INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: PHASE 1 – …msukaligwa.gov.za/docs/20100312081839.pdf · 2010....

GERT SIBANDE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

MSUKALIGWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

SEPTEMBER 2005

JOINT VENTURE BKS (PTY) LTD Middelburg

Felehetsa Environmental (Pty) Ltd 219 Johannes Street Fairland 2195

Telephone 0116789303 Facsimile: 0114763978 URL www.felehetsa.co.za

BKS (Pty) Ltd 39 A KerkStreet

Middelburg 1050

Telephone: 0132435225 Facsimile: 0132823264 URL: www.bks.co.za

INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN:

PHASE 1 – INFORMATION GATHERING & GAP

ANALYSIS

http://www.felehetsa.co.za/

http://www.felehetsa.co.za/

Gert Sibande District Municipality Integrated Waste Management Plan – Gap Analysis

Msukaligwa Local Municipality 2

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

DOCUMENT: [Gert Sibande District Municipality Integrated Waste Management]

Musukaligwa Municipality Phase 1: Information gathering and Gap Analysis

PREPARED BY REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY

(FE):

APPROVED BY

(BKS):

ORIGINAL Name:

L. Tshabalala

Name:

T. Muavha

Name:

JES Boswell

Name:

D Badenhorst

Date Signature Signature: Signature: Signature:

PREPARED BY REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY

(FE):

APPROVED BY

(BKS):

Revision 1 Name: Name: Name: Name:

Date Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature:

PREPARED BY

REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY (FE):

APPROVED BY (BKS):

Revision 2 Name: Name: Name: Name:

Date Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature:



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Waste is a predictable consequence of development, and it must be managed in

order to conserve natural resources and protect people and the environment. Waste

is driven by three primary factors: the increasing production of goods; an ever

expanding population and a growing economy (DEAT, 2002). Due to increased

population growth and urban and industrial development, there is an increased

demand for waste service provision in terms of storage and collection facilities and

services, handling and transportation, treatment and ultimately disposal services and

facilities.

The issue of waste in South Africa is fuelled by a history of inequitable development

and service delivery under the apartheid regime. The White Paper on Integrated

Pollution and Waste Management in South Africa emphasises a shift in waste

management from control to prevention.

In South Africa, each Municipality is now required to prepare an Integrated Waste

Management Plan (IWMP) as part of their Integrated Development Planning (IDP)

process. This requirement brings integrated waste management down to the local

level, where it has the greatest potential to make an impact on our society and the

environment. The primary objective of compiling an IWMP is to integrate and

optimise waste management so that the efficiency of the waste management system

is maximised and the impacts and financial costs associated with waste management

are minimised.

The Gert Sibande District Municipality, with the financial assistance of the

Development Bank (South Africa) Pty Ltd and the Mpumalanga Department of Land

Affairs and Agriculture (DALA), initiated the development of a district IWMP, focusing

on the general waste management services offered by the local municipalities within

its area of jurisdiction.

The primary objective of compiling an IWMP is to integrate and optimise waste

management so that the efficiency of the waste management system is maximised,

and the impacts and financial costs associated with waste management are

minimised, thereby improving the quality of life of all South Africans. An IWMP must

therefore provide a comprehensive overview of waste management planning, and the



process must incorporate all the major stages of the environmental planning process,

namely:

• a review of the existing baseline situation and legal environment;

• projections of future requirements;

• setting objectives;

• identifying system components;

• identifying and evaluating alternative methods/approaches for meeting

requirements; and

• developing and implementing an integrated waste management plan.

The project has been divided into five phases, as follows:

• Phase 1: Gap Analysis

• Phase 2: Development of management and legislative instruments

• Phase 3: Strategic Planning

• Phase 4: Economic Viability Analysis / Feasibility Study

• Phase 5: Plan of Implementation

This report constitutes Phase 1 for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality. As part of the

information gathering process, interviews were conducted with key municipal officials

involved in rendering waste management services. Site visits were also conducted

of waste management facilities currently in operation within the municipality.

The waste management service offered by the Msukaligwa Local Municipality has

been evaluated in terms of waste management service delivery, i.e. waste collection

and refuse removal, disposal and recycling. A comprehensive study has been

undertaken to obtain and evaluate the status quo of waste management within the

municipality. Arising out of this study, gaps in service delivery and the needs and

priorities of the municipality have been identified. The report has revealed that the

ideal waste management situation is not yet achieved. This include:

§ Noncompliance with the environmental legislation and nonadherence to the

operation of landfill sites as accordance with the prescribed standards.

§ Financial constraints due to limited budget allocated for waste management.

§ Aging and unreliable machinery to enable the departments operation.

§ Low morale amongst the departmental staff.



§ Lack of formalization of recycling, illegal dumping where service is not

rendered as well as lack of inadequate Waste Information System.

These needs and gaps identified will be used in subsequent phases of the project to

develop plans and strategies in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

the Waste Management services undertaken by the municipality. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is funded by the Development Bank of South Africa and is entitled:

“DISTRICT INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IWMP) FOR GERT SIBANDE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY (GSDM)”.

The Project Management Team responsible for this project consists of the following

persons:

Mr Charles Maseko Gert Sibande District Municipality

Mr Charl Prinsloo Gert Sibande District Municipality

Mr Fikile Theledi DALA

Mr Jeremy Boswell Felehetsa Environmental (Pty) Ltd

Ms Takalani Muavha Felehetsa Environmental (Pty) Ltd

Mr Danie Badenhorst BKS (Pty) Ltd

Mr Christo Steyn BKS (Pty) Ltd

Ms Lizzy Tshabalala BKS (Pty) Ltd

Mr Reon Pienaar BKS (Pty) Ltd



The following individuals’ contributions are also acknowledged:

Mr T H Kubheka Deputy Municipal Manager

Mr Gustav Heinz Health Inspector in the Waste Management Division

Mr H M Boers Director Finance



LIST OF ACRONYMS

ASD Alternative Service Delivery

DALA Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs

DBSA Development Bank of South Africa

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ECA Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

GSDM Gert Sibande District Municipality

HCW Healthcare Waste

HCRW Healthcare Risk Waste

IDP Integrated Development Plan

IEM Integrated Environmental Management

IP&WM Integrated Pollution & Waste Management

IWM Integrated Waste Management

IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan

NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998

NWA National Water Act 36 of 1998

NWMS National Waste Management Strategy

OHSA Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

SoE State of the Environment

WIS Waste Information System



TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Terms of Reference 1 1.2 Introduction & Background 1 1.3 Scope of Integrated Waste Management Plan 4 1.4 1.5 1.6

Approach Overall Aims & Goals Geographic Area & Activities to be Addressed

6 8 8

1.6.1 Gert Sibande District Municipality 8 1.6.2 Local Municipality 11 1.7 Methodology: Gap Analysis 13 1.7.1 Site Visit & Background Information Collection 13 1.7.2 Gap Analysis Questionnaire & Interviews with Key Municipal

Personnel 13

1.7.3 Landfill Questionnaire 13

2 POLICY & LEGISLATION 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Implementation of Existing Legislative Requirements 21 2.3 Adequacy of Local Government Legislation 21

3 DEMOGRAPHICS 22 3.1. Population Distribution 23 3.1.1 Gert Sibande District Municipality 23 3.1.2 Msukaligwa Municipality 23 3.2 Population Growth Estimates 27 3.3 SocioEconomic Conditions 28

4 WASTE CLASSIFICATION & CHARACTERISTICS 33 4.1 Wastes Handled by Msukaligwa Local Municipality 30

5 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE GERT SIBANDE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

34

5.1 Gert Sibande District Municipality: Waste Management 34 5.2 Msukaligwa Local Municipality: Waste Management 35 5.3 Organisational Structure 35

6 WASTE QUANTITIES 39 6.1 Waste Quantities 39 6.1.1 2004 Waste Quantities 41 6.1.2 Projected Waste Quantities 42 6.1.3 Projected Waste Quantities from Population Figures 44



7 WASTE COLLECTION & REFUSE REMOVAL

7.1 Msukaligwa Municipality Collection & Refuse Removal Services

47

7.1.1 Collection Zones & Service Points 47 7.1.2 Current Levels of Service 48 7.1.3 Collection & Transportation Vehicles 50 7.2 Waste Collection by Contractors 53

8 WASTE RECYCLING 54

8.1 Recycling in the Msukaligwa Municipality 55 8.1.1 Reclamation at Ermelo Landfill site 55 8.1.2 Reclamation at Breyten Landfill site 56 8.1.3 8.1.4 8.1.5

Reclamation at Davel Landfill site Reclamation at Chrissiesmeer Landfill site Reclamation at Lothaire Landfill site

57 5757

9 WASTE DISPOSAL ON LAND 59 9.1 Landfilling 60 9.1.1 Ermelo Landfill site 61 9.2.2 9.1.3 9.1.4 9.1.5

Breyten Landfill site Davel Landfill site Chrissiesmeer landfill site Lothaire landfill site

66 72 77 84

9.1.6 9.2

Warbuton landfill site Condition of Landfill Sites

88 92

9.3 9.4

Recommended Classification of Landfill sites Transfer Stations

94 97

9.5 Illegal Dumping 99

10 STREET CLEANING 100

11 WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM 101

12 WASTE EDUCATION & CAPACITY BUILDING 102

13 ECONOMICS & FINANCING OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

103

13. Introduction 103 13.1 Economic & Financial Situation 103 13.1.1 Current Costs of Waste Management Systems 103 13.1.2 Current Waste Levy Charge 104 13.1.3 Billing, Collection & Prosecution 105

14 IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITISATION OF NEEDS 107 15.1 Introduction 107 15.2 Gaps and Needs Identified 107 15.3 Prioritisation of Issues Identified 108

15 CONCLUSION 110

REFERENCES 111

APPENDICES AC



LIST OF FIGURES PAGE

Figure 1.3 The Integrated Waste Management Hierarchy 4 Figure 1.6.1 Study Area: Gert Sibande District Municipality 10 Figure 1.6.2 Jurisdictional Area: Msukaligwa Local Municipality 12

Figure 3.1.3 Population Distribution for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality

26

Figure 4.3 Organisational Structure: Environmental Health Services

31

Figure 6.1 Per Capita Waste Generation for Mpumalanga 38

Figure 7.1.2 Percentage of Households receiving Weekly Refuse Removal Services in the Msukaligwa Municipality

45

Figure 9.1.1 Location of Ermelo landfill Site 62 Figure 9.1.2 Figure 9.1.3 Figure 9.1.4 Figure 9.1.5 Figure 9.1.6

Location of Breyten landfill Site Location of Davel landfill site Location of Chrissiesmeer landfill site Location of Lothaire landfill site Location of Warbuto landfill site

67 73 79 85 91

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 3.1.1 Population by District Municipality 24 Table 3.1.2 Population Distribution for the Msukaligwa Local

Municipality 25

Table 3.2 Population Growth Estimates per Ward for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality

27

Table 3.3 Annual Per Capita Income for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality

28

Table 4. 1 Table 6.1.1

Incinerator at Msukaligwa Breakdown of Waste Characteristics in the Msukaligwa Local Municipality

32

41

Table 6.1.2a Projected Waste Quantities (t/month) Ermelo Waste Disposal Site 42

Table 6.1.2b Table 6.1.2c Table 6.1.2d Table 6.1.2e

Breyten Waste Disposal Site Davel Waste Disposal Site Chrissiesmeer Waste Disposal Site Lothaire Waste Disposal Site

43 43 43 43

Table 6.1.3a Projected Waste Quantities for Ermelo Waste Disposal Site derived from Waste Generated Per Person

41 44

Table 6.1.3b

Table 6.1.3c

Projected Waste Quantities for Breyten Waste Disposal Site with Population Size taken into Account Projected Waste Quantities for Davel Waste

45

45



Table 6.1.3d

Table 6.1.3e

Disposal Site with Population Size taken into Account Projected Waste Quantities for Chrissiesmeer Waste Disposal Site with Population Size taken into Account Projected Waste Quantities for Lothair Waste Disposal Site with Population Size taken into Account

45

46

Table 7.1.2a No. of Households receiving Weekly Refuse Removal Services in the Msukaligwa Municipality

48

Table 7.1.3 Plant and equipment for Msukaligwa 50

Table 8.2.1 Recycling at Ermelo Landfill Site 55 Table 8.2.2 Recycling at Breyten Landfill Site 56

Table 10.2.1 Airspace Calculations for Standerton Landfill site ?? Table 9.2 General Condition of Landfill Sites 95

Table 13.2.1a Expenditure & Incomes for Waste Management in the Msukaligwa Municipality

105

Table 13.1.2b Table 13.2.

Debtors information for Msukaligwa Tariffs Levied on Consumer Accounts

106 107

Table 14.3 Levels of Priority for issues Identified for the Msukaligwa municipality with respect to Gaps in Waste Management Service Delivery

114



CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference

Felehetsa Environmental (Pty) Ltd, in joint venture with BKS (Pty) Ltd, has been

appointed to develop and submits a first generation integrated waste management

plan for the Gert Sibande District Municipality. The project title is “DISTRICT

INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IWMP) FOR GERT SIBANDE

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY (GSDM)”.

1.2 Introduction & Background

The Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 requires all Municipalities in South Africa to

adopt Integrated development Plans (IDP) as the principal strategic planning

instrument, which outlines development priorities, objectives and operational

strategies. The IDP process is a participatory process aimed at developing a

strategic development plan to guide and inform all planning, budgeting, management

and decisionmaking in a municipality.

In terms of Section 26(d) of the Municipal Systems Act, an IDP must reflect the

Council’s development strategies, which must be aligned with any national or

provincial sectoral plans and planning requirements binding on the Municipality in

terms of legislation. In turn, paragraph 5.2.3 of the White Paper on Integrated

Pollution and Waste Management (IP&WM) sets as one of its primary goals the

development of mechanisms to ensure that integrated pollution and waste

management considerations are effectively integrated into the development of inter

alia all spatial and economic development planning processes. The IP&WM process

identifies waste as a key issue, and subsequently the development of a National

Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) for South Africa was undertaken, its overall

objective being to ensure that the health of the people and the quality of the

environmental resources are no longer adversely affected by uncontrolled and unco

ordinated waste management.

One of the shortterms deliverables of the White Paper is to ensure that each local

authority submits “firstgeneration integrated general waste management plans,

formulated within the Guidelines, to the relevant provincial environmental



department”. This, therefore, is a binding requirement for the Gert

Sibande District Municipality (GSDM) and the local municipalities falling under it.

In order to improve integrated waste management planning within South Africa, the

National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS), which aims to give practical effect to

the White Paper on IP&WM, identifies a number of priority initiatives. Action Plans

for the implementation of the shortterm high priority strategic initiatives, including

integrated waste management planning, were developed in 1999 and represents the

optimum approach to the implementation of integrated waste management planning

in terms of resource allocation, time schedule and responsibilities.

The joint venture of Felehetsa Environmental (Pty) Ltd and BKS (Pty) Ltd was

appointed by the Gert Sibande District Municipality (GSDM) in February 2005 to

compile an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP), focusing on general waste,

for the municipal area in order to further develop the Integrated development Plan

(IDP) for the region.

In terms of the Guidelines for the Compilation of IWMPs, published by the

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), which describe the

framework within which waste management is to be carried out, an IWMP must

provide an overview of waste management planning, and the process must

incorporate all the major stages of the environmental planning process, namely:

• a review of the existing baseline situation and legal environment;

• projections of future requirements;

• setting objectives;

• identifying system components;

• identifying and evaluating alternative methods/approaches for meeting

requirements; and

• developing and implementing an integrated waste management plan.

The primary objective of compiling an IWMP is to integrate and optimise waste

management so that the efficiency of the waste management system is maximised,

and the impacts and financial costs associated with waste management are

minimised, thereby improving the quality of life of all South Africans.



