and pre- an ost-incineration ge are re included in Table

r the majority of site classifications, any long-term environmental issues ion must b ntifie nd investi d prior t losure. In addition

ediation requirements must be identified. These investigations and requirements are then communicated to the Competent Authority through a Closure Report, which must be accepted in writing by the Competent Authority prior to closure. Closure, de-commissioning and remediation of the site can then take place. Once complete, a letter approving the measures must be received from the Competent Authority. Post-closure inspections and monitoring are unlikely to be required at these facilities, but would be

ffing requirements intenance

screening and acceptance of waste trol dling, loading, compaction, recovery and/or treatment procedures, as relevant

• •

aste auditing

•

Good management o t usually requir ome waste management facilities, e requirShould odour problems arise on a site,

ed to control odours include the uit ds

ol d al fi nd g.

f the operatioce are met in the o

oo pra ce, and sh ld en at a epta e le

storage areas, transfer stations, mate covery plants, tment pla , an ncinstorage areas are included in Table A e e of t is a ndix ai all management facilbe required,

pun

n a p r s t,

statistics must be kept (unless the farequired. Appropriate records would inclproduction, and monitoring of cleanliness is tem

e ty s an qu ties inc in as any ssive l te

45 of 1965)

Closure, Decom

Unlike landfill sites, othmediate rem ite. um

d p stora as aA5, at the end of this appendix. Foresulting from the facility and its operatclosure, demolition and or rem

e ide d a gate o c ,



necess long term impacts have re ed from the facility and its operation, for instance where ground water pollution has occurred.

Using Table A5

ments listed in Table A5 apply to all the facility types, namely waste storag , treatment lities, a nd post-incineration areas.

If equirement only applies to certain facility types, th w pp be lbrackets in the left-hand column. This is used larly requir nts f fferent facility types differ. In the exam

nimum Requirement applies to ilities • The second Minimum Requirement ot ap waste t tment fa ties (as these are not listed) • The third Minimum Requirement on pplies to waste atment f lities.

Closure/ Demolition/ Remediation Plan F F R R R R R R R R

ary where sult

The Minimum Require e areastransfer stations, materials recovery plants, waste

a Minimum R

faci nd pre- a

e t pes toher the

y hi it ae

ch lies ill w ist in ed particu in cases w e em or the di

ple below:

• The first Mi all facdoes n ply to rea cilily a tre aci

Water Quality Monitoring Plan (waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery

e- and post incineration storage areas)

N N F F R R R R plants and pr

N R

Water Quality Monitoring Plan (waste N N R R R R R R R R

treatment facilities)



TABLE A5

ements for Waste Storage Areas, Transfer aterials Recovery Plan Treatment Fa

st-Treatment Waste Storage Areas


Minimum Requir

Stations, M ts, Waste cilities,and Pre- and Po

G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste

B- = No significant leachate produced B+ = Signif ced

ent N = Not a requirement F = Flag: special consideration to be given

C

Com-munal

S

Small

M

Medium

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

icant leachate produR = Requirem

by expert or representatives of the Competent Authority and/or the Department

1-4

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS B B B B+ B B+ B– + B– + – –

Application of the Minimum Requirements R R R R R R R R R R

Application of landfill classification system R R R R R R R R R R

Site selection:

Identify28 candidate storage areas, transfer stations, material recovery plants sites/treatment

R R R R R R R R R R facilities and pre- and post incineration storage areas29

Consider whether drainage is efficient R R R R R R R R R R

Consider whether proximity to waste generation

applicable) R R R R R R R R R R areas/ markets/ incinerators/ landfill sites is

reasonable (as

Consider whether access is suitable for the expected traffic to the facility

R R R R R R R R R R

Consider the environmental sensitivity of the site R R R R R R R R R R

Consider whether buffer zones are acceptable for R R R R R R R R R R

the type of facility

Consider whether air pathways could be cilities and pre-

and post-incineration storage areas) N F F R R problematic (waste treatment fa N N F F R

28 Only applicable to waste management facilities that are not on the premises of a waste generator or on an already permitted disposal site. 29 This should form an integral part of the site selection process for an incinerator.




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


Rating


R = Requirement N = Not a requirement F = Flag: special consideration to be given


C

Com-munal

S

Small

M

Medium

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard

1-4

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS B– B+ B– B+ B– B+ B– B+

Rank candidate sites30 F R R R R F R R R R

Liaison with IAPs F F R R R R R R R R

Present ranked sites to IAPs F R R R R R R R F R

Liaise with Competent Authority as to feasibility R R R R R R R R R R

Compile Feasibility Study Reports and present to R R R

Competent Authority F F F F R R R

Authorisation:

Authorisation of all new or existing unauthorised nt facilities waste manageme

N N N R R R R R R R

Registration of existing unauthorised waste management facilities other than landfills under N the Waste Directions

R R R N N N N N N

Registration of all new waste management R R R N N N N N N N facilities other than landfills under the Waste

Directions

Confirm site classification R R R R R R R R R R

Deal with Competent Authority R R R R R R R R R R

Complete Permit Application form R R R R R R R R R R

Geohydrological Study and Report N N N N N R R R R R

Geological Study and Report N N N N N R R R R R

Environmental Impact Assessment R R R R R R R R R R

Environmental Impact Assessment Report N N N N R R R R R R

Facility conceptual design31 R R R R R R R R R R

Facility technical design N N N R R R R R R R

Approval of technical design by Competent Authority

N N N R R R R R R R

Operating/ Deposition and Recovery Plan, and M i Pl

N N F F R R R R R R

ities that are not on the premises of a waste generator or on an already

of conceptual design required for G:C:B-, G:C:B+ and G:S:B- sites.

30 Only applicable to waste management facilpermitted disposal site. 31 Approval




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


C

Com-munal

S

Small

M

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4




Medium


Maintenance Plan

Closure/ Demolition32/ Remediation Plan F F R R R R R R R R

Water Quality Monitoring Plan (waste storaareas, transfer s

ge tations, materials recovery plants, N N N F F R R R R R

and pre- and post incineration storage areas)

Water Quality Monitoring Plan (waste treatment facilities)

N N R R R R R R R R

Submit full Permit Application Report N N R R R R R R R R

Site inspection and approval prior to commissioning

N N R R R R R R R R

Site Investigation:

Describe physical geography of site R R R R R R R R R R

Determine surface water quality N N F F R R R R R R

Testpits to determine depth of soil and presence of ground water

R R R R R R R R R R

Drill borehole down gradient of site N N F F F R R R R R

Drill borehole up gradient of site N N F F F R R R R R

Description of soil using MCCSSO (waste N N N F F R R R R R

storage areas)

Description of soil using MCCSSO (transfer overy plants, waste

treatment plants, and pre- and post-incineration

N R R stations, materials rec

storage areas)

N N R R R R R

In situ permeability tests NN N N N R R R R R

Describe geology NN N N N R R R R R

Determine groundwater usage N N N F F R R R R R

Determine groundwater characteristics N N N N N R R R R R

32 Demolition and remediation plan is require

sfe tions. d :C a :C: si in th se mat l reco plants a

tran r sta:B- B+for G nd G tes e ca of eria very nd




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


Rating




C

Com-munal

S

Small

M

Medium

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard

1-4


Investigate mining subsidences R R R R R R R R R R

Geohydrological Report N N N N N R R R R R

The Assessment and Mitigation of Environmental Impacts

Environmental Impact Assessment R R R R R R R R R R

Environmental Consequences of Failure N N N N F F R R R R

Response Action Plan N N N N F F R R R R

Environmental Impact Assessment Report N N N N R R R R R R

Facility Design

Confirm facility classification R R R R R R R R R R

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

R R R R R R R R R R

Address any impacts identified as a result of any f R R R R R R R R R R processes applied at the facility, e.g., treatment, i

applicable.

Site layout design R R R R R R R R R R

Traffic design (transfer stations) R R R R R R R R R R

Traffic design for materials recovery plants, waste treatment facilities, and pre- and post- F F F F R R R R R R incineration areas

Surface drainage design R R R R R R R R R R

Design of leachate management system (waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants and waste treatment facilities)

N N N R N R N R R R

Containment design, as per landfill lining requirements/ equivalent bunded area (waste N N N N N R R R R R storage areas)

Containment design, as per landfill lining

ineration storage areas)

N N N F N R R R R R requirements/ equivalent bunded area (transfer stations, materials recovery plants, waste treatment facilities and pre- and post-inc




G

General Waste

H

Hazardous Waste


Rating




C

Com-munal

S

Small

M

Medium

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard

1-4


Containment design (storage of treatmechemicals at waste treatment facilities)

nt F N N N N R R R R R

Design drawings and specifications (wasstorage areas)

te N N N F R R R R R R

Design drawings and specifications (transfer te cineration

N R stations, materials recovery plants, wastreatment facilities, and pre- and post-instorage areas)

N N R R R R R R

Approval of technical design by Competent Authority

N N N R R R R R R R

Site Preparation and Commissioning

Quality control programme and supervision N N N R R R R R R R

Boundaries certified N N N N R R R R R R

Conservation of natural resources and environmental requirements

R R R R R R R R R R

Compliance with Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993)

R R R R R R R R R R

Record keeping of testing during construction and materials used

N N N R R R R R R R

Approval of constructed works by Competent Authority

N N N R R R R R R R

Facility Operation

Signposting R R R R R R R R R R

Controlled access R R R R R R R R R R

Fencing R R R R R R R R R R

Operation/ Deposition and Recovery Plan N N F F R R R R R R

Response Action Plan N N N N N N R R R R

Access to laboratory (waste storage areas, transfer stations and materials recovery plants)

N N N N N N N N R R

Access to laboratory (waste treatment plants and d i i i )

N N F F F F F F R R




LEGEND

G

H

Waste

General Waste

Hazardous

B = No significant leachate produced BRNF be given

the and/or the

C

Com-munal

S

Small

M

Medium

L

Large

H:h

Hazard Rating 3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4

-

+ = Significant leachate produced = Requirement = Not a requirement = Flag: special consideration to

by expert or representatives ofCompetent AuthorityDepartment


pre- and post-incinerations storage areas)

St R R R R R R R R R R ormwater management

Ltrw

eachate management (waste storage areas, ansfer stations, materials recovery plants and aste treatment plants)

N N N R N R N R R R

Facility Operation Monitoring

M ee (waste storage areas) N N N N N N N N F F onitoring Committ

Mmfaar

onitoring Committee (transfer stations, aterials recovery plants, waste treatment cilities and pre- and post-incineration storage eas)

N N N N N N F F R R

Internal auditing frequency in months F F 12 12 6 6 6 6 3 3

External auditing frequency in months (waste st

F F F F 6 orage areas)

18 18 12 12 6

Esttrst

xternal auditing frequency in months (transfer ations, materials recovery plants, waste eatment facilities and pre- and post-incineration orage areas)

F F F 12 12 12 6 6 3 3

A R ppropriate records F F R R R R R R R

Mainten R R R R R R R R R R ance of facility

Ccover

N N N R N R N R R R ollect climatic statistics, if site is not under

W an (waste storage aran

ater Quality Monitoring Pleas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, d pre- and post incineration storage areas)

N N N F F R R R R R

Water Quality Monitoring Plan (waste treatment fa ti

R R R R R R R cili es)

N N N

A utransfe

ir q ality monitoring (waste storage areas, r stations and materials recovery plants)

N N N N N N F F R R

Air quand pre

R ality monitoring (waste treatment plants - and post-incineration storage areas)

N N N N F F R R R

Closur e, demolition and remediation




General Waste

Hazardous

G

H

Waste

B = B = R =N =F = F

by expert or representatives of the

C

Com-

S

Small

M

Medium

L

Large

H:h

Hazard

3 & 4

H:H

Hazard Rating

1-4

- No significant leachate produced + Significant leachate produced

Requirement Not a requirement

lag: special consideration to be given

Competent Authority and/or the Department

munal

Rating


– + – + – + – + B B B B B B B B

Identifen o

R R R R R R y and investigate any long-term

vir nmental issues from waste storage N N N R

In tirequire

N N R R R R R R R R ves gate demolition and remediation

ments

C N N R R R R R R R R losure Report

Written acceptance of Closure Report N N R R R R R R R R

D F F R R R R R R R R emolition and remediation of site

L r R R ette approving demolition and remediation N N R R R R R R

Post-cl reosu inspections and monitoring N N N N F F F F R R



Appendix 5.2 INTEGRATED DISPOSAL SITE AUTHORISATION PR(Section 5)

e

“s.2 a disposal site without a permit issued by the Minister f

vided for

“s.2Affa ed by t f Water Affairs and

No. 36 o

ThiFigu till

inco n

[Re th

Ro

The Applicant

ing with all the applicable legal provisions and requirements of the

nce application, including the submission of the EIA and ECA s.20 site, liaison with the relevant

OCEDURE

Introduction

With the amendment of the Enviroment Conservation Act, 1989, the responsibility for authorising waste disposal sites transferred from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. To facilitate handover of the authorisation function, the Act has been

nded as follows: am

0 (1) No person may establish, provide or operate [o Environmental Affairs and Tourism]”.

However the role of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in the permitting process is also proas follows:

0 (6) The issuing of a disposal site permit is subjected to – (a) the concurrence of the Minister of Water irs and Forestry; and (b) the inclusion therein of the conditions contained in a Record of Decision issuhe Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry regarding any measures that the Minister o

Forestry considers necessary to protect water resources as defined in the National Water Act, 1998 (Act f 1998)”

s appendix provides details regarding the integrated disposal site authorisation procedure, as set out in res 3, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 19, and summarised in Figure A.5.1. It should be noted that this procedure is s

be g developed and refined. For this reason, while included in this document for completeness, it is re mmended that the latest version of the Implementation Plan for Transfer of the Waste Permitting Functio

f: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Report No: 6983-6939-4-W, “Implementation Plan for Transfer e Waste Permitting Function”, Pretoria, 2005] beof consulted for the most up to date information.

les and Responsibilities

The applicant is responsible for complyregulations. The applicant:

• must obtain the consent of the landowner, if applicable, • is responsible for all processes, information, reports and plans that are required in complying with the

regulations and in support of the liceapplication forms for the establishment, provision and operation of a disposal authority to ensure that all legal requirements are met and the public participation process,

• must appoint an environmental assessment practitioner (EAP), where required by the regulations,



• must provide all pertinent information to the relevant authority whether such information is favourable or not,

• is responsible for all costs incurred in applying for a disposal site permit, including security to ensure thorisation, and

must indemnify the government from any liability arising out of the content of any report, procedure or action for which the applicant is responsible in terms of the regulations.

• have expertise in conducting environmental impact assessments, including knowledge and understanding of any guidelines and/or policies,

• undertake the work in an objective manner, even if the findings are not favourable to the applicant, • have no financial interest other than remuneration fees, and • submit a declaration of interest to the Competent Authority in the form which may be indicated by the

Competent Authority.

Interested and Affected Parties

ld al investigation,

e draft licence.

any issue which they believe may be of significance during the prescribed comment periods, • disclose any competitive or direct financial interest they may have in the approval or refusal of an

ed

Competent Authority

Ass ant authority

The the establishment, provision and e

prov ust however refer the application to the Department of Environmental Affairs and

al

• tional importance,

compliance with conditions of au•

Environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs)

EAPs must be appointed by the applicant to oversee and manage the EIA process. The EAP must:

IAPs must register and then must:

• provide input and comments during the stages of the process, where appropriate, i.e.: - in determining the extent of any investigations required, through raising issues of concern that wou

require addition- in assessing whether the final application and supporting information have addressed such issues and

concerns adequately. - in providing input into the recommendation, and where applicable, comment on thin monitoring impacts of the licensed water use and compliance with licence conditions.

• disclose

application, • provide their inputs and comments within the context of the process and within the timeframes as specifi

by the applicant and the Competent Authority.

ignment of power to relev

provincial environmental departments will be responsible for authorisingoperation of disposal sites for facilities within their area of jurisdiction. In line with the EIA regulations, th

incial authority mTourism for consideration in the following instances:

• where the disposal site concerned has direct implications for national environmental policy or internationenvironmental commitments, where the environment that may be affected by the disposal site concerned is demarcated as an area of national or interna



• where the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the provincial authority jointly decide that the application should be considered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,

• vernment department, the relevant provincial authority or a statutory body is the

•

y is to be located).

Res

The

• the application process and

• provide the applicant, on request, with access to guidelines or information on the permitting process, at the applicant complies with the relevant regulatory requirements, including all responsibilities

at the various stages of the application procedure,

tion process including ensuring that the applicant is informed in writing of any delay with a n for the delay, the inputs required from the applicant to the minimum that are necessary to make an informed

is informed in writing regarding the outcome of each decision, and • monitor progress of the disposal site permit application and report thereon through the appropriate

According to s.20 (6) of the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act (ECAA), the Department of Water

the resp

• to participate in the initial screening process of any disposal site application,

r

where a national goapplicant, or where the disposal site concerned has the potential to affect the environment across the borders of two or more provinces (e.g. a hazardous waste disposal facility where a significant volume of hazardous waste is sourced from provinces other than the province in which the facilit

ponsibilities of the Competent Authority

Competent Authority will be responsible for the following activities:

ensure that the role-players involved in the authorisation process understand their responsibilities towards the process,

• ensure th

• administrative check of the application to ensure that all necessary information is provided by the applicant, including all technical reports,

• ensure that the evaluation and decisions are done or reached efficiently and within the prescribed timeframes, or where timeframes are not indicated, within a reasonable time,

• ensure that intergovernmental co-operation and consultation is achieved, particularly with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, for the harmonisation of the processes and for effective implementation of the regulations; each provincial environmental department will be responsible for setting up adequate mechanisms for consultation and co-operation with other government departments,

• manage the authorisation process, including receiving information from the applicant, involving the applicable personnel (as required), receiving comments on the application from those involved and communicating continuously with the applicant and with other departmental personnel involved in the authorisareaso

• keepdecision in accordance with the appropriate guidelines, without putting any limitations on the rights that IAPs may have in terms of the regulations,

• maintain adequate records of the progress and decisions with regard to the application and ensure that the applicant

channels.

Water Management Authority

Affairs and Forestry will be the designated water management authority and no permit may be issued without concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. The water management authority will be onsible for the following activities:

• to review and provide directives for the protection of the water resource, within the time-frames stipulatedby the Competent Authority, on all aspects of the disposal site that have a potential impact on the wateresource (both surface and groundwater),



• to review and provide conditions on all RoDs and ECAA s.20 permits relating to disposal sites, including the incorporation of specific conditions in the permit relating to the protection of the water resource, and

• to strive for intergovernmental co-operation and consultation in the disposal site authorisation process.

Authorisation Procedure

From the date of promulgation of section 1 of the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, all EIA

unleECA

i

In t spec in the “Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill”, Third Edition of 2005 (currently

pa ha f the EIA process and the permitting process in section 5 of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. The overall process shown in Figure 1 is described in the sections below. The

Phase 1

he process will commence with the EAP, in consultation with the Applicant, selecting the schedule of the A

app cedures o

if sc the s

an EIA

Botto e(woapp

section 3.2.4 above (work flow

e or operate a disposal site has been submitted in terms

view the application (work flow element 6).

ct,

applications for disposal sites received by the competent authorities (i.e. provincial environmental departments ss delegated otherwise) will be accompanied by a Permit Application Form in respect of section 20 of . Any application received by DWAF will immediately be forwarded to the relevant provincial

env ronmental department for processing.

he spirit of inter-governmental co-operation, the disposal site authorisation process will largely follow thatified

un ublished), prepared by DWAF. The steps and time-frames envisaged in the authorisation process represent rmonisation o

process contains a number of work flow elements (WFEs) which are referenced in the text.

: Need, classification, application and screening

TEI regulations within which a disposal activity falls, in order to determine whether screening or scoping

lies (work flow element 1). The process will then proceed along either of the following two pro(w rk flow element 2):

reening applies, the Applicant must submit an application based on a screening report, in accordance withtipulations in the EIA regulations, promulgated in terms of section 24(5) of NEMA,

if scoping applies, the Applicant must follow a separate process starting with the submission of application.

h the above procedures therefore formally commence with either an EIA (scoping) or screening application stablish, provide or operate a disposal site as well as a Permit Application Form in terms of s.20 of ECA rk flow element 2). The provincial environmental department will, within two weeks of receipt of these lication forms:

• establish who the competent authority is, based on the criteria provided in elements 3 and 4a or 4b),

vid• verify whether the application to establish, proof the correct schedule, i.e. screening or scoping (work flow element 3),

• notify the appropriate DWAF official and forward all relevant correspondence to DWAF (work flow element 5), and

• consult with DWAF to re

The review of the disposal site application will ensure that a) both the competent authority and DWAF have sufficient information, b) the information is appropriate for DWAF to make informed decisions regarding any measures that it considers necessary to protect water resources, as defined in the National Water AAct 36 of 1998.



Based on the discussions and the review of the application, the competent authority will decide that:

• further information is required and the application will be returned to the Applicant for amendment (work flow element 7a),

• the application details are sufficient and a permit is required in terms of the ECA Amendment Act (Act No. 50 of 2003) and/or further investigations are required before an Environmental Authorisation (EA) in terms of the EIA process can be made; in this instance the Applicant proceeds to the Scoping report,

7b), or • for G:C:B+, G:C:B- and G:S:B- disposal sites in terms of section 20(5) of ECA and the relevant schedules

Pha

Scre

The ideration at a screening level, either be accepted (work flow element 8a), rejected (work flow element 8b), require a full EIA (work flow element 8c) or further information is required

ich case the Applicant will revert to work flow element 2. If the application is accepted, the competent authority will prepare a draft EA and a disposal site authorisation in terms of ECA

cale e wat , or a responsible authority (as defined in the National Water Act) may dispense with the requirements for a 21(g) license if it is satisfied that the purpose of this Act will be

et through a s20 ECA permit. Thereafter, the competent authority will update the EA and ECA authorisation in terms of directions (work flow element 11) and will issue the EA and ECA authorisation (work flow element 12). The process then allows for an appeal procedure in terms of section 35 of the ECA (work flow element 13).

Scoping

The Applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Scoping report including a Plan of Study for the EIA (work flow element 14), based on the guidelines provided in the “Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill”, Third Edition of 2005. The key aspects to be included in the Scoping report and Plan of Study for EIA include:

• the disposal site classification (see section 3 of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill), and

• initiation of the public participation process (see section 4.2 of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill).

The competent authority will review this document, once submitted, (work flow element 15a) and will send a copy of the Scoping report (including Plan of Study for EIA) to DWAF for review and comment (work flow elements 15b and 15c). The competent authority will, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Scoping report and the Plan of Study for EIA, inform the Applicant in writing that:

• the Scoping report or the Plan of Study for EIA is rejected, or that further information is required before the Scoping report or the Plan of Study for EIA is approved; in these cases the documentation will be returned to the Applicant for amendment, (work flow element 16a) or

including the Plan of Study for an EIA (work flow element

detailing such listed activities in terms of section 24 and 24D of NEMA, the application details are sufficient and the application can be considered at a screening level (work flow element 7c as verified inwork flow element 3); in this instance, the application must be accompanied by the screening report giving proof of I&AP acceptance of the site as well as the specified plans and maps.

se 2: Scoping report or Authorisation in terms of Directions and EIA Regulations

ening

application will, upon cons

(work flow element 8d) in wh

Directions (work flow element 9). The draft permit will be forwarded to DWAF, who will have a period of 30 ndar days to provide review and comment and to include any necessary conditions for the protection of ther resource (work flow element 10). DWAF

m


•

Phase 3 ca

Phase 3: F

The Ap


the Scoping report and the Plan of Study for EIA is accepted and the Applicant can proceed to the Phase 3: Feasibility Assessment stage (work flow element 16b).

n be integrated with Phase 2, where possible on a site-specific basis, if approved by the competent authority.

easibility assessment

nt will be required to prepare and submit a Feasibility Assessment report (work flow element 17), n the guidelines provided in the “Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill”, Third

n of 2005. The key aspects to be included in the Feasibility Assessment report include the following:

• nd rank the candidate disposal sites (see sections 4.3 to 4.6 of the Minimum Requirements for isposal by Landfill); this will include a desk study to compare the ranking of sites (fine screen),

• ility study on best alternative site (see section 4.7 of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal

The etent authority will review this document, once submitted, (work flow element 18a) and will send a of the Feasibility Assessment report to DWAF for review and comment (work flow element 18b

18c). The competent authority will, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Feasibility ent report, inform the Applicant in writing that:

• required before the Feasibility Assessment report is approved, in which case the

entation will be returned to the Applicant for amendment (work flow element 19a), or • asibility Assessment report is accepted (work flow element 19b), in which case the competent

ty will request an Environmental Impact Assessment report (EIA Report); the Applicant will then d to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Permit Application report stage.

Phase 4: Permit Application Procedure (Authorisation in terms of ECA s20 and EA)

The Ap nt will be required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the investigations Permit Application report for the proposed disposal site. The Applicant will then prepare and

nvironmental Impact Assessment report and a Permit Application report (work flow element d on the guidelines provided in the “Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill”,

Edition of 2005, section 5.2.4. The key aspects to be included in the Permit Application report e the following:

• site investigations, including the geohydrological investigation, • on the environmental impact assessment, • velopment of a disposal site design, • velopment of the required plans, including the development, operating, closure, rehabilitation and

end-use and water quality monitoring plans, • details of the ongoing liaison with I&APs, and • water management plan

The competent authority will review this document, once submitted (work flow element 21a), and will send a copy of the Environmental Impact and Permit Application reports to DWAF for review and comment (work flow element 21b and 21c).

plicabased oEditio

identify aWaste Dand feasibby Landfill).

compcopyandAssessm

further information is documthe Feauthoriprocee

plicafor thesubmit an E20), baseThird includ

details of details the dethe de

APPE

217

The

•

•

The

Phase 5: Ope

A

.

