NewsletterVol. 3The Study for the Development of an Integrated Solution Relatedto Industrial Waste Management in the Industrial Pole of Manaus
IN THIS ISSUE…
PAGE
Report on the Study Findings
1On-site Waste Management
1Off-site Waste Management
2
Waste Flow Diagrams
3
Health and Construction waste in PIM 3
All industrial waste in PIM
4
Hazardous industrial waste in PIM
5
Non-hazardous waste in PIM
6This newsletter is published by
JICA Study Team (SUFRAMA)
Av. Mario Andreazza 1424
Distrito Industrial, CEP 69075-380
Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
TEL: (092) 3321-7281,
FAX: (092) 3321-7280
Please contact us with comments or questions

Hazardous Health Waste
Of the 600 PIM factories operating in MFZ, the study
contacted 334 of them. Of these, it was found that124 had attached clinics, a generation source forhazardous health waste (HHW), of which nine weresurveyed directly to estimate the rate at which theygenerated HHW; the rate was calculated to be 1.23
kg/day per clinic. This rate, in addition to data from ageneral hospital located in MFZ, was then used toextrapolate the rate at which HHW is generated atPIM factories overall, which is 228.6 kg/day (seeflow chart for health waste on page 3).

Report on the Study Findings
As the Study nears its second phase, we havecompleted the initial surveys of current conditions
and issues. Based on these findings, an industrial
waste management master plan for the Industrial
Pole of Manaus in the Manaus Free Trade Zone will
be drafted. This newsletter (vol. 3) contains asummary of our findings through the end of August,which were presented at the recent opinion
gathering workshop held on September 11th —please keep an eye out for more news about theworkshop and its results in the next volume of thenewsletter.

Given that some 100,000 people work in the study
area, this amount was not surprising. However,some problems were apparent in the responses tothe study survey, such as the use of non-standard
containers for storage which do not meet ABNTNBR 12809 technical rules, and the mixed collectionof class A and B hazardous wastes (note: thiscategorization will be revised according to CONAMA
Resolution 358) at some locations. There were also
some issues identified for off-site management ofhealth wastes which indicated a need for
improvements in the waste manifest system andmore clearly defined discharger responsibilities dueto the fact that many could not identify the disposal
methods used by waste management companies
they hired and that some HHW are disposed of in a
special pit at the landfill while others are incinerated,
although appropriate incinerator operation is yet tobe confirmed.

The findings presented here are the result of fivesurveys which were conducted. These can be put
into two main categories: On-Site Waste
Management and Off-Site Waste Management. Asalways, the JICA Study Team welcomes you tocontact us with any questions, comments orsuggestions concerning these findings in order tocreate a more practical, achievable and effective
master plan.

On-Site Waste Management
The study categorized industrial wastes into 4categories of construction, health and radioactive
wastes, as well as general industrial wastes that do
not fall into those categories. These categories weremade based on the fact that there are management
requirements for each according to various rules
and regulations by CONAMA, ANVISA, ABNT,
CNEN and so on.

1Construction Waste
In the case of construction waste, the study
identified the factories that had construction projects
in the past year from June 2008 to May 2009, which
turned out to be 123 of the 334 contacted.
Construction waste is categorized into four items
under CONAMA Resolution 307, but the study used
44 items to identify the wastes in further detail and it
was found that over 80% are mixed constructionwaste generated at a rate of 184.66 kg/day/site,
producing 29.92 tons/day in PIM on average. The
total amount of construction waste generated is36.97 tons/day (see flow chart for constructionwaste on page 3). Of this amount, in terms of theCONAMA classes, 36.8 tons are reusable orrecyclable as aggregate (Class A), and 0.2 tons arerecyclable as non-aggregate (Class B), with classes
C and D being insignificantly minimal.

management companies into four categories: (1)collection and transportation, (2) treatment, (3) final
disposal, and (4) reuse/recycle. A total of 85
companies were surveyed, and in addition, werecross-checked against the environmental licenses
issued by IPAAM. Based on these surveys, it wasestimated that 3,332 tons of wastes, (including
municipal wastes), are collected by waste
management companies per day. However,according to survey responses, 23 companies
indicated that they do not have a license for waste
management, although over 90% of these are small
companies of less than 10 employees. Aftercross-checking the IPAAM licensing records, it was
found that about 12% of industrial wastes arecollected by companies that did not have thecorresponding license. In addition, the license
cross-check revealed that none of the companies
conducting final disposal of industrial waste had
obtained the proper license, although, nearly 99% of
the waste is non-hazardous.

There were a number of potential issues identified
through the responses received in the survey, suchas the fact that only 50% made a construction waste
management plan according to CONAMA
Resolution 307. Furthermore, less than 23% of
responses indicated the use of a manifest for waste
discharge. Another issue is the extremely low
recycling rate of 0.1%, which is apparent in the highpercentage of mixed wastes, nearly 97% of which
are disposed of at the Manaus City landfill.

Overall, the survey results allowed an important
observation to be made concerning the ratio ofoff-site disposal. This was highlighted by comparing
the results for the Industrial Pole of Manaus (PIM)
and those from a similar study done for the Bangkok
Metropolitan Area (BMA) in Thailand. As can beseen in the table below, there is a strong tendancy

Radioactive Waste
According to the National Commission of Nuclear
Energy (CNEN), 14 PIM institutions are licensed touse radioactive materials. Of these, seven factories
and one medical institution were surveyed toanalyze the generation of any radioactive waste;
however, the responses indicated that none wasgenerated. The answers from the seven factories
concerning their use of the radioactive materials
revealed that the purpose is to control production
processes, such as PVC sailcloth measurements,and products, such as dimension control.
Furthermore, responses indicated appropriate
radioactive materials management is being carriedout, as such materials are either storage in a special
container or installed in a particular device and usedwithin a controlled area.