This report details the status quo or current situation of waste management within the

Msukaligwa Municipality, a local municipality falling within the jurisdiction of the

GSDM, and looks at the existing waste management practices and systems which

are currently being implemented within the municipal area, and their effectiveness.

The objective of the status quo, or gap analysis, as the first phase in the

development of an IWMP for GSDM, is to qualify and quantify all aspects related to

current waste management services and practices carried out by the municipalities,

with a view to using this information as a basis for future waste management

planning. This report therefore includes a situational analysis of the various themes

of solid waste management relevant to Msukaligwa Municipality and the GSDM e.g.

the areas serviced, the waste management services rendered, their efficiency, cost

effectiveness, social and environmental acceptability, etc. Specific objectives of the

gap analysis phase, as outlined in the terms of reference for the project, include:

• Obtain information on the current population of the area, growth estimates,

densities and the populations socioeconomic categories and income levels;

• Identify and/or estimate the types and amounts of general waste generated in

the municipal area, and the composition thereof;

• Describe and assess the existing waste management systems and practices;

• Determine the costs associated with providing the waste management

services;

• Appraise the services in terms of quantity, quality, legal, social and

environmental impacts and public acceptance.

From the above, shortcomings in service delivery are identified. These will be used

to develop the strategies and implementation plan for the IWMP. Recommendations

relating to identified gaps in service delivery will be made and strategies to be

developed will provide details of inter alia where the existing systems can be

enhanced and improved upon and what additional systems and resources will be

required to ensure that the entire municipal area is optimally covered in terms of

waste management services.



1.3 Scope of Integrated Waste Management Plan

One of the principles of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998,

the framework statute governing the environment in South Africa, holds that

sustainable development requires that waste is avoided, or where it cannot be

altogether avoided, minimised and reused or recycled where possible and otherwise

disposed of in a responsible manner (Section 2(4)(a)(iv)).

Thus, Integrated Waste Management (IWM) involves the following, in order of

preference:

• Waste Avoidance;

• Waste Recycling, Reuse, Utilisation;

• Waste Treatment; and

• Waste Disposal.

Figure 1.3: The Integrated Waste Management Hierarchy

IWM maintains that waste management can be planned in advance because the

nature, composition and quantities of waste generated can be predicted. Advanced

planning means that an orderly process of waste management can ensue. This

includes:

Reduce Reuse

Treatment

Disposal

Physical Chemical Incineration

Landfill

Recycle



• Waste Prevention: The prevention or avoidance of the production of waste;

• Waste Minimisation: The economic reduction of the volume of waste during

production, by means of different processes, or uses, or the use of “clean

technologies”.

• Resource Recovery: Recycling of wastes of one process as raw materials for

a second process or product cycle.

• Waste Treatment: The reduction of the hazardous characteristics of waste, or

a reduction in waste volume, to ease environmental or human health risks

and impacts.

• Waste Disposal: The environmentally safe disposal of waste. This has

traditionally been to landfill sites.

Integrated Waste Management (IWM) planning has as its objectives:

• the optimisation of waste management by maximising efficiency;

• minimising the environmental impacts and financial costs of waste

management;

• building capacity in municipalities to develop first generation plans for general

waste;

• establishing and obtaining information on the status of waste management

within the municipal area; and

• ensuring sound financial planning.

The IWMP is required to outline solid waste management priorities and strategies,

which will form part of the IDPs for the local municipalities concerned. It will thus

provide the basis for the review of internal mechanisms for solid waste management,

as required in terms of the Municipal Systems Act.

In terms of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s (DEAT)

Guidelines, an IWMP must consider inter alia the following:



• Identification of policies and legislation affecting waste management within the

Municipality;

• Demographic information for the Municipality;

• An assessment of the quantities and characteristics of waste generated,

collected, recycled, treated and disposed of within the Municipality;

• An assessment of existing waste management strategies, systems and practices

within the Municipality;

• Economics and financing of waste management;

• The waste management organisational structure within the CTMM;

• Identification and prioritisation of needs;

• Strategies for waste prevention, minimisation and recycling;

• An implementation programme for IWMPs; and

• Mechanisms for monitoring performance in respect of targets and strategies set.

1.4 Approach

The development of the IWMP is guided by the principles contained within the

National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) for South Africa:

It was agreed with the GSDM that the Department of Environmental Affairs and

Tourism’s Discussion Document: Guidelines for the Compilation of Integrated Waste

Management Plans would be followed in the formulation of the GSDM IWMP.

The project has been divided into five phases:

Phase 1: Gap Analysis

• Obtain information on the current population of the area, growth estimates,

densities and the population’s socioeconomic categories and income levels.

• Identify and/or estimate the types and amounts of general waste generated in

the municipal area, the composition thereof and defining distinctive waste

management and generation areas.

• Describe and assess the existing waste management systems and practices.

• Determine the costs associated with providing the waste management services.

• Appraise the services in terms of quantity, quality, legal, social and

environmental impacts and public acceptance.



Phase 2: development of management and legislative instruments

• Identify the issues, key result areas and needs to be addressed in the IWMP.

• Setting of targets and objectives.

• Development of Integrated Waste Management Policy.

• Appraisal of legislative and management instruments.

Phase 3: Strategic Planning

• Development of a Strategic Framework.

• Public consultation in the prioritisation of identified needs and gaps.

• Develop strategic and operational objectives.

• Set provisional target dates.

Phase 4: Economic Viability Analysis / Feasibility Study

• Identification of alternative solutions to meet goals, objectives and policy

statements.

• Evaluate and develop feasible scenarios.

• Advise on opportunities and activities to institute waste prevention and

minimisation strategies, systems and practices.

• Advise on appropriate implementation method for waste collection and

transportation.

• Determine the cost and financial viability of suggested / proposed waste

collection, waste transportation, waste disposal and waste recycling or waste

minimisation proposals over a period of five years.

• Describe financing of the waste system and practices.

• Identify key stakeholders to be consulted in the drafting of waste

management plans.

• Advise on the acquisition, characteristics and cost implications of a suitable

Waste Information System (WIS) for use by the GSDM and the local

municipalities.

Phase 5: Plan of Implementation



• Manage the approval process for the approved scenarios.

• Develop strategy for implementation.

1.5 Overall Aims & Goals

The objective of the project and the development of the IWMP, therefore, is to:

• Assess the current basic waste management systems strategies and

practices;

• Highlight positive aspects and deficiencies in respect of waste management

within the respective local municipalities;

• Make recommendations for the improvement of services; or

• Where no services exist, to establish systems for the collection,

transportation, treatment and disposal of waste.

The GSDM wishes to institute a process of waste management aimed at pollution

prevention and minimisation at source, managing the impact of pollution and waste

on the receiving environment and remediating damaged environments. Waste

management must therefore be planned and implemented in a holistic and integrated

manner that extends over the entire waste cycle.

The main goal is to optimise waste management by maximising efficiency, and

minimising associated environmental impacts and financial costs.

1.6 Geographic Area & Activities to be addressed

1.6.1 Gert Sibande District Municipality

The study area for the purpose of the Integrated Waste Management Plan is the

whole area of the Gert Sibande District Municipality (GSDM). The GSDM is one of

three District Municipalities in the Mpumalanga Province and is situated on the

eastern boundary of Mpumalanga, bordering Swaziland in the east, KwaZuluNatal in

the southeast, the Free State in the southwest and Gauteng to the west.

The GSDM comprises an area of approximately 31 842km 2 , which includes the

following local municipal areas:



• Albert Luthuli Municipality

• Mkhondo Municipality

• Seme Municipality

• Msukaligwa Municipality

• Govan Mbeki Municipality

• Dipaleseng Municipality

• Lekwa Municipality

The entire GSDM study area is reflected in Figure 1.6.1 overleaf:



1.6.2 Msukaligwa Municipality

Msukaligwa municipality incorporates Ermelo as the main town and other smaller

towns of Breyton, Chrissiesmeer, Sheepmoor, Lothair and Davel. The area has a

population of 124 814 (2001 Census Data) and the municipal headquarters are

located in Ermelo. The area is characterised by agricultural activities amongst others

sheep, dairy farming and apple orchards being the core. The local economy is also

boosted by mining and timber activities in the area.

The Msukaligwa municipal area consists of the following settlements:

• Breyten

• Chrissiesmeer

• Davel

• Ermelo

• Fernie

• Kwachibikhulu

• Kwadela

• Kwazanele

• Lothair

• Silindile

• Wesselton

The Msukaligwa municipality jurisdictional area is reflected in Figure 1.6.2 overleaf:



1.7 Methodology: Gap Analysis

Understanding the municipality’s waste management services and functions is crucial

to the development of a relevant, comprehensive IWMP. Therefore, the objective of

the status quo / gap analysis is to qualify and quantify all aspects related to current

waste management services and practices of the Municipality. This information will

be used for future planning. The report includes an evaluation of the areas serviced,

those without or inadequatly serviced, the efficiency of waste management services

rendered, their cost effectiveness and social and environmental acceptability.

The methodology in which this was undertaken is as follows:

1.7.1 Site Visit & Background Information Collection

Representatives from the project team together with the local municipality undertook a site visit on 14 April 2005. The site visit was used to get a first hand

insight into current practise in the municipal area. Data was collected from officials

who are involved in waste management of the municipality.

1.7.2 Gap Analysis Questionnaire & Interviews with Key Municipal Personnel

Key municipal personnel involved in the provision of waste management services

were interviewed to provide information, reports and records relating to waste

management in the municipality. This enabled inter alia a determination of the waste

categories and quantities being handled, collection and transportation capabilities,

and methods of disposal. A questionnaire was compiled for this purpose (Annexure

A).

1.7.3 Landfill Questionnaire

The project team compiled a second questionnaire outlining specific information with

regards to each landfill site. The information outlined in this questionnaire conformed

to the requirements outlined in the DEAT IWMP Guideline Document and the

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill (DWAF, 2 nd edition). This

questionnaire was completed after the site visits and interviews conducted with the

relevant municipal personnel, in this case, the health inspector in charge of the waste



management section under the Department of Community and Health in the

Msukaligwa Municipality. These questionnaires contain information on the everyday

management and monitoring of the landfill sites as well as information regarding the

type of waste disposed on the landfill and is included in Appendix A.



CHAPTER 2: POLICY & LEGISLATION

2.1 Introduction

Section 152(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996

(the Constitution) lists as an object of local government to ensure the provision of

services to communities in a sustainable manner, to promote a safe and healthy

environment and to encourage the involvement and community and community

organisations in the matters of local government. A municipality has executive

authority in respect of, and therefore has the right to administer, the government

matters as listed in Schedule 5: Part B of the Constitution 1 . The list includes the

function of refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal. Municipalities

therefore have a Constitutional mandate to undertake the necessary tasks to fulfil the

function of refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal.

The Health Act 63 of 1977 makes it the duty of local authorities to prevent the

occurrence in its district of any nuisance (Section 20), where a nuisance is defined as

inter alia “…any accumulation of refuse,… or other matter which is offensive or is

injurious or dangerous to health.”

A number of steps have been taken at the national level to ensure the environmental

right espoused in Section 24 of the Constitution is upheld. These include inter alia

the publication of the Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (1998), the

publication of the White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management

(1998), the promulgation of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998

and the National Water Act 36 of 1998, as well as the development of the National

Waste Management Strategy (1999).

The Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989 (ECA) is the primary statute governing

waste and its disposal in South Africa. It defines waste as “any matter, whether

gaseous, liquid or solid, or any combination thereof, which is from time to time

designated by the Minister by notice in the gazette as an undesirable or superfluous

byproduct, emission, residue or remainder of any process or activity” (Section 1) 2 .

1 Section 156(1). 2 In 1990 the then Minister of Environmental Affairs identified inter alia the following matter as waste: any matter, gaseous, liquid or solid or any combination thereof, originating from any residential, commercial or industrial area, which–



Section 20 outlines that no one may establish, provide or operate any disposal site

without a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry and further that

no person may discard waste or dispose of it in any other manner, except at a

disposal site for which a permit has been issued, or in a manner or by means of a

facility or method and subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe.

Various provisions contained in the National Environmental Management Act 107 of

1998 (NEMA), South Africa’s framework environmental statute, have application to

solid waste management, including the duty of care provision 3 . The following

national environmental management principles set out in Chapter 1 of the Act, which

apply to the actions of all organs of State, and therefore to the GSDM and the local

municipalities, have specific relevance to waste management:

• It is a requirement that waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether

avoided, [is] minimised and reused or recycled, where possible, and

otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner 4 .

§ Responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequence of a

policy, program, project, product, process, service or activity exists

throughout its lifecycle 5 .

§ The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and

consequent adverse health affects and of preventing, controlling or

minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health

effects must be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment 6 .

(a) is discarded by any person; or (b) is accumulated and stored by any person with a purpose of eventually discarding it with or

without prior treatment connected with the discarding thereof; or (c) stored by any person with the purpose of recycling, reusing or extracting a usable product

from any such matter …” (GNR1986, GG12703 of 24 August 1990)

3 Section 28 of the Act states 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 from occurring, continuing or recurring, or insofar as such harm to the environment is authorized, to minimise and rectify such pollution or degradation. 4 Section 2(4)(iv). 5 This is referred to as the cradle to grave principle, as contained in Section 2(4)(e) of the Act. 6 The polluterpays principle, Section 2(4)(p).



§ It is furthermore a requirement that a riskaverse and cautious approach is

applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the

consequences of decisions and actions 7 .

The White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa 8

was published to inter alia inform government agencies and organs of State of the

government’s objectives, and their roles in achieving them. The White Paper on

IP&WM sets out the following specific goals in respect of waste and pollution:

• To prevent, reduce and manage pollution or any part of the environment

due to all forms of human activity;

• To set targets and minimize waste generation and pollution at source and to

promote a hierarchy of waste management practices, namely the reduction

of waste at source, reuse, recycling and safe disposal as a last resort;

• To regulate and monitor waste production, to ensure waste control

measures, and to coordinate the administration of integrated pollution and

waste management; and

• To promote cleaner production.

The policy uses the concept of integrated pollution and waste management (IP&WM)

as its core. It defines the term as being “a holistic and integrated system and

process of management, aimed at pollution prevention at source, managing the

impact of pollution and waste on the receiving environment and remediating the

damage to the environment”. As such, it represents a shift away from dealing with

waste subsequent to its generation, towards:

• pollution prevention

• waste minimisation

• cross media integration

7 (Section 2(4)(a)(vii)). 8 GNR227, GG20978 of 17 March 2000.



• institutional integration

• involvement of all sectors of society

Specifically with respect to waste, the Policy states that waste is considered to be a

source of pollution. It considers the following issues:

• waste avoidance, minimisation and prevention

• recycling and usage

• treatment and handling

• storage and final disposal

The above broad policy will be given practical effect through strategic goals, which

include the development of effective institutional framework and legislation and

pollution prevention, waste minimisation, impact management and remediation.

The National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS), a joint project between DWAF

and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), and funded by the

Danish Cooperation for Environment and development (DANCED), was published in

July 1999. It aims to give practical effect to the White Paper on IP&WM. It

implements the government’s IWM policy on waste, and the action plans arising from

it have considerable implications for the approach that should be used to address the

waste management needs of the GSDM.

The principles upon which the NWMS is based include accountability, affordability,

cradle to grave management, equity, integration, open information, polluter pays,

subsidiarity, waste avoidance and minimisation, cooperative governance,

sustainable development, environmental protection and justice. Most, if not all of

these, are already legally binding principles in terms of Section 2 of NEMA, as

outlined above, and are therefore applicable to the actions of the GSDM and the local

authorities.

The strategy includes shortterm, medium and longterm action plans that, once

implemented, will lead to greatly improved waste management practices throughout

South Africa. Shortterm action plans include the promotion of cleaner technology,



waste avoidance, recycling and treatment, with waste disposal to landfill as a last

resort.

The NWMS has set in motion a process that will significantly transform the current

approach to waste management throughout South Africa. In particular, it will result

in:

• Improved based waste management service delivery to a large section of the

population who currently receive inadequate or no waste management services.

