This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 19 November 2014, At: 02:09Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

International Journal of CoalPreparation and UtilizationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcop20

Cleaner Production in theSouth African Coal Mining andProcessing Industry: A CaseStudy InvestigationJ. F. Reddick a , H. Von Blottnitz a & B. Kothuis ba Department of Chemical Engineering , Universityof Cape Town, Private Bag , Rondebosch, SouthAfricab BECO Institute for Sustainable Business , CapeTown, South AfricaPublished online: 14 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: J. F. Reddick , H. Von Blottnitz & B. Kothuis (2008) CleanerProduction in the South African Coal Mining and Processing Industry: A Case StudyInvestigation, International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 28:4, 224-236,DOI: 10.1080/19392690802391247

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392690802391247

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN

COAL MINING AND PROCESSING INDUSTRY:

A CASE STUDY INVESTIGATION

J. F. REDDICK1, H. VON BLOTTNITZ1, AND B. KOTHUIS2

1Department of Chemical Engineering, University ofCape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, South Africa2BECO Institute for Sustainable Business, Cape Town,South Africa

A case study investigation was undertaken to explore the potential

for introducing Cleaner Production (CP) to the South African coal

mining and processing industry. A broad and integrated array of

interventions was identified, highlighting the potential for CP to sig-

nificantly reduce the environmental impacts of the case study colli-

eries. Owing to the relative homogeneity of the South African coal

mining industry, it is expected that CP may prove to be beneficial

to the industry as a whole. However, it will only be able to fully

embrace the approach once several economical, technological, and

managerial barriers have been overcome.

Keywords: Coal mining; Coal processing; Cleaner Production;

Environmental

BACKGROUND

The South African economy depends heavily on coal, both as a source of

foreign income and as a primary energy source. This dependence,

Received 4 August 2007; accepted 30 July 2008.

The authors would like to acknowledge the Water Research Commission for initiating

and funding the project (K5=1553) from which the reported results emanated, as well as the

support received at the three collieries.

Address correspondence to J. F. Reddick. E-mail: reddick.jane@gmail.com

International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 28: 224–236, 2008

Copyright Q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1939-2699 print=1939-2702 online

DOI: 10.1080/19392690802391247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

coupled with South Africa’s extensive coal reserves, indicates that the

coal mining and processing industry is likely to continue to be prominent

in the medium term despite global concerns of climate change resulting

from coal-based power generation and might well survive into a ‘‘clean

coal technologies’’ era. The coal mining and processing industry is

responsible for significant local and regional environmental impacts,

most notably those on water quality [1]. As a result, legislation is

becoming more stringent, public concerns are increasing and mine

rehabilitation costs, which are incurred by the mining companies, are

increasing. In response to this, the coal mining industry is recognizing

the importance of proper environmental management.

Cleaner Production (CP), which is a continuous preventative

approach to environmental issues, has been demonstrated to be a cost-

effective means of reducing wastes, increasing process efficiencies and

improving the resource utilization of coal mines in several countries

[2], as well as of certain South African industries [3, 4]. There are some

documented examples of implemented Cleaner Production interventions

in the coal mining industry in South Africa. However, there is little

evidence to suggest that systematic, intentional Cleaner Production

assessments have been conducted extensively in the South African

mining industry. It is for this reason that the Water Research

Commission (WRC) of South Africa initiated a project entitled ‘‘Introdu-

cing Cleaner Production Technologies in the Mining Industry.’’ As part of

this project, research was conducted with the objective of identifying

feasible Cleaner Production opportunities to cost effectively address the

environmental impacts of the coal mining and processing industry in

South Africa. A case study approach was employed, with assessments

conducted at three collieries. This paper presents the methods used and

the findings of this research.

THE CLEANER PRODUCTION ASSESSMENT APPROACH

In order to meet the objective of the research, a methodology of identify-

ing and proposing feasible Cleaner Production interventions was

required. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US

EPA) recognizes Cleaner Production assessments to be ‘‘instrumental

to systematically identifying opportunities to increase energy efficiency

and decrease waste generation’’ [5]. Many companies have successfully

identified feasible CP interventions through this methodology [6].

