needs anal ysis report - rustenburg · 2.2.1 organisation ... (mrf) for reclamation of ... this...

KfW B

EntwicPalme60325GERM

Fea

Julius64293Germ

www.

Bankengru

cklungsbanengartenstr.5 Frankfurt aMANY

asibility

s-Reiber-Stras3 Darmstadt

many

.iu-info.de

Ger

ppe

nk . 5 – 9 a. M.

Nestudy foSystem

sse 17

rman Finan

eeds or an Advfor Rust

ncial Coope

Analvanced Itenburg L

April

eration wit

lysis ntegrateLocal Mu

2014

h South Af

Ruste

Solid Waste

Repod Solid Wunicipalit

frica

enburg Loc

e Managem156 B

S

ort Waste Mty (RLM)

cal Municip

ment DepartBethlehem

RustenSOUTH AF

anageme)

25 Scott Waverley

South

www.pdna

pality

tmentDrivenburgRICA

ent

Street, 2090Africa

a.co.za

Advanced Solid Waste Management for RLM Implementation Consultant for MBT Facility Needs Analysis

P:\1576 KfW RLM Implementation\Bericht\03 - Needs Analysis\0 - Drafts\new headline\RLM AISWM Needs Analysis_v04_new.docx I

TABLE OF CONTENT

0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Part 1 Project Alignment with Strategic Objectives ................................................... 5

1.1 Mission Statement of Rustenburg Local Municipality ................................................. 5

1.2 Vision .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Summary of the Municipal Strategic Objectives ......................................................... 5

1.4 Rustenburg Waste Management ................................................................................ 8

Part 2 Status Quo Analysis ........................................................................................... 9

2.1 Project Area ................................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Preliminary Assessment of Current Waste Management Service Delivery .............. 10

2.2.1 Organisation........................................................................................................ 12

2.2.2 Education and Awareness .................................................................................. 13

2.2.3 Recycling ............................................................................................................ 13

2.2.4 Refuse Removal (Collection) .............................................................................. 15

2.2.5 Sweeping ............................................................................................................ 19

2.2.6 Garden Waste Sites and Transfer Stations ........................................................ 20

2.2.7 Disposal .............................................................................................................. 22

2.2.8 Waste Amounts and Waste Characteristics ........................................................ 24

Part 3 The Project ........................................................................................................ 28

3.1 Technical Concept of the Plant for Biological Drying................................................ 28

3.2 The Site .................................................................................................................... 31

Part 4 Budget Analysis ................................................................................................ 32

4.1 Operational Expenditures ......................................................................................... 32

4.2 Revenues ................................................................................................................. 32

4.3 Capital Expenditures ................................................................................................ 33

4.4 Assessment of the Financial Status ......................................................................... 33

4.5 Costs of the MBT ...................................................................................................... 36

Part 5 Capacity and Commitment ............................................................................... 38


P:\1576 KfW RLM Implementation\Bericht\03 - Needs Analysis\0 - Drafts\new headline\RLM AISWM Needs Analysis_v04_new.docx II

5.1 Project Officer and Project Team ............................................................................. 38

5.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 38

5.2 Capacity in Project Team ......................................................................................... 41

5.3 Skills Transfer Plan .................................................................................................. 42

5.4 Key Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 43

5.5 Stakeholder Engagement Plan ................................................................................. 45

Part 6 Project Outputs ................................................................................................. 47

6.1 Activity to be Undertaken ......................................................................................... 47

6.2 Outputs Required to Deliver the Activity ................................................................... 47

6.3 Minimum Standards for the Outputs ......................................................................... 48

6.4 Assessment of the Output Specifications ................................................................. 50

6.5 Key Indicators for Performance Monitoring .............................................................. 51

6.6 Service Interface Expectations ................................................................................. 52

6.7 BEE and Socioeconomic Targets for the Project ..................................................... 53

Part 7 Project Scope .................................................................................................... 55

7.1 Project Scope ........................................................................................................... 55