• A shift in emphasis away from ‘endofpipe’ treatment to pollution prevention and

waste minimisation (as part of a more general shift towards cleaner production

practices).

• Reduced risks to human health and the environment arising out of improved

waste management practices.

• More effective integration of waste management across all environmental media

(land, water and air), through the adoption of a more effective integrated approach

to legislation and institutional structures.

Therefore, as outlined above, NEMA, the White Paper on IP & WM and the NWMS

all embrace the common goal of IWM, based on the principles of waste avoidance,

waste minimisation, reuse and recycling and responsible disposal. Waste

management within the GSDM and its local authorities must therefore, by necessity,

focus on the minimisation and avoidance of waste generation at source, especially in

the case of toxic or hazardous waste. All design options should therefore first of all

seek to reuse or recycle waste streams and where this is impossible seek to dispose

of waste in a manner, which is least detrimental to the environment.

The Polokwane Declaration on Waste Management was signed in 2001 by

representatives of government at a national, provincial and local level, as well as

representatives from civil society and the business community. The primary goal of

the Declaration is to reduce waste generation by 50% and disposal by 25% by 2012,

and to develop a plan for zero waste by 2022. This Declaration, however, is not

legally binding.

The draft Bill on Waste Management, in its present form, contains a section dealing

with local government waste management plans. The purpose of these plans,



according to the Bill is to give effect, in respect of waste management, to the

purposes and objects described in Chapter 3 of NEMA; to secure environmental

sound management of waste; and to provide a coordinated mechanism for given

effect to best practices in waste management.

In terms of the Bill, a waste management plan must contain such objectives as deem

to the local authority concerned to be reasonable and necessary –

(a) to prevent or minimise the production or harmful nature of waste;

(b) to encourage and support the recovery of waste;

(c) to ensure that such waste as cannot be prevented or recovered is

disposed of without causing environmental pollution; and

(d) to ensure in the context of waste disposal that regard is given to the need

to give effect to the polluter pays principle, and must specify measures or

arrangements as are to be taken by the local authority, with a view to

securing the objectives of the plan.

The Bill further states that a waste management plan should include information on,

or otherwise have regard to:

(a) The policies and objectives, and the priorities respectively assigned to

them, of the local authority concerned in relation to assisting the

prevention and minimisation of waste and, in relation to the management

generally of activities carried on by it as respects the collection, recovery

and disposal of waste within its functional area;

(b) The measures which –

(i) will be taken during the relevant period by the local authority; and

(ii) insofar as the local authority concerned by determine, will or may

be taken during the relevant period, for the purpose of preventing

or minimising the production of waste;

(c) The type, quantity and origin of waste which the local authority expects to

arise during the relevant period in its functional area for collection,

recovery or disposal;



(d) The type and quantity to be transported into, or out of, its functional area

for recovery or disposal;

(e) Facilities, plant and equipment expected to be available, or will be

required to be available for the collection, recovery or disposal of waste in

its functional area and matters relevant to the sections of sites;

(f) General requirements of a technical or other nature applicable to the

collection, recovery and disposal of waste and the aftercare of facilities

used for the disposal of waste;

(g) the identification of sites at which waste disposal or recovery activities

have been carried on, the assessment of any risk of environmental

pollution arising out of such activities, measures proposed to be taken in

order to prevent or limit environmental pollution.

In addition to the above, a comprehensive legal scan, identifying specific

requirements for the Waste Management Section of the GSDM as contained in

applicable legislation, including national, provincial and municipal bylaws, policies

and guidelines, has been undertaken, and is included in this report as Annexure C.

2.1. Implementation of Existing Legislative Requirements

In order for legislation to be utilised as an effective tool, it needs to be actively

implemented. However, as will be outlined throughout the report, Msukaligwa

Municipality is not giving effect to local government obligations. It has been found

that poor implementation arises from budgetary constraints in many cases, and that

the personnel involved in waste management are aware of noncompliance issues.

2.2 Adequacy of Local Government Legislation

The Municipality currently does not have bylaws relating to solid waste and refuse

removal and waste management functions are carried out in terms of Council

Resolutions (e.g. for tariffs) and internal policies (e.g. for timetables and service

routes). Approximately three years ago, it was reported that bylaws for the

municipality were drafted, but these were never promulgated.



Draft bylaws have been compiled at District Municipal level. It is anticipated that

once finalised and promulgated, these will be adopted by all the local municipalities

in the GSDM, and applied uniformly.

There is a need to create bylaws that reflect national policy in order to meet the

requirements of the NWMS.



CHAPTER 3: DEMOGRAPHICS

Population distributions and densities are important as they largely determine the

amount of waste expected from a particular waste generation area. This is important

for planning.

Three factors have an impact on the amount of waste generated in a particular area,

namely:

• The number of people residing in an area and how it is likely to change in the

future (spatial development);

• The per capita waste generation rate related to the income levels of the

population;

• The types and number of industrial and commercial activities in an area.

The per capita waste generation rate typically increases as a person’s socio

economic status improves. Demographic information provides the basis for

estimating current and future waste quantities generated, and thus form the basis for

future planning.

3.1 Population Distribution

3.1.1 Gert Sibande District Municipality

According to the 2001 Census Data, the Gert Sibande District Municipality had a total

population of 900 008 people residing in 127 different towns and settlement areas

throughout the region.

The major settlement areas within the local authorities are as follows:

• Balfour ( Dipaleseng Local Municipality)

• Secunda (Govan Mbeki Local Municipality)

• Ermelo (Msukaligwa Local Municipality)

• Standerton (Lekwa Local Municipality)

• Carolina (Albert Luthuli Local Municipality)

• Volksrust (Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality)



• Piet Retief (Mkhondo Local Municipality)

The basic demographic (population distribution) information for the GSDM is

reflected in Table 3.1.1 below:

Table 3.1.1: Population by District Authority Demographic Area Population Number Population

Percentage (%)

Dipaleseng Municipality 38 618 4.29

Govan Mbeki Municipality 221 747 24.64

Msukaligwa Municipality 124 814 13.87

Lekwa Municipality 103 265 11.47

Albert Luthuli Municipality 187 936 20.88

Pixley ka Seme Municipality 80 737 8.97

Mkhondo Municipality 142 893 15.88

Total 900 008 100

3.1.2 Msukaligwa Local Municipality

The main towns and/settlements within the Msukaligwa municipal area is Ermelo as

reflected in Table 3.1.2

According to the 2001 census, Msukaligwa has a population of 124 814 people,

which embrace 13.87% of the whole of the GSDM. The basic demographic

(population distribution) information per ward for Msukaligwa Local Municipality, as

per the information reflected in the 2001 population census, is shown in Table 3.1.2

below:



Table 3.1.2: Population Distribution for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality

WARD NUMBER

WARD NAME POPULATION NUMBER

1 Breyten 1344

2 Chrissiesmeer 150

3 Davel 138

4 Ermelo 17212

5 Fernie 20871

6 Kwachibikhulu 1385

7 Kwadela 2932

8 Kwazanele 10314

9 Lothair 161

10 Silindile 5034

11 Wesselton 33350 TOTAL 92891

Based on the above information, a map depicting the population distribution for the

ward zones within the Msukaligwa Municipality is outlined in Figure 3.1.3 below:



3.2 Population Growth Estimates

It is important to determine population growth estimates as future

developments and increases in existing population rates will affect the

service delivery levels required. The population growth estimates for the

Msukaligwa Local Municipality are outlined in Table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2: Population Growth Estimates per Ward for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality

1996 AND 2001 POPULATION FIGURES PROJECTIONS

Ward No. Total Pop 1996 Total Pop 2001 % change 1 5302 5125 3.34 2 9976 10391 4.16 3 9309 8587 7.76 4 5045 5466 8.34 5 3897 3532 9.37 6 5302 3577 32.53 7 5131 5027 2.03 8 3666 10076 174.85 9 9311 6441 30.82 10 8569 10264 19.78 11 7045 9705 37.76 12 5879 7784 32.4 13 2315 5016 116.67 14 11335 8187 27.77 15 7165 8090 12.91 16 6770 17546 159.17

Total 106017 124814 452.42

Based on the above figures (obtained from the census figures for 1996

and 2001, as conducted by Statistics SA), the compounded annual

population growth rate for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality was

determined to be 3.32%.

3.3 SocioEconomic Conditions

The socioeconomic category, income, level of education and age all

determine to an extent the amount of waste that a person is likely to

generate. It is therefore important for future planning to determine the

current socioeconomic profiles of people residing within the Msukaligwa

Municipality, and broad levels of income.



Socioeconomic data reflecting employment and per capita income from

the 2001 census data are reflected in Table 3.3 below:

Table 3.3: Per Capita Income for the Msukaligwa Local Municipality INCOME INDIVIDUALS (%)

INCOME INDIVIDUALS PERCENTAGE (%) None 86 493 67.67 R1 – 400 101 99 7.99 R401 – 800 127 730 9.96 R801 – 1600 56 78 4.44 R1601 – 3200 47.32 3.70 R3201 – 6400 60.42 4.73 R6401 – 12 800 13 69 1.07 R12 801 – 25 600 341 0.27 R25 601 – 51 200 85 0.07 R51 201 – 102 400 46 0.04 R102 401 – 204 800 86 0.07 Over R204 801 11 0.01

TOTAL 900010 100 Source: 2001 Census Data

The 67.6 of the population in the municipal area are those who are

without any means of income. The high unemployment rate limits the

municipal income and ability to respond to the needs of the community.

This study acknowledges the inconsistency in the population figures

provided by the Gert Sibande IDP as well as the 2001 Census data. The

IDP source indicated the total of 92 891 whilst the 2001 Census data

recorded a 124 814 in the total population of Msukaligwa. A difference of

31 923 exist. The consultants have adopted the 2001 census data as the

baseline upon which future predictions are made. These figures are

adopted because:

• they are recognised nationally as the baseline for the municipality.

they will accommodate growth that can take place in the municipality

without putting any strain on resources.



CHAPTER 4: WASTE CLASSIFICATION & TREATMENT

It is clear from the statutory definition of ‘waste’ outlined in Section 2.1 above, waste

is regarded as products and/or byproducts that are no longer useful to society and

need to be disposed of. Waste is classified in terms of risk and can generally be

classified in terms of two broad groups: General and Hazardous. General, or non

hazardous waste is waste that does not pose a significant threat to public health or

the environment, if properly managed, and includes the following categories of waste:

• Domestic (household) waste: Waste generated on premises used for residential

purposes and community amenities. This waste is collected as part of a routine

service provided by the Municipality. It does not include building waste, garden

waste or bulky waste removed on an ad hoc basis.

Domestic waste includes everyday kitchen waste and other forms of waste generated

around the living/working quarters of people and are disposed of on the landfill site

by either the Municipality vehicles or private persons.

• Commercial/Business waste: Waste generated in office blocks, retail stores,

restaurants and other commercial properties.

• Industrial waste: Waste generated by industries. This type of waste is largely

determined by the type of industry at which it is generated, and may be

hazardous or nonhazardous. Many industries make use of a private contractor

to dispose of the waste, or in some cases, for reuse or recycling.

• Builders rubble: Waste generated where construction and road building activities

are undertaken. Generally, contractors remove this waste to disposal sites. The

waste is often suitable for daily cover at landfill sites where sufficient quantities of

soil cannot be obtained.

Builder’s rubble is also disposed of on the landfill sites and consists mainly of

unusable bricks, concrete, gravel etc. In some cases the builders rubble disposed of

on a landfill site can be used as covering material but this is not generally the case in

the Msukaligwa Municipality.



• Garden refuse: This waste (except that generated as a result of commercial

garden services) is typically collected in a mixture of domestic waste as part of

the routine collection service. Commercial garden service providers are required

to dispose of the garden waste collected themselves.

Garden waste consists primarily of leaves, branches, and grass cuttings etc. that are

a result of keeping the flora in and around the Municipality up to standard. This type

of waste can also be disposed of on the landfill sites and is normally done by

contractors and/or private persons.

Although there is at present no statutory definition of hazardous waste, it is generally

considered to be waste that has the potential, even in low concentrations, to have a

significant adverse effect on public health and the environment because of its

inherent toxicological, chemical and physical characteristics. Hazardous waste

include:

• Inorganic waste, e.g. acids and alkalis, heavy metal sludges and solutions,

etc.

• Oily waste e.g. waste primarily from the processing, storing and use of oils.

• Organic waste, e.g. PCB waste, halogenated and nonhalogenated solvent

residues, paint and resin waste, organic chemical residues, etc.

• Putrescible waste, e.g. animal and vegetable based products, abattoirs,

tanneries, etc.

• Infectious waste, e.g. human and animal tissues, medical waste, etc.

• Redundant chemicals and/or medicines and laboratory waste.

• Explosives.

These are normally disposed of at specially permitted waste sites, which have the

facilities to cater for such type of waste products.

4.1 Waste Treatment by Msukaligwa Municipality

Small volumes of household hazardous waste (e.g. fluorescent tubes, etc.) inevitably

end up in the domestic waste stream and are disposed of on the general waste

landfill sites operated by the Msukaligwa Municipality. However, when these waste

streams are generated in larger volumes, e.g. by industry, etc. they must be stored

and collected separately by a contractor capable of handling such waste, and



disposed of at permitted hazardous waste landfill sites. The Municipality does not

offer a removal and disposal service to the generators of hazardous waste. It is the

responsibility of the generator to contract a private company to provide this service.

This includes medical waste.

As far as hazardous waste is concerned, the landfill sites in the Municipality are not

permitted to receive hazardous waste and are therefore not authorised to

accommodate the disposal of hazardous waste. Waste generated by companies that

can be regarded as hazardous are the responsibility of the industry itself. The

Msukaligwa Municipality have only one or two such industries and they dispose of

their waste privately and with no link to the Municipality.

This status quo should remain, as the Municipality is not equipped to provide a

service for the removal and/or disposal of hazardous wastes. It does not have the

expertise nor the infrastructure, i.e. a hazardous waste treatment and disposal

facility. No local authorities in South Africa are expected to provide this service.

However, in order to ensure the correct management of general landfills within their

area of jurisdiction and the health of people and the environment, the Municipality

does have a responsibility to ensure that all companies generating hazardous waste

are fully compliant with current legislation, and must ensure the following:

• The waste is correctly segregated (at the source of generation) into hazardous

and nonhazardous waste streams to ensure that the hazardous waste does

not end up in the general waste stream.

• The hazardous waste is stored on site correctly and safely.

• The hazardous waste is removed for disposal on a regular basis and is not

allowed to accumulate on site.

• The hazardous waste is removed and disposed of by a registered/reputable

contractor capable of handling hazardous waste.

• The generator can produce a Safe Disposal Certificate issued by the contractor

for each load of hazardous waste removed.



Medical waste, also referred to as healthcare waste (HCW) or healthcare risk waste

(HCRW), which is generated from various medical practices by private contractors.

Medical waste generated in the municipal area is currently incinerated at the hospital

in Ermelo, which caters for medical waste from government clinics, and the hospital

itself. Information about medial waste generated from private hospitals and

practitioners could not be confirmed. An assessment into the conditions of the

incinerator in Ermelo was not undertaken however reports from the hospital indicated

the information as summarised below in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Incinerator at Ermelo hospital

The municipality stated the disposal of oil on landfill sites in the area as primarily

problematic. Although there is an agreement between oil generating businesses with

private oil recycling companies, small quantities of oil are from timetotime found on

Description Response Remarks

Name of treatment facility Waste incineration

(Diesel)

Location Ermelo Hospital

Operator of facility. (Council or Private) Public hospital

Year of construction (and any extensions) 1997 This is an estimation

Capacity of facility 60 liter bags at the time

Projected lifespan of facility 5 years to go

Daily / weekly / annual throughput for facility Daily

Hours of operation 5 hours per day

Input and output of waste Output unknown

Characteristics of residual waste from

treatment process. Hazardous, recyclable or

nonhazardous

Non hazardous

(sterilized)

Was an Environmental Impact Assessment

undertaken for the facility

No later verification.