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Therefore, the Cleaner Production assessment approach was adopted for

the research. Three South African collieries typical of those that bene-

ficiate their product through washing were selected to conduct the

assessments. Figure 1 outlines the phases of a Cleaner Production

assessment.

During the planning and organization phase a small project team,

consisting of colliery employees, was set up at each colliery to assist in

the assessment and to learn about Cleaner Production so as to ensure

its continuation after the completion of this project. The purpose of

the preliminary assessment phase is to gain an understanding of the pro-

cesses at each site, to identify the major inputs and outputs, and to quan-

tify and then to compare the wastes. The wastes are compared to

determine those that should be focused on in the detailed assessment

and feasibility assessment phases. A multicriteria waste comparison analy-

sis, designed by BECO Institute for Sustainable Business, was used to

compare the wastes. During the detailed assessment phase CP ideas were

generated to reduce, either directly or indirectly, the quantity and toxicity

of the focus waste streams. More detailed knowledge of the processes

that generate the focus wastes was required. The identified Cleaner

Production options were then subjected to a feasibility analysis in the

feasibility assessment phase. Options that were deemed feasible may then

be implemented and monitored.

Figure 1. Phases of a Cleaner Production assessment [7].

226 J. F. REDDICK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDY COLLIERIES

Three case study collieries, referred to as A, B, and C, were selected for

this research. The collieries were selected based on their representation

of the far larger arm of the industry that beneficiates (washes) the coal,

on their willingness to disclose colliery information, and on their accept-

ance of this project. A brief overview of the three collieries is shown in

Table 1. All three collieries mine bituminous coal underground, which

they beneficiate onsite to produce a low ash content product.

Systematic Cleaner Production assessments had not previously been

conducted at any of the three collieries or at any other collieries belonging

to the same mining companies. Driven predominantly by legislation and

company image, the collieries are seeking to reduce their environmental

impacts. However, management strategies tend to be largely focused on

end-of-pipe waste treatment, rather than on prevention. The reason for

the environmental management systems still largely being end-of-pipe

focused is because there are several barriers in place that hinder the adop-

tion of Cleaner Production at these collieries. Firstly, a general lack of

awareness of the concept and value of Cleaner Production, even by the

environmental managers, was noted at the three collieries. Secondly, legis-

lation in South Africa does not provide incentives to implement Cleaner

Production interventions over end-of-pipe solutions. Thirdly, no one is allo-

cated the responsibility of investigating Cleaner Production interventions at

Table 1. Profile of the three case study collieries

Colliery A B C

Coal tonnage mined (tpa) 2,900,000 3,900,000 970,000

Coarse1 coal washing unit Drewboy Vessel Wemco Drums Wemco Drums

Small2 coal washing unit Dense Medium

(DM) Cyclone

DM Cyclone DM Cyclone

Fine3 coal washing unit None Spirals Spirals

Ultrafine4 coal washing unit None None None

Exported products CoarseþSmall Smallþ fines Smallþ fines

Export specifications (NAR) 6000 kcal=kg 6000 kcal=kg 6000 kcal=kg

1Coarse coal is the largest coal size fraction and the actual size range varies from colliery

to colliery.2Small coal refers to the size fraction between the coarse and fine coal.3Fine coal is often sized between 150mm and 1 mm.4Ultrafine coal is the smallest size fraction, usually �150 mm.

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the case study collieries. Environmental managers have limited time and

limited expertise to take on this task as their focus is largely on keeping

up with the ever-changing legislation, while production management is

primarily focused on achieving tonnage targets.

Decision making is based primarily on financial concerns. Budget

limitations, the risk associated with high-capital expenditures, and

expected profits are all significant factors that influence decisions and

project approval. Obtaining access to large capital sums is made difficult

by the policies and bureaucracies of the mining companies, which is a

barrier to implementing high-capital Cleaner Production investments.