7.2 How the Project Objectives will Address the Institution’s Strategic Objectives ........ 55

7.3 List of Significant Government Assets for the Project .............................................. 57

7.4 Project Structure ....................................................................................................... 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Population forecast for Rustenburg Local Municipality and Bojanala Platinum district .......................................................................................... 10

Table 2 Planned transfer stations ............................................................................ 20

Table 3 Waste amounts registered at Townlands landfill from 2010 to 2013 .......... 25

Table 4 Comparison of results of sorting analysis ................................................... 26

Table 5 Operational expenditures of the RLM waste management unit .................. 32

Table 6 Revenues for RLM waste management services ....................................... 32


P:\1576 KfW RLM Implementation\Bericht\03 - Needs Analysis\0 - Drafts\new headline\RLM AISWM Needs Analysis_v04_new.docx III

Table 7 Excerpt of the RLM refuse removal tariffs 2013/2014 ................................ 33

Table 8 Capital expenditures for the last 5 years .................................................... 33

Table 9 Balance of annual costs and revenues for the last five years .................... 34

Table 10 Estimated dynamic unit costs [ZAR/ ton] for different scenarios of the future RLM SWM system (project period of 20 years, with contingencies and costs of implementation consultant) ............................. 36

Table 11 Roles of the transaction advisory team ...................................................... 41

Table 12 Measures for improvement of the efficiency of municipal SWM services ...................................................................................................... 42

Table 13 Proposed Key Stakeholders ....................................................................... 43

Table 14 Composition of RDF ................................................................................... 49

Table 15 BBBEE Scorecard ...................................................................................... 53

Table 16 Achievement of RLMs strategic objectives ................................................. 56

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Stages of a municipal PPP feasibility study .................................................. 3

Figure 2 Rustenburg Local Municipality ...................................................................... 9

Figure 3 Waste management infrastructure in RLM ................................................. 11

Figure 4 Planned recycling activities in RLM ............................................................ 14

Figure 5 Service areas internal and external service providers ................................ 16

Figure 6 Proposed general layout of the transfer stations (BKS) ............................. 21

Figure 7 Layout plan of Waterval landfill ................................................................... 23

Figure 8 Construction of Waterval landfill during August 2013 ................................. 24

Figure 9 Waste composition of RLM general waste according to Review of the Integrated Waste Management Plan; Consolidated Report (January 2014) .......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 10 Mass balance of aerobic drying MBT process (including MRF) ................. 29

Figure 11: Options for the use of RDF ......................................................................... 30

Figure 12 Project officer and project team .................................................................. 38

Figure 13 Service interfaces ....................................................................................... 52

Figure 14 Project structure ......................................................................................... 57


P:\1576 KfW RLM Implementation\Bericht\03 - Needs Analysis\0 - Drafts\new headline\RLM AISWM Needs Analysis_v04_new.docx IV

ABBREVIATIONS

AISWMS Advanced Integrated Solid Waste Management System

BBBEE Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment

BPDM Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

CBD City Business Development or Central Business District

DEA South African Department of Environmental Affairs

EPWP Expanded Public Works Programme

FS Feasibility study

GIS Geographical information system

IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan

KfW KfW Entwicklungsbank (German Development Bank)

IU INFRASTRUKTUR & UMWELT

MBT Mechanical biological treatment

MIG Municipal Infrastructure Grant

MPPP Municipal Service Delivery and PPP Guidelines

MRF Material recovery facility

MSW Municipal solid waste

NWMS National Waste Management Strategy

PPP Public Private Partnership

RDF Refuse derived fuel

RLM Rustenburg Local Municipality

SMMEs Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit of RLM

TA Technical assistance

UAWEC Urban Agricultural and Waste Education Centre

WDC Waste drop-off centre

ZAR South African Rand (Exchange rate: 14 ZAR = 1 EUR)


P:\1576 KfW RLM Implementation\Bericht\03 - Needs Analysis\0 - Drafts\new headline\RLM AISWM Needs Analysis_v04_new.docx 1

0 Introduction

As part of South African-German co-operation, Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM) and

KfW Entwicklungsbank (KfW) agreed to explore the feasibility of an Advanced Integrated