Only conducted in 1997

when it was

constructed

Is an Environmental Monitoring program in

place?

Is the facility registered or licensed? If yes,

give registration date.

08051997

Ref 23/4/2/2105



landfill sites. In such cases, the oil is left on site, as the municipality does not have

means and ways of dealing with it.

Despite the fact that the Municipality is not authorised to handle or dispose of

hazardous waste, it was noted during the investigations that there is currently an

area adjacent to the main landfill at Ermelo, which is used for the disposal of animal

remains. Animal remains are classified as hazardous waste as they can have a

significant adverse effect on public health and/or the environment. The disposal of

this kind of waste is undertaken by the Municipality by placing the animal remains in

a trench, covering them with soil and immediately compacting the fill material so as to

minimise the potential of human exposure. Due to the lack of security at the landfills,

however, there is a danger that the landfill pickers will dig up the remains.



CHAPTER 5: WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE GERT SIBANDE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

5.1 Gert Sibande District Municipality: Waste Management

The Integrated development Plan for the Gert Sibande District Municipality (2004)

identifies priorities, objectives and strategies for the Municipality, one of which is

waste management. Key objectives for the District Municipality are identified as

being:

(a) To provide adequate, reliable and affordable refuse services to all

inhabitants of the area.

(b) To provide sufficient waste disposal containers.

(c) To achieve a regular, adequate refuse removal service that is not

detrimental to the urban environment and that is applicable to the type of

refuse to be removed.

(d) To ensure effective management of existing resources and provision of new

facilities as and when required.

(e) To introduce a sustainable waste recycling system.

Strategies to achieve the above are identified as being:

(a) Ensure the necessary capacity and resources to provide effective

management of waste disposal services.

(b) Repair strategy to address human resource and equipment limitations.

(c) Investigate the viability and sustainability of introducing a wasterecycling

programme.

(d) Ensure utilisation of appropriate equipment at existing waste disposal sites to

prolong the lifespan thereof.

(e) Investigate the need for and viability of more centrally located new waste

disposal sites in the various subregions.

One of the Key Performance Indicators identified in the IDP for waste management is

that the percentage of households with access to solid waste material must be 80%,

achieved over a period of five years.



5.2 Msukaligwa Local Municipality: Waste Management

Responsibility for the solid waste management function within the Msukaligwa

Municipality lies with the Department of Community and Health. The scope of

services offered by the division is as follows:

• Refuse collection & removal for residential, business and industrial areas;

• Garden refuse removal;

• Sanitary services;

• Open space and street cleaning; and

• Landfill management.

The relevant sections, dedicated to waste management, in the Municipality handles

only waste that would be classed as general waste, and accordingly, this IWMP

deals only with general / solid waste.

5.3 Organisational Structure

For planning purposes it is important to have a thorough understanding of the

organisational structure and responsibilities undertaken by the Msukaligwa

Municipality in as far as waste management is concerned.

The waste management service of the municipality falls under Community and

Health services and has 6 satellite offices in six major settlements of the municipality.

These satellite offices are located in Breyten, Devon, Ermelo, Chrissiesmeer, Lothair

and Sheepsmoor. On his capacity as a Health Inspector, Mr Gustav Heinz manages

the various waste management departments.

The department consist of a total of 84 employees of whom 11 are employed on a

temporary basis. Only 10 females forms part of the team and the municipality cited

the nature of the demanding work as the cause. The municipality raised the concern

of aging staff as a major factor. Of the 84employed, 15 is above 50 years and 5

being already over 60. Only 7 of the employees are below 30 years of age. This is

reflected in Figure 5.3.



Although the municipality has sufficient personnel to perform waste management

duties, at the time of the interview, several vacancies existed in the waste

management section.

According to the municipality, no service is currently been rendered in Warburton

because the area is on private land belonging to Global Forest Products. Service

rendered in this area is through a private contractor who handles waste for the entire

Warburton.

The Municipality reported an escalation in the new development and informal

settlements in the area. However the lack of equipments averts the municipality’s

ability to extend services to these newly Developed areas.



Figure 5.3 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Municipal Manager

Public Safety Community & Health Finance Cooperate Services

Housing Waste Management Environmental Health

Ermelo Sheepsmoor Lothair Chrissiesmeer Breyten Davel

Thomo PV Ndwandwa DA Zwane MJ

Heinz GW Ngwenya Nkosi MW Malinga E Botha Sibanyoni SC Magabane KA Nkosi SV Ntsimbi Maloma DD Mgwenya P Kekana Ntshangase Maseko JF Moela MJ Ngwenya Malaza Mbuisa JA Nkosi DP Lukhele Nyathi Lukhele TC Mpofu RN Mavuso Ntombeni Vilane DM Majola DE Khaba Mnisi Zwane DL Thankge MN Khumalo Nkosi Phakathi JS Ndlazi BL Msibi Zwane Shabangu EN Mabuza SB Mabuza Mjoli Mgontsela Siphengane Sibande Shabangu Mngunni Ngwenya Ngwenya Manana Khumalo Ndzelwa Luthuli Mosotho Magagula Tshambula Mkhaliph Shongwe Mothai

1x General worker post vacant 1x Tractor driver vacant 1 x light truck driver vacant

General workers Khuzwayo DS Mthombeni D Nkambule JD Nhlanhla KH Ncongwana EV (T)

Nkosi LS Nkosi VE Ndlovu

1x principle foreman post vacant

Tshedi NW Gumbi QG Nkosi MB Zulu PL Mkhwebane MA Nkosi A Nkambule AC Nzimande KE Mbethe FJ Manci T

No services rendered by LM



The municipality adheres to health and safety requirements in as far as providing employees

with the necessary personal protective equipments (PPE). Personnel are provided with

overalls, safety boots, gloves, raincoats and dust masks. No problems regarding the use of

PPE were reported by the municipality.

The municipality does not employ an Occupational Health and Safety Officer and neither are

baseline medical assessments performed on are regular basis as accordance with the

requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA). Only when an

employee feels sick, they would be allowed time for medical checkups. According to the

municipality, there are high incidences of absenteeism amongst employees especially on

Mondays and end of the month. It was also reported that amongst all municipal divisions, the

waste management sector experience high death rate due to various diseases. Conclusive

evidence linked to waste management practise is not available at this stage.

A lack of discipline and morale was reported amongst the staff. A problem of employees

reporting to work under the influence of alcohol was also reported as a major concern

especially amongst male staff. According to the municipality, internal training sessions are

arranged with employees to address health and safety measures involved with their work.

Although the municipality is able to manage with waste demands, inadequate staff caused

by death and retirement of employees who are not replaced interferes with the overall ability

of meet waste management responsibilities. This is evident in certain portions of the

municipal areas not being serviced.



CHAPTER 6: WASTE QUANTITIES

6.1 Waste Quantities

Waste generation rates are often considered to reflect the economic status of society. The

more affluent the sector of society, the greater the waste produced per capita. It is generally

accepted that the total waste stream generated within a community comprises three major

categories, as follows:

• Municipal waste, including household waste, litter, garden refuse and commercial

wastes from shops and businesses;

• Industrial process wastes; and

• Construction and commercial waste, comprising bulky, inert materials e.g. bricks,

concrete, plastics, metals, soil, wood, etc.

To accurately formulate an IWMP, a thorough understanding of the quantities of waste

generated in the area is needed.

In South Africa, approximately 42 million cubic tonnes of general waste is produced

annually. Mpumalanga produces almost 4 million cubic tonnes of general waste each year,

approximately 9% of South Africa’s general waste stream 9 . Although it produces the fourth

highest volume of general waste, Mpumalanga has the third highest per capita waste

generation of 1.37m 3 per person per year.

The Mpumalanga State of the Environment (SoE) Report measures waste management in

the Province through five indicators:

• Total general waste produced per person per year;

• Total hazardous waste produced per sector per year;

• Available landfill lifespan;

• Expenditure on waste management per person; and

• Total volume of waste reused, reduced and recycled per type of waste per

year.

The per capita waste generated in Mpumalanga is shown in Table 6.1.

9 Mpumalanga State of the Environment Report 2003, 14.



Table 6.1: Per Capita Waste Generation for Mpumalanga

1998 General Waste (M 3 /yr)

Percentage of Total for SA

1996 Population (Census)

Per capita waste generation (M 3 /P/yr)

3 831 000 9.1 2 800 711 1.37 General waste generation in South Africa (DWAF and Statistics SA)

As the largest producer of hazardous waste, Mpumalanga is responsible for just over a third

of all hazardous waste produced in South Africa. Very little (less than 0.1%) of the 3.5

million m 3 of hazardous waste produced in Mpumalanga actually reaches a hazardous waste

site. The remainder is disposed of onsite or in some other way. The fertiliser

manufacturing sector contributes 99% of the hazardous waste stream in Mpumalanga.

An ideal way to obtain the quantities of waste disposed of on a landfill site is to have an

operational weighbridge at the entrance of the landfill site to weigh the waste disposed of.

Use can also be made of weighpad surveys or counting the number of loads of waste

disposed of at the disposal site. The number of loads can then be used to calculate the

amount of waste disposed in tonnes.

A site visit to the landfills in the Msukaligwa Municipality was conducted on the 14 th of April

2005 to determine the extent of the residential and industrial areas surrounding the landfill

sites. From these visits, an indication of the quantities of waste generated by the community

was obtained. Waste quantities can also be obtained from the Permit Application Report of

the specific landfill. This, however, proved to be problematic due to the fact that so few

landfill sites in the GSDM are permitted. In Msukaligwa, only one of the landfill site is

permitted although some others are in the process of doing so.

For the landfill sites that are not permitted, waste quantities will have to be estimated from

the population figure of the area multiplied by a factor (determined with the help of the

Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, DWAF 1998) for waste generated

per person per day, as well as all relevant data obtained from the Municipality in question.



6.1.1 2005 Waste Quantities

Unfortunately, none of the landfill sites within the Msukaligwa Municipality have

weighbridges, so alternative methods are needed to determine the quantities of disposed

waste.

The breakdown of the current (2005) waste quantities in the Msukaligwa Municipal area

according to the questionnaire in this regard completed by them is given in Table 6.1.1. This

information was based on the number of loads collected by the Municipality, and does not

reflect the waste disposed of by private individuals at the sites, as there is no access control

to the landfill sites and thus no way of measuring it. The figures are therefore estimates, and

are not completely accurate.

Table 6.1.1: Breakdown of Waste Generated in the Msukaligwa Municipality LANDFILL SITE TYPE OF WASTE DISPOSED OF

ON LANDFILL MASS (TONS PER MONTH)

Ermelo Domestic Refuse Yes 513

Building Rubble Yes 280

Garden Waste Yes 128

Hazardous Waste No

Industrial Waste No

Breyten Domestic Refuse Yes 80


Garden Waste Yes 8

Hazardous Waste Yes 2

Industrial Waste No

Davel Domestic Refuse Yes 64


Garden Waste Yes 6

Hazardous Waste No

Industrial Waste No

Chrissiesmeer Domestic Refuse Yes 101


Garden Waste Yes 4

Hazardous Waste Yes 2

Industrial Waste No

Warburton Domestic Refuse Yes N/A

Building Rubble Yes N/A



Garden Waste Yes N/A

Hazardous Waste No N/A

Industrial Waste Yes N/A

Lothaire Domestic Refuse Yes 41


Garden Waste Yes 5

Hazardous Waste No

Industrial Waste No

6.1.2 Projected Waste Quantities

The purpose of the IWMP is to accommodate the waste management needs of the

Municipality for the years to come. To do this it is essential to project the quantities and

characteristics of the waste in the area for future years. The methodology followed for this

calculation was to accept an annual growth rate of 3.32% for the waste generated in the

area, which is in accordance with the population growth rate 10 of Msukaligwa. Calculations

were done for a twentyyear period and all waste quantities in the tables are expressed in tons per month. The results are summarized in Table 6.1.2a to Table 6.1.2.e.

Table 6.1.2a: Projected Waste Quantities (t/month) for Ermelo Waste Disposal Site YEAR DOMESTIC

REFUSE BUILDING RUBBLE

GARDEN WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

TOTAL

2005 513 280 128 921

2010 604 330 151 1084

2015 711 388 177 1277

2020 837 457 209 1503

2025 986 538 246 1770

10 According to the census data available at StatisticsSA, Msukaligwa Municipality had a total populaton of 106 017in 1996 and 124 814 in 2001. This indicates an annual population growth rate of 3.32%.



Table 6.1.2b: Projected Waste Quantities (t/month) for Breyten Waste Disposal Site

YEAR DOMESTIC REFUSE

BUILDING RUBBLE

GARDEN WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

TOTAL

2005 79 15 8 2 104

2010 93 18 9 2 122

2015 110 21 11 3 144

2020 129 24 13 3 170

2025 152 29 15 4 200

Table 6.1.2c: Projected Waste Quantities (t/month) for Davel Waste Disposal Site


BUILDING RUBBLE

GARDEN WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

TOTAL

2005 67 10 6 80

2010 75 12 7 94

2015 89 14 8 111

2020 104 16 10 131

2025 123 19 12 154

Table 6.1.2d: Projected Waste Quantities (t/month) for Chrissiesmeer Waste Disposal Site


BUILDING RUBBLE

GARDEN WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

TOTAL

2005 100 17 4 2 123

2010 118 20 5 2 145

2015 139 24 6 3 171

2020 163 28 7 3 201

2025 192 33 8 4 236

Table 6.1.2e: Projected Waste Quantities (t/month) for Lothaire Waste Disposal Site


BUILDING RUBBLE

GARDEN WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

TOTAL

2005 41 8 5 54

2010 48 9 6 64

2015 57 11 7 75

2020 67 13 8 88

2025 79 15 10 104



No quantities were available for the Landfill site at Warburton because of the fact that this

site is not run by the Msukaligwa Municipality. The Landfill site at Warburton is run by Global

Forest Products and in a letter dated 15 August 2005 (included in this report) they state that

the Landfill has a maximum rate of deposition of not more than 25 tons per day and a life

span of 10 years.

6.1.3 Projected waste quantities from population figures

In order to most accurately estimate the volumes of waste generated in future years, the

growth rate of the population and the waste generated per household were taken into

account. The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 6.1.3a to 6.1.3e with the

population growth rate 3.32% and the waste volume (in tons per month) calculated from the

assumption that each person in the formal areas of Msukaligwa generates 1.8kg of waste

per day and each person in the informal settlements in Msukaligwa generates 0.4kg of waste

per day. It must be noted that some of the informal areas in Msukaligwa do not receive a

refuse removal service and their waste does thus not end up on the landfill sites. The

practice of burning or burying waste, is commonly used by households from informal

settlements where refuse removal does not take place.

Table 6.1.3a: Projected waste quantities for Ermelo Waste Disposal Site derived from waste generated per person.

YEAR POPULATION

WASTE MASS FROM

POPULATION (Tons/month)

WASTE MASS FROM REMOVAL INFORMATION (Tons/month)

RECOMMENDED MASS

(Tons/month)

2005 11418 520 921 900

2010 13443 612 1084 1100

2015 15828 720 1277 1400

2020 18636 848 1503 1800

2025 21942 998 1770 2200



Table 6.1.3b: Projected waste quantities for Breyten Waste Disposal Site derived from waste generated per person.

YEAR POPULATION

WASTE MASS FROM



RECOMMENDED MASS

(Tons/month)

2005 3686 159 104 160

2010 4340 187 122 170

2015 5110 220 144 200

2020 6016 259 170 250

2025 7083 305 200 280

Table 6.1.3c: Projected waste quantities for Davel Waste Disposal Site derived from waste generated per person.

YEAR POPULATION

WASTE MASS FROM



RECOMMENDED MASS

(Tons/month)

2005 1992 78 80 80

2010 2345 92 94 95

2015 2761 108 111 110

2020 3251 128 131 130

2025 3828 150 154 150

Table 6.1.3d: Projected waste quantities for Chrissiesmeer Waste Disposal Site derived from waste generated per person.