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

The first stage of the preliminary assessment was to identify and to quantify

the major wastes generated. The wastes that were identified at the three case

study collieries are listed in Table 2. Table 2 also compares the relative

quantities of waste generated at each mine. The quantities are expressed

either as a percentage or per ton of mined coal (run-of-mine coal) so that

they can be compared between the collieries. Difficulties in obtaining these

quantities were experienced at all three collieries. This is due to a number of

factors, in particular the limited monitoring systems in place to measure the

consumption of resources and production of wastes at the collieries.

Table 2 indicates that the quantities of wastes produced varied

significantly among the three collieries. The lowest relative quantity for

each waste can be viewed as a benchmark for the other two collieries

because it represents a lower, achievable waste production rate. Certain

options to reduce wastes can be arrived at by establishing why one

colliery produces less waste than another. Therefore, comparing the

quantities of wastes generated at each mine, and establishing the reasons

for the differences, is a meaningful exercise.

For purposes of prioritizing wastes for detailed Cleaner Production

assessments, the wastes were rated from 1–5 (5 being the most wasteful)

in the following five categories:

. Quantity,

. Cost,

. Environmental Impact,

. Cleaner Production Potential (rated 1–3),

. Other (rated �1 to 2).

228 J. F. REDDICK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Quantity refers to the quantity of waste produced. Cost refers to the

total costs associated with producing the waste stream and therefore

includes the cost of any raw materials discarded with the waste, labor

costs, disposal costs, the cost of energy consumed to produce the waste,

etc. The environmental impact category reflects the toxicity or potential

for environmental harm of each waste. The potential for Cleaner Pro-

duction interventions category reflects the potential of each waste to be

reduced by implementing Cleaner Production interventions. Other

includes the mine’s compliance with present or known future regulations

Table 2. A Comparison of the relative quantities of waste generated at the three collieries

Quantity generated

Waste or resource Colliery A Colliery B Colliery C Units

Methane 0.03 0.02 0.3 m3=t coal1

Dust

Water used to

suppress dust

unknown

0.009

unknown

0.008

unknown

0.01 m3=t ROM2

Slurry3 0.32 0.27 0.27 t=t ROM

Discards4 0.39 0.29 0.19 t=t ROM

Sewage5 14000 1.2 44000 g=t ROM

Oil leakages and spillages unknown unknown unknown

Other leakages unknown unknown unknown

Total energy use

Of which electricity

48

90

48

62

59

73

MJ=t ROM

%

Reclaimed oil (recycled)6 8 3 4 %

General waste 0.11 0.076 0.028 kg=t ROM

Hazardous waste 0.009 0.004 0.023 kg=t ROM

1The methane emissions reported here are per ton of coal in reserves, not ROM coal.2ROM, which stands for run-of-mine, refers to the mined coal that has not yet been

crushed, processed, or treated.3Slurry is the mixture of ultrafine coal and process water that is purged from the bene-

ficiation plant after crushing as it is considered too expensive to dewater.4Discards refers to the high-ash discard material that is separated from the product

material during beneficiation of the ROM coal.5Sewage refers to any sewage material (liquid or solid, treated or untreated) that is dis-

posed of by the colliery as a waste. Thus, sewage refers to the half of the treated liquid efflu-

ent, which is released into the river for colliery A, the treated solid material for colliery B,

and the untreated liquid-solid waste for colliery C.6Reclaimed oil refers to the oil that is reclaimed after use. This oil is reclaimed from the

oil sumps of the colliery vehicles.

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and any safety or health hazards it poses to the mine employees and

surrounding areas.