Solid Waste Management System (AISWMS) for RLM. The main aims of the AISWMS are

Adoption of the South African National Waste Policies with regard to utilization of waste as a resource (recyclables, energy recovery) by applying innovative waste treatment technologies

Increasing the quality and efficiency of waste management services in RLM

A Feasibility Study was undertaken in 2008/2009 developing and evaluating different

waste treatment options from fairly simple technologies up to very sophisticated state of

the art technologies. As a result of this assessment a waste treatment facility, comprising

the following two components has been identified as the most favourable solution for

RLM:

Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for reclamation of recyclables (which is already included in the present plans for construction of the new Waterval Landfill), and

MBT with biological drying to produce refuse derived fuel (RDF).

It has been proposed to realize both components in one central facility at the entrance of

the new Waterval Landfill. In March 2010 the RLM council approved the results of the

Feasibility Study and requested further assistance from KfW regarding project

implementation. KfW agreed with RLM to conduct an expert mission to Rustenburg in

order to verify and update the results of the Feasibility Study done in 2009 and develop a

roadmap on how to proceed. An expert team was assigned for this mission comprising of

Dipl.-Ing. Gernod Dilewski for investigation of the technical issues and MBA Johan Louw

for investigation of financial and institutional aspects. The main tasks of the experts were:

review and update of the current situation on waste management in RLM;

verification of results of the FS regarding the utilization of RDF;

propose organizational setup for development and operation of the Waste Treatment Facilities;

develop a model for project financing;

based on the recommendations develop a plan for project implementation;

specify supporting measures to capacitate RLM to successfully implement the project; and



specify supporting measures for nationwide dissemination of information and project results for advanced Solid Waste Management.

The updated feasibility study was concluded in 2012 and focused on the implementation

of the new waste treatment facility and strengthening of waste management service

delivery.

In November 2013 the consulting companies INFRASTRUKTUR & UMWELT, PDNA and

UTHO (“Consultant”) were assigned to support the implementation of the proposed waste

treatment plant in RLM for a period of three years (until end of 2016). This consultancy is

a component of the Waste Management Program, financed by the German Development

Bank (KfW) and headed by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

The consultancy services are divided into two components:

I. Improvement of Efficiency of Solid Waste Management Services in the RLM

II. Implementation of a Waste Treatment (waste to energy) Plant at Waterval Landfill (including transaction advisory services)

Both components will be complementary to each other and contribute to the overall

project objective of establishing an integrated, environmentally sound and efficient waste

management system in RLM.

In order to move the project forward, National Treasury approval is required for the

feasibility study in the PPP framework.

This report is the Needs Report which comprises the first report in the feasibility study.

The full feasibility study process includes the following:

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

Figur

nced Solid Wamentation Con

RLM Implementation\

re 1 Stag

aste Managemnsultant for M

\Bericht\03 - Needs A

ges of a mun

ment for RLMBT Facility

Analysis\0 - Drafts\ne

nicipal PPP

ew headline\RLM AIS

feasibility s

SWM Needs Analysis

study

s_v04_new.docx

Need

s Analysis

33



The Needs Analysis Report comprises the following:

• Part 1: Project Alignment with Strategic Objectives

• Part 2: Status Quo Analysis

• Part 3: The Project

• Part 4: Budget Analysis

• Part 5: Capacity and Commitment

• Part 6: Project Outputs

• Part 7: Project Scope

The next report will be the Options Analysis in terms of the process indicated in the

diagram above.



Part 1 Project Alignment with Strategic Objectives

1.1 Mission Statement of Rustenburg Local Municipality

The mission of Rustenburg Local Municipality is to:

"To continuously improve the quality of life, economic growth and eradicate poverty

through best practice, sustainability and inclusive governance".

1.2 Vision

The vision for RLM is to be:

"A world class city where all communities enjoy a high quality of life".

1.3 Summary of the Municipal Strategic Objectives

Following table summarises the strategic objectives of the Rustenburg Local Municipality.