YEAR POPULATION

WASTE MASS FROM



RECOMMENDED MASS

(Tons/month)

2005 3597 90 123 120

2010 4235 106 145 140

2015 4986 125 171 170

2020 5871 147 201 200

2025 6912 173 236 230



Table 6.1.3e: Projected waste quantities for Lothaire Waste Disposal Site derived from waste generated per person.

YEAR POPULATION

WASTE MASS FROM



RECOMENDED MASS

(Tons/month)

2005 1935 48 54 50

2010 2278 56 64 60

2015 2682 66 75 70

2020 3158 78 88 90

2025 3719 92 104 110

The recommended mass in Tables 6.1.3a to 6.1.3e were chosen because of the following

reasons:

• The values obtained from the Municipality in terms of waste generated per month are

estimates, and cannot be viewed to be completely accurate.

• The recommended volume corresponds to about 0.8kg of waste being generated per

person per day, which is in line with the waste generation rates for a town like

Potchefstroom, which can be seen to have more or less the same demographics as

Ermelo. (Feasibility Report: Hartebeeskop Waste Disposal Site Potchefstroom, BKS

report no I08/007, October 2001).

• The population figures were taken in 2001 and cannot be seen to be a 100%

reflection of the current number of people living in the area.



CHAPTER 7: WASTE COLLECTION & REFUSE REMOVAL

Collection refers to the gathering and loading up of waste from storage containers located

close to the dwellings that generate the waste (DEAT Starter Document for Waste

Collection, 2000).

Unserviced areas are areas, which have either inadequate collection services, failed

collection services or have never had any form of waste collection.

Waste collection in South Africa has reflected a number of socioeconomic problems, which

impact on the levels of service. For historical reasons, many of South Africa’s communities,

particularly those in townships, rural areas and informal settlements, do not have access to

adequate waste collection systems. Often, where services do exist, the standards are very

poor, characterised by erratic collection systems and poor service delivery. General waste,

which is not collected regularly, accumulates in residential settlements and residents and

collection workers are exposed to pathogens, insects and rodents and decomposition

products. In addition to this, whilst local authorities are obliged in terms of the Constitution to

provide acceptable waste collection services to all communities within their respective areas

of jurisdiction, most local authorities experience financial problems resulting in a lack of

funding for waste management services, which will impact on the Municipality’s ability to

provide adequate collection services. This is exacerbated by the low levels of payment for

services in the lowincome areas.

Collection systems, such as kerbside collection, are feasible and practicable in established

urban townships with existing infrastructure, but are not always appropriate in rural

settlements. In farming areas, waste is traditionally buried in pits situated on each property,

so that waste collection systems are not required. Where centrally placed skips are provided

in rural areas and urban townships, the distances between waste generation and collection

points can be great, and can given rise to littering, illegal dumping and the burning of waste.



7.1 Msukaligwa Municipality Collection & Refuse Removal Services

7.1.1 Collection Zones & Service Points

Msukaligwa Municipality is divided into collection zones / areas in which the refuse of

specific areas is collected on specified days. A map outlining collection zones is distributed

to households and companies on an annual basis.

7.1.2 Current Levels of Service The Msukaligwa Municipality provides a service to the communities of Ermelo, Breyten,

Davel, Chrissiesmeer and Lothaire by collecting the household waste generated by the

people in the municipal area in trucks and tractors, and disposing of it on the landfill sites.

The Municipality does not render a refuse removal service to the people of Warburton.

Although it falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipality, the grounds is owned by Global

Forest Products who has a contractor operating the refuse removal services to the people in

and around Warburton. Each household within the Municipality is responsible for disposing

of their household waste in 90 litre refuse bins (available for purchase from the Municipality)

and plastic bags by putting these on the sidewalk for the municipal trucks to collect.

Table 7.1.2a outlines information contained in the 2001 Population Census, which details

the number of households receiving weekly refuse removal services.



Table 7.1.2a: Number of Households receiving Weekly Refuse Removal Services in the Msukaligwa Municipality

WARD NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN WARD NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGE

FORMAL INFORMAL TRADITIONAL TOTAL RECEIVING WEEKLY REFUSE REMOVAL OF TOTAL

1 1044 252 15 1311 933 71.17% 2 1581 162 459 2202 1392 63.22% 3 2205 120 45 2370 2301 97.09% 4 1416 57 6 1479 1287 87.02% 5 621 246 0 867 627 72.32% 6 15 990 0 1005 72 7.16% 7 1419 75 9 1503 1482 98.60% 8 2388 471 24 2883 2493 86.47% 9 1626 15 93 1734 1431 82.53% 10 1293 207 492 1992 927 46.54% 11 834 66 783 1683 273 16.22% 12 561 9 834 1404 411 29.27% 13 963 456 9 1428 813 56.93% 14 1764 312 180 2256 1395 61.84% 15 585 60 1293 1938 948 48.92% 16 1113 519 1965 3597 1299 36.11%

TOTAL 19428 4017 6207 24117 18084 60.09%

The levels of refuse removal services are further outlined in Figure 7.1.2 overleaf:



From the above information it can be seen that the Msukaligwa Municipality provides

a refuse removal service to about 60% of the households within its jurisdiction. This

figure has increased since the 2001 census (from which this data was taken) and the

Municipality is making good progress in ensuring that a refuse removal service will be

rendered to each and every household within the boundaries of the Msukaligwa

Municipality in future.

Businesses in the Msukaligwa Municipality also receive a refuse removal service.

This includes formal businesses in the Central Business District (CBD) and the

industrial area. It does not include informal traders. Refuse from businesses are

removed once, twice or thrice a week depending on the area.

There are newly established areas within the Msukaligwa Municipality that currently

do not receive a refuse removal service, largely due to the shortage of municipal

personnel and the availability of vehicles. These are areas of primarily low income

and informal residential areas. Some of these areas are provided with bulk refuse

containers, which are removed on an ad hoc basis. Complaints of residents not using

provided skips and instead disposing their waste anywhere next to the skips were

mentioned. This leads to the refuse removal workers having to clear dumping area

before removing skips. This process hampers service delivery and needs to be

addressed.

7.1.3 Collection & Transportation Vehicles

The current fleets held by the Municipality to render refuse removal services consists

of four compactors, seven tractors & trailers and six tipper trucks. Not all of these

vehicles are used solely for waste management; some are being used to perform

tasks in the engineering department as well.

In the interview conducted with the personnel of the Msukaligwa Municipality, the

health inspector in charge of waste management for the Municipality provided a list of

the municipal vehicles used for waste management and their descriptive conditions.

This information is shown in Table 7.1.3 below.



Table 7.1.3: Schedule of Plant and Equipment for the Msukaligwa Municipality

SERVICE ITEM UTILISATION ON CONDITION REMARKS

WASTE SERVICES

?? 3x 12m3 Compactors 100% 1 good, 2 poor Plant in poor condition and

Ermelo collection from formal 3 x 9m3 tippers/trailers 100% Very Bad needs replacing.

residential areas. 3 x tractors 100% Very Bad

1 9m3 Dyna tipper 100% Very Bad

Ermelo/Wesselton collection 3 x tractor + telecom trailers 100% Very Bad Plant needs to be replaced

from informal residential areas

Ermelo Landfill site 1 x Rex 335 Compactor 100% Good Need dedicated pay loader and 2

1 x tipper 100% Bad tip trucks permanently allocated

Breyten Collection from formal 4t enclosed tipper truck 15% Unknown

residential areas.

Breyten collection from informal No dedicated plant 15% n/a 1 x tractor/trailer unit on loan once

residential areas. and equipment per week from engineering dept.

Breyten Landfill site No dedicated plant 4% n/a Hired pay loader sent to site once

and equipment per month

Chrissiesmeer collection from No dedicated plant 15% n/a 1 x tractor/trailer unit on loan once

formal residential areas and equipment per week from engineering dept.

Chrissiesmeer collection from No dedicated plant Including with service n/a 1 x tractor/trailer unit on loan once

informal residential areas and equipment in formal areas per week from engineering dept.



Chrissiesmeer Landfill site No dedicated plant 4% n/a Hired pay loader sent to site once


Lothaire Collection from formal No dedicated plant 30% n/a 1 x tractor/trailer unit on loan twice

residential areas. and equipment per week from engineering dept.

Lothaire Collection from informal 1 x tractor + telecom trailer 15% Bad Needs replacement

residential areas.

Lothaire Landfill site No dedicated plant n/a Hired pay loader sent to site once




The municipality also revealed that the vehicles experience major mechanical

problems, which has resulted in a disturbance of service delivery. From the above

table it is apparent that the Municipality is in need of purchasing new vehicles to

strengthen their fleet. The lack of waste compactor vehicles is a primary concern.

7.2 Waste Collection by Contractors

The Municipality currently does not outsource any of its waste management functions

to private contractors. The landfill site at Warburton is operated by private contractors

despite that the Municipality does not have any formal agreement with them.



CHAPTER 8: WASTE RECYCLING

Recycling of waste has generally not been viewed as an essential component of

waste management in South Africa. Consequently, at present, no standard

mechanism or legislative provisions exist for implementing and funding recycling.

The majority of initiatives have been Developed on an ad hoc basis and have been

initiated and funded by the private sector, in some cases with minor financial inputs

from the authorities.

In terms of current legislation, the municipality is obliged to give effect to

environmental considerations, including those of waste minimisation, reduction and

recycling. Recycling therefore forms an integral part of IWM. It includes:

• Reuse: the return of waste material either to the originating process as a

substitute for an input material or to another process as an input material.

• Reclamation: the waste is processed for resource recovery or as a by

product.

Reclamation differs from reuse as a recovered (reclaimed) material is not used in

the facility but is rather sold on for use elsewhere.

The economic viability of recycling wastes is dependent upon the waste composition

and its ability to be separated, or segregated into a marketable commodity. Over

50% of the general waste currently being disposed of in landfills in South Africa has

the potential to be recovered for recycling or reuse, specifically paper, glass,

beverage cans and metals (DWAF, 1998).

Information on the volumes of waste reused, reduced and recycled is not readily

available in South Africa due to the current lack of provincial and national waste

information systems.

There are no regular systems for source separation of waste in South Africa,

although various trials are underway. Due to poverty and the large quantities of

recyclable materials in the waste arriving at landfill sites, informal salvaging is

widespread in South Africa. This practice leads to unacceptable health and safety

risks for the salvagers, as well as operating problems for the landfill manager.



8.1 Recycling in Msukaligwa Local Municipality

The project team representative undertook a visit to all landfill sites under

Msukaligwa and compiled the following report as per site.

8.1.1 Ermelo landfill

Ermelo landfill is the biggest site in the municipality and is located not more than 2

kilometres away from Ermelo town opposite residential area. The location of the site

makes it easily accessible to local reclaimers. Interviews held with reclaimers

revealed that none of them stay overnight on site but that they travelled daily to

reclaim since it is close to their homes.

More than 40 reclaimers were observed on site aging from the youngest of almost

five years to the elders being in their late fifties. Although there are groups of re

claimers who work as a team, it was reported that there is strong competition

between them over material that has some economic value. The reclaimers

indicated that they collect material and sell it to local contractors as shown in Table 8.1.1.

Table: 8.1.1 Collected categories and information Material available Price paid Buyer

Plastic 60 per kilogram Sam (local buyer)

Bottles 150 kilogram Sam (local buyer)

Tins 50 cents Scrap yards

Copper Between R11 and R12 Scrap yards

White paper 20 cents per kilogram Sam (local buyer)

A number of school going aged children (mainly boys) were observed rooming

around the landfill. It was reported about them that they attend school however

during school holidays, they engaged in recycling so as to make income. Of the 40

interviewed, the majority were in their teens and they indicated that they needed

money for personal necessities. A few elderly women were seen making fire to

prepare a meal in tins while others were collecting recyclables. They asked about the

risks of settling the site alight, they indicated that they had to cook something since

they don’t have money to buy cooked food.



Concerning income generated from recycling, the reclaimers could not give a proper

account because they said they lived from hand to mouth. Although others said they

were able to make R20 on busy days (refuge removal days) some said little more

and others less.

The foreman confirmed that occasionally shops dispose expired items such as meat

and damaged tin foods on site by burring them. When the disposal takes place, the

municipality warns the reclaimers concerning the risks involved in consuming

damaged goods. According to the municipality, the reclaimers don’t take heed of the

warnings and they exhume the items in order to consume it. Despite the municipal

efforts to discouraging this practice, little if any success is made. When asked about

this practise, poverty was cited as the motivating factor.

There is a general negligence to the use of PPE because it is unaffordable. The

contractors who buy recyclables from reclaimers don’t perceive providing the

equipments as their responsibility, since they do not employ them. This places the

lives of reclaimers at risk.

8.1.2 Breyten landfill

A licensed reclaimer found on site indicated that he was previously employed by

Reclaim and resigned because he realized the opportunities that exist in recycling.

He provided the information that he collects recyclables in the following categories

and sells at the provided rates to companies as shown in Table 8.1.2 below:

Table 8.1.2: Collected categories and information Material recycled Price per kilogram Recycling company

Cardboard and paper R 30 cents per kilo Reclaim

Tins R 40 cents per kilo Collectacan

Plastic R 160 per kilogram Mamashes Recycling

Wool R10 00 per kilogram BKB in Ermelo

He outlined the procedure that once large quantities of recyclables have be stored,

companies are contacted by telephone to come and buy. The reclaimer keeps no

records of quantities sold. He indicated that he made between R1800 and R2900 out

of material he sells.



It must be pointed out that although he knew of the importance of using PPE and he

had them with him, at the time of the interview, none of the safety equipments were

used other than safety boots. When asked about his negligence to his personal

safety, he indicated that he worked faster without the equipments.

According to him, no other reclaimers were involved in recycling in this site.

8.1.3 Davel landfill site

No reclaimers were found on this landfill site. The foreman from the municipality

confirmed that activities of recycling and scavenging did not take place in this site.

8.1.4 Chrissiesmeer landfill

According to the information provided by the two reclaimers who were interviewed

on site, no formal recycling takes place in the area. The women who have been

picking coal remains for the past year on site confirmed that they have not witnessed

any person collecting anything recyclable from site. They indicated that they reclaim

coal on Mondays and Tuesdays only because those are the days when refuge is

removed from Breyton town and Qhabakhulu location. The women indicated that

they were not aware of recycling, as a means to earn an income. The women did not

use any protective cloths. They indicated that although they knew of the necessity of

wearing protective cloths, they could not afford buying them.

The landfill site was characterised by household waste and recyclable materials such

as tins, plastic, paper were amongst those observed. It should be noted that the

remains from slaughtered animals possibly from local abattoirs were observed on

site. The foreman of the municipality confirmed that it is common practice for

abattoirs to dispose carcases on site.

8.1.5 Lothair landfill

No reclaimers were found at this landfill site. According to the municipal foreman, no

reclaiming or recycling initiatives takes place at this site. In general household waste

as well as garden waste were observed on site. The landfill site is not fenced and



there is no security provided. This site has potential of health risk to the community

because it is located in KwaDela residential area.

In general, the recycling conditions surrounding Msukaligwa can be summarised as follows:

• Although recycling assist in reducing waste, there seems to be a lack of drive to

venture into it by the locals. This could be simply because of lack of information.

• In areas where recycling takes place, there is a lack of a secure storage place

where collected material can be kept. This exposes the material to theft and fire.

• Reclaimers work under condition where water and ablution facilities do not exist.

• There is lack of secure fence and security in the Breyton, Devon and

Chrisssiesmeer site landfill site. This results in uncontrolled dump near the site.

This exacerbates the already deteriorating conditions at this site and makes it

difficult for both the reclaimer and the municipality to manage waste.