Once all the ratings for the various categories had been allocated, the

ratings were totalled for each waste at each colliery. The wastes with

the highest ratings are those in greatest need of further investigation in

the remainder of the Cleaner Production assessment for a particular col-

liery. Figure 2 presents the results of the waste comparison by displaying

the total ratings for each waste at each colliery. It indicates that for all

three collieries, the ranking of the wastes is similar. This shows that

the three collieries are producing wastes of a similar nature, which is

not unexpected as the process operations and locations of the three col-

lieries are similar. Figure 2 also indicates that at all three collieries the

slurry, discards, and energy consumption have the highest total ratings

and are therefore most in need of further investigating. Due to the pres-

ence of pyrite, both the slurry and discards contribute to acid mine drain-

age, which is arguably the most significant environmental impact caused

by the South African mining industry [1]. Reducing these wastes will

therefore serve to reduce the footprint of the industry. Since the majority

of the South African collieries are located densely in the same coalfields

as the case study mines, and since coal processing operations in South

Africa are relatively consistent, it is likely that the findings of the waste

comparison are applicable, or at least consequential, to the industry as

a whole in its current state.

Figure 2. Waste comparison results.

230 J. F. REDDICK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FEASIBLE CLEANER PRODUCTION OPTIONS

In response to the findings of the preassessment, detailed and feasibility

assessments were conducted on the slurry, discards, and energy consump-

tion at all three collieries. Reddick et al. [8] describe in detail the ideas that

were proposed to reduce the slurry at the three collieries as well as the feasi-

bility assessment procedure to which each option was submitted. Options

that were not expected to be economically feasible and environmentally

preferable and technologically viable were eliminated. A similar procedure

was followed in order to identify feasible Cleaner Production interventions

to reduce the amount of discards generated and energy consumed. A num-

ber of Cleaner Production options that were identified as being feasible are

discussed in this section. The options are discussed according to the type of

Cleaner Production intervention into which they fall.

Improved Housekeeping (Low-Cost, No-Cost Interventions)

A number of low-cost and no-cost interventions involving housekeeping

improvements were identified at the three collieries. One such example

involves the slurry. Coal that is larger than 150mm can be effectively bene-

ficiated in a coal-washing plant and should not be purged with the slurry.

Figure 3 shows the size distribution with the 95% confidence limits of

the coal particles disposed of in the slurry. It indicates that roughly 76%,

82%, and 92% of the slurry solids are less than 150mm at collieries A, B,

and C, respectively. Thus, at colliery A roughly one quarter of the coal that

is discarded in the slurry is valuable coal that could otherwise have been

processed in the plant. Similar but less significant wastages are also

noted at the other sites. These losses could be avoided by optimizing the

classifying cyclones that are responsible for separating the fine coal from

the ultrafine coal. Regular maintenance to reduce the occurrence of

corrosion, build-up, holes, and leaks that can significantly affect the cyclone

performance, or minor adjustments to the inlet or outlet dimensions of the

cyclone, are relatively simple and low-cost housekeeping improvement

options that can potentially result in increased product coal, decreased

generation of slurry, and hence reduced potential for acid mine drainage.

Technology Changes

A second type of Cleaner Production intervention involves replacing

older, less efficient technologies with newer, more efficient ones. Several

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

technology changes were identified to reduce energy consumption.

Motors are estimated to account for more than 70% of the electricity

consumed at each of the three collieries. Therefore, implementing rela-

tively simple technology changes, such as replacing standard efficiency

motors with high-efficiency motors or installing variable speed drives,

can result in significant energy savings. Other energy-saving-technology

changes that were identified include replacing incandescent lighting with

efficient T8 fluorescent lights and matching electronic ballasts or replac-

ing electric resistant water heaters with energy efficient heat pumps.

Product Changes

A third but not final type of Cleaner Production intervention (raw

material substitution and internal recycling are the other two) involves

modifying the product of a particular process so as to optimize the use

of resources. An example of such an intervention is the thermal drying

of the cyclone product. Coal product specifications are typically

expressed as a net-as-received (NAR) calorific value. An ‘‘as received’’

calorific value (CV) takes into account the moisture content of the coal,

such that a sample of air-dried coal will have a higher ‘‘as received’’

calorific value than its moist counterpart. In South Africa, the cyclone

product coal is typically dewatered using mechanical dewatering

Figure 3. Particle size distribution of the slurry solids [8].