PRIORITY OBJECTIVES

Efficient provision of quality basic services and infrastructure within a well-planned spatial structure Supporting vision components:

A logical and well planned spatial structure supported and sustained by high quality infrastructure

Citizens enjoy high quality of Life.

Accelerated delivery and maintenance of quality basic and essential services to all Communities Improved service delivery through provision of high quality, reliable and cost effective infrastructure based on integrated spatial planning Develop and implement educational/awareness programmes to obtain community in and ownership in the use and protection of community and municipal facilities Implementation of a City Business Development (CBD) Regeneration Strategy Improved public transport infrastructure

Drive diversified economic growth and job creation Supporting vision components:

A diversified and resilient economy

Consolidated Rustenburg minerals index, value production and economic growth path quantification and impact Revive and expedite development of alternative high value adding economic growth sectors - agriculture, manufacturing, transportation services and products Build and support broad-based black economic empowerment and sustainable Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) business development Create an enabling environment for the attraction, retention and expansion of foreign and local investments Stimulate and facilitate sustainable tourism development and marketing of Rustenburg City as a world-class destination Development of an integrated human resources that empowers communities skills development Development of an institutional integrated human resources capability that enhances institutional competence

Ensure municipal financial viability and management Supporting vision components:

A city well governed by municipal administration providing decisive leadership.

Develop and implement integrated financial management systems to support municipal programmes and ensure internal financial sustainability Implement revenue management strategy to enhance municipal financial viability and sustainability Implement sound and sustainable financial management and compliance controls Develop and implement an integrated municipal core projects’ funding and acquisition model aligned with funding institutions’ terms and conditions



PRIORITY OBJECTIVES

Maintain clean, green, safe and healthy municipal environment for all Supporting vision

Sustainable use and effective management of natural resources.

Implement quality and improved health and social services to Communities Explore and implement alternative eco-friendly and conservation interventions to preserve the environment Implement integrated community safety and security strategy and measures Implement an integrated by-law enforcement programme

Transform and maintain a vibrant and sustainable rural development


Drive integrated rural development planning and infrastructural development Provide conductive environment for rural economic development through sustainable SMME’s mentoring

Uphold good governance and public participation principles


Drive good governance and legislative compliance in all municipal processes Promote public participation and partnerships with stakeholders on municipal programmes Establish and maintain strong partnerships with local (mining) industries to oversee social

Drive optimal municipal institutional development, transformation and capacity building

appropriately skilled labour force

Develop and implement integrated internal systems and processes Develop, implement and review internal policies and procedures on regular basis Establish and inculcate a service delivery culture Establish quality management processes in the delivery of all services Maintain a positive and vibrant image and identity of the municipality Provide credible leadership in driving transformation initiatives Develop and implement internal capability model (institutional core and critical competencies, scarce skills, maintenance skills) that enhance institutional and external stakeholders' development communities and institutional capability Review, realign and implement organisational structure to support the vision and objectives



1.4 Rustenburg Waste Management

Mission and Vision on Waste: Reduce – Reuse – Recycle – Treatment – Disposal

With regard to SWM the most important plan in RLM is the Integrated Waste Management

Plan (IWMP). An update of the existing IWMP is currently under preparation. The IWMP

will provide the basis to properly plan and manage SWM services in RLM.

The main purpose of revising the IWMP is the incorporation of national policies for waste

valorisation and the assessment of alternative service delivery mechanism. “The Waste

Management Unit recognised the preceding sentiment, including the realisation that

reliance on current waste management systems and direct disposal to land should no

longer be the only option for the future (RLM, 2012). It is against this backdrop that

Council (2012) mandated the management of the municipality to explore, within the

context of the IWMP Review, alternative mechanisms for delivering waste services to the

communities of Rustenburg”1.

1 Section 1.1 of the IWMP review, consolidated report, March 2014



Part 2 Status Quo Analysis

2.1 Project Area

The project area is Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM), a local municipality in Bojanala

Platinum District or rather the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality (BPDM) in the North

West Province. It is located in the eastern parts of the North West Province. Just recently

RLM has submitted an application for becoming a metropolitan municipality. In total RLM

comprises 38 wards.