• There is an uncertainty about whose responsibility is to provide reclaimers with

protective cloths. While the reclaimers are of the opinion that those buying

recyclable material from them should provide PPE, recycling companies are of the

view that reclaimers are self employed and should provided their own safety

equipment.

• In generally, it can be concluded that health and safety aspects of the job are

generally neglected. There is a need for training and awareness raising amongst

reclaimers.

• There are huge differences in the amount paid to scavengers ranging from R70

per week to as little as R25 per week. These necessitate regulation of some

sought of the industry by the municipality.



CHAPTER 9: WASTE DISPOSAL ON LAND

Waste that cannot be recovered for recycling and reuse is ultimately disposed of at a

waste disposal facility. In South Africa, waste is generally disposed of at a landfill

site, although new technologies are emerging.

Local authorities have the Constitutional responsibility of disposing of general waste

generated in their areas of jurisdiction, as well as minimising the impact of landfill

sites on surrounding communities. A number of private sector organisations also

operate landfill sites on their properties, e.g. mines and industries. Private

contractors are sometimes used to operate general landfill sites on behalf of local

authorities and industries and also for the operation of hazardous waste sites.

• In terms of Section 20 of the Environment Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989),

DWAF is currently responsible for the permitting of waste disposal sites. In

terms of Section 20 and the DWAF Minimum Requirements, the permit

holder, who may be the local authority or the private sector, is ultimately

responsible for the waste disposal site.

The roles, functions and responsibilities of waste disposers, with regard to

awareness, compliance and planning include the following:

• All waste disposers must comply with Section 20 of the Environment

Conservation Act 73 of 1989, DWAF’s Minimum Requirements and permit

requirements, Sections 19 and 21(g) of the National Water Act (Act 36 of

1998), and Section 16(2) of NEMA;

• Owners of operating landfills must comply with the permit conditions and/or

the DWAF Minimum Requirements;

• Waste disposers must be aware of the Duty of Care principle, and where

appropriate, waste manifest systems must be implemented to track the waste

from generation to final disposal;

• All waste disposal site operators must allow for monitoring and auditing as

• required by the Minimum Requirements and NEMA Section 16(2).

Waste disposal in the Msukaligwa Municipality is done by means of landfilling. A full

description of the details surrounding the landfill sites can be seen in the Information



Questionnaires attached in Appendix B. The Msukaligwa Municipality has no garden

refuse disposal facilities, builder’s rubble disposal facilities or hazardous waste

disposal facilities.

9.1 Landfilling

This section of the report provides details of waste disposal in the context of the

formal landfill facilities currently owned and operated by the Msukaligwa Municipality.

The majority of domestic, residential and commercial, business and industrial waste

from urban areas is disposed of at landfill sites.

The term “landfilling” refers to the deposition of waste on land, whether it be the filling

of excavations or the creation of a landfill above ground, where the term ‘fill’ is used

in the engineering sense (Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill,

DWAF 1998). Historically, waste has typically been disposed of on landfill sites,

largely due to the fact that this is generally considered to be 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 on landfills, while the world figure is

believed to be in excess of 85%.

In South Africa, in terms of Section 20 of the Environment Conservation Act 73 of

1989, it is a legal requirement to hold a permit to establish, operate or maintain a

disposal site. This permit is issued by the Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry 11 .

Landfilling is environmentally acceptable if properly carried out, in accordance with

permit conditions and within the stipulations of the Minimum Requirements.

Landfill lifespan is commonly used to show the number of years a landfill site is likely

to remain operational at a certain waste disposal rate.

11 However, in terms of the Environment Conservation Amendment Act 50 of 2003, the function of the permitting of disposal sites will transfer from DWAF to the environmental authority, DEAT. This provision only comes into effect by proclamation by the President in the Government Gazette. This has not been done to date, but when it does, all applications for the permitting of landfill sites will be required to be submitted to the relevant environmental authority.



To determine the site life of a landfill it is important to use the methodology in terms

of airspace availability and utilization as set out in the “Minimum Requirements for

Waste Disposal by Landfill” (DWAF, 1998).

The establishment of a new landfill site is estimated to take approximately 5 to 7

years from the time of site identification to waste acceptance and disposal (including

the Environmental Impact Assessment process).

Msukaligwa Municipality has seven landfill sites within its area of jurisdiction. They

are situated just outside the towns of Ermelo, Breyten, Davel, Chrissiesmeer, Lothair,

Warburton and Sheepmoor, and receive general waste from the areas within the

jurisdiction of Msukaligwa. The location of these landfill sites can be seen on Figures 9.1.1 to 9.1.6. The Landfill site at Sheepmoor was not included in this study area

because the Municipality does not render any service in it.

Many landfill sites in the study area (GSDM) are not permitted and therefore also not

classified. In order to accurately assess the situation in and around a landfill site, it is

necessary to determine the classification. In the case of the Msukaligwa Municipality,

all but one of the site (Ermelo permit front page in Appendix C) is not permitted and

therefore no records exist of waste characteristics and classifications for these

landfills. The landfill at Breyten did have a permit that was issued in 1993 and it was

still classified under the system of that time as a “Class 2” landfill site. Since then the

site has been expanded and the permitting process for this site is underway. A copy

of the front page of the permit issued in 1993 can be seen in Appendix C.

9.1.1 Ermelo Landfill Site

This site is situated approximately 2 km to the north of the town of Ermelo an

approximately 1 km to the east of the town of Wessleton. It is accessed via a dirt

road turning east of the main road to Hendrina. The location of the Ermelo landfill site

within the Msukaligwa Municipality is reflected in Figure 9.1.1 overleaf:



The Ermelo air space calculations are as follow:

Available airspace:

Final volume of Landfill – Existing volume of Landfill

= (600 m x 300m x 7) – (500m x 300m x 6m)

= 1 260 000m 3 – 900 000m 3

= 360 000m 3

Of which 4/5 of the volume will be available for waste

= 4/5 * 360 000m 3

= 288 000m 3

Annual airspace utilization:

= (Initial rate of deposition (IRD in t/day) *260days)/Average density of waste

= (900t/month(From Table 6.1.3a))/30days)*260days)/0.8t/m 3

= 9 750 tons/annum / 0.8

= 12 188 m 3 /annum

Table 9.1.1a: Airspace projections for Ermelo Landfill site

YEAR YEAR VOLUME CUMULATIVE MATCH

2005 1 12188 12188

2006 2 12878 25066

2007 3 13607 38673

2008 4 14377 53049

2009 5 15191 68240

2010 6 16050 84290

2011 7 16959 101249

2012 8 17919 119168

2013 9 18933 138101

2014 10 20005 158105

2015 11 21137 179242

2016 12 22333 201575

2017 13 23597 225172

2018 14 24933 250105

2019 15 26344 276449

2020 16 27835 304284 288000



It can be seen from the table that the landfill site at Ermelo can still receive

waste for the next 16 years (if it intends to go up to 7m above ground level)

before a new site needs to be found. The values used in the above equation

for the final volume of the Landfill was obtained from the report by SKC

Consulting Engineers in June 1996, titled “ Ermelo and Wesselton Solid

Waste Disposal Permit Application (Project Report No 6055/3)”.

9.1.2 Breyten Landfill Site

The Breyten Landfill site is situated approximately 1.5 km to the north of the town,

accessed via a double lane gravel road. The location of the Breyten landfill site within

the Msukaligwa Municipality is reflected in Figure 9.1.2 overleaf:



The Breyten air space calculations are as follow:

Available airspace:


= (200 m x 200m x 8) – (200m x 200m x 7.5m)

= 320 000m 3 – 300 000m 3

= 20 000m 3


= 4/5 * 20 000m 3

= 16 000m 3



= (160t/month(From Table 6.1.3b))/30days)*260days)/0.8t/m 3

= 1 733 tons/annum / 0.8

= 2 167 m 3 /annum

Table 9.1.2a: Airspace projections for Breyten Landfill site

YEAR YEAR VOLUME CUMULATIVE MATCH 2005 1 2167 2167 2006 2 2290 4457 2007 3 2419 6876 2008 4 2556 9432 2009 5 2701 12133 2010 6 2854 14987 2011 7 3015 18002 16000 2012 8 3186 21188 2013 9 3366 24554 2014 10 3557 28111

It can be seen from the table that the landfill site at Breyten can still receive waste

for the next 7 years (if it intends to go up to 8m above ground level) before a new

site needs to be found. In the interview conducted with the Municipality it was

however mentioned that the Landfill site at Breyten has reached its capacity and a

new site will have to be found in the near future.



9.1.3 Davel Landfill Site

The Davel landfill site is situated a couple of hundred metres to the north west of the

informal settlement near the town of Davel accessed via a gravel road leading

through the informal settlement. The location of the Davel landfill site within the

Msukaligwa Municipality is reflected in Figure 9.1.3 overleaf:



The Davel’s air space calculations are as follow:

Available airspace:


= (100 m x 100m x 6) – (100m x 50m x 3m)

= 60 000m 3 – 15 000m 3

= 45 000m 3


= 4/5 * 45 000m 3

= 36 000m 3



= (80t/month(From Table 6.1.3c))/30days)*260days)/0.8t/m 3

= 867 tons/annum / 0.8

= 1 083 m 3 /annum

Table 9.1.3a: Airspace projections for Davel Landfill site


2005 1 1083 1083

2006 2 1144 2227

2007 3 1209 3436

2008 4 1277 4714

2009 5 1350 6064

2010 6 1426 7490

2011 7 1507 8997

2012 8 1592 10589

2013 9 1682 12271

2014 10 1778 14049

2015 11 1878 15927

2016 12 1984 17912

2017 13 2097 20008

2018 14 2215 22224



2019 15 2341 24565

2020 16 2473 27038

2021 17 2613 29651

2022 18 2761 32413

2023 19 2918 35330 36000

It can be seen from the table that the landfill site at Davel can still receive waste for

the next 19 years (if it intends to go up to 6m above ground level) before a new site

needs to be found.

9.1.4 Chrissiesmeer Landfill Site

The Chrissiesmeer Landfill site is situated approximately 1.0 km to the north of the

town, accessed via a gravel road leading past a informal settlement. The location of

the Chrissiesmeer landfill site within the Msukaligwa Municipality is reflected in Figure 9.1.4 overleaf:



The Chrissiesmeer air space calculations are as follow:

Available airspace:


= (150 m x 40m x 6) – (145m x 35m x 5m)

= 36 000m 3 – 25 375m 3

= 10 625m 3


= 4/5 * 10 625m 3

= 8 500m 3



= (120t/month(From Table 6.1.3d))/30days)*260days)/0.8t/m 3

= 1 300 tons/annum / 0.8

= 1 625 m 3 /annum

Table 9.1.4a: Airspace projections for Chrissiesmeer Landfill site


2005 1 1625 1625

2006 2 1717 3342

2007 3 1814 5156

2008 4 1917 7073

2009 5 2025 9098 8500

2010 6 2140 11238

2011 7 2261 13499

2012 8 2389 15888

2013 9 2524 18413

2014 10 2667 21080

It can be seen from the table that the landfill site at Chrissiesmeer can still receive

waste for the next 5 years (if it intends to go up to 6m above ground level) before a

new site needs to be found. In the interview conducted with the Municipality it was



however mentioned that the Landfill site at Chrissiesmeer has reached its capacity

and a new site will have to be found in the near future.

9.1.5 Lothair Landfill Site

The Lothair Landfill site is situated to the north of the main road, accessed via a

badly maintained tar road through the informal settlement of Silindile. The location of

the Lothair landfill site within the Msukaligwa Municipality is reflected in Figure 9.1.5

overleaf:



The Lothair air space calculations are as follow:

Available airspace:

Final volume of landfill – Existing volume of Landfill

= (50 m x 50m x 5) – (50m x 40m x 4m)

= 12 500m 3 – 8 000m 3

= 4 500m 3


= 4/5 * 4 500m 3

= 3 600m 3



= (50t/month(From Table 6.1.3e))/30days)*260days)/0.8t/m 3

= 542 tons/annum / 0.8

= 677 m 3 /annum

Table 9.1.5a: Airspace projections for Lothair landfill site

YEAR YEAR VOLUME CUMULATIVE MATCH 2005 1 677 677 2006 2 715 1392 2007 3 756 2148 2008 4 799 2947 2009 5 844 3790 3600 2010 6 892 4682 2011 7 942 5624 2012 8 995 6619 2013 9 1052 7671 2014 10 1111 8782

From the table above, it is seen that the landfill site at Lothair can still receive waste

for the next 5 years (if it intends to go up to 5m above ground level) before a new

site needs to be found.



9.1.6 Warburton Landfill Site The Warburton landfill site is situated about 2 km east of the town of Warburton and

about 500m to the south of the R39 to Ermelo. The location of the Warburton landfill

site within the Msukaligwa Municipality is reflected in Figure 9.1.6 overleaf. As can

be seen on the letter from the owners of the Warburton landfill site included in Appendix C, the landfill has a life span of 10 years that probably started in 2000

(when the authorization letter was written). This means that the landfill at Warburton

will still be able to receive waste for at least the next 5 years before a new site has to

be found.



9.2 Condition of Landfill sites

The general condition of the landfills, as observed during the site visits undertaken by

the project team, is reflected in Table 9.2 below:



Table 9.2: General condition of landfill sites CRITERIA ERMELO BREYTEN CHRISSIESMEER DAVEL LOTHAIRE WARBURTON

Daily cover None None None None None None Onsite machinery TLB (on day of site

visit)

None None None None None

Leachate Yes (not monitored) Yes (not monitored) Yes (not monitored) Yes (not monitored) None None

Fence Yes None None None None None

Access control None None None None None None

Capping None None None None None None

Liner None None None None None None

Windblown Litter Yes, picked up

occasionally

Yes, picked up

occasionally

Yes, picked up

occasionally

Yes, picked up

occasionally

No No

Access Roads Dirt road, in acceptable

condition

Long dirt road, in

unacceptable

condition

Dirt road, in

acceptable

condition

Dirt road through

township in

acceptable condition

Tarred road through

township in

unacceptable

condition

Dirt road through

trees in

unacceptable

condition



From the table above, it can be concluded that the landfill sites require attention to be

classified as being in a good condition, and as operating in accordance with DWAF’s

minimum requirements.

Generally, waste disposal sites are permitted to receive general waste. It is required

that prior to waste being accepted at a landfill site it must be inspected by suitably

qualified staff. However, this is not undertaken at any of the landfill sites. It has been

reported that the landfills experience problems with the illegal disposal of hazardous

waste. Tires are burned on some of the landfill site without the permission of the

Municipality. On landfill sites like Breyten and Chrissiesmeer problems also occur

because of the illegal disposal of animal remains on site.

None of the landfill sites have weighbridges. As a result, there is no collection of

disposal tariffs for vehicles disposing of waste at the landfill sites. Waste disposal

tariffs should be levied and collected at all landfill sites.

Daily compaction and covering is currently not undertaken at the landfill sites due to

lack of machinery and/or inefficiency of current machinery.

As outlined in table 10.1.2 above, none of the landfill sites have adequate access

control, nor do they have security guards monitoring access to the site. In addition,

the stealing of fences has been problematic in the province. Vehicles access to a

site must be limited to a single controlled entrance to prevent the unauthorised entry

and illegal dumping of waste on site. There must be a lockable gate that must be

manned at least during hours of operation.

It is a minimum requirement that the operation of all landfill sites must be carried out

under the direction of a responsible person. Although there is a person delegating

the location of deposition at the Ermelo landfill site, this requirement is not

adequately fulfilled at any of the landfill sites.

9.3 Recommended classification of Landfill sites

Only one of the landfills in the Msukaligwa Municipality is permitted and the rest thus

lack a formal classification. It is however important, to distinguish landfill sites and the

type of waste that they receive in order to formulate a successful waste management



plan. The values used in these calculations are based on the information supplied

under heading 2.4.1.4 and 2.4.1.5 of this report.

Ermelo:

The Ermelo landfill site is the only permitted site in the Msukaligwa

Municipality. The permit (number 16/2/7/C112/D1/Z1/P427) was issued by the

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry for a G.M.B landfill site at Ermelo.