Table: Comparison of PIM and Bangkok Metro Area
Ratio ofRatio ofStudy Area
Waste
On-SiteOff-Site
Disposal
Disposal
PIM

Bangkok
Metropolitan
Area1

2.7%

97.3%

Non-HIW

2.6%

97.4%

HIW

3.2%

96.8%

Non-HIW

29.9%

70.1%

HIW

56.3%

43.7%

toward off-site industrial waste disposal in PIM,
whereas in BMA, the ratio is more balanced,
particularly for hazardous industrial wastes (HIW).
1

Source of data is “The Study on Master Plan on Industrial
Waste Management in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area and its
Vicinity in the Kingdom of Thailand”, November 2002

Off-Site Waste Management
To conduct the surveys on off-sitemanagement, the study categorized

Industrial
Waste

waste
waste2Other issues that were identified according to waste
management companies surveyed are the need tostrengthen the capacity for monitoring and enforcing
laws dealing with industrial waste management, andfortify infrastructure that will reduce business costs
and improve the business environment. Also,
according to various interviews, the IPAAM
database for environmental licenses would benefit
from improvements that would enable fasterprocessing times, and more detailed codes andclassification. Another issue to be addressed is thefact that not all dischargers use waste manifests (i.e.
industrial waste management sheets), and thosewhich do rely on non-uniform sheets received fromwaste management companies.
GenerationRecycling

Waste Flow Diagrams
As mentioned above, the study has created flow
diagrams showing health waste (Figure 1) andconstruction waste (Figure 2), which show theamounts generated per day and their destination.
The study also produced a waste flow diagram
showing the waste flow for the average of allindustrial waste in PIM (Figure 3). The study also
categorized industrial waste into two large
categories: hazardous waste in PIM (Figure 4) andnon-hazardous waste in PIM (Figure 5).

Intermediate
treatment

Disposal

Incineration
120.9 kg/day(23.5 %)
Unknown
79.9 kg/day(15.6 %)Class A & B
228.6 kg/day(44.5 %)

Disposal

Total amount of
Health waste

27.8 kg/day(5.4 %)

Total Disposal

513.7 kg/day(100.0 %)289.0 kg/day(56.2 %)Class C(Common waste)

Disposal

285.1 kg/day(55.5 %)

261.2 kg/day(50.8 %)

Recycling(Paper, Cardboard)
23.9 kg/day(4.7 %)

Figure1(above)showstheGeneration

Recycling

Disposal

number of kilograms of HealthManaus city
Disposal sitewaste generated in PIM per day

35.83 ton/day(96.9 %)

andtheflow

intermediate

torecycling,treatment

anddisposal;
Figure2(right)

shows

Total amount ofConstruction waste

PrivateDisposal site

36.97 ton/day(100.0 %)0.83 ton/day(2.3 %)

theOther
0.27 ton/day(0.7 %)

number of tons of constructionwaste generated in PIM and theRecycling

flow to recycling and disposal.

0.04 ton/day(0.1 %)

3

Generation

Transport

Treatment

RecycleDisposal
Storage
2.2

0.3%

Reuse
1.90.3%

RecycleUnit: ton/day

On-site
19.1

Treatment
2.7%

3.3

4.2

0.6%

Recycle0.1

0.0%

Disposal

0.5%

3.2

0.5%

Disposal
7.5
Generation
696.4

1.1%

-100.0%Own Collection
70.5

Disposal

10.1%

3.4
Recycle49.1

Residue
7.1%

Treatment
18.0?

147.0

677.3

?
Residue

2.6%
RecycleOff-site

0.5%

Residue
21.1%?

Private Collection
97.3%

606.8

Residue

87.1%?
Treatment
359.6 51.6%

Recycle
290.0

42.8%

Residue?
Disposal
100.2

Figure 3: Waste Flow for all Industrial Wastes Generated in PIM (units are tons per day)
414.4%

Generation

Transport

Treatment

RecycleDisposal
Storage

0.3

0.2%

Reuse

-

0.0%

RecycleUnit: ton/day

0.8

0.6%

RecycleOn-site

4.5-

Treatment

3.2%

-

0.0%

0.0%

Disposal-

0.0%

Disposal

3.4
Generation

139.4

2.4%

-

100.0%

Own Collection

51.8

Disposal

37.2%

0.2
Recycle33.9

Residue

24.3%

Residue

17.7?

12.7%
RecycleOff-site

134.9?

Treatment

5.4

0.1%

Residue

3.9%?

Private Collection

96.8%

83.1

Residue

59.6%?
Treatment

53.0

38.0%

Recycle34.3

Residue

24.6%?
Disposal

24.7

Figure 4: Waste Flow for All Hazardous Wastes Generated in PIM (units are tons per day)

517.7%

Generation

Transport

Treatment

RecycleDisposal
Storage

2.0

0.4%

Reuse

1.9

0.3%

RecycleUnit: ton/day

3.3

0.6%

RecycleOn-site

14.6

0.1

Treatment

2.6%

3.3

0.0%

Disposal

0.6%

3.2

0.6%

Disposal

4.1
Generation

557.0

0.7%

-100.0%Own Collection

18.7

Disposal

3.4%

3.2
Recycle15.2

Residue

2.7%

Treatment

0.3?

141.6
542.4?
Residue

0.1%
RecycleOff-site

0.6%

Residue

25.4%?

Private Collection

97.4%

523.7

Residue

94.0%?
Treatment

306.6

55.0%

Recycle255.8

Residue

45.9%?
Disposal

75.5

Figure 5: Waste Flow of All Non-Hazardous Wastes in PIM (units are tons per day)6

13.6%