NDIX 5.1: WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OTHER THAN LANDFILLS


competent authority will, within 60 calendar days of receipt of the Environmental Impact and Permit Application reports, inform the Applicant in writing that:

the Environmental Impact and Permit Application reports are rejected, or that further information is required before the Environmental Impact Assessment Report and the Permit Application reports are approved, in which case the documentation will be returned to the Applicant for amendment (work flow element 22a), or the application will be accepted (work flow element 23a).

competent authority will prepare a draft EA and ECA s.20 permit (work flow element 24). A typical ECA s.20 permit is enclosed in Appendix B. The draft permit will be forwarded to DWAF, who will have a period of 30 calendar days to provide review and comment and to include any necessary conditions for the protection of the water resource (work flow element 25 and 26). DWAF, or a responsible authority (as defined in the National Water Act) may dispense with the requirements for a 21(g) license if it is satisfied that the purpose of this Act will be met through a s20 ECA permit. Thereafter, the competent authority will update the EA and ECA s.20 permit (work flow element 27) and will issue the EA and ECA s.20 permit (work flow element 28). The process then allows for an appeal procedure in terms of section 35 of the ECA (work flow element 29), in which case the Permit and EIA application may be reconsidered (work flow element 22b).

rate and close

fter an EA and permit has been issued by the competent authority, the flow elements of preparing, operating and closing a disposal site become applicable. The site cannot commence operating before an inspection and approval by the competent authority.



F e A v te isp t P d

ure rocehorisation osal Site Aud Derview of Integra.5.1 Oigur



Application completed to estaba disposal site and submitted

environmental a

lish, or operat to r provincial

utho

provide elevant rity (a)

e

Decideon competent aut

verify assesprocess

hority(b) andsment(f)

DEAT as competent authority Provincial departmentcompetent authorit

asy

Copy applicationDWAF of

to relevantfice

Consultation competent authori

to review the ap

betweenty and DWAFplication (c)

Furthinforma

requi

ertion

redPermit requ

terms of ECfurther invest

required fo

ired inA and/origationr EIA

Considerapplicati

ation ofon (f)

EIrequir

Aed

AcceptReject

Scoping ReporPlan of Study f

t includingor EIA (h)

Draft EA and in terms

Directi

authorisatof ECAons (d)

ion

EA and ECA (finalised

Directi

authorisatithroughons)

onEA and EChorisation is

Aaut sued

DWAF review

Appeal procedure

Rejecand/or fuinforma

requi

trthertion

red

Competent authority review Comments DWrevi

AFew

Accept

1

2

4a 4b

3

5

6

7a

7b 7c

8c 8a 8b

9

10

11

12 13

14

15a 15c 15b16a

16b

PHA

SE 2

Scop

ing

Rep

ort o

r Aut

horis

atio

n in

term

s of

Dire

ctio

ns a

nd E

IAR

egul

atio

ns

PHA

SE 1

Nee

d C

lass

ifica

tion,

App

licat

ion

and

Scre

enin

g

NOTES:a) From the date that section

by proclamation, disposal sitein terms of the Regulations (S

Appendix 5.2, Authorisation Pr

b) The provincial authority mu

Where the disposal sitcommitments;Where the environmenmportance;Where DEAT and the pWhere a national goveapplicant; orWhere the waste conchazardous disposal facto be.

receipt of the applicaton fully accommodateson required for DWAF

rs necessary to protecy (as defined in the Na will be met through a s

such time as the Diremental authority as the

scope of the feasibility 2005. The scope of the for promulgated pos

:C:B-; G:C:B +; and G:f Section 24 and 24D o

rms of the relevant sch

ere possible on a site s

( 1 of th Am t No. mes i permi tion houl ogeth

( ecti 07 of levan ronmocedu

( st re r con

e con for n ment natio

t that sal s dem ea oi

rovi at th ould y the rnmen ovin a st er th

erned h e env the r moility where o is so inces ovi

c) Upon ion, the com tify D ult wi ure tapplicati the provis on 20( nam cess informati to make in ding at th aterconside t water reso Nati 1998 998)authorit tional Water th th r a 21 s sathis Act 20 ECA per

(d) Until ctions (prom tion A) ha ded toenviron competent e the rtme g in

(e) The report must of th uire DisEdition e EIA must b gula n ter the envisag sibly in 2005.

(f) For G S:B - sites in ) of t rele etailterms o f the NEMA

(g) In te edules in ter 24D

(h) Wh pecific basis re 12 rated edure i

nto effect by the Presidenter with an EIA applicationental authority (see

nal environmental

f national or international

DEAT;an a local authority) is the

re provinces (e.g. ance in which the facility is

hat the disposal siteprovides all the

Affairs and Forestry. DWAF or a responsibletisfied that the purpose of

stipulate the provincial terms of the Directions.

posal by Landfill, ThirdNEMA as amended ,

ing such listed activities in

n Figure 10.

50 of 2003) cod be submitted tt provincial envi

al policy or inter

arcated as an ar

be considered batutory body (oth

borders of two o other than the pr

th DWAF to ensely, that the proe Minister of W (Act No 36 of 1(g) license if it i

ve been amennt for authorisin

ments for Wastems of s.24(5) of

vant schedules d

with the proc

endment Act (Ac20 of the ECA s1998) to the re

sideration-

ational environ

ite concerned is

e application shcial authority or

ironment acrossurced from prov

WAF and cons6) of the ECA,

any measures thonal Water Act, e requirement fo

20(4) of the EC mandated depa

e Minimum Reqtions proposed i

he ECA and the

of the NEMA.

could be integ

e Environment Conservationt applications in terms of sec

on 24 (5)) of NEMA, Act No. 1re for exceptions) .

fer the application to DEAT fo

cerned has direct implications

may be affected by the dispo

ncial authority jointly decide tht department, the relevant pr

as the potential to affect thver 50% of the waste

petent authority will noions contained in sectiformed decisions regarurces as defined in the Act) may dispense wimit.

ulgated in terms of sec authority, DWAF will b

be based on section 5e based on the EIA Re

terms Section 20(5)(b.

ms of Section 24 and

, the procedure in Figu

Determine in which schedule the disposal act

of th gulationsivity

e EIA Re falls

Furtherrmation requi

to work flowelement 2)

i

APPE

219

nfo red(go

8d



Assessment of FeasibilityStudy Report (e)

Furthformequir

erationed

inr

Competent authority review Comments Dre

WAFview

Accd req

EIA

eptuest R

an an

Environme pacAssessment Report a

Permit ApplicationReport (e)

ntal Im tnd

Rejectand /or further information

required

Competent authority review Comments Dre

WAFview

Considerationof permit and EA

application

Draft EA and ECA s.20permit

EA and ECA s.20 permitfinalised

EA and ECA s.20 permitissued

Establish, Operate andclose disposal site

Appe edureal proc

Accept

Reject

17

18a 18c 18b19a

19b

20

22a 21a 21c 21b

22b

23a

23b24

DWAFreview


RoD and on EIA (c)

25

26

27

28

PHA

SE 5

Ope

rate

and

Clo

se

PHA

SE 4

Perm

it A

pplic

atio

n Pr

oced

ure

(Aut

horis

atio

EA)

Ke

n in

term

s of

EC

A s

20 p

erm

it an

dPH

ASE

3Fe

asib

ility

Ass

essm

ent (h

)

29

y

AuthActi

AppliActi

Decisionmade byauthority

1

Normal flow

Possible process

Appeal flow

Work flow elements

cantvity

orityvity

APPE

221

APPENDIX 6: NOTES ON EXPLORATION BOREHOLES


App

LORATION BOREHOLES (Sec Introd The obj cal information. This informa complexity. Where

ossible d so that they can also be used for water quality monitoring (see ection 13 and Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities). However, this

e investigation.

he number of boreholes required would be commensurate with the nature of the investigation and would ply gard. The geological data required includes stratigraphy,

tholog bility. The geohydrological data required includes depth to the regional ground water ph aces, seepages and the importance of the ground water resource. The latter involves stainable yield.

Locat The loca the information required on the type and distribution of the underlyi and also by the need to identify features such as geological contacts, faults, joint pat res, aquifers and intrusive dykes. The location of the exploration boreholes should t rson, assisted by available geological and geohydr obtained from published maps and reports, and from the data obtained hases of the investigation, such as geophysics. In this regard, it is noted that the findings siting of future boreholes or, in fact, the approach to the whol Finally, st be so sited, drilled and constructed that they do not unnecessarily penetrate imperm uits for the migration of leachate pollution to ground water bodies.

Depth of Drilling The depth of exploration depends on the depth of the proposed cover excavation and the depth of the geological and geohydrological features of interest. In general, boreholes should extend to at least twice the depth of the base level of the proposed cover excavation, in order to disclose any unfavourable zones that may affect the stability of the side slopes. In areas of unfavourable geology, such as areas underlain by dolomitic bedrock and areas underlain by faulted bedrock or highly permeable soils, the boreholes should be drilled to a minimum depth of 25 m below the base level of the proposed excavation. Unless one needs to prove the underlying geology, this depth is sufficient if no ground water is encountered.

endix 6

NOTES ON EXPtion 6)

uction

ective of exploration boreholes is to provide both geological and geohydrologid, is used to assess the risk and site tion, on which the site design will be base

, exploration boreholes should be sitepSshould be of secondary importance in the context of sit Tcomli

with the Minimum Requirement in this rey, structure and permeareatic surface, perched surf aquifer characteristics and su

ion

tion of the boreholes is determined byng soil and rock strata,terns, water bearing featuhus be based on the experience of the Responsible Peological data. This data would be during the preceding p from one borehole could significantly affect the e investigation.

boreholes mueable layers or create cond

APPENDIX 6: NOTES ON EXPLORATION BOREHOLES


the ab on indicating the need for greater depths, boreholes should be drilled to 10 m

beyond t e, representing the true ground water phreatic surface. It should be noted that local ground representing water perched on relatively impermeable, near surface layers, are common in certai thern Africa. The presence of these perched water surfaces may be determin lling, by monitoring (where possible) the rate of inflow of water

to the ly subsequent to drilling and by pump testing.

The mo nt aspect of the depth of drilling is to ensure that all geological and geohydrological structure e nature of the investigation are identified and adequately penetrated and probed. In all ca o ensure that all test hole roup of data, have been drilled to a sufficient depth. The Responsible Person m s of the investigatory drilling/probing on both geological and hydrolo The dep or suites of test holes must be such that subsequent deeper drilling beyond the chosen depths w any new or unexpected information that could significantly alter or negate the previously drawn c geology, hydrogeology and other related matters concerning the drilling investig This app clearly implies that all test holes need not necessarily be drilled to the same depth. As an example ) in the region of 50 m to 75 m, may be adequate to prove conclusively that all remaining boreholes (and monitoring boreholes for that matter) need only be drilled to (say) 40 m, or some lesser depth as the case may be.

Construction Boreholes drilled using conventional rotary air-percussion techniques should provide adequate information for a geological or geohydrological investigation. The boreholes should be drilled with a starting diameter in the order of 150 mm to 165 mm and with a minimum diameter of 125 mm. This diameter allows for the installation of casing with an internal diameter of more than 110 mm, which is the minimum required for the installation of a conventional submersible pump. Slotted Class 9 PVC casing should be installed in boreholes which are to be included in the ground water monitoring system. A concrete slab, 750 mm square and 150 mm thick, should be cast at the top of the borehole. It is essential that a locking mechanical cap be fitted to all monitoring boreholes, to avoid vandalism and contamination. For the construction of boreholes in various geological settings, refer to the Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities. Boreholes located beneath landfills, or boreholes that inadvertently penetrate impermeable layers or access ground water bodies, should be sealed off by pressure grouting from the base up, or by some other appropriate method.

In sence of informatir strikhe first wate

water surfaces,n geological settings in parts of Sou

le census prior to dried from a borehoborehole immediatein

Whatever approach is followed, the Responsible Person must be able to fully justify the depths of the investigatory drilling/probing on both geological and geohydrological grounds.

st importas relevant to th

ses where test drilling is required, it will be incumbent upon the Responsible Person ts, when evaluated as a unit or gust therefore be able to justify the depth

gical grounds.

th of a test holeill not reveal

onclusions on the ation.

roach, one or more properly planned deep holes, (say

APPENDIX 7: CHECKLIST OF DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS


Appendix 7 CHECKLIST OF DESIGN AND ENVIROCONSIDER

NMENTAL ATIONS

7)

onsidering

se source Existing mineral rights

where subsidence is possible Life of landfill site

ther waste disposal

(Section The following is intended to represent a general checklist. It provides a convenient checklist when cthe Minimum Requirements. The Responsible Person will, however, decide on items required for a particular site.

Selection of Landfill Site

Access from refuse source Availability of construction and cover materials Buffer zones Elevation relative to refu

Geology, e.g., fault zones, seismic impact zones, dolomitic areas

Microclimate, exposure to wind, etc Pedology

Potential for:

Adequate cover material Adequate screening Agriculture Expansion of system Environmental reclamation or abandonment Nature conservation Industrial development Ranching and grazing Recreation Reclamation of existing environmental damage Silviculture Urban development or human settlement Use for o

Proximity to:

Agriculture, ranching or silvicultural development Airfields or landing strips Existing or potential recreational areas Existing or potential main transport routes Existing or potential main utility routes



Existing or potential major surface water supplies, or aquifers Existing surface or underground mine workings Historical, cultural or natural interest areas

eas Recreational areas

of site and area between site and refuse source

cal features: Archaeological or historical sites l features: Religious association, etc.

Visibility of site

rground workings Abandoned utilities

Aquifers - depth, yield, potential or actualArtesian water

Depth to water table ils

Dykes Erodability of soils

pesExpansive clays Excavatability

Filled areas Ground water morphology and phreatic surface

Ground water abstraction and use Hard-pan layers (pedogenic horizons, e.g., calcrete and ferricrete)

Ground-water recharge ar

Refuse generation area, i.e., economic radius Urban development or human settlements

Consideration of:

Seasonal and long term variations of hydrology Scenic value of site Sensitive ecology Sub-surface hydrology and flow

opographyTUnderlying mineral resources Unique natural resources: Fauna, flora, breeding grounds, etc. Unique physiUnique cultura

Geotechnical and Geohydrological Exploration of Landfill Site

Abandoned quarries Abandoned unde

Airphoto interpretation Anisotropy of soil

exploitation

Cavernous dolomites Collapsible soils Depth to bedrock

Dispersive so

Erosion channels or pi

Faults

Ground water quality



In situ permeability of ground profile

In situ strength of soil Mining - undermining, remediated opencast pits, potential for future mining

y hales

Slickensided clays Soil profiles, rock profiles

Stratigraphy and lithology Tailings and other mine waste dep tation Tectonics, lineaments and structures

nformation for Design of Landfill

Foundation and cover design dat

Bedrock permeability Cation exchange capacity Coefficient of consolidation Compaction characteristics of in situ soil Compressibility or swell potential Dispersibility under influence of exchanged cations Effective stress strength parameters

Stability of cut slopes

Rainfall intensity and duration

amfInfiltration and run-off

Rock Outcrops Seismic activitSlaking mudstones or s

Soluble constituents in soils

osits - presence, potential for exploi

I

a:

Erodability of compacted soil Ground water profile Ground water chemistry In situ horizontal and vertical permeability of soils*

Permeability of compacted soil*

Hydrological design data (annual and monthly)

Pan evaporation Stre low

Wind velocity and direction

*T the change in permeability that could result if leachate or some other liquid waste were used as the permeating fluid.

his should also take into account



Information relating to closure or possible after-use of site:

Agricultural land

ecreational site

Po sib or Controlled by Design/Operation

nd associated air pollution and danger to humans and animals) and migration

Land sterilisation by siltation and/or salinisation

Slope failures

Visual intrusion ht is such that the site casts

shadows across adjacent areas, reducing the length of sunlight and daylight hours in proximity to the te)

Water pollution by leachate, erosion, siltation.

Game park ng land Grazi

Playing fields (football, golf, etc.) R

s le Adverse Impacts to be Eliminated

Access Blowing litterDust nuisanceFire hazard (a

as generationGInterference with stream or spring flow

Odour or smell

Soil erosion

Reduction in sunlight and daylight hours (where the final landfill heig

si

APPENDIX 8.1: CALCULATING LANDFILL SITE LIFE


Appendix 8.1 CALCULATING LANDFILL SITE LIFE (Section 8) Method A Site life is calculated by comparing the total available airspace with annual airspace utilisation. Calculatin vailable airspace in m3

(i) In the case of a proposed landfilling operation where the availability of suitable daily cover material

represents a limiting factor, the q ly cover is used to determine the total available airspace. To determine the volume of dail vailable, the total soil availa e should be calculated, and the soils to be used for other uses (such as constructing liners, desiccation layers, large screening berms, final r, or topsoiling the site) should be subtracted from e, to give the volume of soil available for daily cover.

Total – soils for other uses = available volume of daily

Based on the fact that a well-run waste operation would req metric ratio of cover material to waste of about 1:4, the total airspace is obtained by multiply olume of available cover material by a f r of 5. Alternatively, th olume of waste that can be accommodated wil by multi g the available volume of cover material by a fact his represents a somewhat rudim approach, as the cover to waste ratio is approxim compaction density of the waste is estimated and no allowance is m e effect of ‘bulking’ or ‘deb lking’ on the volume of potential cover material.

ii) In the e of an existing landfill, where the availability of cover material is not the determining factor,

the total available airspace will be the volumetric difference between the existing surface and the final landform. Of this volume, 4/5 will be available for waste according to the assumptions made previously.

iii) In ype,

o terial appropriate for use as cover forms part of the waste stream (in sufficient volumes to allow for effective covering), the total available airspace will be available for waste disposal. Again, the total available airspace will be the volumetric difference between the existing surface and the final landform.

Calculating annual airspace utilisation Airspace utilisation is calculated from the IRD. The IRD, expressed in T/day, is multiplied by 260 days (based on a 5 day week) to determine the annual tonnage of waste. By dividing this figure by the average density of the waste (between 0,75 T/m3 to 1,20 T/m3 depending on waste type and compaction efficiency), the volume of waste to be deposited in the first year is determined. By multiplying this volume by 5/4, the total airspace utilisation for the first year is obtained. Airspace utilisation for subsequent years is obtained by escalating the

g a

uantity of daiy cover a bl

cove that valu

soil cover

uire a voluing the v

acto e total v l be givenplyinentary

or of 4. Tate, the

ade for th u

cas

the case of proposed or existing landfills where daily cover is not required because of the waste tr where ma



IRD for each year, using an appropriate escalation figure for the population being considered. There may be ases where no escalation is applicable, such as industrial sites, where the waste stream is not expected to

alculating landfill site life

The landfill site life is arrived at by matching the available airspace volume for the landfill (arrived at by calculating av the cumulative airspace utilisation (arrived at by alculating annual airspace utilisation, see above). Because landfilled waste compresses and settles

ly under its ow eigh include an estimate of th .4).

dfill profile, allowance must also be made for the post-closure settlement that will take place, and the final profile must be augmented so that after the settlement has occurred, the planned final profile will re

cted to be approximately equal to the settlement that occurs up to

clos ment (pre-plus post-closure) can be calculated from the relationship -∆e =

with p

pth of tion (IRD) for a new landfill site is 350 T/day, and the

waste generation area has an expected growth rate of 3%. The soils are suitable for use in constructing lining

1. Calculate available airspace in m3: Availab 5 m x 400 m x 3.85 m

870 100 m3

ity soil requ ed for er us

For a G:L:B- site, li q s 600 0 mm of soil plus 200 mm topsoil. Taking shape and bulking into account:

Lining material = 565 x 400 x .6 m x 1.1 = 9 160 m3

Final capping material = 565 x 400 x .5 x 1.1 x 1.2

= 149 160 m3

Total soil required for other uses = 149 160 m3 + 149 160 m3 = 298 320 m3

Available volume of daily cover = 870 100 m3 – 298 320 m3

= 571 780 m3

cincrease with time. This is then cumulated. C

ailable airspace in m3, see above), withcconsiderab n w t, a further refinement, which is desirable but not mandatory, is to

e settlement in the estimated overall airspace (see Appendix 3 In determining the final lan

sult.

The post-closure settlement can be expeure. As an alternative, the total settle

∆p/50 in kPa.

Example 1 The proposed landfill site has an area of 400 m by 565 m available for cover excavation. The average deexcavatable cover is 2,5 m. The initial rate of deposi

and final capping layers.

le volume of cover = 56=

Quant of ir oth es: ning re uire mm soil, and final capping requires 30

14



Using a cover to waste volume of 1:4, calculate the total available airspace as: = 571 780 m3 x 5 = 2 858 900 m3

2. Calculat :

IRD = 350 T/day te of deposition = 350 T/day x 260 days/annum

= 91 000 T/annum

= 91 000 T/annum

e annual airspace utilisation in m3

Annual ra

Using a compacted density of 0,75 T/m3, the airspace used by the waste:

0,75 T/m3

= 121 333 m3/annum

Allowing for the airspace used by both waste and cover, using a cover to waste ratio of 1:4:

= 121 333 m3/annum x 5/4 151 667 m3/annum

This figure is then escalated by multiplying the previous year's airspace total by 1,03 for 3% growth, and these are cumulated, as shown in the following spreadsheet.

The available airspace is then matched to the closest cumulative airspace used total, to give the approximate site life, as shown in the following spreadsheet.

3. Estimate the settlement of the landfill as follows:

Suppose that the footprint for the airspace of 2 825 000 m3 is an area measuring 400 m by 500 m. Then the average height of the landfill (ignoring the outer slopes) will be:

HL = 2825000/(400 x 500) = 14 m

The density of the waste is 0,75 T/m3 and hence the unit weight is 7,5 kN/m3

The vertical stress at mid-height of the waste is: ∆p = 7 x 7,5 = 52,5 kN/m2

If the water content of the waste is 25%, then the dry unit weight is: 7,5/(1 + 0,25) = 6,0 kN/m3

Using a solids unit weight of 23,40 kN/m3 (see Example 3.4.1 in Appendix 3.4), the solids height per m height of landfilled waste is:

6,0/23,40 = 0,256 m (= HS., with the initial total height = H)

and the initial void ratio eo is:

eo = (H – HS)/HS = (1 – 0,256)/0,256 = 2,91

=



The average settlem

S = -∆e/(1 + e

ent of the landfill is then:

(1 + 2,91) x 14 = 1,88 m

The settlement therefore allows an additional volume of:

ith p in

Total se

i.e., an a

Referrin 2 820 841 + 752 900 = 3 572 841 m

r a site

o) x HL = ∆p/100 (1 + eo) x HL

S = 52,5/100

1,88 x 400 x 500 = 376000 m3 or an additional 13% 4. Calculate the total settlement (pre-plus post-closure) from the relationship: -∆e = ∆p/50 w kPa.

ttlement would be: 2 x 1.88 m = 3.76 m dditional waste volume of:

3.76 x 400 x 500 = 752 000 m3 or an additional 26%

g to the spreadsheet, this is equivalent to a total airspace of:

3

o life of 18 years (again interpolated from the spreadsheet).



Annual Airspace

Utilisation, including cover, per annum

[m

Year

3]

Cumulative Airspace Utilisation, including

cover, per annum [m3]

Available Airspace Match

[m3]

1 151667 151667 2 156217 307884 3 160904 468788 4 165731 634518

5 170703 805221 6 175824 981044 7 181098 1162143 8 186531 1348674 9 1540801 192127

10 197891 1738692 11 1942520 203828

12 209943 2152463 13 216241 2368703 14 222728 2591432 15 2820841 2825000229410

16 236292 3057134 17 243381 3300515 18 250682 3551197 19 258203 3809400 20 265949 4075349

The approximate site life of the proposed landfill excluding the effects of settlement is therefore 15 years.



Method B To calculate the site life from the initial rate ec sary to know the expected average growth rate, the available total volume erage density of the waste.

he volume of the waste, Vr is calculated from the total volume as follows:

o total airspace, usually taken as 1:5 VT is the total volume of airspace of the site

In this example therefore,

Vr =

he total mass of waste, M is given by:

γ is the average density of the compacted waste.

ue of 0.75 T/m3 is

ion (IRD) and the assumed average annual rowth rate as follows:

Mr =

of deposition, IRD, it is n es (airspace) of the site and the expected av

T

Vr = (1 - R)VT

where: R is the average ratio of cover t

(1-1/5)VT = 4/5VT = 0,8VT

T r

Mr = γ Vr

where: The value of γ will depend on the degree of compaction achieved at the site but a valrecommended for conventionally compacted sites. The total mass of waste, Mr is related to the initial rate of depositg

IRD [(1 + I)n – 1] I

here: I = average growth rate per year33

he site in years

itten in a more convenient form,

w n = time period or life of t

For the purpose of calculating the expected site life, the above equation is rewrviz:

n log (1 + I) = log ⎥⎦⎢⎣+1

IRD ⎤⎡ IMr

or: n = log ⎥⎤

⎢⎡ +1IMr

/ log(1 + I) ⎦⎣ IRD

33 Strictly, the average growth rate over the life of the site.



Alternatively, in terms of total airspace and compaction, characteristics (γ and R) where Mr = γ RVT, the above equation becomes:

n = log ⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡ +1

IRDIγRVT

/ log (1 + I)

3 determined by urvey:

y of the compacted fill is taken 3 r an assumed 260 day

n = lo

Example

etermine the life span of a proposed site with a total volume (airspace) of 2 821 000 mDaccurate s The anticipated average growth rate is 3% per annum (0.03), the average densitas 0.75 T/m with a cover to waste ratio 1:4. The IRD is 350 T/day or 91 000 T/Y fo

orking year. w

g ⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡ +1

000 910.03 x 000 821 2 x 0.8 x 0.75 + 1 /log ( 1 +0.03)

= log [1.558 ]/ log [1.030]

= 0.193 / 0.013

= 15 years life span

APPENDIX 8.2: DESIGN OF THE LINING SYSTEM


Appendix 8.2 DESIGN OF THE LSection 8)

requirements, and hence er and sequence of liner components, will

associated with each liner com designs are

hese elements are as follows, generally working down from the underside of the waste body:

A waste separation layer consistin directly on top of the leachate collection layer (A layer) to protect the drainage media from possible biochemical clogging and/or blinding with fine waste particles. The installation of this layer depends on

l.

imilar - and G:L:B- landfills and protects it

ertain circumstances, the

layer: A leachate collection layer comprising a 150 mm thick layer of single-sized gravel or crushed stone having a size of between 38 mm and 50 mm, and a system of perforated pipe drains located within the stone layer.