This means that the landfill is only permitted to receive general waste

(household, builders rubble and garden waste), it has a maximum rate of

deposition of between 150 and 500 tonnes per day throughout its lifetime and

that there is no potential to generate any significant leachate. A copy of the

front page of this permit can be seen in Appendices B of the report.

Warburton:

The Warburton landfill site is in the process of obtaining a permit as a G.C.B +

landfill site. The authorization for the construction and operation of a G.C.B +

landfill site at Warburton was issued by the Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry on the 22 nd of November 2000 (included in Appendix C). This means

that the Landfill is only permitted to receive general waste (household,

builders rubble and garden waste), it has a maximum rate of deposition of

between 0 and 25 tonnes per day throughout its lifetime and that there is a

potential to generate significant leachate because of its climatic region

Breyten:

The waste handled at the Breyten waste disposal site is mostly domestic

waste with some builder’s rubble and garden refuse. This waste can be

classified as general (G) as it is not harmful to people or the environment. To

calculate the size of the waste stream a MRD (maximum rate of deposition) is

needed. The MRD is calculated as follows:

MRD = (IRD)(1+D) T

Where:

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

D = expected annual development rate, based on expected population



growth rate in the area served by the landfill.

T = years since deposition started at IRD

MRD = maximum rate of deposition after T years

Thus MRD = (10)(1+0.0332) 7

= 13 T/day

According to the Minimum requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill (DWAF,

1998) this Landfill falls into the less than 25T/day category and is thus classified as a

Communal site (C).

Because Breyten landfill site lies in a summer rain region, the average evaporation

figures is more often than not higher than the average rainfall figures. This means

that the potential for significant leachate generation is very low and the site can thus

be classified as B .

The recommended classification of the Breyten waste disposal facility is thus G.C.B .

It must be noted that the Breyten Landfill site was indeed permitted (number

B33/2/2210/17/P60) in 1993 by DWAF, under the old classification, as a “Class 2”

landfill. This permit however is considered null in void because of the amount of

alterations and extensions done to the Landfill since that time. A copy of the front

page of this permit can be seen in Appendix C of the report.

Chrissiesmeer:

The waste handled at the Chrissiesmeer waste disposal site is mostly

domestic waste with some builder’s rubble and garden refuse. This waste can

be classified as general (G) as it is not harmful to people or the environment.

To calculate the size of the waste stream a MRD (maximum rate of

deposition) is needed. The MRD is calculated as follows:

MRD = (IRD)(1+D) T

Where:








Thus MRD = (10)(1+0.0332) 5

= 11.77 T/day

According to the Minimum requirements for Waste Disposal by landfill (DWAF, 1998)

this landfill falls into the smaller than 25T/day category and is thus classified as a

communal site (C).

Because Chrissiesmeer landfill lies in a summer rain region, the average evaporation




The recommended classification of the Chrissiesmeer waste disposal facility is thus G.C.B .

Davel:

The waste handled at the Davel waste disposal site is mostly domestic waste

with some builder’s rubble and garden refuse. This waste can be classified as

general (G) as it is not harmful to people or the environment. To calculate the

size of the waste stream a MRD (maximum rate of deposition) is needed. The

MRD is calculated as follows:

MRD = (IRD)(1+D) T

Where:








Thus MRD = (6.7)(1+0.0332) 19

= 12.46 T/day

According to the Minimum requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill (DWAF,

1998) this Landfill falls into the smaller than 25T/day category and is thus classified

as a communal site (C).

Since Davel site lies in a summer rain region, the average evaporation figures is

more often than not higher than the average rainfall figures. This means that the

potential for significant leachate generation is very low and the site can thus be

classified as B .

The recommended classification of the Davel waste disposal facility is thus G.C.B .

Lothair:

The waste handled at the Lothair waste disposal site is mostly domestic

waste with some builder’s rubble and garden refuse. This waste can be

classified as general (G) as it is not harmful to people or the environment. To

calculate the size of the waste stream a MRD (maximum rate of deposition) is

needed. The MRD is calculated as follows:

MRD = (IRD)(1+D) T

Where:






Thus MRD = (4.2)(1+0.0332) 5

= 4.9 T/day



According to the Minimum requirements for Waste Disposal by landfill (DWAF, 1998)

this landfill falls into the smaller than 25T/day category and is thus classified as a

communal site (C).

Because of the fact that Lothair lies in a summer rain region, the average evaporation




The recommended classification of the Lothair waste disposal facility is thus G.C.B .

9.4 Transfer Stations

A transfer station is a facility where solid waste materials, such as household refuse,

building rubble and garden refuse, are transferred from small vehicles to large trucks

for efficient transport to landfill, recycling centres and other disposal sites. They are

utilised primarily to minimise collection vehicle offroute times.

The Msukaligwa Local Municipality does not operate any transfer stations, nor are

there any plans at present to do so in the future.

9.5 Illegal Dumping

Illegal dumping refers to waste that has been left at any place not designated as a

waste processing facility or a waste disposal site. Littering and illegal dumping are

symptoms of the noncollection of waste or poor waste collection services in

residential, industrial and commercial situations. In unserviced areas and poorly

serviced places, waste is often dumped directly on the ground. The Municipality, as

part of its mandate to provide waste management services, handles these waste

streams on an ad hoc basis.

The Municipality has found that there are a few illegal dumping sites being operated

within its area of jurisdiction. Especially in the informal townships where no formal

refuse removal service exists. Illegal dumping is also found to be problematic on

street corners.



CHAPTER 10: STREET CLEANING

Street cleaning forms part of one of the services rendered by the municipality in the

Ermelo CBD, Breyten and its access roads. In Ermelo, street cleaning takes place 7

days a week and is performed by 10 waste management personnel. In Breyten, 1

employee on the frequency of six days a week undertakes street cleaning. Street

cleaners use mainly brooms to sweep through the pavements and perform paper

picking in the vicinity. They also empty bins into mass containers in and around town.

Cleaning services are extended to the ablution farcicalities in town.

A problem of street hawkers is reported to be a major cause of littering and street

untidy. However the municipality indicated that the street cleaners are able to

manage to manage the situation.

Through an arrangement with the municipality, some cleaners often start work earlier

in order to avoid congestion in busy areas such as taxi ranks. Normally, the working

hours are between 7H00 and 17H00 weekdays. Although it is common practise to

have street cleaners working at night because there us reduced movement, the

municipality confirmed that this was not done in Msukaligwa because there has never

been a need to change this arrangement.

At the time of discussions with the municipality, there was no indication to extend this

service to other area.



CHAPTER 11: WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM

Waste Information System plays a crucial part in assessing the effectiveness of

service provision. This system enables the municipality to develop data that shows

the strong and weak point on how municipal waste is handled. At present,

Msukaligwa municipality does not have a database, in the way of a Waste

Information System (WIS). This is further exacerbated by the fact that there are no

weighbridges at the landfill sites. Without comprehensive record keeping, it becomes

difficult to assess the functioning of the municipality over time.



CHAPTER 12: WASTE EDUCATION & CAPACITY BUILDING

Awareness plays a crucial role in ensuring sustainable development because it

presents an opportunity to discuss waste related matters. Over and above that, it

forms part of community participation process and the “Batho Pele” principle. By only

addressing the technical aspects of waste management alone and not put

mechanisms that addresses social aspects, sustainable waste management will not

be reached.

Community based awareness raising plays a crucial role in ensuring that the

beneficiaries of services are informed and educated in as far as waste management.

According to the municipal representatives, in the past, the Environmental Health

section participated in educating the community in particular about food safety

amongst local businesses. According to the municipal representatives, there is no

interaction between the Environmental health and waste management in as far as

awareness are concerned. The municipality distributes information pamphlets once a

quarter to the public with the hope of raising awareness. Currently, the municipality

participates in the Cleanest Town Competition, which is one of the implementation

processes of the NWMS.

During the site visit to the landfill site, it was reported that the municipality does

engage informally in educating the community in particular the reclaimers

concerning the risks involved with consumption of disposed food. Often food

companies dispose food that is contaminated by burring it on site and it is apparently

reported that reclaimers excavate for whatever has been suppressed. This practice

is reported in particularly at Ermelo site.

A need to formalise a programme that will target specific population within

communities was acknowledged. At present, the community line of communication

with the municipality is nonexisting and community education programmes can

assist in establishing this contact.



CHAPTER 13: ECONOMICS & FINANCING OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

13.1 Economic & Financial Situation

The development of the IWMP for the Msukaligwa Municipality includes the need to

develop a financial plan for waste management. Thus, in order to ascertain the

status quo, it is necessary to establish the existing cost structure, taking cognisance

of both direct and indirect costs, identifying existing sources of revenue for the waste

management division, and operational and capital expenditure.

According to the interview conducted with the Health inspector in charge of the

Waste Management in the Municipality, the Waste Management division (Under the

Department of Community and Health) is currently not in an ideal financial situation.

Although the income generated by the collection of waste disposal levies seems to

be enough to operate the division within the municipality, the lack of reliable

machinery and substandard landfill maintenance causes insufficient service delivery.

Due to the financial situation within the waste management division of the

municipality, minimal attention is given to the treatment and minimization of waste.

This aspect needs to be addressed in order to ensure proper waste management in

the municipality.

13.1.1 Current Costs of Waste Management Systems

The annual expenditures and income of the Msukaligwa Municipality for the last two

years, as indicated on the questionnaire completed by them, are set out in Table 13.1.1a.

Table 13.1.1a: Expenditure and Income for Waste management in the Msukaligwa Municipality.

Operating Cost

2003/2004 (Rand)

2004/2005 (Rand)

Income 2003/2004 (Rand)

2004/2005 (Rand)

Salaries 4 268 000 3 809 762 Domestic

Refuse

Removal

General Cost

Employee

2 688 882 672 850

865 143

Garden Refuse

Removal



social contr.

Repair and

Maintenance

932 567 000 Bulk

Containers

Depreciation 47 202 Building Rubble

Inter

Departmental

Charges

84 114 554 986 Other (all of the

above

combined)

7 715 770 8 273 310

TOTAL 7 041 928 6 516 943 TOTAL 7 715 770 8 273 310

Profit 673 842 1 756 367

From the above table, it can be concluded that the municipality is able to make a

profit out of refuse removal. However the profit is limited due to nonpayment at some

portions of the municipality. Table 13.1.1b gives a breakdown of the debtors in the

Msukaligwa municipality regarding refuse removal. These figures were taken from

the May 2005 Report 32 as obtained from the Director of Finance for the Msukaligwa.

This is in line with the financial indicators for the Municipality according to the Local

Government Transmission Act 1993 (Act No 209 of 1993).

Table 13.1.1b: Debtors information for refuse removal at Msukaligwa Municipality

Geographic Area Current debt 30 Days 60 Days >90 Days TOTAL (Arranged)

Ermelo R463,449.63 R234,765.96 R192,723.36 R5,271,337.77 R6,162,276.72 Davel R31,742.39 R30,690.00 R30,353.54 R1,442,419.37 R1,535,205.30 Chrissiesmeer R23,903.99 R22,127.90 R21,809.59 R468,457.77 R536,299.25 Sheepmoor R63.24 R63.24 R63.24 R1,027.20 R584.52 Lothair R36,142.93 R34,917.47 R34,652.72 R1,523,310.17 R1,629,023.29 Breyten R132,757.09 R110,510.54 R106,592.50 R5,024,395.33 R5,374,255.46 Total R688,059.27 R433,075.11 R386,194.95 R13,730,947.61 R15,237,644.54

Information from the above table reveal that in May 2005, a 63% nonpayment rate

for the services rendered in the Msukaligwa Municipality was recorded. According to

the Director of Finance in the Msukaligwa Municipality, the average nonpayment

rate for the financial year was 22.93% for all services, and can be taken as indicator

for each service. The issue of nonpayment is thus one of the problems in the

Municipality that need urgent attention.



13.1.2 Current Waste Levy Charge

Waste collection and disposal is part of a service rendered to the community of

Msukaligwa and therefore it needs to be paid for. Payment for waste collection and

disposal takes the form of a tariff being levied on the monthly consumer accounts

that each household receives. This information is broken down in Table 13.1.2.

Table 13.1.2: Tariffs levied on consumer accounts

TARIFF CHARGE (in Rand per month per bin)

Domestic:

1x removal per week R31.62

Business: Daily removals on weekdays

Daily removal on Weekdays excluding Churches and

squatters

Churches and Squatters

R73.50 R73.50

R31.62

Sundays:

Refuse bins R120.00 (per bin)

GENERAL: 1. All accounts delivered are payable before or on the 15 th of the month following the date of delivery. 2. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be levied on nonpayment of charge due to the date of maturity 3. All Tariffs exclude VAT.

From the above table, it is depicted that the municipality charges R31.62 per month

to all households be it in formal or informal residential areas. A slightly higher rate of

R73.50 is charge then charged to business whose refuse is removed are undertaken

on weekday and R120.00 to those that are serviced on Sundays as well.

As mentioned earlier, there are no weighbridges or access control gates at any of the

landfill sites operated by the Msukaligwa Municipality, and therefore, no income is

generated from private contractors or the public disposal of waste at the landfills.

There is an opportunity for the generation of revenue in waste disposal by

weighbridge and waste disposal by carrying capacity of vehicle. However the

municipality does not share in this benefit due to lack of facilities.



13.1.3 Billing, Collection & Prosecution

Waste removal like any other service requires money in order for sustainability to be

attained. The Treasury Department of the municipality is responsible for billing and

income collection. On a monthly basis, a charge for refuse removal is added to the

normal water and electricity bill that every household receives. These accounts are

payable on or before the 15 th of the month following failure to which an interest of

12% is added to the account. Unfortunately, for various reasons, not all the residents

of Msukaligwa are able to settle their accounts.



CHAPTER 14: IDENTIFICATION & PRIORITISATION OF NEEDS

14.1 Introduction

The key principles and factors that are necessary for efficient and effective waste

management service delivery for highdensity areas include the following:

• Ultimate responsibility for collection services remains with the local authority.

• There must be sufficient political will at both government and local authority

• level.

• The community must be actively involved in the decision making process.

• Community education and awareness programmes are necessary.

• Appropriate training and capacity building for all parties is essential.

• Technology needs to be appropriate for the local situation.

• Street sweeping and litter clearing are an integral part of waste collection.

• There needs to be adequate cost recovery. i.e. payment for services

• rendered.

• Capital funding in the form of donor grants or soft loans is necessary to

• establish comprehensive waste management services.

14.2 Gaps and Needs Identified

As outlined throughout the report, the gaps identified in current waste management

service delivery in the Msukaligwa municipality, and the needs for the provision of a

comprehensive and effective service are as follows:

§ Noncompliance with the environmental legislation

§ Noncompliance with the minimum requirements for disposal by landfill and

permit conditions.

§ Certain portions of the municipal areas are not serviced.

§ There is a financial limitation allocated for waste management.

§ No legislation in place to govern activities of contractor’s use of landfill sites.

§ Landfill sites not operated in accordance with the minimum standards.

§ Legislation not in place (i.e. bylaws)

§ Legally noncompliant operation of landfills

§ Lack of awareness and education on waste management issues



§ Aging and unreliable machinery to enable the departments operation

§ Lack of formalization of recycling activities

§ Lack of weighting bridges at landfill sites

§ Illegal dumping

§ Lack of inadequate Waste Information System

§ A need to prioritise waste management through commitment of funds for

operations

14.3 Prioritisation of Issues Identified

In order to develop strategies that will enable implementation of an integrated waste

management plan, it is essential to prioritise the gaps and needs identified during the

assessment of the status quo. Table 14.3 below therefore provides a summary of

the gaps and issues identified during the baseline assessment for the Msukaligwa

Municipality, and a qualitative analysis of levels of priority that should be ascribed to

each issue:

Table 14.3: Levels of Priority for Issues Identified for the Msukaligwa Municipality with respect to gaps in Waste Management Services Delivery

LEVEL OF PRIORITISATION No. IDENTIFIED ISSUE HIGH MEDIUM LOW

1 Noncompliance with the environmental

legislation HIGH

2 Noncompliance with the minimum requirements

for disposal by landfill and permit conditions. HIGH

3 Lack of financial resources HIGH

4 Landfill sites not operated in accordance with the

minimum standards. HIGH

5 Legally noncompliant operation of landfills. HIGH

6 Illegal dumping. HIGH

7 Human resources HIGH

8 Lack of prioritisation of waste management

through commitment of funds HIGH

9 Aging and unreliable machinery to enable the

departments operation. HIGH

10 Lack of awareness and education on waste

management issues. MEDIUM

11 Lack of formalization of recycling activities. MEDIUM



12 Certain portions of the municipal areas are not

serviced.