Figure 2 Rustenburg Local Municipality

Madibeng

Mogale City

RandfonteinVentersdorp

Kgetlengrivier

Moses Kotane

Wards:

Rustenburg Town

Other wards

Rooiwal

Bethanie

Ga-Luka

Marikana

Boshoek

Phokeng

Photsaneng

Maanhaarrand

Boons

Rustenburg

Kroondal

Phatsima

Chaneng

Monnakato

TsitsingHartbeesfontein

Mfidikwe

Kanana

Lefaragatlha

Tlhabane

Meriting

Modikwe



According to the Census 2011, RLM is the most populous municipality in the North West

Province and the sixth most populous one in South Africa. In 2011 it had a total population

of 549,575 people. Since the last census in 2001 RLM’s population has risen by 162,479

people. Based on the census data, population is projected until 2035. The projection is

based on the assumptions that population development will continue in accordance with

the development of the last years.

Table 1 Population forecast for Rustenburg Local Municipality and Bojanala Platinum

district

Rustenburg Local Municipality Total Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

2001 387,096 1,189,359

2011 549,575 1,507,506

2012 568,354 1,544,122

2013 587,303 1,581,311

2014 606,396 1,619,069

2015 625,607 1,657,395

…

2025 817,486 2,071,968

…

2035 984,967 2,551,133

Based on the explained assumptions, the population in RLM will rise from 549,575 in 2011

to 984,967 in 2035. In the whole BPDM the population is expected to increase from

1,507,506 in 2011 to 2,551,133 in 2035.

2.2 Preliminary Assessment of Current Waste Management Service Delivery

The following figure presents the existing and planned facilities in the RLM. The following

sections refer to the respective facilities and provide additional information.

AI

P:\157

Advanced SolImplementatio

76 KfW RLM Impleme

lid Waste Manon Consultant

entation\Bericht\03 -

Figu

nagement for Rfor MBT Facil

Needs Analysis\0 - D

ure 3 Wa

RLM lity

Drafts\new headline\

aste manage

RLM AISWM Needs

ement infras

Analysis_v04_new.d

structure in

docx

RLM

Needs Analyssis

11



2.2.1 Organisation

Within Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM) the Waste Management Unit (SWMU) is

established as part of the Directorate “Infrastructure Development & Management”.

The SWMU is led by the Head Waste Management – Walter Senne. According to the

organogram there are five managerial positions foreseen in the SWMU:

Manager Refuse Removal

Section Manager Waste Information & GIS

Manager Landfill & Dumping

Section Manager Waste Minimisation, Education and Law Enforcement

Manager Contracts.

However, out of these five managerial positions only three positions are filled (Refuse

Removal, Landfill & Dumping, Contracts), while two are vacant (Waste Information & GIS

as well as Waste Minimisation, Education and Law Enforcement). On the foreman level

most of the foreseen positions are filled (except foreman for Landfills and Waste

Minimisation & Law Enforcement Officer).

The SWMU is only responsible for the direct solid waste management operations, but all

supportive activities like financial management, human resource management or

corporate services are handled centrally for all directorates of RLM. Because of this, the

SWMU has no influence on human resources decisions, but is dependent on decisions

taken by the central services. This has the consequence, that

decisions on hiring and selection of staff cannot be taken by the SWM unit directly;

the Unit has no direct disciplinary control on the staff; sanctioning of misconduct has to follow complicated procedures and there are limited possibilities for incentives;

the unit has no direct control on training and capacity building measures;

procedures for communication and decision making are complex and time consuming;

delivery of shared services is delayed (i.e. repair and maintenance of equipment) without direct control of the unit;

important functions like efficiency monitoring are not implemented by the waste management unit nor by any other department.



As a result of the Municipal Systems Act Section 78 Report, the waste management

function in the RLM is currently being ring-fenced as a business unit. A local consultant

has been assigned to establish a waste management entity that will “have to deal with

integrated waste management within RLM proximities so as to ensure creative but

sustainable waste management solutions for the municipality.”