B layer: A 150 mm thick compacted clay liner layer. This must be compacted to a minimum density of

95% Standard Proctor* maximum dry density at a water content of Proctor optimum to optimum +2%. Permeabilities must be such that the outflow rates stated in Section 8.4.3 are not exceeded. Interfaces between B layers must be lightly scarified to assist in bonding the layers together.

The surface of every clay liner layer must be graded towards the leachate collection drain or sumps (see section 8.4.4) at a minimum gradient of 2% for general waste disposal sites and 5% for hazardous waste disposal sites. At the discretion of the Competent Authority, up to 4 x B layers may be replaced by a GCL of at least equivalent performance, (in terms of permeability, toughness and chemical resistance) supported on a 100 mm thick silt/sand layer.

C layer: This is a layer of high modulus geotextile laid on top of any D layer to protect it from

contamination by fine material from above.

INING SYSTEM ( As discussed in Section 8, every liner system is made up of a series of elements. Liner the numb vary with the class of landfill under consideration. The

ponent is described below, and the variousdetail and variation linerdepicted in Figure A.8.1 through to Figure A.8.8. T S layer: g of a woven geotextile placed

the nature and composition of the waste in the landfil

layer: A desiccation protection layer consisting of 150 mm of soil, gravel, rubble or other sOmaterial that completely covers the B layer for G:M:Bfrom desiccation and cracking until it is covered by waste. Under cthickness of the O layer may need to be increased.

A

* 0,945l cylindrical mould, 2,5 kg hammer dropped 300 mm. Compaction in 3 layers each compacted with 25 blows

(compactive effort = 595kNm/m3).



D layer: A leakage detection and+ a

collection layer. This is always below a C layer and above a B layer in B and hazardous w ste landfills. In lagoons it is underlain by an E layer which protects the second FML or geom thickness of 150 mm and will consist of

m. At the h the

Competent Authority), this layer may be replaced a geosynthetic drainage of at least

to medium sand or similar suitable material which is amage.

ith e is a Minimum Requirement H:h landfill, it is a 1,5 mm

thick geomembrane underlain by four B layers. In the case of an H:H landfill, it is a 2,0 mm hazardous waste lagoon, there

four B layers and the second is yers34.

in

worked in-situ soil with ion standards as a B

standard as a B

The surface of every G layer must be graded towards a leachate collection drain or sump in the case of B+ landfill or to a central channel on the down gradient side of a B- landfill, from which sporadic leachate can be collected if it occurs. The central channel must contain a prism of A layer material with a perforated pipe drain so as to act as an efficient leachate collector or finger drain. The minimum gradient must be 2% for G sites and 5% for H sites.

embrane. It has a minimumsingle-sized gravel or crushed stone having a size of between 38 mm and 50 mdiscretion of the Department (formal communication should take place throug

equivalent drainage performance. E layer: This is a cushion of 100 mm of fine

placed immediately above any F layer to protect it from mechanical d F layer: A geomembrane or flexible membrane liner (FML) which must be laid in direct contact w

the upper surface of a compacted clay B layer. A geomembrancase of anfor all hazardous waste landfills and lagoons. In the

thick geomembrane underlain by four B layers. In the case of as 2,0 mm thick underlain byare two geomembranes. The first i

1,0 mm thick underlain by two B la

The geomembrane thickness specified shall be minimum nominal thickness, as measured accordance with the SANS 1526:2003.

G layer: This is a base preparation layer consisting of a compacted layer of re

a minimum thickness of 150 mm and constructed to the same compactlayer. Where the permeability of a G layer can be proven to be of the samelayer, it may replace the lowest B layer.

34 When a geomembrane is laid over a B layer compacted to 95% Standard Proctor maximum dry density of water content of Proctor optimum to optimum +2%, consideration must be given to the following situation. Condensation from the clay liner under the geomembrane could lubricate the interface and facilitate slippage on slopes.



General B- Landfills

Liners: G:S:B- Landfills

layer

Layer 150 mm Desiccation layer

Layer clay

Layer liner (in 2x150 mm layers)

Layer 150 mm Base preparation layer

In situ soil

FIGURE A.8.3 Liners: G:L:B- Landfills

Waste body O Layer 150 mm Desiccation layer B Layer 450 mm Compacted clay B Layer liner (in 3x150 mm layers) B Layer G Layer 150 mm Base preparation layer

In situ soil

FIGURE A.8.1

dy Waste bo G Layer 150 mm Base preparation

In situ soil

FIGURE A.8.2 -Liners: G:M:B Landfills

Waste body O B 300 mm CompactedB G



General B+ Landfill

Liners: G:S:B+ Landfills A Layer

s

FIGURE A.8.4

Waste body 150 mm Leachate collection layer

Layer 150 mm Base preparation layer

FIGURE A.8.5 Liners: G:M:B+ and G:L:B+ Landfills

Waste body

Layer 150 mm Leachate collection layer

Layer

Layer 600 mm Compacted clay

Layer liner (in 4x150 mm layers)

150 mm Leakage detection and collection layer

Layer 150 mm Compacted clay liner

In situ soil

B Layer 300 mm Compacted clay B Layer liner (in 2x150 mm layers) G

In situ soil

A B B B B Layer C Layer Geotextile layer D Layer B G Layer 150 mm Base preparation layer



Hazardous Waste Landfills

FIGURE A.8.6 Liners: H:h Landfills

Waste body

150 mm Soil

Layer geotextile Layer Layer

B Layer 600 mm Compacted clay

In situ soil

A Layer 150 mm Leachate collection layer

protection layer or equivalent protective EF 1,5 mm FML/Geomembrane

B

liner (in 4x150 mm layers)35 B Layer B Layer

C Layer Geotextile layer D Layer 150 mm Leakage detection and collection layer B Layer 150 mm Clay layer G Layer 150 mm Base preparation layer

35 Note: Where there is insufficient clay of acceptable quality, the 4 x B layers may be replaced by a GCL of at least equivalent performance (in terms of permeability, toughness and chemical resistance) overlying a 100 mm thick silt/sand support layer.



Hazardous Waste Landfills

Liners: H:H Landfills and Encapsulation Cells Waste body A Layer 300 mm Leachate collection layer A Layer 150 mm Soil protection layer or equivalent protective E Layer geotextile F Layer 2 mm FML/Geomembrane B Layer B Layer 600 mm Compacted clay liner (in 4x150 mm layers)36

B Layer B Layer C Layer Geotextile layer D Layer 150 mm Leakage detection and collection layer B Layer 300 mm Compacted clay B Layer liner (in 2x150 mm layers) G Layer 150 mm Base preparation layer In situ soil

FIGURE A.8.7

36 Note: Where there is insufficient clay of acceptable quality, the 4 x B layers may be replaced by a GCL of at least equivalent performance (in terms of permeability, toughness and chemical resistance) overlying a 100 mm thick silt/sand support layer.



FIGURE A.8.8 Hazardous Waste Lagoons

2 mm FML/Geomembrane

600 mm Compacted clay liner (in 4x150 mm layers)37

300 mm Compacted clay B Layer liner (in 2x150 mm layers)

G Layer

n situ soil

Waste body E Layer 100 mm Cushion and ballast layer F Layer B Layer B Layer B Layer B Layer C Layer Geotextile layer D Layer 150 mm Leakage detection and collection layer

E Layer 100 mm Cushion layer Layer 1 mm FML/Geomembrane F

B Layer

150 mm Base preparation layer

I

37 Note: Where there is insufficient clay of acceptable quality, the 4 x B layers may be replaced by a GCL of at least

perform nce (in d er.

equivalent a terms of permeability, toughness and chemical resistance) overlying a 100 mm thick silt/sansupport lay

APPENDIX 8.3: DESIGN OF LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND PIEZOMETERS


Appendix 8.3

ESIGN OF LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM PIEZOMETERS

Section 8) Figure A.8.9 illustrates the principle o landfill, both in plan and in section. Details of the requiremen age detection and leachate treat

FIG RE

Upslope stormwater cut-off drain A

o enab pied and ept posits

System of cut-off d

irecting leachate or ollection sump via perforated

A ted run-off

DAND(

f the drainage systems for a ts for drainage are given in Section 8.4.4. ‘Design of leachate collection, leakment system’ and Section 10.4.2: ‘Drainage’.

U A.8.9 Typical leachate collection system

Manhole t leo be rodd k

pes tclear of de

rains leakage to Toe drain d

ccollection pipes Leachate or contamina collection sump



Plan of Landfill Showing Typical Drainage Systems38

Stormwater

Perforated collection pipes set in leachate collection or leakage detection layer in cut-off drains

Section A-A through landfill

he principles of installing a stand-pipe piezometer as required in Section 8.4.4 are illustrated in Figure A.8.10. (open lower end) of the piezometer tube must be measured by leveling to the nearest

t the time of installation. The levels of the top of the tube (Ln) and the surrounding waste

he presence of the indicated by a buzzer sounding, a light going on or by an ammeter on the instrument. tors are available commercially.). If the length of cable from the top of the piezometer tube

LANDFILL cut-off drain Toe drain

TThe level (Lo) of the base

mm and recorded a5(Lw) must be measured whenever the piezometric height is measured. The presence and level of leachate below the level of the waste is then determined by using an electrical water level indicator (or “dipper”) consisting of sensor that is lowered down the piezometer tube on the end of a graduated cable. Ta

leachate surface is Water level indica(

to the leachate surface is λc, then the level of the leachate below the waste surface is: LL = Ln - λC

38 For B- sites the rudimentary leachate detection system of finger drains would have a similar “herring-bone” arrangement to the leachate collection system.



FIGURE A.8.10 Suggested Method of Installing Piezometer Tube

APPENDIX 8.4: DESIGN OF THE FINAL COVER OR CAPPING SYSTEM


Appendix 8.4 DESIGN OF THE FINAL COVER OR CAPPINGSYSTEM (Section 8)

eventing ponding of water on the landfill. As discussed in the main text, each of the cover or capping systems is made up of a series of quirements, and hence ll vary with the class of he detail and variatio with each component is described below, a s cover designs are depicted i igure A.8.11 through t

he elements are as follows:

layer: A 200 mm thick layer of topsoil planted with local grasses and shrubs. The layer layer

he

impermeability. This must not be less than 85% of Proctor maximum dry density at a water content of Proctor op 2%. T e saturated steady state infiltration rate into a compacted eed 0,5 m/y, as measured by means of an in

tially at a

At the discretion of the Competent Authority, V layers may be replaced by a geomembrane, a GCL, or a composite liner.

CL layer: A reinforced geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) of equivalent permeability performance to 600 mm of compacted clay, to provide a barrier during and post settlement.

te body. (If available, it may prove useful to e before compacting).

ness of 150 mm and consisting of single sized m in size. The X layer must be connected to a gas

management system. Z layer: This is a layer of filter geotextile laid on top of any X layer to protect the X layer

from contamination. It is also intended to induce self-healing of cracks in V soil layers that form upon settlement of the waste body.

Like the liner system, a capping or final cover system is also made up of a series of elements. The capping system is designed to maximise run-off of precipitation, while minimising infiltration and pr

elements. Cover re the number and sequence of components, wilandfill under consideration. T n associated nd the variou n F o Figure A.8.13.

T U

must be lightly compacted after spreading. In arid regions, this can be substituted with aof natural gravel.

V layer: A compacted 150 mm soil cap layer. Any soil used in a V layer must have a Plasticity Index

of between 5 and 15 and a maximum particle size of 25 mm. This will be compacted to tmaximum density reasonably attainable under the circumstances to ensure the required

timum to Proctor optimum + h soil V layer should not exc

situ double ring infiltrometer test. The surface of every V layer must be graded iniminimum of 5% to shed precipitation.

G

W layer: Shaped and compacted upper surface of was

rubblcover the waste surface with builders’ X layer: A gas venting layer having a minimum thick

stone or gravel of between 25 mm and 50 m

APPENDIX 8.4: DESIGN OF THE FINAL COVER OR CAPPING SYSTEM


FIGURE A.8.11 Cover: G:C and G:S:B- Landfills

Layer 200 mm Topsoil

Layer Waste body compacted

and G:L:B- Landfills

200 mm Topsoil

silty soil (in 2x150 mm layers) aye

Z Layer

W Laye

U Laye m Topsoil

aye V Laye GCL LV LayeZ LayerX Laye n, capillary break and gas drainage layer W Layer Waste body compacted

NOTE

U W

FIGURE A.8.12-Cover: G:S:B+ , G:M:B

U Layer V Layer 300 mm Compacted clayey or

V L r

Geotextile filter layer

r Waste body compacted

FIGURE A.8.13 Cover: G:M:B+ , G:L:B+ and Hazardous Landfills

(and all sites with inadequate bottom liners)

r 200 m V L r 300 mm Compacted clayey or

silty soil (in 2x150 mm layers) r

ayer GCL layer r 150 mm Compacted clayey or silty soil Geotextile filter layer

r 150 mm Foundatio

:

The desiAlthoughby the co s and FML on of the Competent Authority, components and configurations may be varied.

gn of covers is highly dependent on site-specific circumstances, e.g., nature of waste (wet, dry, putrescible). the primary function of the cover is to keep water out of the waste body, the cover design will also be affected ntainment and gas management philosophy adopted and the preferred materials and technology (e.g., clay, GCLs) for the given situation. Cover designs should be based on the above figures. However, at the discreti

APPENDIX 8.5: PERMEABILITY TESTS


App

TS

trata

Size of Tests

of values. Where possible, more than one type of test should be performed.

Gradient Darcy's Law is only approximately true for soils. Laboratory permeability measurements should be carried out in a triaxial cell with flow gradients not exceeding 3, to ensure realistic permeability results. Duration of Tests Tests should be run for a sufficient length of time to achieve a steady-state flow condition. The Permeating Fluid Whenever possible, a sample of leachate from similar waste to that to be disposed of, or a sample of the liquid waste to be disposed of, must be used to determine the soil permeability or that of the liner material to be used. Where leachate cannot be used, a standard synthetic leachate should be used in preference to clear water. However, whatever the permeating fluid, a suitable chemical analysis should accompany the results. In the case of hazardous waste disposal sites, the Responsible Person must satisfy the Competent Authority of the chemical compatibility of the proposed liner with the wastes and leachate that will come into contact with it. Specifically, it must be shown that the leachate will not cause the permeability of the liner to increase significantly with time.

Warning:

endix 8.5

PERMEABILITY TES(Section 8) All permeability tests must be chosen to give the most realistic permeability results for the material or sunder consideration.

The size of the test (specimen or test hole geometry etc.) must make proper allowance for the size of the constituent particles and structural features of the material or strata. Number of Tests The number of tests or of test locations (in the case of field tests), should provide a realistic upper bound value or range Flow

Waste and leachate may be toxic, or infectious, or both. It should only be handled by staff who are adequately trained and aware of the dangers, and who are equipped with adequate protective clothing. Most soil testing laboratories are not adequately equipped or sufficiently knowledgeable to handle leachate safely. Bacterial or fungal infections from contact or even the proximity of waste or leachate are difficult to treat and cure without

APPENDIX 8.5: PERMEABILITY TESTS


extensive medical tests andresult in permanent disabili

medication. They may cause serious and permanent damage to health and even ty.

APPENDIX 8.6: SLOPE STABILITY AND SHEAR STRENGTH TESTING

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Land

Appendix 8.6 S

FIGURE A.8.14 Chart for Preliminary Slope Stability Assessment

i°

LOPE STABILITY AND SHEAR STRENGTH

Fig bility of slopes of compacted waste where shearing ll

Cohesion : c1 = 25 kPa Angle of shearing resistance : φ1 = 15o Unit weight : γ = 10kN/m3

h be the critical mode of failure of the slope, see Shear Strength Tests on Waste. If there is

nything unusual about the slope, it should be properly analysed. In addition, if the moisture contents of the astes are high, co-disposal with liquid wastes is practised, the characteristics of the waste could lead to

out.

TESTING (Section 8)

ure A.8.14 is a chart for preliminary assessment of stawi occur through the waste. The chart is based on the following parameters for the waste:

Factor of safety : F = 1.25 Caution: The chart should only be used for preliminary assessments of the stability of proposed slopes. If there is anything unusual about the slope, it should be properly analysed. The user must ensure that shearing througthe waste willawinstability, or the landfill is positioned on steep terrain, a full slope stability analysis must be carried

H

1.1

fill, Third Edition, 2005 249



Sa

fe sl

ope

ang

le i°

30°

25°

20° 20 30 40 50 60

Load-Carrying Capacity and StiffneComponents Section 8.3.3 refers to the use of geomembranes and other polymeric (plastic) materials (e.g., geofabrics and geogrids) in linings to steeply sloping surfaces, and the importance of assessing resistance to interlayer slippage. This implies that the various layers are carrying loads in tension and transferring these loads one to another. It is important to consider the behaviour of polymerics or plastics under tension, and the following must be noted:

. Data on strength and extension-under-load given by manufacturers is usually based on short-term in

f 15 to ions

l or physical deterioration, the actual tensile strength in service is very much less than the “index strength” provided by the

ormation Association) recommends that short-term index strengths be reduced by a factor of at least 2.2 to obtain an estimated in-service strength. (i.e., In-service strength ≤ 45% of index strength).

2. Load is shared between polymeric components in proportion to their stiffness in tension, which is usually very low and is also greatly affected by the duration of the load. For example, a typical stiffness for a polyester geogrid measured in a one-hour tension test is 5kN/m per 1% extension. A

wide ible

n in a polymeric geogrid because of the great extension required in the geogrid to develop the load.

he in-plane shear stiffness of tyres is very low, only about 20 kPa in d to

-slope shear, the tyre layer can allow excessive deformation to develop in the overlying waste. Very careful consideration must be given to the effects of both the cross-plane and in-plane

Height of slope H m

ss of Polymeric (Plastic) & Rubber

1

tests. For example, SANS 0221-88 specifies a tension test in which the rate of elongation must be the range of 60 ± 10 mm/minute, which for most geotextile materials implies a time to failure o20 seconds. However, components made from these materials are used to carry long term tensover periods of several years and because of creep-rupture mechanisms, accidental damage to the component (e.g., a geogrid) during installation and long-term chemica

manufacturer. The highly respected British Organization CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Inf

A factor of safety of at least 1.25 must still be applied to obtain the working tensile stress (i.e., working tensile stress ≤ 35% of index strength).

typical compression stiffness for a compacted soil would be 100 MPa, and for a layer of soil 1 mby 0.2 m thick, the load to induce 1% compression would be 200 kN. Hence it is close to impossto balance compression in a compacted soil layer by tensio

3. Layers of close-laid scrap rubber tyres have been used as leachate drainage layers in landfills. The problem with this is that tcomparison with the shear stiffness of compacted waste of about 800 kPa. Hence when subjectedown



deformation of a close-laid tyre layer on the overall deformation of the waste body before a tyre layer is incorporated into the structure of a landfill.

Shear Strength Tests on Waste

at has been co-disposed with an industrial hazardous waste), in order to establish its strength parameters.

Waste is very difficult to sample in situ, and it may be preferable or only possible to prepare synthetic

ofte paratus, usually a 100 mm

at lestra

The shear strength parameters on which Figure A.8.14 is based were originally selected after a review of the international literature prior to 1994. A review of literature produced up to 2004 has confirmed that these parameters are still valid for general waste. However, from time to time it may be necessary to test an industrial waste (or a general waste th

specimens in the laboratory, using the correct average proportions of the various components. Because wastes n contain large pieces or particles, the largest available triaxial shear testing ap

diameter by 200 mm high triaxial compression cell, should be used.

Triaxial compression tests should be drained tests, measuring volume changes of the specimens, and taken to ast 20% axial compressive strain. (Very often a maximum deviator stress will not be reached even at 20% in.)

APPENDIX 8.7: DETERMINATION OF LANDFILL HEIGHT


Appendix 8.7 D TERMINATION OF LANE DFILL HEIGHT (Section 8)

nal landfill height. This remains the case for many general waste sites, particularly smaller sites. However, as landfill establishment and preparation costs (particularly liner costs) have escalated, and several landfills have

e has been a shift to maximising the airspace available per unit area of liner. This has resulted in a move towards increased final landfill heights for larger and hazardous sites.

While final landfill height is traditionally determined by technical factors, such as stability and cover availability, the height and shape of landfills can also have significant environmental impacts, particularly on the aesthetics of an area. The extent of visual impacts depends on the topography of an area, the shape and relative dimensions of the final landform chosen, the appearance of the wastes, the screening methods used, as well as the proximity of communities or visually sensitive land-uses.

eally, final landfill height is determined through the design process and the implications are considered in the

dium, large

approval of a final landfill height requires serious assessment by the Competent Authority prior to approval, to ensure that technical and environmental criteria are met.

The objectives of extending references to the final landfill height in the third edition of the Minimum uirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill are to:

• is to be established through the authorisation

• Outline the requirements for motivations to the Competent Authority to amend final landfill height for established landfills.

t that final landfill height be determined for all landfills, with the exception of

communal sites. Figure 13 details the requirements for applying the landfill authorisation procedure to ll height forms part of the design

in the EIA process. The final landfill height will generally be specified in the the operation of the site, considered in operation monitoring, and adhered to

nd end-use design.

Introduction

Previously, the quantity of excavatable cover was the major factor in determining available airspace and hencefi

begun to use alternative sources of cover, ther

IdEIA process, as part of the authorisation process. An approved final landfill height is then included in the Permit. It is suitably implemented, monitored and audited as part of the landfill operation, and adhered to during the landfill closure and remediation process. However, with the shift to improving the cost-benefit ratio of liner construction for certain landfills, motivations for the increase of final landfill height for meand hazardous landfills are being received by the Competent Authority.

The

Req

Provide the basis on which a suitable final landfill heightprocess, and

Authorisation (Section 5)

It is a Minimum Requiremen

different situations. In all cases, the determination of a suitable final landfiprocess, and must be consideredPermit. This must be adhered to inin the closure, remediation a



To this end, the determination of final landfill height must be included as a section in the Permit Application

ility (for all sites) manoeuvrability on working areas (for all sites)

• stability (for sites on steep areas, with steep sides, where liquid or high moisture wastes are disposed of or where hazardous waste is disposed of)

• the likelihood and possible effects of seismic activity (for those sites where stability must be considered, and which are located in potentially seismic areas)

• potential environmental and social impacts identified during the EIA and scoping processes, including visual impact (for all sites)

any effect on hazardous or delisted waste loading rates that may occur (for sites where hazardous or delisted wastes are accepted).

If a landfill exceeds the allowable final landfill height during the operation, this is regarded as non-compliance

thority may consider motivations for increasing the allowable final landfill height at their discretion, in accordance with the principles included in this appendix. Motivations to increase final landfill

The Assessment and Mitigation of Environmental Impacts (Section 7)

ct.

elatively flat terrain, the visual impacts can be substantial. Other visual features in the

ndscape can also have an impact: for example, a landfill in an industrial area would have less of a visual pact than a landfill adjacent to a nature reserve. A landform with straight lines and regular forms has greater

es, which blend into the visual environment better. The relative dimensions of a shape also have an influence, as a long flat shape with rounded corners will tend to have less of a visual impact

a

nt Authority may require a isual impact assessment. Typically, a visual impact assessment would be required for landfills with final

Report, for sites larger than communal. Depending on the landfill classification, the following factors must be addressed: • cover availab•

•

and must be rectified (for example, by carting away the waste or obtaining approval for an extension). The Competent Au

height must include the factors listed above. Where a Monitoring Committee is in place for a landfill, the Monitoring Committee must be consulted on the issue, and minutes of meetings must be included in such motivations.

The topography of the area in which a landfill is established is a major factor in its potential visual impaWhere a landfill is situated in an area of rolling hills, and the final landfill height and landform are similar to the natural topography, the visual impact can be limited. However, where a large landfill with considerablefinal height is located in rlaimimpact than more natural shap

than a truncated pyramid shape. The colour of the waste can also influence the visual impact of the site, as colours that contrast starkly with the surroundings have greater impact. Employing screening methods on landfills can lessen potential visual impacts, for example, using the rising green wall technique for visible slopes, and planting trees around the landfill perimeter. While trees might not grow sufficiently tall to screenlandform entirely, they can assist by reducing the area of the site that is visible, and by introducing more natural shapes into the visual environment. Where the visual impact of a landfill is expected to be significant, the Competevheight of over 20 m in relatively flat terrain, but can be requested at the Competent Authority’s discretion, particularly in visually sensitive areas.