232 J. F. REDDICK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

equipment prior to shipping. A Cleaner Production option proposes that

the cyclone product coal be dewatered to 1% surface moisture using

thermal driers, which are not commonly used in South Africa [9]. This

increases the NAR calorific value beyond the export specifications.

The implication of this is that more medium-ash coal can be blended into

the product without compromising product specifications. Thus decreas-

ing the moisture content of the coal increases the amount of product pro-

duced and conversely decreases the amount of discards generated. The

predicted economic indicators for this CP option are shown in Table 3

and the assumptions are listed in Table 4. Operating and capitals costs

were based on those used by de Korte [10]. The net present values

(NPV) indicated in Table 3 reflect the profit difference between

the current scenario at each colliery and the predicted scenario if this

option is implemented. Table 3 indicates that the operating and capital

costs associated with thermal drying are offset by the increase in revenue

brought about by the increase in yield of the small coal. This option

appears to be both financially and environmentally attractive. However,

further detailed analysis is necessary to establish whether other life-cycle

Table 3. Predicted economic indicators for the option to thermally dry the cyclone product

Colliery A B C

NPV (10 years) ZAR 200,000,000 ZAR 100,000,000 ZAR 50,000,000

Capital ZAR 9,000,000 ZAR 6,000,000 ZAR 7,000,000

Payback (years) 0.2 0.2 0.7

Reduction in discards (%) 28 12 49

Table 4. Assumptions used in the economic assessment for thermally drying the cyclone

product

Beneficiation plant operational days 22 days=month

Revenue from coal export sales1 A: ZAR 278=t

B: ZAR 279=t

C: ZAR 297=t

Cost of railage, truckage and port fees1 A: ZAR 58=t

B: ZAR 59=t

C: ZAR 81=t

Discount rate 15%

1These values reflect the average values for 2005 for the respective collieries.

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

impacts, such as a potential decrease in air quality due to the use of

thermal driers or the burning of poorer quality coal (i.e., higher

sulphur content), outweigh the environmental benefits of this CP

intervention. Tentative work [11] suggests that this concern must be

taken seriously for thermal driers and that solar drying would be a better

alternative.

Similarly, thermal drying can also be used to render the beneficiation

of ultrafine coal financially viable [8].

BARRIERS TO CLEANER PRODUCTION

Cleaner Production does not appear to have been widely adopted in the

South African coal mining industry. This is most likely because there

are a number of managerial, technological, and economical barriers that

exist. As mentioned previously, a number of barriers were observed at

the case study collieries. In particular it was noted that decision making

is based primarily on financial concerns, and that budgets are often a limit-

ing factor for new ventures. This observation has been noted in the mining

industry in general, both in South Africa [12] and internationally [13].

Environmental budgets are often particularly limited because the tra-

ditional environmental approach of waste treatment is associated with

costly end-of-pipe interventions. However, as the previous examples and

numerous other case studies from literature have shown, the preventative

Cleaner Production strategy is associated with economic benefits, rather

than additional costs. As the awareness of CP grows, it is expected that

the financial benefits associated with this approach will encourage its

adoption in the mining industry. The lack of awareness is itself another

barrier. As Marr et al. [14] observed, the concept and value of Cleaner

Technologies has not been fully disseminated into the South African

mining industry. This problem is partially due to the fact that the minerals

processing specialists have limited knowledge of how to incorporate

environmental issues and Cleaner Production into their designs and pro-

cesses. van Berkel [13] suggests that the minerals education system needs

to incorporate environmental agendas into the fundamentals of the miner-

als tertiary curricula. The bigger challenge for the industry is the change in

mind-set that is required in order to adopt and to implement the Cleaner

Production preventative approach. van Berkel [15] argues that significant

changes in technology are not likely to occur unless significant changes in

culture and structure occur.

234 J. F. REDDICK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

CONCLUSIONS

Cleaner Production appears to be a valuable approach to addressing the

environmental impacts associated with the case study collieries. Owing

to the relative homogeneity of the South African coal mining and proces-

sing industry, it is expected that Cleaner Production may also prove to be

beneficial to the industry as a whole.