2.2.2 Education and Awareness

Education and awareness activities in the RLM waste management services occurs

primarily through media reports, engagement with local communities on designated

Clean-up Days in the respective communities, through information available online

(http://rlmwaste.co.za/education-and-awareness/) and via social media forums

(https://www.facebook.com/RLMWaste).

The recommendations in Report 9 (Waste Education and Awareness) are part of the

IWMP developed by Jarrod Ball and Associates in March 2006 is currently being

implemented by this department in the unit.

2.2.3 Recycling

2.2.3.1 Current Recycling Activities in RLM

The South African National Waste Management Strategy defines the following targets for

recycling, to be achieved until 2016:

25% of recyclables diverted from landfill sites for re-use, recycling or recovery.

All metropolitan municipalities, secondary cities and large towns have initiated separation at source programmes.

Achievement of waste reduction and recycling targets set in IWMPs for paper and packaging, pesticides, lighting (CFLs) and tyres industries.

To date the RLM waste management unit has not implemented any major formal recycling

activities. However, there is a vibrant recycling industry that involves all levels of informal

and private business. Present recycling activities include

Waste picking on the Townlands landfill (according to different studies between 500 and 1,000 waste pickers are working on the landfill)

Salvaging by waste pickers in urban centres

Recycling companies collecting recyclables from businesses and industries (also buying the recyclables from waste pickers)

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

R

Ther

Howe

sepa

2.2.3

The

recyc

imple

Figur

Ongo

SeinthTh


RLM Implementation\

ecycling in

re is no data

ever, it can

arates as mu

3.2 Planne

RLM waste

cling. The d

emented.

re 4 Plan

oing and pla

eparation a each settle

he householholoana is i



the Royal B

a available o

be expecte

uch 10 % o

ed Formal R

e manageme

diagram belo

nned recycli

anned recyc

t source proement area lds have bemplementin



Bafokeng ar

on the over

ed that pres

f the overal

Recycling A

ent unit has

ow provides

ng activities

cling initiativ

oject (pilote5,000 hous

een providedng the proje

ew headline\RLM AIS

rea impleme

rall amount

sently, inform

ll stream of

Activities

s developed

s an overvie

s in RLM

ves include

ed by DEA +seholds ared with two s

ect

SWM Needs Analysis

ented by Te

of recyclab

mal and priv

domestic w

d various pla

ew on the d

e

+ RLM) in C taking part

separate wa

s_v04_new.docx

edcor (priva

les being co

vate sector

waste.

ans and ide

ifferent mea

Cashan and t in the projeaste contain

Need

ate company

ollected in R

recycling

eas with reg

asures that

Bethanie ect ners (2 x 12

s Analysis

14

y)

RLM.

gard to

may be

20l)

4



Buyback centres for recyclables are also established/ going to be established in Lefaragathla, Bethanie and Mfidikwe – the separate collected waste from Cashan will be transported to the Lefaragathla Buyback Centre, while the separate collected waste from Bethanie will be transported to the buyback centre in Bethanie; so far there does not exist any agreement for the marketing of recyclables from the buyback centres

Material recovery facilities (MRF) shall be implemented at the waste transfer stations in Marikana, Tsitsing and Phokeng. The projects are still at a design stage.

A funding application has been prepared for the Strumosa Urban Agricultural and Waste Education Centre (UAWEC). The project shall include a waste drop off and buy back centre, composting, agricultural activities and fish farming. Furthermore, a variety of educational and recreational activities shall be provided.

A central MRF shall be implemented at the new Waterval landfill. Recently, a separate feasibility study has been prepared for this project.

2.2.4 Refuse Removal (Collection)

2.2.4.1 General

The refuse removal services are provided by the local municipality as well as by private

operators. According to the Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP), from 120,000

service points in the greater Rustenburg area, about 50,000 is serviced by the municipality

itself. For the remaining service points, the CBD area and Marikana with additional 1,500

service points, the private operators are responsible (see next figure).