Such assessments are often carried out by landscape architects, and would include assessments of: • The affected environment, including topography, existing land uses and existing visual intrusions

t the s, reducing the length of sunlight and daylight hours in

ch considers all the above, and lists the potential impacts and their expected significance.

Based on the visual impact assessment carried out, a conclusion should be reached on whether the visual impact of the landfill is acceptable or not, and any mitigation measures to reduce the visual impacts should be recommended. These conclusions should be submitted to the Competent Authority.

Increases in landfill height could potentially result in other environmental impacts, which should be considered in the EIA. These changes could include: • Changes in climatic conditions in the vicinity of the landfill, such as wind pathways • Change in pathways for existing and new air pollution as changes in climatic conditions take place • Increases in emissions from the landfill with an increased depth of waste available for deposition Intrusion into flight space around airports and runways, and difficulties experienced with radar due to

increases in heavy traffic in the vicinity of landfills and spatial intrusion. If any of the above applies to a landfill, than these should be considered in the EIA, using specialist studies if indicated. In instances where environmental impacts are expected as a result of the landfill height, the Competent Authority will use the following criteria to establish that the final landfill height is environmentally acceptable:

• The visual impacts of the landfill must be acceptable to either the landscape architect who undertook the visual impact assessment or the majority of the surrounding community or the Landfill Monitoring Committee where in place. Substantial screening and suitable shaping could be motivated to mitigate the impact, or motivation could be given as to why alternatives would not be viable.

• The landfill must not result in reduced sunlight and daylight hours of more than 20 minutes per day without the documented consent of the affected communities.

• The dfill must not result in changed climatic conditions that may endanger communities by the channelling of pollution or potential pollution towards them.

• The landfill height must not result in increased emissions, such that these are considered as unacceptable by the Competent Authority.

• The landfill height must not have a significant impact on the operation and/ or safety of any nearby airports.

• Landform and waste characteristics, including the shape of the landfill, expected screening and the colour of the waste

• Visual exposure, delineating the areas from which the landfill is likely to be visible • Visual prominence, which considers the distance over which the landfill is visible relative to the scale of

the landfill, resulting in ranking the visual intrusion from high to low visual prominence • Viewer incidence and perception, which considers the number of viewers and their perceptions of the

landfill • Shadow analysis (where appropriate), which considers whether the final landfill height is such tha

site will cast shadows across adjacent areaproximity to the site

• Impact description and perception, whi

•

lan



The Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA Report) must state the final design height of the landfill site, and the management and monitoring strategy proposed for ensuring that this height is not exceeded.

Landfill Design (Section 8)

Determination of a suitable final landfill height is largely based on technical factors, and therefore falls within landfill design. For most general sites, cover availability is the major factor determining the airspace at a given site, if it is to be operated in accordance with sanitary landfill principles. However, a range of technical factors must be considered, which include:

• Cover availability (see Section 8.2.2), so that sufficient cover is available to effectively cover the waste dy on a daily basis, so the final landfill height can be achieved.

• h vi

• M ed to ru

• Sislo try, waste characteristics and potential failure modes into account. For smaller general sites in

tly sloping to flat areas, it is unlikely that stability would need to be considered. However, for larger e

aith eep tede

• Th

po• A

in• A ially

al chieved.

Hazardous Wastedisposal d hazardous or delisted waste monthly and total loading rates and the site area must

ela

The Ctechni

There must be sufficient cover available to operate the landfill according to sanitary landfill principles (unless the waste dictates that covering is not necessary and this is motivated).

bo T e size of the site, so that the landfill height is not disproportionate to the size of the site, which could be

sually intrusive, and could cause stability and manoeuvrability problems, anoeuvrability at the working face (see Section 10.2.3), so that the working area is not too confinn a sanitary landfill operation effectively as the final landfill height is approached. te stability (see Section 8.4.8 and Appendix 8.6), so that the waste body is inherently stable, by taking pe geome

geng neral sites and for hazardous sites, where the Permit Holder would prefer to maximise the available

rspace on the liners constructed, stability must be considered. For sites where stability is identified by e designer as a concern, for example sites where co-disposal is practised, or a landfill is sited on strrain, or the final landfill height is considerable, or steep outer slopes are being motivated as part of the sign, a stability assessment must be carried out by a professional engineer.

e potential effects of seismic activity, so that instability due to seismic events is avoided where ssible. 39

llowance for good drainage off the final landform, so that the infiltration, which can potentially result leachate generation, is minimised. llowance for settlement of the waste (see Section 8.6), so that uneven settlement does not substantter drainage paths, and the final landfill height is a

• Hazardous and de-listed waste total loading rates, so that the loading rates approved by the Competent Authority are not exceeded (see Minimum Requirements for the Handling, Classification and Disposal of

, Section 8.4.3). For hazardous sites, and sites where delisted wastes are accepted for , the approve

b taken into account in determining final landfill height, so that the monthly and total loading rate for the ndfill is unlikely to be exceeded.

ompetent Authority will use the following criteria to establish whether or not the final landfill height is cally acceptable:

•

39 Seismic information is available from seismic activity maps available from Council for GeoScience, and the literature. In potentially seismic areas the effects would need to be considered by the Engineer.



• The proportions of the laheight of the landfill w

• • The landfill must be able to withstand minor seismic events without damag• Drainage off the final landform must be efficient. • Some uneven settlement

that the final landform w

ndfill phases must be such that manoeuvrability will not be compromised, and the ill not be out of proportion with the footprint dimensions.

The landfill must be stable. e.

must be anticipated in the determination of final height and drainage paths, so ill continue to drain efficiently.

The final landfill height must be sufficient so that settlement will not result in a concave final landform, or

final

, that the

ide slope radients.

In addition, the operator must ensure that the means by which the final landfill height and safe outer slopes were determined are not changed, or where changes do occur, the impacts on stability (and potentially loading) are considered. Changes could include the co-disposal ratio employed (both in terms of impacts on the loading

cha cteristics being accepted, which could have an impact on the water balance and on stability.

dfill height and allowable slope gradients. Where a those assumptions must be stated in

the perating Plan, to be managed or taken into account by the landfill operator. Such assumptions may

pe gradients, ensure that these are within design and permit requirements.

Monitoring of stability is a Minimum Requirement for those landfills:

ww

• si

•a final landform below natural grade.

• The loading rates for hazardous and delisted wastes must not be exceeded over the area of the landfill.

Landfill Operation (Section 10)

In the design process, a stable final landfill height is determined, and discussed with IAPs. A suitablelandfill height is approved by the Competent Authority, and generally included as a permit condition. Similarly, appropriate slopes are designed, and the Permit for a landfill either specifies an acceptable gradient, or refers to safe slopes. During operation, the landfill operator must ensure, through proper controlsallowable final landfill height is not exceeded, and that safe side slopes are maintained. To this end, regular survey and the use of batter boards on site are recommended to check the landfill height and sg

rate and on the water balance) and the incoming waste streams changing, with wastes of different ra

The Operating Plan must include maximum allowable lanrisk assessment and/or the design has been based on certain assumptions,

Oinclude the co-disposal ratio, characteristics of incoming waste and climatic conditions.

Landfill Operation Monitoring (Section 11)

Surveys Surveys performed to monitor airspace must also be used to monitor landfill height and outer sloto

Monitoring of stability

• here stability is a concern • ith steep and/or high slopes

tuated on steep terrain



• Regfreq

uditing of the landfill height and outer slope gradients is required for all sites. Procedures specified in the

he management of such factors must be cluded in the Operating Plan, so that the document can be used as one of the audit criteria.

and rem

Clo irements are those remediation measures that must be taken to render a landfill environmentally is

ayeded. The closure requirements are included in the remedial or closure design. This design must address

final landfill height, final shaping, landscaping and revegetation. Closure must take place in accordance with the conditions of the Permit and the associated Minimum Requirements. Before final closure, the site must be inspected by officials of the state departments and

m Committee to determine whether closure should be authorised, based on factors nd height and the implementation of the closure

si

t also has environmental and social impacts, of which visual p ption of visual impacts is largely subjective, and can be an emotive issue. Public u sual impacts must therefore form part of the public consultation process leading up to the

p can request a isu ment and itigation of Environmental Impacts’ in this appendix). The development of figures and models indicating the

al distance, visual exposure, and likely appearance of the final landform against the topography can be useful tools for educating the public and demonstrating the expected impacts. The Monitoring Committee will monitor landfill height as part of site operation monitoring. As judging height can be difficult for the average person, the site operator must report the landfill height obtained by survey to the committee members in an understandable format.

where co-disposal of liquids is practiced or wastes with high moisture contents are accepted.

ular stability assessments are to be carried out annually for such sites, by a professional engineer, or more uently where data indicates cause for concern, see Appendix 8.6.

Site Auditing

AOperating Plan, and compliance with permit conditions and design requirements must be carefully appraised. In addition, where a risk assessment and/or the design has been based on certain assumptions, the management of those factors for which assumptions have been made should be audited. These could include the co-disposal ratio, characteristics of incoming waste and climatic conditions. Tin

Remediation, Closure and End-Use (Section 12) It is a Minimum Requirement that final shaping and landscaping be considered for all landfills, for closure

ediation.

sure requsuited to its proposed end-use. Where problems have resulted from bad practice, remediation is required. Th

include remedial work with regard to steep outer slopes and the allowable final landfill height being mexce

me bers of the Monitoring such as the achievement of an acceptable final landform ade gn and remediation.


Landfill height is a function of engineering buim act is often key. Perceinp t on potential viap roval of a landfill Permit Application. Where this is contentious, the Competent Authority

al impact assessment, which is typically carried out by a landscape architect (see ‘The AssessvMvisu



Example An industry requires a new landfill for their solid wastes, as no suitable regional landfill is situated within an conomical transport distance for the industry, and their existing landfill is nearing the end of its life. While the

waste stream from the industry falls into the are accepted, and the minimum site classification for accepting e management system. The new landfill is therefore classed time is expected, in fact, the industry is investigating decreasing the waste stream though recycling and re-use initiatives within the plant.

he total area available for the landfill is 10 hectares. To not exceed monthly loading rates for the delisted was ctar ed per equires a for periominimu the area b eloped. To determine an appropri fill hei

ilit sidere clays to consid the

excavation of sufficient clay fo g the outer walls is included in the design, nfi the m s u 5

ffectively used to er waste types on the existing si d to change. It is therefore concluded that there is sufficient daily cover available for

av fact la

nd pace f r Phase 1 lculated

10 m is obtained. As this would not be cost effective given the cost of install :B+ liner, a final landfill height of 20 m is considered. This would provide airspace for approximately 18 years on

. The sions are not expected to exceed the values

pacts, as it is 0 m from the

be adopted to screen the operation, and that trees be planted around onsulted as part of the public participation process and do not

pacts as demonstrated in enhanced photographs, on condition that the

iv. The size of the Phase 1 is 2 hectares, with an expected landfill footprint of 120 m by 167 m. This is a re

, the identified dimension of 120 m wide would be taken up entirely by the outer slopes. Considering a more square shape, 2 hectares will give footprint dimensions of 141 m by 141 m. This will give a working area of 21 m by 21 m, which will restrict manoeuvrability of the vehicles at the working face. However, it will be possible to reach

e “small” category, delisted wastes

delisted wastes is a G:M:B+ landfill, with a leachat as G:M:B+. No increase in the waste stream with

Tte, an area of 2 he

m, givenes is requir

eing dev phase. The industry r irspace d of 10 years

ate land

y is con

ght:

d. The site is situated on goodr lining, final cover and raisin

i. Cover availab erable depth, and

once testing co rms that aterial is suitable. Ash make cover the oth

p more than 0% of the waste stream byte. The availability of themass, and is e

ash is not expectethe operation, and that cover ailability is not a governing or for final ndfill height in this instance.

ii. The required la fill airs or a ten-year period (fo ) is ca and a landfill height of ing a G:M

Phase 1. iii. The potential environmental impacts relating to the proposed final landfill height are considered

site is more than 20 kms from the nearest airport, and emismeasured at the existing site, which are acceptable. The landfill is likely to have visual imto be located on relatively flat terrain and there is a community located approximately 80site. A landscape artist undertakes a visual impact assessment and concludes that the landfill is likely to have negative visual impact of medium significance to the nearby community and low significance to other potential viewers, such as the Mill employees and the users of a national road located 1,5 km from the site. The landscape architect recommends that the landfill be shaped to blend in with nearby hills, that the rising green wall approach the site perimeter. The community are craise objections to the visual imlandscape architect’s recommendations are put in place. The community will experience no reduction in sunlight or daylight hours because of the site.

practical area for operation and will allow the waste transport vehicles and operating plant to manoeuvwhen commissioned. However, with outer slopes of 1 in 3, and a 20 m height, the outer slopes on Phase 1 will be 60 m in plan. Taking two outer slopes of 60 m each



the height of 20 m once the second phase is developed, as the operation on Phase 1 can be moved to l

efore moving on to Phase 2. It is noted that the

v.

tively small proportion, and some office wastes. Good

s that no stability problems are expected.

Using the Seismic Hazard Map of South Africa produced by the Council for GeoScience (1992), it is

that the area in which the site is to be located is classified as having a seismic intensity of III ified Mercalli Scale (MMS), with a 90% chance of not being exceeded more than once

grade required for the top surface of the landfill the waste body, settlement can be expected, as

paper pulp can settle up to 30% by volume. An Operating Plan is developed, see Section 10.2.3,

he paper pulp, areas of paper pulp are separated by low ash walls, to allow drainage through to drainage systems. Some uneven settlement

ary

,

The information listed is included in the Permit Application Report, and submitted to the Competent

uded as a permit condition. Screening of the site as recommended by the landscape architect is also included as a permit

ht and outer slopes.

Phase 2 once the operation becomes restricted, and once Phase 2 reaches the same height, filling to finaheight on Phase 1 can be undertaken. A final height of 20 m is therefore practically achievable, but the operation is expected to reach 15 m on Phase 1 blandform is not strictly square, but is curved with rounded corners, to blend in with nearby hills.

The stability of the waste body is considered. The waste stream comprises predominantly ash, bark and sawdust, with reject paper pulp forming a relacompaction has been achieved on the existing site using the area method, and the ash is used as dailycover. Given that the maximum height of the landfill will be 20 m, with outer slopes of 1 in 3, and the site will be constructed on relatively flat topography, the design engineer determine

vi.determined on the Modduring a 50 year period. This is not considered to be a seismic risk area, and given the dimensions and nature of the waste body, the design engineer determines that a full seismic stability assessment is not required.

vii. The landform is designed to drain efficiently, with a 5%

and the outer slopes at 1 in 3. With reject paper pulp in

specifying that the paper pulp be spread as evenly as possible in thin layers across the site, to minimise uneven settlement. To avoid problems with perched water tables on t

can therefore be expected. With planning for Phase 1 indicating that it will be filled to 15 m before moving onto Phase 2, the waste body will be given the opportunity to settle, and then will be raised again. For the remaining phases (that is, Phases 3, 4, etc), it may be necessary to fill over these phases again once settlement has occurred, to maximise use of the available airspace. It will also be necessto fill in areas where uneven settlement has occurred. The minimum grade of 5% should allow for efficient drainage, with some uneven settlement.

viii. The monthly and total loading rates are considered, and it is determined that these are not exceededas the 2 hectare area was chosen due to loading and a final landfill height of 20 m is acceptable in terms of total load.

ix.

Authority together with the Scoping Report. As the landfill meets the criteria for final landfill height, the Competent Authority approves a final landfill height of 20 m, which is incl

condition, as is monitoring of landfill heig

APPENDIX 8.8: LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS


Appendix 8.8 LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Section 8.4.4)

sition and on the most appropriate method of treatment. This could be on-site chemical, physical or biological treatment, and/or off-site treatment where

ystem is

bjectives set by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry for discharge to surface watercourse or by the relevant local

rce through a pipe, canal, sewer, sea outfall or other conduit) unless its requirements in terms of this Act are met through the Permit (in which case the Department may dispense with the

be

There are a number of characteristics that are important for the design of a treatment system. They are:

eated. • The required composition of the effluent from the treatment system.

The quantity of leachate is the flowrate of leachate that the treatment system has to process at any point in , if

ke

For a new landfill site, the quantity of leachate generated by the landfill can be estimated from the climatic water balance, see Sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 and Appendix 3.2. For an existing landfill site, the flowrate of leachate from the landfill can be measured using the appropriate flow measuring equipment. The quality of the leachate can vary widely from landfill to landfill. In the case of general waste landfills, the quality of leachates is less variable than in the case of hazardous waste landfills. The main factors that affect leachate composition are:

• The composition of the wastes disposed to the landfill • The history and age of the landfill. In the early stages of a landfill’s life, until degradation of the organic

material begins, the level of contaminants in the leachate may be quite low, but increases rapidly once the

The leachate treatment system will depend on the leachate compo

leachate is passed into a sewer or pipeline for treatment elsewhere. The aim of the leachate treatment sto produce an effluent of an acceptable water quality. Sludge or concentrate (brine) streams will be produced as ‘by-products’. The quality of the effluent is determined by the water quality o

authority if the effluent is to be discharged to sewer or pipeline for further treatment elsewhere. The Department will issue a section 21(f) water use licence (which controls discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resou

requirements for a 21(g) license) issued in term of section 20 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) for the disposal site on which the treatment leachate system is established. Selection of the treatment system will follow a differentiated approach that distinguishes between simple biological treatment through to more advanced systems. Over-engineering of the treatment process shouldguarded against.

• The quantity of the leachate to be treated. • The quality or composition of leachate to be tr

time. In general, this is the same as the flowrate of the leachate being generated by the landfill. Howeverthere is leachate that has been accumulated in one or more storage lagoons or dams and it is a requirement thatthese lagoons or dams be emptied for a period of time, then the design of the treatment system needs to tathis into account as well.



acetogenic stage starts.metals may be leached

leachate generally has high levels of COD and ammonia at the beginning of this stage bdecreases with time.

• The operation of the landfill. If liquids containing high salt content aremay eventually find their way into the leachate, increasing the salt c

For a new landfill site, the likely composition

In this stage aerobic bacterial fermentation occurs, the pH drops and hazardous out. At some point the oxygen demand exceeds the available oxygen and the

biological acitivity becomes anaerobic. This is called the methanogenic stage and lasts for a long time. The ut gradually

co-disposed to the landfill, the salts oncentration of the leachate.

of the leachate is difficult to determine beforehand. At best, an estimate can be made based on a knowledge of the wastes that are to be disposed to the landfill compared to

existing landfill, the composition can be measured by chemical analysis.

The required composition of the effluent from the treatment system will depend mainly on whether the effluent is to be sent to a watercou A leachate treatment system typically consists of three steps:

• A primary step involving screening and sedimentation to remove floating and settleable solids in the leachate.

• Secondary treatment in which biological and chemical processes are used to remove organic and inorganic matter.

• Advanced (or tertiary treatment) where additional process steps are used to further purify the leachate.

The required trea treatment technologies) that is required to achieve the required effluent quality varies from site to site. The treatment process should be appropriate, reliable, robust (i.e., adaptable to chan . Possible treatment technologies are:

• Chemical pr• Gas stripping to remove volatile organic compounds • Aerobic or a ny variations here; for example lagoon systems,

sequencing batch reactors, and membrane bioreactors • Evaporation • Membrane processes (e.g., microfiltration, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis) • Ion exchang• Adsorption (e.g., on activated carbon) Chemical oxidation

• Wet oxidation • Natural treatment systems (e.g., constructed or natural wetlands, aquatic plant systems)

the wastes disposed and the composition of the leachate produced at similar landfills. In the case of an

rse or to sewer.

tment process (combination of

ging circumstances) and cost effective

ecipitation

naerobic biological treatment. There are ma

e

•



Table A.8.1 gives a number of examples of treatment technologies that were applied for particular leachate and required effluent qualitie nsive or prescriptive but simply to act as a guide to which technology or combination of technologies could be used.

TABLE A.8.1 Leachate Treatment Options

Raw leachaquality quality

treatment technologies

Costs Advantages / Disadvantages

s. This is not meant to be comprehe

te Effluent Possible

required

TDS: 80 000 mg/l

COD: 70 000 m

Process Evaporator + Biological ndensate +

Activated carbon polishing

Very high Requires specialist skills.

Robust process. g/l water treatment of co

TDS: 40 000 m

COD: 1 000 mg

nt for suspended solids + RO

Moderate Requires specialist skills Fouling of membranes.

g/l Sewer Pretreatme

/l

TDS: 15 000 mg/l

COD: 8 000 m

Sewer Biological treatment + RO Moderate Requires specialist skills Fouling of membranes. g/l

TDS: <1 000 m

COD: <10 000 mg/l

Low Moderate level of skills required.

g/l River Biological treatment

To determine the ent technology or combination of treatment technologies to produce the required effluent leachate requires a series of treatability studies. Without these studies, it is unli em will be arrived at. Three studies are and construction of the full-scale plant. They are: • A paper stud s the leachate quantity and quality, the desired effluent

quality, a literature study of the available technologies and an assessment of which technology or combinatio uired. The study should produce a block diagram of the proposed treatment system

• Laboratory scale experimental work Pilot scale experimental work.

leachate treatment system will produce one or more streams of sludge or concentrate (brine). There are a umber of ways of dealing or disposing of these sludge or concentrate streams. They include:

Disposal to an appropriate class of landfill. The class of landfill will depend on the classification of the

sludge and or brine to be disposed of. Sludges and/or brines from leachate treatment plants are normally hazardous and need to be disposed of on a hazardous waste landfill. 40

most appropriate treatmquality from a given

kely that the optimum syst

required prior to the design

y. This hould include an estimate of

n of technologies may be req

•

An

•

40 It should be borne in mind that if these streams are not appropriately disposed of, contaminants might eventually find their way back into a leachate, negating the cost and effort of treating the leachate in the first place.



• Disposal to sea. This is on

Affairs and Forestry and the releva• Evaporation ponds. This is suitable where the area is

brine originates from reverse osmosalts recovered from

ly appropriate for treatment systems located close to the coast and requires the necessary toxicological testing to be carried out prior to seeking approval from the Department of Water

nt authorities. arid and dry, which favours evaporation. Where the

sis (RO) plants and is not contaminated, it is possible that the solid the evaporation ponds can be sold. On most instances, however, the solid products

will be disposed to an appropriate class of landfill.

disposed of at a general waste landfill class engineered for leachate management (if delisting has been approved by the Competent Authority).

st.

Case Study

leachate treatment system was required for a H:H landfill site located near the coast. The landfill consisted of two cells, one active and one that had been closed and capped a few years previously. Leachate was being produced from both cells. There was also about 100 000 kl of leachate stored in a number of dams.

Determining the capacity of the treatment system The treatment system was required to process the leachate being generated by the cells as well as that stored in

e dams. The authorities required that the dams be emptied in four years.

erated. This took into account the average published rainfall data for e area, the actual rainfall data for the previous 7 years for the site, and the evaporation rates from the capped

taken

onths, the amount of he leachate production

to th

t th

Determining the quality of the leachate

d been measured on a regular basis by taking samples and having them

ics in the leachate was relatively low, with a value for the

• Use of chemicals and binders to stabilise the sludge or concentrate. The aim here is to produce a solid material that is non-leachable and could be

• Vitrification. This is generally only used in the disposal of radioactive wastes because of the high co

A

th A climatic water balance model was genthand active cells assuming 0.7 times the A-pan evaporation rate. The evaporation rate from the dams was as 0.9 times the A-pan evaporation rate rather than 1 times because of the salinity of the leachate. The calculation of the evaporation rate from the dams was complicated by the fact that, because of the shallow angles of the dam walls, the area for evaporation area reduced as the leachate level dropped. As the flowmeters had only been installed on the leachate production lines for some m

ata was limited. However, the change in the levels of the dams was used to estimate tdrate for the years prior to the flowmeters being installed, taking into account the evaporation from and rainfallin e dams. The water balance model was then used to estimate the required capacity of the leachate treatment system so tha e dams would be empty in four years. This gave a capacity of 1 000 kl/month.

The composition of the leachate haanalysed. As the feed to the leachate treatment system would be drawn from one of the larger dams, samples were also taken of the leachate in the dam, at different levels to check if layering was occurring. No layering was found, probably because of the presence of aerators in the dam. Analysis of the leachate showed it to be highly saline with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of about 40 000 mg/l. The chlorides were also high, being of the order of 23 000 mg/l. The level of organ



chemical oxygen demand (COD) of about 1 000 mg/l. Required effluent quality

he preferred destination for the effluent was sewer, as there was a sewer connection close to the landfill. From discussions with the local authority, the key criterion for the effluent water was that it should have a

A literature search was carried out to broadly assess which treatment technologies would be the most p ppeared that an

An of sup rocess using high-pressure reverse mosis (RO).

the best pre-treatment of the leachate, before feeding it into the RO system. A pilot plant was constructed with the key items of equipment housed in a container. The plant

and a coagulant followed by settling, multimedia filtration and cartridge filtration was not sufficient. An ultrafiltration (UF) step was added which then gave the required

ased on the design and key operating parameters of the pilot plant, the full-scale plant was then designed, onstructed and commissioned. It met all the design criteria and in particular the requirement that the effluent

have a chloride level of less than 1 000 mg/l. Disposal of the sludges and concentrate (brine) The treatment system produced a concentrate or brine that contained most of the inorganic and organic chemical compounds in the leachate. The flowrate of this concentrate was about 30% of the feed leachate. As this was a relatively small flowrate, it was decided that it should be disposed to the landfill. The wastes disposed to the landfill were generally dry and the small flowrate of the concentrate would not contribute significantly to future leachate arisings.