The broad and integrated nature of the feasible Cleaner Production

options mentioned previously, highlights the need for a multidisciplinary

project team responsible for ensuring the adoption and implementation of

Cleaner Production within the colliery. Engineers play a vital role in

ensuring the implementation of Cleaner Production, as many of the skills

required to identify and to implement interventions are limited to the

engineering team. It is important that engineers understand their role

in the Cleaner Production strategy and appreciate that environmental

matters should not be delegated to the environmental practitioners alone.

Despite the significant benefits of adopting a preventative environ-

mental approach, it is expected that the industry will only be able to fully

embrace CP once several economical, managerial, and technological

barriers have been overcome.

REFERENCES

1. P. J. Ashton, D. Love, H. Mahachi, and P. H. G. M. Dirks. An Overview of the

Impact of Mining and Mineral Processing Operations on Water Resources and

Water Quality in the Zambezi, Limpopo and Olifants Catchments in Southern

Africa. Contract Report to the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Develop-

ment (SOUTHERN AFRICA) Project, by CSIR Environmentek, Pretoria,

South Africa and Geology Department, University of Zimbabwe, Harare,

Zimbabwe. Report No. ENV-P-C 2001-042, 2001.

2. R. van Berkel, Eco-Efficiency and Eco-Innovation: Opportunities for Sustainable

and Sustaining Coal Businesses, 2004 Technical Exchange Meeting between

the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development and the Japan Power Industry

Research Institute, Newcastle, 28 June 2004, http://cleanerproduction.curtin.

edu.au

3. S. J. Barclay, Applicability of Waste Minimisation Clubs in South Africa:

Results from Pilot Studies, Water Research Commission Report No. TT

161=02, Durban, 2001.

4. J. Hanks and C. Janisch, Evaluation of Cleaner Production Activities in

South Africa, Evaluation Mission Report, Pretoria, DANIDA, Danish

Embassy, 2003.

CLEANER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

5. US EPA, Guide to Industrial Assessments for Pollution Prevention and Energy

Efficiency. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No:

EPA 625-R-99–003, Washington, DC, USEPA, 2001.

6. www.uneptie.org/pc/cp/understanding_cp.

7. R. van Berkel, Cleaner Production in Practice: Methodology Development for

Environmental Improvement of Industrial Production and Evaluation of Practical

Experiences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996.

8. J. F. Reddick, H. von Blottnitz, and B. Kothuis, A Cleaner Production Assess-

ment on the Ultra-Fine Coal Waste Generated in South Africa, Submitted to

SAIMM Transactions, 2007.

9. G. J. de Korte and S. J. Mangena, Thermal drying of fine and Ultra-Fine Coal,

Report for Coaltech 2020; Report No. 2004-0255, 2004.

10. G. J. de Korte, Dewatering of Fine Coal. Progress Report No. 2, Report for

Coaltech 2020, 2000.

11. C. Trautmann and M. van der Scholtz, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of

Fine Coal Use for Power Generation in South Africa, BS Engineering Diss.,

University of Cape Town (2007).

12. P. Dama, G. Trusler, C. Buckley, and H. von Blottnitz, Introducing Cleaner

Production to the SA Mining Industry, Points of Accord and Discord, Paper

presented at the SDIMI 2005 Conference at RWTH Aachen University,

18–20 May 2005.

13. R. van Berkel, Integrating the Environmental and Sustainable Development

Agendas into Minerals Education, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8,

pp. 413–423 (2000).

14. S. Marr, H. von Blottnitz, and Z. Mudondo, Design for Cleaner Technology

in the South African Minerals Processing Industry, In Proceedings: Waste

Management, Emissions & Recycling in the Metallurgical & Chemical Process

Industries, Randburg, South Africa, March 2004, pp. 18–19.

15. R. van Berkel, The Sustainable Development Challenge for Technology: Will It

Work in Time? Presentation at the Conference Australia at the Crossroads,

Scenarios and Strategies for the Future, Perth, Australia, 30 April–2

May 2000.

236 J. F. REDDICK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:09

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14