LOW

13 No legislation in place to govern activities of

contractor’s use of landfill sites.

LOW

14 Lack of weighting bridges at landfill sites. LOW

15 Lack of inadequate Waste Information System. LOW



CHAPTER 15: CONCLUSION

This status quo report has revealed the status quo of the waste management

practices in the Municipality. Needs and gaps surrounding the effective operation of

waste management services have been identified. Inadequate resources results in

compromising services thus posing health hazards to the community. The lack of

adequate financial resources places limitations on the municipality’s ability to

respond to the needs in its area. This is evident in the lack of service delivery in other

portions of the municipality.

In order that the current status quo of the municipal waste management be improved,

it is evident that there needs to be a plan that will address these issues.



REFERENCES

1. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1998) Minimum Requirements for

the Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste (Second

edition).


Waste Disposal by Landfill (Second edition).


the Water Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities (Second edition).

4. Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Environment and Land Affairs (April

2004) IWMP Guideline Document.

5. Mpumalanga Integrated development Plan

6. Mpumalanga State of the Environment Report


APPENDIX A WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE



GERT SIBANDE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: 1 ST PHASE (GAP ANALYSIS) QUESTIONS

Below is a series of questions compiled by the joint venture of Felehetsa

Environmental (Pty) Ltd and BKS (Pty) Ltd to assist us in compilation of the Integrated

Waste Management Plan for the Gert Sibande District Municipality and its respective

local authorities, as well as giving us a good understanding of the existing waste

management practices within the District Municipality.

Your cooperation in the completion of this questionnaire will be appreciated.

(To be completed by Project Team Member conducting the interview)

NAME OF MUNICIPALITY: MSUKALIGWA DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE/S INTERVIEWED:

Mr T.H. Kubheka (Deputy Municipal Manager)

Mr. Gustav Heinz (Health Inspector heads up waste management division)

(Mr H.M Boers, Director: Finance interviewed separately) DATE OF INTERVIEW: 14 April 2004 PLACE OF INTERVIEW: Msukaligwa Municipal offices, Ermelo INTERVIEWER: SallyAnn du Preez

(Also attended by Frans Mokgonyana, Lizzy Tshabalala & Reon Pienaar) START TIME: 10:00 END TIME: 12:15

Questions:

ORGANISATION

1. What is the name of the waste management division within the Municipality?

Does this fall under any other division/s within the Municipality?

• Waste Management Section.

• Falls under the Department of Community & Health


2. Please provide in the space overleaf a flow diagram of the organisational

structure of the waste management division within the local municipality. Please

indicate whether the positions reflected are filled or are vacant.

(This was sent through separately – 18 April 2005) – Hard copy.

In terms of equipment, the division makes use of some of the town engineer’s staff and

equipment to render services (FEL’s, tractors and trailers).

3. What is the scope of services offered by the waste management division of the

Municipality e.g. collection, disposal, street cleaning, illegal dumping, etc?

• Refuse removal & collection – kerbside collection (bulk removal system also in

place on an ad hoc basis in the business areas)

• Landfill management

• Street cleansing

• Illegal dumping is problematic but the Municipality does not have the

infrastructure to deal with it, although it does form part of their mandate. If the

equipment is available, the material will be removed. Illegal dumps are

generally identified by the municipality. The townships are the most

problematic areas (domestic refuse)

4. Does the Municipality have a Waste Management Policy in place? If so, please

provide a copy.

• There is a draft in place – still with Province and not yet approved. Legal

advisor is on leave and Gustav will follow up on this for us.

5. Does the Municipality have an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) or

strategy in place? If so, please provide a copy.

• Nothing


6. Does the Municipality have its own wasterelated bylaws? If so, please provide a

copy. If not, what legislation does the municipality act under?

• There are draft bylaws in terms of the new dispensation, which are being

approved on an ad hoc basis – no refuse bylaws yet.

• Currently applying the old Local Council of Ermelo: Refuse (Solid Waste)

bylaws (copy on file)

7. What are the existing waste management practices in place (e.g. disposal,

recycling, treatment, etc.)?

• Waste disposal at landfill

• No formal recycling

• No incinerators – use hospital incinerators from time to time for medical waste

(undertake transportation of small amounts of medical waste)

• No suitable disposal for tyres, currently being dumped in hazardous mine area

DEAT proposed suitable locations for disposal.

• Oil leakage from garages

• Hazardous waste emanating from tannery and present on landfill site (Breyton

Area).

8. Please provide a list of all the following facilities within each municipality:

§ Waste transfer stations

None

§ Waste treatment plants (type)

None

• Landfill sites

i. Ermelo (permitted, 1984), with recent expansion (1998)

ii. Breyton (unpermitted) – was expanded in 2004 and are awaiting

permit from DWAF (have copy of permit application, by

SKC/MIE). Lots of permanent scavengers.

iii. Chrissiesmeer (unpermitted) –(general waste) almost full and no

other suitable place in area, so nearest is Beryton (=/ 20 km

away).No garden refuse sites. Service in place 3 day a week for

collection of 90l of waste. Small amount of scavenging.

Carcasses often disposed of on site.


iv. Lothair (unpermitted) – approx 40m x 25m and receives mostly

ash from the townships.

v. Warburton (unpermitted)

vi. Daval – (unpermitted) – has been in operation for approx. 1.5

years and accepts general waste. Aprox 40 000 cubic metres.

vii. Sheepmeer (unpermitted) – no trenches. Do not use it to

dispose of waste collected through refuse removal services.

viii. Warburton (apparently permitted by no copy of permit held by

municipality) – falls under jurisdiction of municipality but do not

deliver service there. Grounds are owned by Global Forest who

have contractor operating it – offers service to residential areas

around Warburton. No contract in place with municipality. Well

controlled although the municipality does not monitor and is not

allowed to enter the site (??).

Landfills have been fenced but the fences are generally stolen so security is

very poor. They have considered palisade fencing, which they are beginning

to use at cemeteries, but this is very expensive. Ermelo is the only site that is

surrouned by razor mesh.

There are scavengers at some of the sites. They have tried to get rid of them

and have brought on court action, but this has failed.

None of the landfill sites have weighbridges and do not charge for disposal of

waste on site by private companies and individuals. The only income

generated is through the imposition of tariffs for refuse removal (Town Treasury

handles all finances).

WASTE GENERATION QUANTITIES

9. What are the quantities of waste generated, collected, recycled, treated or

disposed of at each waste facility in the municipality? (If possible, please provide

a breakdown of the characteristics of the waste disposed of). Where possible,

information on the waste stream should be reported in either tonnes or cubic

metres.

• No formal recycling


• Can only provide estimates (to follow) based on number of bins etc picked up

so will be inaccurate (e.g. Ermelo = =/ 100 cubic metres / day)

• No WIS in place.

10. What is the composition of the waste generated?

• Mainly domestic

• Industries dispose of waste on site – municipality removes from premises

• Filters etc form part of domestic waste but there are no major manufacturers in

the area

• Small private companies involved in recycling – mostly scrap metals,

cardboard and plastics.

WASTE COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION

11. Is the Municipality divided into waste collection zones / areas? If so, is there a

service map, which outlines routes and frequency of service.

• Available for Ermelo only – provided in hard copy. There is no outline for

frequency of service or routes.

• Ermelo Business areas services 6 days a week (1 cubic metre skips & 90 litre

refuse containers)

• Ermelo Residential areas service weekly – black refuse bag service

• Breyton – weekly service (90 litre bins)

• Lothair – weekly service

Ermelo has departmental vehicles of its own, but all other administrative areas

use other council vehicles – no outside contractors used. Vehicles are under the

control of the Dept: Public Works – division pays for fuel.

Private vehicles are privately maintained as the workshop does not have the

capacity to service all vehicles although there is a budget for maintenance and

repair. The fleet is generally in bad condition and more vehicles are needed.

There is a budget item in place for more vehicles but management says this will

affect the capital budget for next year.


12. Is hazardous waste handled by the Municipality? If so, please provide details of

type of waste, quantities details of waste, method of disposal, method of

packaging, manifest system in place, etc.

• Small quantities, primarily oil – moved out of jurisdiction by a recycling

company and is not considered problematic.

• Medical waste dealt with by the hospitals; municipality sometimes

transport containers from e.g. doctors and dentists, and remove to

hospitals.

• Vets have general agreement – take waste to hospitals themselves.

No control at entrance of landfill sites so some hazardous waste inevitably finds

its way to the landfill sites.

13. Please provide a timetable of service for the collection of waste e.g. businesses

and residential areas.

• None provided.

14. How many service points are there within the Municipality (Service point = where

collection vehicles stop)? Where possible, please provide details of the location

of these collection points, frequency of collection, etc.

• Differs on a daily basis between companies as they generate waste at

different rates.

• Approx 32 000 residential houses in Msukaligwa, excluding informal

areas.

• Approx 800 companies and businesses that pay for services

• 4 cubic metre skips in informal areas (especially Wesselton) – picked up

on an ad hoc basis if equipment is available. This is not working

because people throw refuse outside of the skips. Approx 6 skips out at

any one time although there are 21 skips available.

15. Where are the rural communities located within the municipality?

Wesselton


16. What is the existing level of service within these areas?

• Ad hoc – skips. Service is almost nonexistent.

• This is a major problem.

• Some areas have no access and infrastructure for service delivery.

17. Does the local municipality make use of contractors to carry out any waste

management functions? If so, please provide details of who the contractors are,

what service they provide, details of contracts in place etc.

• None – has been explored but cannot pay them – don’t have funds

available.

• Problem with unions

18. Please provide a description of the collection and transportation method for each

type of waste (e.g. kerb side collection, containers used, waste contractors,

commercial waste transporters, skips for waste collection, specialised containers

for hazwaste, etc.).

• Only general / domestic waste – kerb side collection and skips (provided

on separate document).

DISPOSAL SITES (WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES)

19. What type and where are the current waste disposal sites located, and what is

the life expectancy of these sites (i.e. air space)? Where possible, please

provide maps of the locations of each landfill site.

• Information provided in hard copy.

20. What and where are the current transfer stations? Where possible, please

provide maps of the locations of each transfer station.

• None


21. What type and where are the current treatment plants (e.g. chemical, biological,

physical or thermal treatment, which includes incineration, pyrolysis and

gasification)? Where possible, please provide maps of the locations of each

treatment plant, capacity of the facility, daily/weekly throughput, hours of

operation, licence/permit/registration certificate etc.

• None

22. If applicable, what type and where are proposed transfer stations, treatment

plants and waste sites located?

• None

23. Are there any building rubble disposal facilities within the Municipality? If so,

please provide details.

• Goes to landfill sites and is used for filling and covering material.

• Small quantities

• Chrissesmeer – No wetland area so needs to be discontinued but no

suitable places for new landfill site, although the need for one has been

identified. Were thinking of turning it into transfer station but do not

have funding for DWAF registration, nor for the vehicles and

infrastructure that would be necessary.

• Municipalities do not consider waste disposal a priority

24. If applicable, what type and where are proposed transfer stations, treatment

plants and disposal sites located?

• SKC – not feasible as it will be to costly

25. Please provide copies of all permits and authorisations issued in respect of the

Municipalities waste management activities (e.g. DWAF permit, APPA

registration, etc.).

• One permit provided (Ermelo)

• Breyton


26. Please provide copies of all monitoring, management and maintenance reports

relating to all waste management facilities within the Municipality.

• No landfill audits undertaken.

• Complaints regarding landfills sites as litter has spilled over onto

surrounding farmlands

RECYCLING

27. What recycling initiatives are being implemented and undertaken at present?

Please provide supporting documentation, where possible.

• None

28. Are there any organised collections of reusable materials (e.g. Ronnie Bag as

used in Johannesburg)? If so, what are the methods and frequency of collection?

• None

29. Does informal collection of reusable materials take place e.g. landfill pickers, etc?

• Landfill pickers are in place at some of the landfill sites. Street cleansing

is done on a daily basis with litter picking sticks and brooms (eleven in

Ermelo and one in Breyton. There are empty litter bins throughout to

mass refuse containers/ skips 1.1m³ that are in strategic points and are

emptied every 6 out of 7 days. Questionnaire to be administered to find

out more information.

30. Please provide details of existing recycling facilities (e.g. location, capacity,

treatment, age, etc).

• Nothing in Ermelo although a Johannesburgbased company does

come down to recycles oil.

31. What materials are recycled e.g. waste paper, cans, glass, etc?


• To be established.

32. What markets currently exist for recycled materials and which recycling

companies currently operate within the Municipality?

• The market is not viable because quantities are not substantial

• Separation of waste at source does not take place at source and

municipality does not have funding to employ waste separators.

FINANCIAL (Director: Mr DrekosBoes, Town Treasury Dept.: Mattew Makakula

33. What are the existing investment and operational costs incurred and associated

with waste transportation, disposal, reuse and recycling? Where possible, these

should be provided for the last five years of operation, and include costs for

personel, transport, operating and maintenance, administration and staff training,

environmental impact abatement and penalties, and interest and depreciation.


34. Please provide a breakdown of assets used for rendering the waste management

function.


35. What waste charges are currently being levied and where and how are these

levied?


EDUCATION & AWARENESS RAISING

36. What education strategies / awareness campaigns relating to waste are currently

in place or are proposed?

• Environmental Health Dept is supposed to do awareness raising, but

more in terms of cleanliness.


• No initiatives in place.

OTHER

37. What GIS data relating to waste management in the Municipality is available?

• None

38. In your opinion, what are the strengths of the waste management division within

the Municipality?

• None

39. In your opinion, what are the main challenges and weaknesses facing the waste

management division within the Municipality?

• The nature of the work is very physical and many employees cannot

perform the duties they are tasked to perform due to illness (HIV/AIDS is

taking its toll). 2 employees have been declared unfit to perform duties.

• High death rate in the department

• No occupational health department – no annual or baseline medicals

conducted

• PPE provided but do not use (dust)

• High level of absenteeism

• No driver training in terms of Occupational Health and Safety Act

• Discipline of employees is lacking – low morale; lack of responsibility.

• Fleet is old and insufficient to service entire jurisdiction

• Funding

• Inaccessibility of all areas, particularly during rainy seasons as roads

wash away

• Municipal boundaries – no integrated planning in terms of new

residential areas being developed.

• Landfills – equipments insufficient for compaction and covering

• Landfills cannot meet permit requirements

• DEAT frequently threaten to take legal action

• No support from DALA


• Health Inspector who heads up waste management division has no

office, computer, support staff etc.

• Interaction with Dept: Environmental Health is minimal – they should

help especially with health education. There is only one black person

servicing the area and no educational programmes are in place. Every

quarter pamphlets are distributed.

• Dead animals are disposed of at landfill sites – people may contact the

council to have them removed.


APPENDIX B LANDFILL INFORMATION SHEET


APPENDIX C

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS/PERMITS FOR

THE OPERATION OF THE LANDFILL SITE

INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: PHASE 1 – …msukaligwa.gov.za/docs/20100312081839.pdf · 2010....

Documents

Transcript of INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: PHASE 1 – …msukaligwa.gov.za/docs/20100312081839.pdf · 2010....