T

chloride level of less than 1 000 mg/l.

Selecting the most appropriate treatment technology

ap ropriate and a number of suppliers of treatment technology were contacted. From this, it a‘inorganic’ treatment system was the most appropriate for the leachate quality.

enquiry together with a functional specification for the treatment system was then issued to a numberpliers of treatment technologies. The most suitable proposal received was for a p

os As laboratory scale work was not feasible for testing the proposed RO process, the next step was a pilot plant trial. The main objective of this was to determine

was operated for several months on the leachate from the main dam. It was found that the initial concept of pre-treating the leachate with a flocculant

quality for the feed water to the RO unit. Bc

APPENDIX 8.9: CHECKLIST OF LANDFILL DESIGN & OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS


Appendix 8.9 CHECKLIST OF LANDOPERATING

FILL DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS

(Sections 8 and 10)

items required for a particular site.

n Documentation • Approval of Site preparation

perating Plan

Closure Plan and Drawings

• End-use Plan

• Supervisor Weighbridge operators Treatment plant operators

• Special Disposal Procedures • Collection certificates • Safe disposal certificates

The following is intended to represent a convenient checklist for use when considering the Minimum Requirements. The Responsible Person will, however, decide on

• Environmental Impact Assessment Report • Site Design Plan • Permit Application Schedule • Permit to Operate the Landfill • Detailed Site Design and Preparatio

• Final Site Drawings • O• Phased Development Plan and Drawings •• Remediation Plan • Closure Plan

• Responsible Person • Laboratory staff

• • • Drivers • Landfill plant operators • Traffic controllers • Security guards • Labourers

• Waste sampling • Weighbridge interface • Reference files (data base) • HazChem codes • RSA code • Laboratory analysis • Prescriptions • Documentation

APPENDIX 8.9: CHECKLIST OF LANDFILL DESIGN & OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS


• Site laboratory (to analyse waste) • Computerised data base and manifest system • Toilets, wash basin • Ablution block with showers • Gate control office and record of all entrants • Weighbridge

• Liner • Capping System

e collection system • Leachate treatment system

• Fire extinguishers • Protective clothing

sks and canisters.

• Drainage

Safety equipment • Fire breaks

dfill gas emission • Specialised Equipment.

• Site office • Temporary storage areas • Resource recovery plant • Container park

• Leachat

• Safety equipment • Mobile shower • Emergency

• Gas ma

Items that will require regular attention include:

• Roads and signs • Buildings • Fences • Cover

• Mobile and fixed plant • Vegetation • Leachate collection systems • Leachate treatment systems •

• Lan

APPENDIX 10.1: WASTE BURNING


Appendix 10.1

WASTE BURNING (Section 10) This appendix provides additional information and guidelines to supplement the Minimum Requirements in the text of Section 10.4.4, ‘Burning of waste’. Efficien ing depends on the combustibility of the material being burned and the amount of oxygen available. In order to promote efficient burning the following steps are recommended:

Re It is ombustible wastes be separated from those wastes to be burned and landfilled directly. Non combustible wastes such as soil, building wastes or ash should be set aside for use as cover or direct placement in the landfill. Less combustible wastes such as moist waste and semi combustible materials, should also be landfilled directly and not burned.

Ensuring Adequate Oxygen

In ad ning process must be ensured. The moxygen deficieresult. In order to ens i) Waste s d

fires, rat ii) The sma

facilitat

Handling After Burning Before burned waste can be handled or covered, it must be completely extinguished. Failure to completely extinguish burning waste could result in uncontrolled burning over large areas and ongoing smouldering which is difficult to extinguish. In addition to the environmental impacts of the above, the handling of burning waste by landfill plant could also be extremely dangerous.

t burn

moval of Wastes Not Suited to Burning

recommended that all non combustible wastes and less c

dition to minimising the non-combustible wastes, adequate oxygen in the bur

ore oxygen available, the less smoke generated and the more complete the process. Where an ncy exists, smouldering, smoke, unpleasant odours and potentially harmful emissions may

ure adequate oxygen in the burning process, it is recommended that:

hould be deposited some distance from the main waste body and burned in small controlleher than allowing the whole waste body to burn in an uncontrolled manner.

ll controlled fires created should be tended and turned with long metal rakes when necessary to e better aeration.

APPENDIX 10.1: WASTE BURNING


Regular visits by an operator with a tracked loader are essential to tidy up the fringes of the deposits, to move any non ombustible waste into the landfill and to cover with soil. Completely burned waste should, as far as possible, be handled the same way as unburned wastes using the sanitary landfill principles of compaction and cover.

Health and Safety Aspects Loads of waste should be inspected before ignition to identify any materials which present obvious safety hazards. There are essentially two types of hazard which can readily be avoided: • Risk of explosion - from aerosol cans, gas cylinders and closed containers of any kind. • Risk of toxic fumes - from certain plastics such as PVC and polyurethane (PU) and also from pesticides

and pharmaceuticals. The plastics may not be easy to identify but certain objects will be, namely plastic channelling, pipes, flower pots and flexible foam. These materials may all contain PVC or PU. The precautionary principle should be adopted and any suspect materials removed.

Site personnel should always remain upwind from any burning waste. A simple windsock made from waste textile will indicate wind direction if necessary. They should also stand clear of the burning waste to avoid risk of injury from minor explosions that may occur.

Site personnel should wear suitable protective clothing, including gloves, boots and overalls, together with smoke masks and goggles if necessary.

Fire fighting equipment should be available on all sites at which controlled burning is authorised, subject to suitable arrangements being able to be made for its security.

c

APPENDIX 10.2: WASTE SALVAGING


Appendix 10.2 WASTE SALVAGING (Section 10)

Introduction This appendix provides additional information and guidelines to supplement those Minimum Requirements in the text that relate to salvaging, especially Section 10.4.5.

Although it is the objective of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (including the relevant provincial environmental authorities) and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to ensure that salvaging at disposal sites is gradually brought to an end, in the interim they must ensure that where waste salvaging takes place, it does so in a framework that reasonably protects the State, the Permit Holder and the salvagers. The objectives of this appendix therefore are to: • Supplement the Minimum Requirements in the text, particularly those that relate to disposal site operation

and waste salvaging. • Assist in professionalising waste salvaging at disposal sites by ensuring the occupational health and safety

of salvagers. • Provide technical and procedural solutions that will help users to meet the Minimum Requirements for the

management of salvagers at disposal sites, particularly landfill sites. On account of health and safety aspects, the Departments, through the Minimum Requirements, forbid uncontrolled salvaging, especially at any active working face. This is a general Permit condition, which may represent a prosecutable transgression if ignored.

Background

Terminology associated with salvaging in the past has been controversial, as some terms were seen to be confusing or offensive. The term used in this document, “waste salvager”, is derived from the Latin word ‘salvare’ meaning to save. In this context, salvaging means, “the saving and utilisation of waste paper, scrap material” and in a more abstract sense, “to retrieve or preserve (something favourable) in adverse circumstances” [Ref: The Concise Oxford Dictionary, ninth edition, 1995]. Although salvaging is forbidden at waste disposal sites in South Africa, uncontrolled salvaging still takes place. For operators, uncontrolled salvaging reduces the efficiency of the disposal operation, adversely affects aesthetics and standards, and increases safety risks and costs. For salvagers, uncontrolled salvaging involves men, women and children living under poor conditions and often exposed to the health and safety risks, including injury and death, when they work in close proximity to operating landfill plant at a busy working face. However, waste salvaging provides a livelihood and in many cases represents the sole source of family income. It is therefore a fact of life and is very difficult to eliminate once it is established. It must, therefore, be controlled.



From a legal perspective, the situation at the disposal site must comply with the Constitution (Bill of Rights) in that it may not deprive people of the right to earn an income. In addition, the operation must comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993) by ensuring a safe and healthy environment, in which the work is performed.41 Requirements related to controlled salvaging, e.g., ablution blocks, training, or protective clothing, are, in fact, already part of the responsibilities of the Employer in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993). The Minimum Requirements for salvaging are therefore intended to control and professionalise waste salvaging, by improving the standard of salvaging operations so that they are not detrimental from a health, safety and operations efficiency point of view. This appendix proposes solutions for achieving control, and reducing the operation inefficiencies, costs, and risks caused by uncontrolled salvaging.

Controlled Salvaging Management and control measures, and other issues relating to salvaging at a disposal site are applicable at nearly all stages in the site development process, including authorisation, design, operation and monitoring. These are therefore addressed in the following sections and also in the relevant sections of the main text.

Authorisation (Section 5) Salvaging must be specifically addressed in the permit conditions of both existing and new disposal sites. No salvaging is permitted at any hazardous waste site or general site where co-disposal of sewage sludge is practiced. Where it is permitted at a general waste site, controls and health and safety measures must be incorporated into the Permit. Information on any proposed or existing salvaging operation must be reflected in the Permit Application, specifically in the Operating Plan. Any salvager associated facilities, such as ablution and sanitation facilities, and recovery facilities must be reflected in the design. The Permit will include conditions relating to salvaging and adherence to the Minimum Requirements for salvaging and the objectives of this appendix. Responsibility for the salvagers’ occupational health and safety lies with the Permit Holder, site operator, and/or Employer. The Permit will also address issues such as indemnity, and the Permit Holder may be required to enter into an indemnity agreement with the Competent Authority. Site design (Section 8) If salvaging operations exist or are anticipated, the layout plan for the disposal site must include the requisite facilities for salvagers. These may vary in complexity from basic ablution and sanitation facilities to simple waste sorting facilities to materials recovery facilities (MRFs) to substantial waste salvaging plants. Site operation (Section 10) Where salvaging is permitted at a disposal site, the Operating Plan must reflect the contents of this appendix and incorporate appropriate mechanisms for accommodating and controlling the salvagers at the site under consideration. 41 The Constitution (Bill of Rights) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993), determine the extent of the control that can be exercised and provide the legal framework within which waste salvaging must be



Control of where salvaging takes place on site The Minimum Requirements forbid uncontrolled salvaging, especially at the active working face of a landfill. The ac e compacted and cove where the fresh waste is, it is logical that this is where the salvagers will want to search for reclaimable materials. Having salvagers working in close proximity to heavy machinery is unsafe. Salvagers must not be allowed close to where vehicles are unloading or plant is operating. Waste salvaging activities must therefore be separated from waste compaction and covering acti , and it is a Minimum Requirement that an appropriate buffer distance be maintained at all times.

Separation of the salvaging operation from the landfill operation can be achieved as follows:

• At smaller opedirect incoming es and control the salvagers. They will have whistles and both the drivers and the salvagers will obey them. When vehicles are unloading or the plant needs to work, the marshal will clear the working face of salvagers. This system has been proven to work well, when there is good co-operation between the marshal, drivers, operators and salvagers.

• At larger operations, where the working face is more active with frequent or continuous vehicle traffic, the sam principldifficul omcompletion. In hal or spotter can allow controlled salvaging in the quiet periods, then

Step 1: Create distinct areas to separate off-loading, disposal and salvaging:

- The face should be divided into four distinct areas: (1) an active spreading and compaction

umber of cells ficiency

tiv working face is that part of the landfill where waste is deposited by incoming vehicles, then red by operating plant. Since the working face is

vities

rations or trench operations where vehicles are infrequent, marshals or spotters can vehicl

e e applies, but the system is more complex and the task of the marshal or spotter is more t. At s e large landfills, the trucks may arrive in “waves” corresponding to collection round

such cases, the marswithdraw the salvagers when the trucks start arriving.

• At a continuously busy working face, the suggested operation to optimally separate landfill operations from salvaging operations is as follows, as shown in the corresponding sketches on the following three pages:

area, (2) a buffer area, (3) a passive salvaging area and (4) an ongoing off-loading area. Each area could be divided into one or more cells as circumstances may dictate. The nwould vary at the discretion of the landfill operator in order to ensure optimal landfill efwhile separating salvaging from operation activities.

- Buffer cells should be created on each side of the passive salvaging cell to separate the salvagers from the ongoing off-loading area on one side, and from the active working cell on the other side. Waste at the passive and buffer cells should not be spread in order to reduce operation cost and to protect salvagers42. No salvaging is allowed at the buffer cells. Salvaging can only take place at the passive cell. Waste spreading and compaction can only take place at the active working cell

transformed into an acceptable means of earning a living. 42 Spreading the waste after dumping, so that the salvagers can have easier access involves double handling and increases nuisances and costs. However, there may be situations where an operator wishes to spread the waste to increase control, as salvagers may be attracted to previously salvaged waste when it is moved and exposes more materials.



Step 1: CREATE FOUR DISTINCT AREAS TO SEPARATE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES FROM SALVAGING

1: Active spreading and compacting 2: Buffer cell 3: Passive salvaging area 4: Ongoing off-loading area


Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill

Step 2: INITIATE SPREADING, COMPACTING AND SALVAGING AS SEPARATE ACTIVITIES WHILE CREATING NEW PASSIVE CELLS

, Third Edition, 2005 273

Salvager Marshal



Step 3: SWITCH OPERATIONS BETWEEN CELLS WHILE MAINTAINING LANDFILL OPERATION AND SALVAGING AS SEPARATE

NS AND CREATING NEW PASSIVE CELLS OPERATIO



Step 2: Initiate spreading, compacting and salvaging as separate activities while creating new passive

ing and compaction would be initiated at the active working cell, which is separated by a buffer cell from the passive salvaging cell.

- Ideally, off-loading should not be allowed at the active cell during spreading and

ining landfill operation and salvaging as passive cells.

- Once waste spreading and compaction at the active working cell have been completed, salvagers at the passive cell should be diverted away and move to a newly created passive cell.

- Compaction machinery can now move to the buffer cell and proceed with normal

ed on experience. It should be noted that the covering of the upper completed part of the cell lift in the passive area is acceptable

under strict control of the marshal.

The following are Minimum Requirements:

• The system must be well controlled and sign posted, indicating at any given time which of the working faces or cells is “active” and which is “passive”, where the salvagers can operate in safety.

• An appropriate buffer distance must be maintained between off-loading vehicles, the spreading or compacting machinery and the salvaging operation. This buffer distance must be large enough to prevent salvagers from moving into the active area.

• Waste must be offloaded at least one cell in front of the salvaging operation so that no harm can come to the salvagers.

• Salvagers may only enter the site once the first salvaging cell and its two adjoining buffer cells have been created, to minimise occupational risk.

• The system should be optimised for a given situation and must be described in the site-specific Operating Plan for the landfill.

cells.

- Spread

compaction and vehicles should be diverted to the area where new passive off-loading cells are continuously being created.

Step 3: Switch operations between cells while mainta

separate operations and creating new

spreading, covering and compaction. This buffer cell now becomes an active working cell. The passive cell from which the salvagers have been diverted away now becomes a new buffer cell.

- New passive cells should be continuously created as incoming vehicles off-load waste at the working face.

As is always the case, the size of the active and passive working areas and the frequency with which they are lternated would depend on numerous factors and would have to be optimised basa

also



Other ways of ensuring a

Spis maintained between salvagers and worThese will vary in scale and sophist

• A drop off point ca

buffer distance

ecial salvaging areas or facilities can be established at a landfill to ensure that an appropriate buffer distance king machinery, and to keep salvagers from the active working face.

ication:

n be set aside within the site fence but away from the disposal area, where the public and others can drop off recyclables and dispose of articles such as lounge suites, cupboards and appliances

. Such an area must be controlled and unwanted waste must be cleared to the landfill on a

A sorting area comprising an area of hardstanding can be established within the site fence but away from hen

g

creation and/or various mechanical sorting devices. Again, selected incoming vehicles would deposit their loads here. The salvagers would then work through the waste and the residue would be disposed of on the landfill.

The ab ns all remove the salvaging operation from the working face and help to meet the objective of terminating uncontrolled salvaging and protecting and uplifting the salvagers. Positive social upliftment through safe job creation can be achieved by transforming uncontrolled salvaging into a controlled operation.

ce be unders eration and consequent social upliftment are to be sustainable. Wherever such a facility is planned or established, it must be reflected in the site design and Permit Application.

The decision to implement a given technical control option vests not only with the Permit Holder but requires participatory interaction with salvagers. Interaction between the salvagers and the marshal or

otter is essential to ensure the desired level of control and safety. Interaction with salvagers Once uncontrolled salvaging is established de facto at a disposal site, it is usually very difficult to eliminate. If

ontrolled salvaging cannot be eliminated, it must be formalised and controlled, an Employer / Employee lationship must be established and the salvagers must be socially uplifted.

extend alvaging materials and ling

Then t isposal site in search of sustenance. Transient salvagers not

establi

rs re

th and sa Comm

(‘white goods’)regular basis.

•the disposal area. Selected incoming vehicles would deposit their loads here. The salvagers would twork through the waste and the residue would be disposed of on the landfill.

• A salvaging plant or Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) comprising sorting equipment of varyindegrees of sophistication can be established. This could involve labour intensive picking belts for job

ove optio

Sin these measures involve capital outlay and double handling, the economics of any such facility shouldtood and carefully considered, if the op

sp

uncre

Salvagers fall into two broad categories. There are ‘career salvagers’, who have done this work over an ed period, know the waste streams, and derive a small but regular income from s

sel them to established buyers. These salvagers often form tight knit communities and are breadwinners. here are ‘transient salvagers’, who arrive at a d

do have the same vested interest as career salvagers, who see them as a threat as they often disrupt shed systems.

When interacting with salvagers, it is important to communicate with the career salvagers through their leadepresentatives. This should be taken further with the formation of a Salvagers Committee, which and

represents the interests of the salvagers and has standing within the salvager communities. In this forum, healfety and social upliftment issues should receive the highest priority. Representatives from the Salvagersittee (who must really represent the salvagers) should also serve on the disposal site Monitoring



Commmeansagree er such circumstances, the salvagers will usually

For co alvaging to work in an efficient and safe manner, it is essential that salvagers understand and here

operat negotiate with them.

Metho

ontrolling on-site salvaging involves implementing the previously discussed operating methods with the co-operation of the

Formalise

Where informal salvaging takes place at a disposal si o formalise it so that it can be controlled. To do this, the career salvagers, their lead ntatives should be identified. The concept of a mutually acceptable salvaging operation, which provides for safe access to the waste and is acceptable from a disposal site operation point of view, should then ssed with a view to obtaining ‘buy in’ from the salvagers. lvagers should then elect their own representative Salvagers C his committee would re alvager interests, liaise with the site ope and mutually agre system and measures to control s They would also assist in and take respo ility for implemen system and control measure ould therefore work through the Salvagers Committee.

Register

All care ers must be registered and provided with some means of identificati . This should be done through t gers Committee, and would enhance a sense of ownership amongst the salvagers. Marshals and spot e incoming vehicles and control the salvagers should also be pointed and registered as such, Salvagers Committee; in fact they co ited from t rs. Marshals and spotters owever, be accountable to the site operator or Permit Holder.

Contrac

Proper c p between the salvagers a he Permit Holder Employer. This too should b s Committee. Contra nditions could in e following:

• Salv the system and controls, a n the Operating Plan. This would include obey tective clothing, s e reclaimed mat in the designated area r areas clean and t alvagers should cess the site through the designated access point and must not live on the site in conditions that could be detrimental to their health.

• The site operator or Permit Holder or Employer must provide water, and ablution and sanitation facilities for the salvagers as a minimum. Protective clothing must also be provided and the site operator or Permit Holder must take responsibility for salvagers in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993, (Act 85 of 1993) including periodic health monitoring. Alternatively, indemnities should be negotiated.

ittee. In this way, the salvagers will be recognised, properly represented and there will be a formal of communication. If these measures are in place, the Salvagers Committee will be in a position to upon mutually acceptable working arrangements. Und

co-operate, accept responsibility and be self-regulating in their own interests.

ntrolled sad to the system in operation. Regular meetings should therefore be held between the disposal site

ors and the salvagers or their representatives, to empower them and

ds of controlling on-site salvaging

Csalvagers. Some of the principles involved are as follows:

te, it is essential ters and represe

be discuThe sa

present sommittee. T

e therator,alvaging. nsib ting thes, which w

er salvaghe Salva

on

ters to direct th apthrough the uld be recru he salvagewould, h

ts

ontracts should be drawn ue done through the Salvager

nd tctual co

and/or clude th

agers must adhere to s set out iing the marshal, wearing pro

s, and generally keeping theitacking thidy. The s

erials neatlyalso ac



Where salvaging is anticipated and planned, more fo ould be drawn up and included in the Permit Application.

Educati aining

is essential that all parties involved or affected understand the relevant systems and controls. This requires

and

upational health and safety aspects

and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993), an Employer is responsible for the s on the site. Where the Permit Holder or operator formally accommodates

lvagers in a workforce arrangement, he or she is the Employer. The Employer, depending on the e

tion to ensure that only registered salvagers are working on the disposal site.

The health of salvagers must be monitored on a regular basis. This must include annual blood and urine pli nd follow up medical treatment where required. The frequency and detail of health

nito osure to risk and must form part of the Monitoring Plan.

lvag l include responsibilities for both the salvager and the Responsible Person. The low deline for assigning these responsibilities, in accordance with the Minimum

ut not be limited to the following:

is

Include in the Permit Application Report:

g Plan for the disposal site that makes provision for the salvagers. The design of any salvager-associated facilities such as ablution, sanitation and recovery facilities.

nd

hem and negotiate with them where applicable. • Register all career salvagers and provide them with a means of identification.

rmal contracts w

on and tr

Iteducation and training. Training would involve salvagers, marshals and spotters, landfill plant operators and even the drivers of the incoming vehicles. Each should be made aware of the issues and the risks, how the system works, and what their particular responsibility is to ensure salvager safety and efficient disposal siteoperation. Education and training should begin with an initial induction course, and be followed by regular ongoing refresher courses.

Ensuring occ

In terms of the Occupational Health safety and well being of the salvagersaarrangement with salvagers, must ensure that, as a minimum, there are first aid facilities on site and that thsalvagers wear suitable protective clothing, in particular overalls, industrial gloves and boots with protective soles. They should also wear highly visible tunics. If the Employer provides the protective clothing to registered salvagers, this could also become an effective means of identifica

sam ng and analyses, amo ring would be determined by the exp

Responsibilities

Sa er Contracts wilfol ing is a basic guiRequirements.

Employer responsibilities

The responsibilities of the Employer will include b

• Prevent uncontrolled salvaging at the disposal site site. • Ensure the standard of salvaging operations is such that the occupational health and safety of salvagers

ensured. • Where uncontrolled salvaging takes place on a disposal site site, formalize it and establish controlled

salvaging. • • Information on any proposed or existing salvaging operation. • An Operatin•• Acceptance of responsibility for the salvagers’ occupational health and safety through the formulation a

adoption of a Health Monitoring Plan. • Interact with salvagers on a regular basis to empower t



• Appoint marshals and spotters to direct the incoming vehicles and control the salvagers. • Train, empower and authorise the marshals and spotters to do their work. • Provide for and ensure the wearing of clothing for protection and visibility.

the salvagers will include but not be limited to:

.

as clean and tidy. • ccess the site through the designated access point.

Monitoring (Section 11)

aging d to,

he disposal site Monitoring Committee must also include a Salvagers Committee representative, so that l help communicate any IAP complaints to the

lvagers. It will provide the salvagers with a formal means of communication. Issues relating to salvager alth

Salvager responsibilities

The responsibilities of

• Interact with the Permit Holder and/or Employer on a regular basis for self-empowerment and training• Co-operate by wearing the protective clothing whenever salvaging. • Co-operate with agreed operating control procedures. • Stack the reclaimed materials neatly in the designated areas. • Generally keep salvager are

A

Disposal Site Operation

Where salvaging is permitted on a site, disposal site auditing must include an assessment of the salvoperation, with the objective of ensuring that permit conditions relating to salvaging are adhereoccupational health and safety requirements are fulfilled, and the operation is aesthetically acceptable.

Tsalvagers can be formally recognised and represented. This wilsahe and safety may enter the public domain via the Monitoring Committee.

APPENDIX 10.3: LANDFILL GAS


Appendix 10.3 LANDFILL GAS (Section 10)

tro

ndfi such as asphyxiation or explosions because of its mpo important to understand en d manage them. There are also

opport ergy source that can be explored.

ix are to:

al

eration from a specific landfill and predict where its impacts may manifest.

s

andfill Gas Characteristics and Impacts

andfill gas is a general term used to describe the gaseous components produced during microbial degradation fill site. Organic wastes include putresible animal and vegetable matter, paper and

arden waste. The major constituents of landfill gas – methane and carbon dioxide – are colourless and all quantities of other gases which give rise to odours.

Landfi

C us ed in Table A.10.1

isture content by mass. • Corrosive: chlorinated, fluorinated, and reduced sulfur trace components can cause acid gas corrosion

in hardware used for gas extraction. st

eir vicinity. • Flammable: deep-seated landfill fires are very difficult to put out once spontaneous combustion has

started and burning is sustained by methane within the waste body, increasing the hazard of sinkholes d

wa ily happen due to air intrusion into the waste mass or when a

In duction La ll gas can cause environmental health impactsco sition, characteristics, and ability to migrate beyond the waste body itself. It isthe vironmental risks associated with landfill gas in order to assess an

u ities associated with landfill gas as an alternative renewable enn

The objectives of this append

• Describe landfill gas characteristics, generation, migration and the associated impacts and potentihazards.

• Give guidance on how to estimate the rate of landfill gas gen

• Give guidance on how to monitor landfill gas emissions and determine when appropriate action ineeded to control any associated risk.