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

Figur

2.2.4

In ter

comm

dispo

For t

drive

have


RLM Implementation\

re 5 Serv

4.2 Munici

rms of refus

mercial/indu

osal sites. T

the provisio

ers. There a

e a lifting de



vice areas in

ipal Service

se removal,

ustrial waste

The househ

n of refuse

are 12 waste

evice for the



nternal and e

es

the munici

e, separate

olds make

removal se

e collection

e mechanica

ew headline\RLM AIS

external ser

pal services

e collection o

up the majo

ervices, RLM

vehicles w

al emptying

SWM Needs Analysis

rvice provid

s cover the

of garden w

ority of the c

M has 11 pe

ith compact

of standard

s_v04_new.docx

ders

collection o

waste, and t

customers o

ermanent an

tion units. O

d containers

Need

of domestic

transport to

of the munic

nd 2 backup

Only six of th

s. Two truck

s Analysis

16

and

the

cipality.

p

hem

ks are

6



used as spare trucks. Each truck on a collection trip is accompanied by approx. 8 general

workers. Two foremen are responsible for the monitoring of the refuse removal teams.

The distribution of waste bins to about 10,000 households in Waterfall East and Cashan

has been completed and now distribution will be in the CBD. The RLM has contracted a

company for the supply of the bins on an as and when needed basis for a period of three

years.

In addition to the compaction trucks, the RLM Waste Unit has 15 further vehicles including

tipper trucks, pick-ups (bakkies), a bobcat and a trailer, a front end loader and a grab lorry

(crane truck). The whole list of vehicles is given in the following table.

The waste is collected in two shifts on all days of the week, except Christmas and New

Year. The first shift begins 6 o’clock in the morning and ends 2 o’clock in the afternoon

after which the second shift begins and lasts until 10:00 o’clock in the evening. Since the

number of drivers is equal to the number of compaction trucks, it can be assumed that the

same trucks are not utilised in both shifts. As stated by the management, in some cases,

the drivers and other workers work more than eight hours, however, this cannot be the

norm.

The Refuse Removal Manager provides the waste collection routes to the drivers.

Although a geographical information system for the municipality is available, the collection

areas and routes are not available on a map.

The RLM area is divided based on whether service rendered internally by RLM or

externally through service providers. The internal services are provided in Rustenburg

CBD, while the private operators collect the waste in surrounding communities.

2.2.4.3 Efficiency of Municipal Waste Collection Services

Assessment of the available data indicates that the efficiency of waste collection services

provided by RLM is very low. The possible capacity of the equipment is three times more

than what is actually collected. Estimated unit costs for waste collection are very high as

well. The reasons for this low performance may be as follows:

there is no effective monitoring and control mechanism for the performance of collection teams: the summary of number of collection trips/deliveries in the tables above clearly shows that there are significant differences between the deliveries of different trucks and the same truck in different weeks. If the quantity of the collected waste by each truck can be registered on a weighbridge, more indicative data about the performance of waste collection can be gathered.



inadequate or no preventive maintenance of the vehicles: since there is no preventive maintenance according to a maintenance plan, the trucks need repair works after sudden breakdowns. Due to the lack of a store of spare parts, waiting for parts from suppliers results in long lead times for repairs

lack of effective collection trip and schedule planning: The Refuse Removal Manager plans the collection trips (areas) for every driver. Aspects like selection of the shortest drive way with maximum quantity of collected waste are not sufficiently considered. In addition, some of the drivers cannot read and write so that they are not able to read the street names and follow the given route.

issues with personnel management: according to the Refuse Removal Manager, the absenteeism of the workers is a problem within the collection staff. Besides breakdown of trucks, the non-appearance of the workers and drivers might be the reason for low performance.

Another issue which is important for the performance of the refuse removal service is the

number of workers accompanying the collection trucks. On average eight workers are

assigned to each collection truck. On the one hand, there is no need for such a high

number of collection workers per truck. On the other hand, with this high number of

workers, it can be expected that the performance of the collection services should be very

high as well. However, as previously explained, the performance is only 30% of that what

should be expected normally. Depending on the location of the containers, usually only

two to three workers are required for the collection of waste with compaction trucks.

2.2.4.4 Private Contractor Services

The areas serviced by external service providers are shown in Figure 5.