• Provide guidance on drawing up a landfill Gas Management Plan, which will include a landfill Gas Monitoring Plan, to reduce the risks associated with landfill gas accumulation and migration.

L Lof organic waste in a landgodourless but are normally found mixed with sm

ll gas has the following characteristics and impacts:

• omposition: Approximately 40-60% methane with the remainder mostly carbon dioxide and numerotrace components. Typical landfill gas composition is provid

• Saturated with moisture: up to 4% by mass, depending on the temperature, e.g., at 25ºC landfill gas typically has 1.8% mo

• Explosive: the explosion limits of methane are 5 and 15% by volume in air in the presence of at lea14% by volume oxygen. This poses a serious safety hazard on landfill sites and in th

an unstable areas on the landfill. Landfill fires are primarily due to the spontaneous combustion of ste rather than methane; this can read



gas recovery system draws in excess air under negative pressure to start this process. Landfill gas can be an attractive alternative source of renewable energy.

ide at higher concentrations is toxic to living cells. Asphyxiating: landfill gas accumulates in enclosed spaces, excluding oxygen, thus posing a health

hazard. • Eco-toxic: Landfill gas can cause vegetation die-back by displacement of oxygen and an increase in

temperature, and therefore desiccation, in the root zones of plants. • Global warming potential: Methane is a greenhouse gas that can absorb infra-red radiation from the

earth’s surface, normally lost to space, and re-radiate some of it back to earth as heat. The global asis, 100 year timeframe).

43

olume)

• Toxic: carbon diox•

warming potential of methane is 23 times that of carbon dioxide (mole b

Table A.10.1 Typical Landfill Gas Composition

Component (% Volume)

Typical value (% Volume)

Observed Maximum (% V

Methane 40 - 601 40 - 602

Carbon Dioxide 40 - 601 40 - 601

Oxygen 0.161 20.91,3

Nitrogen 2.41 87.02,3

Hydrogen 0.054 21.11

Carbon Monoxide 0.0014 0.092

Ethane 0.0054 0.01392

Ethene 0.0184 -

Acetaldehyde 0.0054 -

Propane 0.0024 0.01712

Butanes 0.0034 0.0231

Helium 0.000054 -

Higher Alkanes <0.052 0.071

Unsaturated Hydrocarbons 0.0091 0.0481

Halogenated Compounds 0.000021 0.0321

Hydrogen Sulphide 0.000021 35.01

Organosulphur Compounds 0.000011 0.0281

Alcohols 0.000011 0.1271

43 Notes for Table A.10.1: 1. Data taken from Waste Management Paper No. 26 by the Department of the Environment of the United

Kingdom 2. Published data supplied by Enviros Ltd, UK 3. Entirely derived from the atmosphere 4. Taken from Guilani, A J Application of conventional oil and gas drilling techniques to the production of gas

from garbage, American Gas Association Transmission Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5-7 May 1980.



Component (% Volume)

Typical value (% Volume)

Observed Maximum (% Volume)

Others 0.000051 0.0231

use of the hazards associated with landfill gas, it is important to understand how the gas is generated

ource), how it migrates (pathway), and consequently how to assess and monitor sites so that the risk to hu environment (receptors) associated and/or ef aged. If landfill gas is to be used as an e o be monitored in order to

e g for e

Landfill Gas G All landfill sites tha ste materials that can be broken down by micro-organisms will produce

ndfill gas. The gre able organic material in a landfill sto generate landfill und in household, commercial and ven in inert waste, for ex ilders' rubble that contains wood and paper.

There are many fac production including:

moisture content

• waste density.

• aerobic (in the presence of free oxygen) and f free oxygen).

rom aerobic to anaerobic, which result in the generation of methane gas in the final stage. The production of significant quantities of methane can occur

n ver, significant subsurface methane concentrations and methane emissions have been measured at well-controlled sites from cells as

ung

decom

e I: Aerobic bacteria break down carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids to carbon dioxide, water and heat, and continue until the available oxygen is depleted. This phase can last for days or months,

epending on how much oxygen is present in the landfill.

Beca(s

mans and thefectively man

llectabl

with landfill gas accumulationnergy source it must als

migration can be

predict co as yields and the potential nergy recovery.

eneration

t contain wala ater the amount of biodegrad

gas. Organic materials are foample, bu

ite, the greater its potential industrial wastes and e

tors that influence landfill gas

• waste type size and depth of the waste body •

•• landfill pH • temperature

Biodegradable matter in waste undergoes two forms of decomposition:

• anaerobic (in the absence o

Waste decomposition goes through a number of stages f

withi the first three months of disposal can continue for more than 20 years. Howe

yo as 30 days.

The composition of the gas that is produced in a landfill changes with each of four phases of waste position:

Aerobic Phas

d



Acido ve at reduced oxygen levels, convert mpl ol,

increa bon dioxide and hydrogen.

anaerobic bacteria break down the organic acids produced in Phase II to m a

establi

s remain latively constant, the pH of the landfill becomes slightly alkaline, and obligate anaerobic methane-

e breakdown of organic material to methane, carbon dioxide and water. Landfill ately 45% to 60% methane by volume, 40% to 60% carbon dioxide, and 2% to

% other gases (Table A.10.1).

Landfill Gas Migration

e the movement of landfill gas must be taken into account when planning to onitor or manage landfill gas. The movement of landfill gas occurs both via gas-specific concentration

die s (convection); thus the movement of landfill gas is more i

Landfill

ate flow • V• V

Landfill risk:

• T s along faults, fissures or cavities in the strata • A pes, etc. Mig tio Changes in the permeability of the waste as it settles and decomposes or by subsequent disturbance of

Changes in atmospheric pressure

aste disposal site to produce landfill gas that could pose a risk to the environment must be he site assessment (Section 4) and site investigation (Section 6), i.e., the source-pathway-

genic Phase II: Facultatively anaerobic 44 bacteria become actico ex organic compounds into acetic, lactic, and formic acids and alcohols such as methanol and ethan

se the acidity of the landfill, and produce gaseous by-products – car Acetogenic Phase III: Facultatively for cetate and reduce the acidity of the landfill, which allows methane-producing bacteria to begin to

sh themselves. Methanogenic Phase IV: Begins when both the composition and production rates of landfill ga

45reproducing bacteria complete th

as usually contains approximg9

Several factors that influencmgra nts (diffusion) and whole gas pressure gradientrap od, c mplex, and multidirectional than groundwater movement.

gas may move in any direction within the waste body:

• Laterally along more permeable layers and associated with leachertically under dry weather conditions ertically at the side of the site, escaping via settlement cracks.

gas can move beyond the landfill site itself, thus posing an off-site health and safety

hrough permeable strata or for considerable distancelong man made features such as mineshafts, roadways, sewers, service lines, pi

ra n pathways are affected by:

•the site

•• Soil moisture and soil chemistry.

Site Assessment and Investigation (Sections 4 and 6) The potential for a wconsidered as part of t

teria that can live only in an oxygen-free environment. Free oxygen is toxic to them.

44 Facultative anaerobes are bacteria that can grow either in the presence or in the absence of oxygen, and usually in an oxygen-deficient environment. 45 Obligate anaerobes are bac



receptor linkages must be assessed to determine whether or not landfill gas is a significant concern. Specialist o assess whether the wastes are evolving or are likely to evolve gas in quantities and

oncentrations that may present a hazard.

st

Site-specific factors that contribute to an understanding of a proposed or existing landfill in its , including possible sources of risk, the pathways and potential receptors

The likelihood and quantities of landfill gas generated from a proposed or existing site

ere impacts might be manifest and whether these pose a significant risk What action would be appropriate and when it should be taken.

o proposed new site should be selected until a desktop assessment of the site and its surroundings and a site

risks.

dfill, the Permit Holder must inform the Competent Authority of this intention at least one year prior to closure. Final closure plans must reach the Competent Authority six months

esktop assessment

Geology and hydrogeology of the site and its environs determined in order to evaluate the effect these

udes and road or rail reserves. Where buildings are potentially at risk, the methods of construction, provision and location of services

ining company to obtain details of strata, he disposal of spoil.

quarry workings, all available information should be gathered to identify areas within the quarry that were backfilled with quarry spoil.

including: - Areas near coal measures where high concentrations of methane have been detected in boreholes

before wastes have been deposited

advice may be required tc

During the landfill site assessment and investigation conceptual phases (Sections 4 and 6), the following mube determined or predicted: •

environmental setting•• How and where the gas might move off-site • Wh•

Nvisit have been undertaken.

Owners of land on which there are operational, upgraded, closed or abandoned waste disposal sites are responsible for minimising the risks associated with landfill gas on their properties and are therefore required to undertake the necessary investigations to determine such

When it is intended to close a lan

before final closure. If however the site does not have a Permit, it must be authorised with a view to closure. Regardless of whether the landfill has a Permit or not, it must be investigated before remediation and closure can commence (see Section 12.3). The investigation should include (but not be limited to) a desk study and a field visit. D A desk study should be undertaken as follows: •

may have on gas migration or accumulation. • Topographical information determined, particularly the position of development, underground and

above ground services, servit•

should be examined. • In mining areas, contact should be made with the m

underground workings and whether or not the landfill site has been used for t• Where landfill sites are contained within old

• Identify other possible sources of methane emissions near to a proposed or existing landfill site,



- Areas near coal mines, marshes and natural gas pipelines.

As much site specific detail as possible should be gathered, including:

- types of wastes deposited ns of any hazardous waste

f operation. tion control measures should be provided.

ent within 250 metres of the landfill, a survey of buildings and services should d the development.

m a site and no evidence of gas generation or of

rtaken to identify characteristic areas of die-back.

l establish the need for an ngoing landfill gas monitoring plan and, where advisable, a landfill gas management plan. Where

ch plans

of the desk study and site investigation.

en to ammability and asphyxiation.

Field investigation A preliminary field investigation of the proposed or existing site and its environs should be undertaken to check and add to the information obtained in the desk study:

•- the history of the site

- locatio- the methods o

• Any pollu• For sites with developm

be undertaken and also the area between the landfill an Where there is no development proposed or at risk fro•

gas likely to be evolved, then the assessment may be concluded. • For existing sites, a vegetation survey should be unde

Record of the results

An interpretation of the results of the desk assessment and field investigation wilouncontrolled landfill gas migration is found and the quantities of gas evolution at the site are liable to create a hazard, a landfill gas monitoring and/or management plan must be drawn up and implemented or, if sualready exist, they should be reviewed and improved.

ite owners must keep an easily accessible copy of the results S Table A.10.2 gives threshold (trigger) landfill methane levels above which certain actions must be tak

duce the threat to health and safety because of the potential for explosion, flre



Table A.10.2 Threshold Landfill Gas Levels Above which there is a Risk to

Health and Safety

MeLanCom

Within 250 m Outside oundary of Waste Fill

In Building or Services within 250 m of a Landfill Site

Action To Be Taken

asurable dfill Gas B

ponent Metha Background level + 0.5% by

volume in soil atmosphere (in

kground level, from 0.1

me in soil

0.1 to 1% by volume in air (i.e., from 2 - 20% of LEL or 1 000 –

Develop and implement landfill gas monitoring plan

ne

gas probe) 10 000 ppm)

If no bacto 1% by voluatmosphere

Background level + > 0.5% by volume in soil atmosphere (in gas probe) If no background level, > 1% by volume in soil atmosphere

> 1% by volume in air (i.e., > 20% of LEL

Develop and implement landfilGas Management Plan

l

*LEL: Lower Explosion Limit of methane = 5% by volume in air (i.e., 50 000 parts per million methane) UEL: Upper Explosion Limit of methane = 15% by volume in air

L fill Gas Managemeand nt Plan

e la the alth movement and accumulation of landfill gas in the vicinity of a ecifi te. It includes a landfill gas monitoring plan.

he objectives of a landfill Gas Management Plan are:

an unplanned or uncontrolled manner. To prevent the accumulation of landfill gas in buildings and infrastructure on or in the vicinity of a

that employees and contractors on a landfill site are trained to recognise and avoid the ndfill gas.

landfill Gas Management Plan provides a framework for the management of landfill gas based on the site elements:

standing of ce-pathway-receptor approach (which is able to identify

Th ndfill Gas Management Plan sets out the objectives, methods, actions and responsibilities to manage he and safety risks associated with thesp c landfill si Objectives and framework T • To put in place a monitoring and management system that reduces the risk. • To prevent the escape of landfill gas from a landfill in•

landfill where it poses a risk to health and safety. • To ensure

hazards relating to la Acharacteristics and the presence and nature of a gas control system. It could include the following • Risk assessment: based on the site assessment and site investigation (which provide an under

the site within its environment) and a sour



actual and potential risks to environmental health and safety). dress site specific health and safety issues, these could include and treatment of landfill gas.

Action plan: planned responses to any abnormal changes in the monitoring data or incidents associated

Aftercare and completion plan for the site closure phase. ency plan, which sets out procedures for emergency response and notification.

he objective of landfill gas monitoring is to determine the sources, volume and composition of landfill gas erating, closed and abandoned sites in order to determine and manage any related risk.

Monitoring should be undertaken and supervised by staff who are knowledgeable and experienced in the use of

onitoring would include:

- Monitoring of any structures on or adjacent to the landfill footprint

s as needed, including: - Monitoring in support of commercial gas recovery

- Detailed determinations of trace gas components for specific environmental or risk assessment

ement exercise should be capable of detecting methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen. In ddition, the barometric pressure just prior to and at the time of measuring the gas must also be recorded.

ferably be measured at the same time. Where a steady reading annot be achieved, the period over which the concentration is recorded should be extended until a steady

• Control measures: if required to adcontainment and possibly collection

• Operational procedures. • Landfill gas monitoring plan. •

with landfill gas. •• An emerg Landfill gas monitoring Tassociated with op

equipment and interpretation of data obtained. M • Monitoring the health and safety of workers:

- Methane monitoring and monitoring of other gases is required in the breathing zone and in all subsurface excavations where workers may be present and that are possibly affected by landfill gas (including leachate sumps).

• Monitoring of environmental health and safety. This includes: - Perimeter monitoring using gas probes to check for lateral migration

- Monitoring of surface gas concentrations at ground level as an indicator of emissions. (In some cases, it will be necessary to remediate or thicken cover materials to mitigate emissions.)

• Specialized landfill gas investigation

- Field measurement of emissions (gaseous flux rather than just concentrations) - Subsurface gas concentration profiles

studies. Monitoring methods Any landfill gas measuraCarbon dioxide and flammable gas should precresult is achieved. Surface monitoring Surface monitoring can be carried out with portable instruments to assist in determining the likely presence of gas escaping the system.



Subsurface gas probes Point source monitoring of gas concentrations in the local environment can be carried out, by driving prointo waste or soil strata. Gas measurements and sampling at monitoring boreholes and gas wells should be undertaken in a safe and consistent manner to enable fair comparison of the results obtained. Before probes areinserted, plan

bes

s and cable location devices should be used to determine the position of underground cables or

s pipes, to avoid damage to underground services.

xcavated pits or trenches

r

onitoring instruments

ere . In addition, laboratory alys

the use rstand which instrument is appropriate in a particular context. If the person carrying out the onitoring is not knowledgeable, serious errors may result in the interpretation of measurements made which

of staff on a landfill site.

m tes (Section 5). However, at any site where a potential

as problem has been identified in the site assessment and investigation, a monitoring system must be put in lace regardless of whether this was a requirement at the design stage or not. At any site where a potential gas

must take place at one to three monthly intervals during the tion of the Competent Authority.

of

Monitoring Plan forms part of a landfill Operating Plan and details the gas monitoring regime andfill Gas Management Plan is required for a site, the landfill Gas Monitoring Plan will be an

ntly monitoring will take place

lace to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the monitoring plan.

ga E At completed and shallow sites, adequate monitoring in the short term may be achieved using excavated pits otrenches. M Th are many types of portable instruments available for landfill gas monitoringan is of landfill gas is often required to quantify concentrations of gaseous constituents. It is important for

r to undemcould compromise safety Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan As landfill gas is a potentially flammable and asphyxiating gas, the monitoring of landfill gas is a MinimuRequirement for small B+, medium and large landfill sigpproblem exists (see Table A.10.2) monitoring

peration and after site closure at the discreo Where site assessment findings indicate levels of landfill gas approaching the threshold level are present (see Table A.10.2), the Competent Authority, in consultation with the site operator, will determine the frequencymonitoring at the particular site. This must be included in the landfill Gas Monitoring Plan (Section 5). The landfill Gas for the site. If a limportant component. It describes: • The need for monitoring at the site and what landfill gas components should be monitored • Where and how the monitoring should take place • Who will be responsible for the measurements and recording the results How freque•

• What actions need to be taken on interpretation of the data • What process will be put in p



The need for monitoring Whatever type of site is being monitored, the monitoring plan will take into account the findings of the desk

to m or large site or if landfill gas has been

und to be escaping from the site in an unplanned or uncontrolled manner and is likely to become a risk to ublic health or the environment, the need for a landfill Gas Monitoring Plan is established.

ing points

easured on each monitoring occasion:

Atmospheric Pressure .

terns then

Landfi ng points should be located inside the site (but not in the waste body) to identify the uantity and quality of landfill gas generated and outside the site within the buffer zone (or within 250 m of the aste fill) to establish the migration of the landfill gas at the particular site.

sed to detect major components of landfill gas should be carefully selected and regularly ory analysis is also required; this should be done using appropriate field and qualified laboratory personnel. In particular, gas chromatography (GC) using a

ariety of detectors is often used for landfill gas analysis.

ata gathering and recording

he age, type and quantity of waste deposited and site design are some of the factors that affect the potential

ities of each waste type received e in-place volumes

top assessment and field investigation that establish what is occurring both in and around the site in relationgas evolution, migration and its impacts. If the site is a B+, mediufop

ethodology and monitorM

he following parameters must be mT • Methane • Carbon dioxide • Oxygen •• Other gases: if specified by the Competent Authority If any significant changes occur at or near a site that may affect gas evolution or migration patfurther assessment, including monitoring, will be required.

ll gas monitoriqw Portable instruments ucalibrated. Often, laboratlaboratory techniques byv Gas sampling using portable instruments must be done with great care by competent persons. [Ref: Environmental Agency/SEPA, Guidance on the management of landfill gas, 2004] D Tfor landfill gas to be generated, its composition, and the potential for migration. This will determine the typeand location of monitoring. The following information must therefore be recorded on an annual basis, to predict landfill gas generation from landfill gas generation models: • Waste types received including cover (with special note on biodegradability of each waste) • Quant Wast•

• Moisture content (rainfall vs evaporation vs leachate generated). Regular monitoring should be carried out by a competent person and records made and kept.



Data that must be included in the monitoring report:

Condition of the monitoring point conditions

Vegetation stress

r conditions, especially in relation to atmospheric pressure.

depend on a number of factors:

• Age of site

dfill gas escaping from the site

n that gas quantities and concentrations have stabilised at a site and a ncy of monitoring may be reduced if agreed by the Competent Authority

he monitoring strategy should be kept under regular review and subject to specialist appraisal.

Higher gas concentrations are detected

• Site name • Monitoring point reference • Date and time of monitoring •• Soil •• Visible signs of gas migration (e.g., heat shimmer, bubbles in puddles, visible vapour emissions in

winter, etc.) Records of monitoring should be made and retained in a clearly understandable format. Frequency of monitoring Monitoring frequencies are site specific and dependent upon the assessment of risk to people and development from gas migration. These are stipulated at the discretion of the Competent Authority. When assessing gas evolution and emission from a landfill, it is important that measurements are repeated to establish an adequate database for interpretation. Because of the variations that occur in landfill gas composition, a single set of measurements is not adequate. A series of measurements is necessary over a period of time. Measurements should be taken in different weathe The frequency of monitoring required is site specific and will

• Type and volume of waste • Possible hazard or nuisance from lan• Results of previous monitoring or baseline monitoring, management measures in place (if any) • Development surrounding the site • Geology. As a guide, where quantities of biodegradable wastes have been deposited, gas monitoring frequency should initially be at three-monthly intervals. Where ongoing monitoring has showpredictable pattern occurs, the frequeor an expert up to but not exceeding six-monthly intervals. A review of site conditions, however, may indicate that the frequency needs to be increased to monthly monitoring. Evaluation and review T Monitoring frequency should not be regarded as fixed for any site. It should be re-assessed where: •



• The gas control system has been changed or failed

Part or all the site has been capped ace in the vicinity

• Risk has increased for any other reason.

omprehensive subsurface monitoring prior to any deposit of wastes will provide information on natural sources of

perational sites The gas monitoring frequency should, initiall intervals at small B+, all general and all large landfill sites. This should later be revised if necessary at the discretion of the Competent Authority.

sites are unlikely to have monitoring boreholes or wells. Where it is concluded from the te assessment that no gas is being or is likely to be produced and there is no risk to development, then there

m concentration of flammable gas from the landfill gas remains ss than 1% by volume in air/soil atmosphere measured in all the monitoring points over a 24 month period ken on at least four separate occasions.

or carbon dioxide may not

it

rmined

It is difficult to define precisely the concentrations of landfill gas that should be considered dangerous when they occur in buildings. Risk relates not only to the concentration of the gas but also to the volume of space that is affected, the occupancy and access control and the ease with which the accumulated gas may be dispersed. Buildings should be evacuated when concentrations of methane or flammable gas above 1% v/v and/or 20% of the LEL are found in any void spaces, e.g., rooms, cellars, basements, garages, roof cavities, cupboards, under floor spaces, etc (Table A.10.2). When such concentrations have been found, the

• The leachate pumping is reduced •• Development takes pl

Implementation of the Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Proposed sites C

gas under or around the site.

O

y, be at three monthly

Closed sites or sites due to close The majority of closedsishould be no need to undertake monitoring.

For other closed sites, the frequency of monitoring should be determined by the monitoring during the site investigation. As a guide, it is recommended that they should be monitored at three-monthly intervals. Monitoring should continue until the maximuleta Residual gas may be trapped within wastes in old landfills. Detection of methane

ecessarily indicate continuing gas generation. n The responsibility of the assessment and monitoring of closed landfill sites for which there is no closure permcould rest on the landowner or person operating on the site. When development takes place on or adjoins a landfill site, responsibility for the monitoring in respect of the safety of employees involved in the development and the occupants of the property should ideally fall to the developer or as otherwise deteby relevant legislation. Monitoring in buildings related to landfills



Responsible Person must be notified immediately. For ther gases, it is often difficult to precisely define the concentrations that should be considered da n buildings. This is because risk relates not oaccesinternational health and safety standards should en a problem is identified, and a site-specific

onitoring plan should be developed in consult mpetent Authority and other role players, as ppropri te.

reco ende of landfill gas appoint a ers ay occur due to landfill gas.

ity must be advised within 7 days whenever the following concentrations are found, if they are attributable to landfill gas:

F abl cess of 1% v/v in air Carbon di excess of 1.5% v/v in air A er cupational exposure standard (10 minute reference period).

Emergency monitoring

It will occasionally be necessary for the operator and/or regulatory authorities to undertake monitoring as an

an incident relating to landfill gas emissions such as failure of a leachate containment system or an explosion or fire.

Landfill Gas Control Options Landfill gas control elements are containment, collection and/or treatment. Where monitoring indicates that off-site threshold values for methane (Table A.10.2) are being exceeded it may be necessary to allow for containment measures that prevent uncontrolled migration or emission of landfill gas, as agreed by the Competent Authority. Gas barriers Proposed and operational sites Clay or bentonite linings, synthetic membranes, or grout curtains can be used as a barrier to restrict the migration of leachate and landfill gas from landfills. They should be laid and compacted to restrict gas migration. Ideally, synthetic membranes should be flexible, durable, of very low gas permeability and exhibit high resistance to tearing or puncturing. Closed sites

ongerous when they occur i

nly to the concentration of the gas but also to the volume of space that is affected, the occupancy and s control, and the ease with which the accumulated gas may be dispersed. Both South African and

be consulted whation with the Com

a a Responsible Person It is mm d that every authority and employer involved in the monitoringResp ible P on, to take responsibility for dealing with any emergency that monsThe Competent Author

• lamm e gas in buildings at concentrations in ex• oxide in buildings at concentrations in • ny oth gas in concentrations in excess of its oc

emergency response where gas is suspected, or known, to be migrating from a landfill site and posing a threatto health and safety, e.g., in the event of



Barriers can be used around can Appropriate gas barriers can include geomembranes and slurry trenches. These must be designed fospecific conditions, properly installed, and regularly monitored.

losed sites, but their application is limited by the depth of trench that can be dug d the fact that no barrier can be installed across the base of the site.

r site-

crushed aggregate of uniform size can provide a route th material (such as class 3 HDPE, ast 100 mm in diameter should be

tall

partially block trenches, reducing gas flow odour problem before the site is completed

water or leachate into the base of the site unless water ingress is

era orarily on site ll gas and how

y m s in terms of the ccupat

he operator should also ensure that any contractor working on site is also informed of the hazards and the

arried out unless the risk to health has been assessed.

Permeable trenches Proposed and operational sites Vent trenches, about 1m wide, filled with “no fines”through which gas can vent. Perforated or slotted pipes of suitable streng

edium density polyethylene (MDPE), polypropylene or uPVC) and at lemins ed in the trench and connected to surface vent pipes of similar construction.

There are several difficulties in using permeable trenches:

Wind-blown waste or fines can block or •• Emissions of gas can create an The trench can form a drain for surface•

prevented.

Safety on Sites Training of operators Op tors should provide suitable training and instruction to employees who work permanently or temp

. The training should enable employees to understand how dangers can arise from landfithe ay be avoided. This training should include managing safety of work in closed space

ional Health & Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993). O Contractors Tnecessary precautions. The contractor must sign an indemnity that protects the owner of the site, the operatorsof the site and their staff, the consultants and any other contractors working on the site from liability in the event of an accident, or other mishap, that results from any negligent act perpetrated by the contractor, or his staff, whilst working on the site. No work should be c Smoking Smoking must be prohibited on site. This should be strictly enforced for all employees and visitors. There should be prominent warning notices in appropriate positions near the entrance to the site. Any fire on the site should be treated as an emergency and extinguished immediately.



ipment

Buildings and any other enclosed structures on site should be designed and built to prevent accumulation of

ith alarms set at a maximum of 0% LEL for methane. Air spaces under temporary site huts should also be well ventilated and may require

nnecessary creation of enclosed spaces on site, e.g., by inversion of a skip for maintenance, should generally ns to prevent accumulations of gas within

particularly high gas emissions are found.

r any confined space below ground-level, learly

ce

e

ation of

i

fill site, it should not interfere with the d

Wh d the leachate and gas anagement systems should be maintained for as long as they are required. In many instances, a landfill may

ot become stabilised for periods well in excess of 15 years. Agricultural, public open space, recreation or til the site has stabilised.

rest ximity of the proposed development to the landfill and investigate the geology and topography of the area.

Electrical equ All electrical equipment that is necessarily located in areas where accumulations of flammable gas could occur, should be selected, installed, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Occupational Health & Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993). Buildings

flammable gas inside them. Adequate circulation of fresh air will generally be required. Buildings on site should be regularly monitored for the presence of flammable gas and fitted w2monitoring at points where gas is likely to accumulate, e.g., adjacent to service duct entries. Ube avoided. Vehicles should be parked in well-ventilated positio

em. Vehicles and plant may need to be banned from areas whereth

structions should be issued to all employees that no one should enteInsuch as culverts and manholes, where there is poor ventilation, until an Responsible Person has c

rtained that it is safe to do so. as

Development on and Around Landfill Sites

end-use ofTh a landfill site would normally be addressed in the closure permit or at the permit application stage where the end-use plan is specified. Ideally, whenever development is proposed on or adjacent to a landfill site, a comprehensive investigthe site, the proposed development, and the possible effect of the development on the landfill is preferable. Th s should be supported by gas monitoring.

Whatever form of development is proposed on or adjacent to any landlan fill gas monitoring programme. Development on landfill sites

atever form the end-use of a closed landfill site takes, the integrity of the cap anmnconservation are therefore the most appropriate end-uses un Development of land adjacent to landfill sites Where development is proposed within 250 metres of a landfill site, whether the site is operational, awaiting

oration or restored, the developer should preferably take into account the pro



Examples of Gas Yield Calculation Models

Sim l estimate

here the site assessment indicates that landfill gas could be generated in more than negligible quantities, this dfill gas off-site. The following model can

e used in estimating methane generation from a landfill site that has accepted biodegradable wastes (Figure ne per year and results

an overestimate of gas flow at peak production and gas flow from historic waste deposits.

ple initia

Wwill trigger the introduction of measures to control the escape of lanbA.10.1). It assumes that each tonne of biodegradable waste will generate 10 m3 of methain

Figure A.10.1 Initial simple estimate of gas generation

Q = x 10 x T /8760

Where: Q = methane flow in m / hour 3

M = annual quantity of biodegradable waste in tons T = time in years Ref: Environment Agency/SEPA, Guidance on the management of landfill gas, Sept 2004. A predicted methane flow (Q) that exceeds a simplistic benchmarked value of 50 – 100 m3/hour provides an

very

ial role in community development.

odel to Estimate Gas Generation

er single component or multicomponent. In this case, it is assumed that gas generation is a

function of the remaining degradable organic carbon in the waste. Figure A.10.2 is a single component US EPA model that has been recently applied in Mexico; this model has also been used in South Africa. However, the success of any theoretical model with predicting gas generation will be a site-specific determination. Typically, if a gas extraction system has been installed, the model parameters are later adjusted to better match the field situation after historical gas production data are available.

initial indication that flaring or utilisation could be undertaken (Figure A.10.1). However, in many places mall projects with gas flow <50 m3/hour can be viable. In South Africa, these projects might play a s

substant

First Order Kinetics M Several complex models of gas generation can also be used. These typically rely on a first order kineticequation, eith



Figure A.10.2:

n

First Order Kinetics Model for Estimating Gas Generation in Landfills

QM = ∑2 k Lo M i (e-kti) i=1 n ∑ = sum from opening year +1 (i=1) through year of projection (n) i=1

QM = maximum expected LFG generation flow rate (m3/yr)

k = methane generation rate constant (1/yr)

Lo = methane generation potential (m /ton) 3

Mi = mass of solid waste disposal in the ith year (ton)

ti = age of the waste disposed in the ith year (years)

[Ref: US EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Mexico LFG Model, November 2003]

Example of a calculation of landfill gas generation using this model is downloadable from the internet on

tm#3www.epa.gov/lmop/international.h

APPENDIX 11.1: DISPOSAL SITE MONITORING COMMITTEE


Appendix 11.1 DI(S

DurAP 1).

remediation, closure and ongoing monitoring of a landfill.

ing the concerns of the community regarding the landfill site, especially those ity.

nd official means of communication, with the community. the Competent Authority. compliance to permit conditions and the Minimum Requirements.

ng Committee in this appendix is to:

g Committee as a formal and legitimate structure for IAP losure phase of a waste management facility.

istently throughout South Africa.

ol viduals and representatives of organisations, would have been identified

oc

lso be included on the Monitoring Committee, also to

provincial, regional and

a mmittee. Political parties may not be presented and there may be no conflict of interest in the representation of member organisations.

SPOSAL SITE MONITORING COMMITTEE ection 11)

ing the site selection process, and also the design and commissioning, Interested and Affected Parties s) participate in accordance with the public participation plan and its implementation (see Appendix 4.(I

Once the landfill is established and operating, however, there is the need for a disposal site Monitoring Committee. The objective of a Monitoring Committee is to provide a forum for: • Enabling the IAPs to effectively participate in and monitor the operation,

• Discussing and addresspeople living in the immediate vicin

The Monitoring Committee would: • Act as a representative of, a

and ears’ of• Act as the ‘eyes • Monitor compliance or non-• Observe and monitor the impacts of the site on the environment. The reason for discussing the Monitori

Facilitate recognition of the Monitori• ninvolvement in the monitoring and post-c

• Ensure that Monitoring Committees function cons

Membership

untary IAPs, including both indiV registered for involvement inand the public participation process. These IAPs would usually also become

Monitoring Committee members. When necessary, further IAPs not involved in the initial public participation ess may join the committepr e or attend meetings.

A representative of the Salvagers Committee must aassist in communicating any IAP complaints to the salvagers (see Appendix 10.2).

It is compulsory that the Permit Holder and officials representing the relevant national, loc l government departments be members of the Monitoring Core



he quorum for a meeting should be at least six participants, comprising three from the compulsory member y, the Department, Permit Holder, other) and three from the m, the meeting should be adjourned for at least 30 days, and notice

garding the details of the meeting should be given to all members of the Monitoring Committee. In the event

quorum would only be necessary for matters requiring decision making by means of voting, as well as

h oring Committee

he wing functions:

ng monitoring programmes.

national government officials, to discuss such issues as nuisances, complaints, landfill conditions or Permit compliance.

from their representatives. Requesting that special meetings be held for a specific purpose.

ngs end in action. Conducting site visits, at least twice a year, and participating in external audits.

hat members are empowered to make decisions regarding the Committee matters.

h Monitoring Committee

ode of Conduct, under which the Committee can operate. This conduct at meetings or conflict resolution.

Meetings Torganisations (i.e., the Competent Authoritvoluntary membership. If there is no quorurethat there is no quorum at the adjourned meeting, those present could constitute a quorum. However, the committee could also decide to increase the appropriate number of participants constituting a quorum.

Amatters relating to the compilation of or change to the Terms of Reference. Minutes should be taken at all meetings. These should be written up and circulated to all members.

T e Functions of the Monit

Monitoring Committee has the folloT • Monitoring the establishment, operation, remediation and closure of the waste disposal site. • Reviewing audit results and having it demonstrated that audit recommendations have been implemented

within an agreed time frame. Reviewing monitoring results from ongoi•

• Making recommendations to the Competent Authority, the Responsible Person, or any other relevantauthority.

• Meeting with local, provincial and

• Requiring that officials provide answers regarding actions taken to address identified problems. • Recommending that conditions be written into the Permit or that changes be made to Permit conditions. • Holding meetings with the Permit Holder, the Competent Authority, and the IAPs for frequent report back

•• Ensuring that decisions made at meeti•• Delegating investigations or discussions to subcommittees - who would then report back. • Receiving information on such issues as environmental impacts or waste disposal practices, so t

T e Duties of the

ongst others, the Monitoring CommitAm tee has the duty to:

e and C• Formulate a Terms of Referencwould address such issues as



• Inform the Competent Authority of any irregularities and/or problems in terms of the Committee’s functions.

nformation regarding the site and the proceedings of the Committee to the IAPs they

Keep a record of proceedings and decisions.

ability of members

nd are accountable to society at large.

s the Committee is a monitoring committee, and not a management committee, it is not legally responsible rations, of the disposal site. Final accountability lder.

The Competent Authority is the lead agent for the enforcement of legislation pertaining to waste disposal sites, and must take steps to ensure that permit conditions are complied with. All the proceedings of the Monitoring Committee must be recorded and made available to the public. Costs Reasonable costs incurred for the effective functioning of the Monitoring Committee would be met by the Permit Holder. These costs would include the cost of the venue, administrative costs, and, where necessary, the costs of a consultant facilitator. Voluntary members of the Monitoring Committee would not receive payment for their services on the Committee.

• Disseminate irepresent.

•

ccountability, responsibility and liA All members must act in a responsible manner, a Afor the operations, or the consequences resulting from the opend responsibility for the disposal site lies with the Permit Hoa

Members of the committee are accountable to the IAPs they represent, and are responsible for keeping them informed of proceedings. As part of ongoing public participation, regular meetings, site visits, workshops and information sessions should be held. These would be organised by the Committee. Participation by a member in the proceedings of the Monitoring Committee should not be interpreted as a waiver of such a person’s right to challenge any issue pertaining to the site outside the forum of the Committee, if such an issue had already been addressed but not resolved by the Committee.

APPENDIX 11.2: AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING


Appendix 11.2

This appQuality Managem ing and Buffer Zones, Pretoria, 2005]. This appendix provides only an overview, while the document pro An Air Q framewo and include the methods, procedures and actions contami

key • Air • Con• Air Q• Act• Clo• Em

and The obj Describe the elements that should be included in the Air Quality Management Plan

• Dis• Dis Air Q

he Air Assessment assesses the potential impacts of a disposal site on the local environment, lth a

ection 7. F all ases, th

tor” concept, risk only exists if there is a relationship between

urce, pathway and receptor:

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING (Section 11)

endix must be read together with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s document, Air Management, Monitoring and Buffer Zones [Ref: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Air Quality ent, Monitor

vides extensive details regarding air quality management and monitoring at waste disposal sites.

uality Management Plan must be developed for disposal sites, see Table 11. This plan will provide ark for air quality and noise management and monitoring,

to be implemented from site inception to site rehabilitation, until the potential of emission of airborne nants from the site is mitigated or removed46.

The elements of the Air Quality Management Plan are:

Quality Risk Assessment trol measures and operational procedures

uality Monitoring Plan ion Plan sure and completion plan. issions modelling, emissions monitoring and assessment (if indicated by the Initial Conceptual Model the Risk Screening stage of the risk assessment).

ective of this appendix is to:

•cuss control of emissions at disposal sites cuss how air quality modelling influences the siting, location and buffer zones for a disposal site

uality Risk Assessment

Quality RiskThea nd amenities. For new disposal sites, the Air Quality Risk Assessment forms part of the EIA, see

or an existing site, the extent of the required assessment will depend on the site classification. In Sc e IAPs must be involved, see Appendix 4.1.

ng to the “Source-Pathway-RecepAccordiso

ational Environment Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) describes various regulatory measures for nting and enforcing air quality manage

46 The Nimpleme ment plans and achieving acceptable ambient air quality. This Act

persedes the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, 1965 (Act 45 of 1965), which focuses primarily on the control of issions.

suindustrial air em



• The land ecomposition has started to produce odours), particulate matter or dust, and hazardous waste streams.

• Theenvhumatm

• Rec who could potentially be adversely affected by the identified hazards would include workers, communities outside the site boundary, properties inside and outside the site boundary (including buil

A Concconcept ls, in its en to be up Exampl • the • land• hum• the • the sposal site design • the • the • the • sub undwater quality results, groundwater

usage and seismic events • wat• regi• topo• containment measures adopted • prox• loca• futu• perm• met• rate • list ory

anal• iden s DWAF permit requirements (on existing sites)

• the on diox

control measures that have been installed or are installed, e.g. leachate treatment • area

he conceptual model should be presented in a diagram indicating the various source-pathway-receptor

‘source’ at a disposal site is defined by the waste type and operation, and would include leachate,fill gas, refuse gas (i.e., freshly disposed domestic waste where aerobic d

‘pathway’ or means by which the identified hazards are transferred from the source into the ironment and from there to any defined ‘receptors’ is the air pathway or releases to atmozone. Harm to ans, plants or animals may occur through a number of “exposure pathways”, e.g., releases to

ozone may be inhaled or ingested. eptors

dings, livestock and crops), ecosystems, surface water in the vicinity of the site and the atmozone.

eptual Model is used to identify possible relationships between sources, pathways and receptors. The ual model is an understanding of the disposal site, including the design and the operational principavironmental setting. It is used as the basis for conducting the air quality risk assessment and will needdated as new data is gathered and interpreted (e.g., after monitoring).

es of the information to be included in the conceptual model would be:

site location and size use, vegetation and development an habitation

disposal site classificationdidisposal site liner design age of the site type and volume of waste -surface features: the geology, geohydrology, soils, initial gro

er borehole / well locations onal and local meteorological data graphical information and drainage

imity of buildings and developments to sites tion of services re development proposals eability of the waste

hods of treatment of waste of deposition of waste of chemicals used on site for the purpose of leachate and waste treatment, disinfection, laboratysis and pest control tification potential off-site airborne contaminant emission source

•results of previous and current monitoring -, i.e. leachate, surface and borehole water, methane/carbide

•s covered with daily, intermediate or permanent cover.

T



linkagesmust be Risk-Based Decision Making

Dependmay be Inventor

he suggested methodology for air quality risk assessment is Risk-Based Decision Making or RBDM [Ref: EnvironmQuality Min the ri

g (Tier 1) Sim Complex Risk Assessment (Tier 3).

In Risk d potential risks are screened and prioritised, before quantification (Tier 2 or Tier 3). Tconcept‘where’ For risk may be estimate For com d. Sophisti ecific data, such as on-site weather data, topography nd the ssPSI, OnSSEI and OfSSEI. Dispersion Modelling or Health Odour Impact Assessments may be used

ir Q

The air is an iterative process and

Sou

Sur• Com Ambient A ces, odorants, particulant

mat• Wo Meteorology Monitoring

• Miscellaneous Aspects (including noise and vibration).

and in writing, or table-form giving the same information as in the diagram. Best Practice Techniques incorporated into the conceptual model.

ing on the nature and complexity of the risks associated with a particular disposal site, three inventories used in risk decision making. These are Priority Substance Inventory (PSI), On-site Source Emissions y (OnSSEI) and Off-site Source Emissions Inventory (OfSSEI).

Tental Agency, Bristol. (number 80_03) Risk based approaches to air quality modelling and assessment, Air odelling and Assessment Unit, Cardiff]. RBDM uses a tiered approach, where the level of detail required

sk assessment is proportionate to the nature and complexity of the risk.

• Risk Screenin• ple Risk Assessment (Tier 2) •

Screening (Tier 1) actual anhis stage informs the process and, if required, recommends further assessment. An accurate

ual site model should be developed, based on a source-pathway-receptor approach and answers to , ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions.

screening (Tier 1) and simple risk assessment (Tier 2), a Generic Priority Substance Inventory (GPSI)used together with qualitative, quantitative estimate calculations and/or simple modelling tools to emissions from disposal sites.

plex risk assessment (Tier 3) a site specific Priority Substance Inventory (ssPSI) should be compilecated modelling tools will be locked using site-sp

ato establish the buffer zone and the zone of influence.

uality Monitoring Plan A

quality monitoring and sampling plan should be developed as a result of the conceptual model. This the model should be continually updated as new information is collected.

Air Quality Monitoring includes:

rce Monitoring • • face Emissions Monitoring

bustion Emissions Monitoring ir Quality Monitoring (including monitoring for toxic gaseous substan•

ter and hazardous biological agents) rker Personal Sampling

•



Action The Act ribes the actions that will be taken to mitigate or respond to identified air quality risks. Closu In the Crecomm

ocat Air qual ity Risk As modellin

uffer zones prove nom

Assessmof portio

onitore

Plan

ion Plan desc

re and Completion Plan

losure and Completion Plan, the risk of the site after remediation and closure is assessed, and endations are made for future end-use.

L ion – Determination of Buffer Zones

ity impacts associated with a disposal site remain largely unattenuable. For this reason, an Air Qualsessment is used to determine buffer zones and/or zones of influence, using such tools as air dispersiong or Health/Odour Analysis Surveys. At existing sites that have limited surrounding land available for

, demarcating buffer zones and zones of influence using air dispersion modelling may notbeco ically viable. However, adequate zones can be demarcated using Health and Odour Impact

ents. If necessary these zones can be created on the disposal site itself, for example, by rehabilitation n of the site or mitigation measures that will restrict impact. The adequacy of the buffer zone must be d within the Air Quality Monitoring Plan. m

GLOSSARY


GLO

The lang in differ colloqui nt.

y means of convection, driven by pressure gradients.

quality refers to surface water sampled upstream or ground water sampled upgradient of a landfill site. In both cases, these samples reflect water that

one: An area of land marked on a map, with no identifiable shape (as opposed to, for example, a circle or square).

rotection from pollution (see also Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities).

the landfill experienced by a neighbouring community. This area is determined by mapping the ‘worst case’ outer limit of all the areas of influence associated

of graphy and the existence of man-made

features such as canals, roads, or railway lines.

cess of reducing leachate concentrations by means of natural physical, chemical and biochemical processes such as dilution, oxidation and cell synthesis.

ults. Atenuation could also refer to the reduction of gaseous contaminants in unsaturated soils or waste by microbial

Audit Team: Those who attend the audit or site inspection and assist in compiling the audit report.

udit: A site inspection at which the condition of the site on that day is appraised in terms of a

ailable’

accessible. ‘Technology’ refers to the process itself and how the process is implemented (including management). "Excessive cost" is cost effective in the

SSARY

uage used in this document is generally colloquial English. However, the meaning of terms may vary

ent contexts and terms may also have scientific connotations. The following list therefore defines, inal terms, certain terminology as it is used in the context of this docume

Advection: The movement of contaminants (molecules or ions) due to a pressure head with flowing ground water. The movement of soil gases also occurs b

Ambient Background: Ambient background water

has not been contaminated by leachate from the landfill. Amorphous Z

Aquifer: Water-bearing strata of fractured or permeable rock, sand or gravel. When capable of sustaining community water or other needs, such strata may be considered to represent strategic water resources, requiring p

Area of Influence: The area, demarcated on a map, within which a landfill may have a negative impact or influence, e.g., the visual impact of

with the proposed landfill. Factors such as wind dispersion modelling, plumes associated with subterranean ground water pollution and noise pollution contours will each have their own areainfluence. The Area of Influence will be influenced by topo

Attenuation: In this context, attenuation is the pro

Natural systems have an attenuation capacity which may render small volumes of contaminants (leachate) insignificant. However, when this capacity is exceeded, pollution res

processes.

Anumber of predetermined criteria.

BATNEEC: Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost. The term ‘Best Avimplies technology that is proven, accepted and

context of the specific operation.

GLOSSARY


Bill of Quantities: This is a list of the tasks involved and an estimation of the quantities of the

consultative

and decision-making procedure that emphasises the protection of the environment across land, air and

pending on the classification of the landfill and the nature and extent of its anticipated environmental impacts. The outer perimeter and shape of the buffer zone will be

be minimal impact on or risk to human health by definition of physiological (body system) chemical stressors. This may result in an amorphous buffer zone shape. The buffer

s as a

local authority and state departments, non-sensitive development such as industrial or commercial activities may be permitted, subject to such conditions as the relevant

m g

e.

D): A measure of the organic matter in a liquid. The test consists of measuring the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter that can be oxidised using a strong chemical

n, obtained from published data. It is used only to indicate the climatic conditions under which leachate management is needed, on account of the

r surface water exist, the Climatic Water Balance coincides with the Site Water Balance. (See Site Water Balance and Water Balance.)

measures that must be taken to address problem areas and to render a

landfill environmentally acceptable once it is closed.

materials needed for the construction of elements of the landfill design.

BPEO: Best Practicable Environmental Option. BPEO is the outcome of a systematic

water. It establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefit or least damage to the environment as a whole at acceptable cost in the long term and as well as the short term.

Buffer Zone: The area of land separating the toe of a registered landfill site from the boundary of sensitive land uses (existing or proposed) such as residential, educational, health and social activities. Buffer zones will vary in size, de

determined by the Air Quality Risk Assessment. Other aspects of the area of influence, which could result in a health impact, may influence the extent of the bufferzone. At this outer perimeter of the buffer zone there will

zone will be surveyed, and registered in the office of the Surveyor General and Registrar of Deedservitude or subdivided portion of land. No sensitive development may occur within the buffer zone: At the discretion of the relevant

authorities may impose. Cell: This is the basic landfill unit of compacted solid waste which, when completed at the end of each day, is entirely contained by cover material. The sides may be typically formed by 1,5 m to 2,0high soil or rubble berms, or sloped covered waste. Cell width is determined by the manoeuvrinrequirements of vehicles depositing waste at the working fac

Channelling: This is a term used to describe the rapid flow of water through a waste body via preferential conduits or paths of least resistance. Channelling results in the early formation of lowconcentrate leachate prior to the waste body reaching its field capacity. Chemical oxygen demand (CO

oxidising agent in an acidic medium at an elevated temperature. Climatic Water Balance: The Climatic Water Balance refers to a simplified calculation, involving only figures for precipitation and pan evaporatio

generation of significant leachate. Where no Site Specific Factors such as high moisture content waste and ingress of ground o

Closure: The act of terminating the operation of a landfill. Closure is preceded by remediation and followed by end-use and post-closure monitoring.

Closure Requirements: Those

GLOSSARY


Co-Disposal (General with Hazardous waste): The mixing and joint disposal of Hazardous (H) and General (G) waste in the same landfill. The co-disposal of general waste with hazardous waste as a

l of aste landfill is

nacceptable.

ater balance and is an acceptable practice on a hazardous waste landfill site. his is only acceptable on a general waste landfill site when the liquid is not hazardous and the site is

uid waste. The

co-disposal ratio is linked to the Water Balance and is site specific. The co-disposal ratio must be such

The process whereby the volume of waste is reduced, using a purpose built compactor or other suitable machine.

Competent Authority: The Competent Authority, in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment

l in the national or provincial environmental departments. The Competent Authority therefore makes

ater resource protection mandate for section (20) of the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) permit

oncept Permit: Any landfill permit issued before the promulgation of the Environmental

eparation of the waste body and any associated leachate from the underlying soil, rock e, by means of a liner and a leachate collection system.

on

pollu

means of facilitating disposal on a hazardous waste landfill is acceptable, whereas the co-disposaany significant quantity of hazardous waste with general waste on a general wu

Co-Disposal (Liquid with Dry waste): The mixing of high moisture content or liquid waste with dry waste. This affects the wTequipped with leachate management measures.

Co-Disposal Ratio: This indicates the volumetric ratio of compacted solid waste to liq

that no more than 200 mm/year of leachate is generated at a given site, there are no free liquid surfaces and the fill is trafficable.

Community: The people living in the vicinity of a proposed, planned or developed activity.

Compaction:

Regulations, is the person who makes decisions in respect of applications for environmental authorisations. In these Regulations, the Competent Authority is the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism or an MEC. However, in most cases these powers are delegated to an officia

decisions in respect of the application process and whether to grant or refuse environmental authorisation. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry exercises its legal w

authorisations through the Competent Authority.

Composite Liner: An assembled structure of geosynthetic materials and low permeability earth materials (clay or benotinite), placed beneath a landfill to form a barrier against the migration of leachate into the underlying soils and ground water.

CConservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989). Concept permits require upgrading to full permits (see Permit.) Conceptual Design: A design that addresses the principles of the intended design, but does not include detailed specifications.

Containment: The s

and water regim

C taminate: The addition of foreign matter to a natural system. This does not necessarily result in tion, unless the attenuation capacity of the natural system is exceeded.

GLOSSARY


Cov used to cover waste. Cover material is usually soil, but may comprise builders' rubbusuaof a pport vegetation. ConEnd-cons nd the evaluations of materials and workmanship necessary to determine and document the quality of the

ller

tly

. CQC by the installer or contractor to determine compliance with the requirements

for materials and workmanship as stated in the drawings and specifications for the project.

on the development or ongoing operation of a landfill. Such factors require further investigation. If a critical factor cannot be

f a hazardous waste for disposal on a lower class of landfill. This

would only be allowed by the Competent Authority, based on proof of low mobility or concentration,

evelopment Plan: A plan indicating the phasing of the development of a landfill from the landfill

e design.

lower concentration (eg. in groundwater).

rd Permit conditions, drawn up for the control and uthorisation of general communal and small B- sites that have a maximum height of 3 m. The

s of registration.

a person must retain documentation describing both the waste and any related transactions. In this way, the

er: The materialle, ash or other suitable material. Daily cover is usually 150 mm thick, intermediate cover is lly 300 mm thick and final cover or capping is usually 500 mm thick. Final cover may form part special capping design and, as is the case with intermediate cover, must be able to su

struction Quality Assurance (CQA) Programme: A programme of activities that provides the user, Responsible Person and the Competent Authority assurance that the facility has been tructed as specified in the design. CQA includes inspections, verifications, audits, a

constructed facility. CQA refers to measures taken by the CQA organisation to assess if the instaor contractor is in compliance with the drawings and specifications for the project.

Construction Quality Control (CQC) Plan: A planned system of inspections that is used to direcmonitor and control the quality of a construction project. CQC is normally performed by the geosynthetics installer to achieve the required quality in the constructed or installed systemrefers to measures taken

Critical Factor: A factor which potentially represents a severe constraint

satisfactorily addressed, it may become a Fatal Flaw.

Delisting: The reclassification o

or proof of successful treatment to render it less hazardous.

Detection Monitoring: This is routine water monitoring carried out bi-annually, using a limited number of indicator parameters, with a view to indicating pollution from the landfill.

Dpreparation, through the operation (which is usually divided into areal phases), to the final closure, remediation and end-use. The phasing, and hence the Development Plan, forms part of th

Diffusion: The movement of contaminants (molecules or ions) in air, water or solid as a result of theirown random kinetic activity from a region of higher concentration (eg. in the landfill) to a region of

Directions: Regulations, in the form of standaaMinimum Requirements apply to but do not override the Directions. Any exceptions to or extensionof the Directions will be included in the letter Duty of Care: This requires that any person who generates, transports, treats or disposes of waste must ensure that there is no unauthorised transfer or escape of waste from their control. Such

person retains responsibility for the waste generated or handled.

GLOSSARY


Disadvantaged Groups: People who are currently living in poverty as a result of past racially

EncThis The en located in a demarcated area of an H class site.

End is may be as

End-use Requirements: These are the measures required to upgrade or remediate a landfill site to rend

Engineered Cell: A cell which is designed and engineered to contain hazardous waste. It is underlain

ned as i) the natural environment, consisting of air, water, land

and all forms of life, ii) the social, political, cultural, economic and working context and other factors

act Assessment (EIA): An investigation to determine the potential detrimental

or beneficial impact on the surrounding communities, fauna, flora, water, soil and air, arising from the

Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA Report): A report which details how any

Fatal Flaw: A factor or situation which prevents the development of an environmentally acceptable

Finger drain: A simple open drain within zones of selected free draining waste, initially placed in the

gn or operation that requires

special attention by a recognised expert.

Flexible Membrane Liner (FML): (see Geomembranes).

certain dry industrial and commercial waste. It may, however, with decomposition, infiltration and percolation, produce leachate with an

G Landfill: A landfill designed to accept only general waste. Depending on the Site Water Balance, it may or may not have a leachate management system.

discriminatory laws or practices and unfair discrimination on the basis of race or gender, which excluded them from social and economic development.

apsulation: The procedure for disposing of hazardous wastes not suitable for direct landfilling. procedure involves the isolation of the wastes in sealed, reinforced concrete cells or capsules. capsules are th

-use Plan: The purpose for which the area of the remediated and closed landfill is used. Th a park, playing fields, or other suitable land-use.

er it suitable for the proposed end-use.

by a liner to prevent the waste or the leachate from the waste coming into contact with the environment.

Environment: Environment is defi

that determine people’s place in and influence on the environment, and iii) natural and constructed spatial surroundings.

Environmental Imp

development or presence of a landfill.

detrimental impacts, identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment, can be prevented or ameliorated by means of landfill site design and operation.

waste disposal facility, except at prohibitive cost.

invert of the landfill cell, for the purpose of leachate detection and collection.

Flag: A symbol which draws attention to an aspect of investigation, desi

General Waste: Waste that does not pose an immediate threat to man or the environment, i.e., household waste, builders' rubble, garden waste, and

unacceptable pollution potential (see Waste).

GLOSSARY


d material so as to control fluid migrations in a man-made project, structure or system. Synthetic membranes include flexible membrane liners (FMLs).

anufactured composite barrier system comprising of layers of

clay materials (e.g., bentonite) and geosynthetic materials (e.g., geotextiles and/or geomembranes) to

d to act as drainage or filtration element.

rated

ter may rise from a deep, magmatic source or be due to the infiltration of rainfall (recharge).

are not enforceable, but may form the basis for site specific permit conditions in which case they become mandatory.

ystem for classifying and ranking hazardous wastes according to how great a

azard they present. This is based on Mammalian Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and

Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Pretoria, 2005].

e ed of. The definition is based on the chemical

reactivity or toxic, explosive, corrosive or other characteristics which cause, or are likely to cause, fter

inition): Waste that may, by circumstances of use, quantity,

oncentration or inherent physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, cause ill-health or increase ted,

an and veterinary hospitals, clinics

and surgeries, also from chemists and Sanitary Services. They may comprise, inter alia, sharps (used

They have the ability to affect and infect other living organics, nd are considered hazardous.

Geomembranes: Very low permeability synthetic membrane liners and barriers used with any geotechnical engineering-relate

Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL): A m

form a single sheet for use as a liner.

Geotextile: A permeable, polymeric, woven, non-woven or knitted material used in geotechnical and civil engineering applications. A cloth or felt made of natural or synthetic fibres and designea

Ground Water: Water occupying pores in the soil and cavities and spaces in rocks in the satuzone of the profile. This wa

Guideline: While not requirements, guidelines are recommended actions which represent goodpractice. They

Hazard Rating: A shEnvironmental Fate. Based on this, Hazardous Waste is classified into: Hazard Rating 1: Extreme Hazard; Hazard Rating 2: High Hazard; Hazard Rating 3: Moderate Hazard; and Hazard Rating 4: Low Hazard. [Ref. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for Handling,

Hazardous Waste: Waste, other than radioactive waste, which is legally defined as hazardous in thstate in which it is generated, transported or dispos

danger to health or to the environment, whether alone or when in contact with other waste. AUNEP definition (see Waste).

Hazardous Waste (alternative defcmortality in humans, fauna and flora, or adversely affect the environment when improperly treastored, transported or disposed of (see Waste).

Hazardous Waste Landfill: A containment landfill, designed specifically for the disposal or co-disposal of hazardous waste.

Health Care Risk Waste: Wastes emanating primarily from hum

hypodermic needles and scalpel blades), malignant tissue, body parts, soiled bandages and liner, and spent or outdated medicines or drugs.a

GLOSSARY


HELP: The Hydrological Evaluation of Landfill Performance - computer model.

waste stream or deposition rate for a landfill site, xpressed in T/day, for a 260 day year (see Maximum Rate of Deposition).

the planning process.

terested and Affected Parties (IAPs): Individuals, groups and organisations that have an interest

es.

es an xtended range of parameters in order to investigate any leachate pollution identified by Detection

Land use zoning: The land use rights and development restrictions applicable to a portion of land, as

n

Landfill (n): The waste body created by landfilling. This may be above or below grade, or both.

e and rs

re.

f , 35% carbon dioxide and trace gases which largely consist of

VOC’s plus trace concentrations of a range of organic gases and vapours, and is potentially explosive,

andfill Methods:

utrescible waste is spread in layers not exceeding 0,5 m in thickness. This method does not provide maximum compaction, but does have an application in certain

Initial Rate of Deposition (IRD): The initiale Integrated Environmental Management (IEM): A management approach designed to ensure that the environmental consequences of development proposals are understood and adequately considered in Integrated Development Plan: A management tool, prepared in terms of the provisions of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act, 2000, to help the local authority make a decision regarding a landfill development proposal. This incorporates a Spatial Development Framework.

Inin and are affected by, the authorisation, operation, monitoring and closure of waste disposal sit

Investigative Monitoring: Investigative water quality monitoring is monitoring which useMonitoring.

Lagoon: A lagoon is a lined dam constructed to contain liquid waste.

set out in a statutory town planning or zoning scheme. The land use zoning must be appropriately promulgated by a notice in the provincial gazette confirming the date that it comes into effect.

Landfill (v): To dispose of waste on land, whether by use of waste to fill in excavations or by creatioof a landform above grade, where the term ‘fill’ is used in the engineering sense.

Landfill Development Process: This is the development of a landfill from its inception or siting, through its investigation, design, authorisation, preparation, commissioning, operation, closurend-use. Monitoring takes place throughout the above process and may continue for up to 30 yeaafter closu

Landfill Gas: The end product of the biodegradation of organic wastes in a landfill site is a mixture oprimary gases, e.g., up to 65% methane

toxic and asphyxiating. Under aerobic conditions it is a mixture of carbon dioxide, water and traceconcentrations of organic gases.

L

Area Method: A method whereby non-p

industries.

GLOSSARY


End Tipping: The practice of tipping or pushing waste over the edge of an extended slope and thus extending the landfill laterally. This is unacceptable in most operations, as little or no waste compaction is

Ramp Method:

g cells. Maximum compaction is achieved by passing over the waste at least five times with a purpose built landfill compactor.

Leachate: An aqueous solution with a high pollution potential, arising when water is permitted to

.

poradic/Significant)

ry

ed

s nonymous with containment.

Lift: A series of adjoining cells of the same height, and at the same level, in a landfill.

hetic aterials, or a combination thereof (see also FML and Geomembranes).

Marshal: One who specifically controls the salvagers at a landfill, ensuring that they do not work at the active working face where vehicles are unloading and landfill plant is operating.

MCCSSO: A standard system of soil profiling, which describes the soil in terms of Moisture, Colour,

reater

y acceptable waste disposal practices can be distinguished from environmentally unacceptable waste disposal practices.

Mono-landfill: A landfill that accommodates one type of waste.

achieved. The resulting slopes are thus frequently unstable and subject to burning.

The practice of working waste up a 1 in 3 slope in thin layers not exceeding 0,5 m in thickness. This is consistent with sanitary landfilling, usin

Landfill Operation Monitoring: The auditing and assessing of a waste disposal operation to determine whether it conforms to the site design and to the Minimum Requirements.

percolate through decomposing waste. It contains final and intermediate products of decomposition,various solutes and waste residues. It may also contain carcinogens and/or pathogens(S

Leachate Detection System: A system for detecting leachate at B- landfills. It comprises rudimentaliners, sloped towards ‘finger drains’ at the lowest point of the landfill.

Leachate Management: The collection and drainage of leachate to a point where it can be extractfor treatment. This requires a system of underdrains and liners and, in certain instances, isy

Liner: A layer of low permeability material placed beneath a landfill and designed to direct leachate to a collection drain or sump, or to contain leachate. It may comprise natural materials, syntm

Maximum Rate of Deposition (MRD): The projected maximum rate of waste deposition during theexpected life of a landfill, expressed in T/day, for a 260 day year (see Initial Rate of Deposition).

Consistency, Structure, Soil type and Origin. Microfiltration (MF): A membrane process that removes fine solids and micro-organisms gthan 0.1 to 10 microns in size from a liquid. Minimum Requirement: A standard by means of which environmentall

Mitigate: To reduce an impact to meet the objectives of a Minimum Requirement.

GLOSSARY


Monitoring: The process of checking for changes in status or trends over time. This may be achieved

e the concentrations of constituents in water on a representative basis at the start of the monitoring

disposal project.

inate information to relevant people e.g., the public.

Operating Plan: A site-specific document which describes the way in which the landfill is operated.

h

chate will pass through a liner, taking account of the head of

leachate likely to accumulate over the liner. Outflow rate is measured in m3/year, m2/year or m/year.

is , which is synonymous to hydraulic conductivity.

Permeability (Secondary): The rate per unit area at which fluid will pass through macro features of a

soil such as paleo-root canals, termite tunnels and rodent burrows, under unit flow gradient.

Permit: The Permit issued by the Competent Authority for the operation or closure of a disposal site, in terms of the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003) Government Gazette No. 26023 published 18 February 2004 (see Concept Permit).

Permitting: The act of issuing a Permit.

Permit Holder: The person who, having obtained a Permit to operate a waste disposal site, in terms of Section 20(1) of the Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), is legally responsible for the site, both during operation and after closure.

Permit Procedure: The procedure to be followed and the necessary investigations to provide the Departments with the necessary information so that a Permit can be issued.

by compiling successive audit or water quality analyses results.

Background Monitoring: Background monitoring is done on a once-off basis to determin

programme. Detection monitoring: Detection monitoring is done on a periodic basis to determine concentrations of selected indicator constituents in water, during and after a waste

Investigative monitoring: Investigative monitoring is a more thorough investigation done if undesirable trends are indicated through Detection Monitoring.

Monitoring Committee: A committee comprising the Permit Holder or his or her authorised representatives (Responsible Person), the Competent Authority and the IAPs. The function of the Monitoring Committee is to monitor the operation of the disposal site and to dissem

The Operating Plan commences at the level and detail of daily cell construction and continues througto the development and excavation sequence, access and drainage within a given phase of the Development Plan.

Outflow Rate: The rate at which lea

Permeability (Primary): The rate per unit area at which fluid will pass through a porous material under a unit flow gradient. The constant of proportionality K in Darcy's Law is the permeability and measured in m/year or cm/sec

GLOSSARY


Phreatic Surface: A surface defined by the levels at which the ground water will come to rest in a series of boreholes drilled in an area. The surface indicates the levels at which the pressure in the ground water is atmospheric.

Precautionary Principle: Where a risk is unknown; the assumption of the worst case situation and

or to waste disposal. This monitoring includes upstream and downstream surface water, as well as upgradient and down gradient

Professionalising: Improving the standard of operation to one that is acceptable from a health, safety

decision-making during the planning, operation and monitoring of the development of a waste disposal site.

Remediation: The rectification of problems, caused by bad practices, through the implementation of

Record of Decision: A record of decision usually comprises the following: date, file number, brief a

ey factors for the decision, duration and date of expiry, appeal (name and address).

tion of a landfill design element with immediate effect. A Response Action Plan is usually associated with the disposal of Hazardous waste.

rson: The Permit Holder or his legally appointed representative who takes responsibility for ensuring that all or some of the facets of any of the following are properly directed,

ork, design, preparation, operation, closure and monitoring.

s almost all dissolved salts, organic molecules and micro-organisms greater than 0.0001 to 0.001 microns in size from a liquid.

ubstances contained in the waste, leached therefrom, or released by emission, entering into the air, the surface environment or the water regime in unacceptable

quences of such occurrences could be manifested as a threat to public health or as the impairment of an eco-system or resource.

Risk Assessment: The identification of possible impacts of a disposal site on the environment so that

n process, including the applicant for

authorisation, the consultants, the decision-making authorities and the IAPs.

making provision for such a situation.

Pre-disposal background: This is water quality monitoring which takes place before a landfill is commissioned and thus reflects the pollution status of the water regime pri

ground water. It may be used as a datum against which to compare all future water quality.

and operations efficiency point of view. Acknowledging that for salvagers, salvaging is their profession and livelihood.

Public participation: The ongoing interaction between roleplayers that is aimed at improving

remedial measures.

description of activity, location, applicant, consultant, site visits, conditions (specific or in terms ofreference), list of k

Response Action Plan: A plan intended to counter or minimise the adverse effects of any malfunc

Responsible Pe

guided and executed, in a professionally justifiable manner: investigatory w

Reverse osmosis (RO): A membrane process that remove

Risk: The probability of dangerous s

quantities or concentrations. The conse

they can be addressed in the design.

Roleplayers: All parties involved in a public participatio

GLOSSARY


Salvager: One who works on the disposal site and removes material that has some value from the waste stream, for resale, re-use or recycling.

Salvagers Committee: A committee made up of representative salvagers, whose task it is to represent

Sanitary Landfilling: A method of disposing of waste on land without causing nuisances or hazards r

of earth at the conclusion of each day's operations or at such less frequent intervals as may be acceptable.

ortion of the soil or rock profile situated below the phreatic surface. In this zone, the soil pores are filled with water, as opposed to those in the

eyor

General, that is encumbered by a right or restriction in favour of another party or property. Servitudes

cipated effect within such area.

ear strength of a soil (or waste) is the sum of the frictional resistance between the soil grains (or particles of waste) and the cohesion imparted by the finer fractions (clay and silty).

Significant: Factors or considerations are termed significant when they are important, because they are of consequence. For example, they will have a detectable influence on a process, the environment,

Significant leachate generation: Seasonal or continuous leachate generation resulting mainly from icant leachate generation

ign. It is essential that significant leachate generation be managed by means of leachate collection and treatment if water pollution is to be

Site Specific Factors: Factors peculiar to a specific site that must be taking into consideration when

te water balance will be affected by ambient climatic conditions and by site specific factors such as the moisture content of incoming

Spatial Development Framework: A plan or framework that shows a municipality’s desired land use pattern. It is used to assist in decision making pertaining to land development proposals, including development of landfill sites.

Sporadic leachate generation: Leachate generation resulting from abnormal circumstances, e.g., excessively wet periods, the temporary deposition of wet or saturated waste, or poor site drainage

the salvagers’ interests, co-ensure controlled salvaging at the site, liaise with the disposal site operator, mutually agree measures to control salvaging and assist in implementing them.

to public health or safety. Sanitary landfilling uses the principles of engineering to confine the wasteto the smallest practical area, to reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a laye

Saturated zone: The saturated zone is the p

unsaturated zone, where the pores are filled with gas and water (see unsaturated zone).

Servitude: An area of land, depicted on an approved diagram filed in the office of the Surv

are typically registered to statutorily entrench a restriction on the use of land adjacent to the disposal site and within the anti

Shear strength: The sh

or the end result.

climate and/or waste moisture content. In the case of existing landfills, signifmay also result from poor site selection and/or des

avoided.

applying the Minimum Requirements.

Site Water Balance: The water balance of the landfill. The si

waste, landfill siting and site drainage (see Water Balance).

GLOSSARY


(where this can be remedied). Sporadic leachate generation is not considered to warrant the provision of a leachate management system.

f loading at a landfill, to ensure a smooth and safe operation.

racy of quality of others or degree of excellence is judged, or a model for imitation. (Not used in legal sense.) Subdivision: The division of land to create a portion that can be surveyed and registered as a separate entity in the office of the Surveyor General and Registrar of Deeds. This encompasses the division of all categories of land, i.e., proclaimed erven in existing townships or development areas, farm portions and agricultural holdings.

Surface water: Water (usually rainfall) which flows across the ground surface towards and in man made and natural drainage features such as drains, rivers, streams, lakes and ponds. Sustainable development: Development that meets the present needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The three pillars of sustainable development are social equity, economic growth and biophysical protection. Technical Design: The Technical Design is based on the Conceptual Design. It includes detailed specifications of materials, measurements and procedures, as well as detailed drawings. Total dissolved solids (TDS): A measure of the dissolved salt content of a liquid. This is defined as all the matter that remains as a residue on evaporation of the filtered liquid at 103 to 105 °C. Total solute: The inorganic as well as the organic solutes (particularly volatile organic compounds) generated by the waste body, which can have a contaminating impact on the environment. Ultrafiltration (UF): A membrane process that removes pigments, colloids and micro-organisms greater than 0.005 to 0.05 microns in size from a liquid.

Unsaturated Zone: The unsaturated zone, also referred to as the vadose zone, is the portion of the soil or rock profile situated above the phreatic surface. In this zone, the soil pores are filled with gas and water, as opposed to those in the saturated zone, where pores are filled with water (see saturated zone).

Waste: An undesirable or superfluous by-product, emission, or residue of any process or activity which has been discarded, accumulated or stored for the purpose of discarding or processing. It may be gaseous, liquid or solid or any combination thereof and may originate from a residential, commercial or industrial area. This definition excludes industrial waste water, sewage, radioactive substances, mining, metallurgical and power generation waste. After definition in Government Gazette No. 12703, August 1990. (See General Waste and Hazardous Waste).

Waste Body: This refers to the body of waste (and cover) that is contained in the landfill. Because it is subject to decomposition, it has the potential to generate leachate and must therefore be adequately separated from the water regime.

Spotter: The person who directs vehicle of

Standard: A measure by which the accu

GLOSSARY


Waste D

isposal (v): The act of disposing of waste.

Waste Disposal Site: A site used for the accumulation of waste for the purpose of disposing or treatment of such waste. The term ‘disposal site’ includes landfills, waste storage areas, transfer stations, materials recovery plants, waste treatment facilities and storage areas at incinerators.

Waste Load Allocations: This term refers to the mass (load) of hazardous waste permitted on certain approved landfills. Such allocations are calculated taking both the nature of the waste, the specific site characteristics and the environment into account. [Ref.: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Pretoria, 19932005].

Water Balance: In the context of this document, the term Water Balance refers specifically to the water balance within the disposal site system, i.e., total inputs equal the total outputs plus the moisture stored at the disposal site. Inputs may include precipitation, moisture inherent in incoming waste, run-off, surface water and ground water. Outputs may include evaporation, transpiration and leachate. Water may also be stored within the site and augmented by water generated from bio-chemical reactions. All these factors would have to be taken into account in a classical Volumetric Water Balance Calculation (see Climatic Water Balance and Site Water Balance).

White Goods: Bulky waste such as old washing machines, fridges and stoves.

Working Face: The active part of the landfill; where waste is deposited by incoming vehicles, then spread and compacted on the sloped face of the cell by a compactor. The width of the working face is determined by manoeuvring requirements of the vehicles depositing waste. Zoning: Refer to "land use zoning

Zone of Influence (amenity buffer zones (odour and noise)), An amorphous zone in which the outer perimeter ensures minimal nuisance from odour and noise to occupants of an area. This zone will be determined in the Air Quality Risk Assessment or may be predetermined within Table 11 of the Minimum Requirements.

REFERENCES


REFERENCES

onstitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act 200 of 1993). Council for the Environment: Integrated Environmental Management in South Africa, Joan Lötter Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Guideline Document, EIA Regulations, Implementation of Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Environmental Conservation Act, Pretoria, 1998. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: The Integrated Environmental Management Procedure, Pretoria, 1992. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Report No: 6983-6939-4-W, “Implementation Plan for Transfer of the Waste Permitting Function”, Pretoria, 2005. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Air Quality Management, Monitoring and Buffer Zones, Pretoria, 2005. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Generic Public Participation Guidelines. Pretoria, September 2001 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Pretoria, 2005. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities, Pretoria, 2005. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Waste Management Legislation Procedures and Guidelines, Pretoria, 1990. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Hydrological Information Publication No. 13: Evaporation and Precipitation Records. Environmental Agency/SEPA, Guidance on the management of landfill gas, 2004. Environmental Agency, Bristol. (number 80_03) Risk based approaches to air quality modelling and assessment, Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit, Cardiff. Figures 16, 17 and 18 are based on the USEPA document: EPA/540 - Human Health Manual, Volume 1, "Risk Assessment Evidence for Superfund", 1989. Government Gazette, No. 9225, 18 May 1984. Government Gazette, No. 15529, pg 67, Notice 171 of 1994, 4 March 1994. Government Gazette, No.18261 (R1182 and R1183), 5 September 1997. Government Gazette, Volume 440, No 23053, 01 February 2002

C

INDEX


Jennings, J.E., Brink, A.B.A. and Williams, A.A.B., "Revised Guide to Soil Profiling for Civil Engineering Purposes in South Africa", Civil Engineer S.A., Volume 15, 1973. Lamb, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. Soil Mechanics, (Wiley), New York, 1968. Mills, C.A., & Ball J., "Trends in the Use of Geophysical Techniques in the Assessment of Waste Disposal Sites", Proceedings of the IWM International Conference: WasteCon '92, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, November 1992. Parsons, R. and Jolly, J. The Development of a Systematic Method for Evaluating Site Suitability for Waste Disposal Based on Geohydrological Criteria. WRC Report 485/1/94, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, 1994. SAICE: Guidelines for Public Participation in the Planning of Civil Engineering Projects, Environmental Engineering Division, Johannesburg, August 1993. SAIEG Sub-Committee for Standardised Percussion Borehole Logging: Ground Profile No. 59., July 1989. SANS 10409, Code of Practice for the Design, Selection and Installation of Geomembranes. Schroeder, P.R., The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: Version 2, Source Code, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1989.

Standards Act, Act 30 of 1982. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Sanitary Landfill Manual of Practice, 1959. Original definition. UK Department of Environmental Waste Management Paper 26B, “Landfill Design, Construction and Operational Practise”, HMSO Publications, 1995 USEPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Mexico LFG Model, November 2003. (HTUwww.epa.gov/lmop/international.htm#3UTH) USEPA document: EPA/540 - Human Health Manual, Vol 1, "Risk Assessment Evidence for Superfund", 1993. Water Resource Commission Research Report (Midgeley DC; Pitman WV; Middleton BJ), Report Number 298/4.1/94, “Surface Water Resources of South Africa 1990”, 1994. (HTUhttp://www.wrc.org.za/downloads/report%20lists/catchment%20hydrology.htmUTH) Weaver, J.M.C., Groundwater Sampling, Water Research Commission Project No. 339 TT 54/92.

RECOMMENDED READING


RECOMMENDED READING U.K., Department of the Environment, Waste Management Paper No. 26B, Landfill Design, Construction and Operational Practices, HMSO Publications, 1995. U.K., Environmental Agency, Waste Management Paper No. 26E, Landfill Restoration and Post Closure Management, Consultation Draft, August 1996.

INDEX


INDEX


NOTES

requirements waste disposal landfill sep full

Documents