In southern farmland areas including Boons, Mothobastad and Syferbad no services for

waste collection are provided. From time to time, these areas are cleaned through the

Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). The billing system does not clearly indicate

whether the service is being rendered by internal and external service providers.

RLM provides to the external service providers the refuse removal schedules in their

service areas. The private companies provide trucks and manpower. The labourers

employed by the private operators should be from the region concerned to promote job

creation.

The contract management and monitoring is carried out by the contracts manager of the

RLM Waste Unit. He inspects all regions monthly. In the contracts there are levels of



cleanliness (visual inspection) and penalties may be applied for non-compliance by

contractors.

The illegal dumping of waste takes place particularly in high density low income areas with

backyard dwellings.

2.2.4.5 Challenges

On the basis of the assessment of the current refuse removal services, the challenges can

be summarised as following:

Creating a reliable database for proper planning

Implementation of a proper route planning system also considering the backyard dwellings

Implementation of a performance monitoring system for internal and external services

Improvement of working conditions of municipal workers and ensuring efficient and optimal use of their time

Training of staff including Adult Basic Education and Training where necessary

Implementation of an asset management and equipment maintenance system

Timely repairs of collection vehicles

Most of the improvement measures are administrative measures since sufficient

equipment capacity is already available. The main aim will be the proper planning and

effective utilisation of resources.

2.2.5 Sweeping

Through the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) 150 street cleaners are

provided for cleaning the centre of Rustenburg town. The work is organised and

supervised by the RLM waste management unit. The workers are poorly equipped, mostly

just using bags and grabbers. The organogram (see section 2.2.1) indicates 37 additional

street cleaners, a foreman and a supervisor as staff of the unit for street sweeping.

Sweeping activities include emptying of street bins, cleaning of collections stands and

special cleaning campaigns.

In the areas where private contractors are implementing waste collection, the contracts

include sweeping services as well.



2.2.6 Garden Waste Sites and Transfer Stations

Currently there are five communal sites for waste disposal. In order to close these sites

and transport the waste to the regional landfill, two years ago RLM applied for MIG

funding for the implementation of transfer stations. National treasury approved only three

transfer stations which will replace all these communal sites. A fourth transfer station in

Phatsima is listed in the Review Report of the IWMP from January 2014. The location of

these transfer stations and status of implementation are as follows:

Table 2 Planned transfer stations

Transfer Station

Replaced communal sites

Status

Phokeng Monakato and RBN No activity started

Lethabong Lethabong, Tsitsing, Bethanie

No activity started

Marikana Marikana Construction tendered

Phatsima Phatsima Geohydrolic and geotechnical studies completed, design and documentation in progress

The implementation of the Phokeng transfer station has not been started yet, because the

land issues have not been resolved and required funding is still not available. Similarly,

the land issues in Lethabong are also not solved. The construction of the Marikana

transfer station was tendered on 8th of June 2013; however, it is still to be awarded.

The closure of the communal dumping sites is supported by the North West University's

(NWU) Potchefstroom Campus in the framework of the university’s pro-bono office

established to provide local governments in the North West with free advice on

environmental management and environmental impact assessments. The allocated

budget for each of the transfer stations is 25 million ZAR (1.66 million EUR).The detail

design of the transfer stations is done by Aecom (BKS). The design of the transfer

stations foresees a security building at the entrance of the TS, a buy-back centre for

recyclables, an administration building, a drop-off centre for public deliveries, a

weighbridge, a material recovery facility, and a future compost area (see next figure).

All transfer stations will be equipped with a weighbridge in order to determine the

delivered waste quantities by municipal or private operators’ vehicles. It is envisaged to

apply a certain gate fee which will be determined by the local municipality. While the

waste delivered by the public will be placed in the skip containers, the municipal or other

service providers will deliver the waste to the MRF. There the recyclables will be sorted

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

out m

landf

Figur

The w

wast

next

multi

educ

The

and Z


RLM Implementation\

manually an

fill.

re 6 Prop

weighbridge

te will be ch

to the facili

i-use centre

cation centre

RLM initially

Zinniaville a



nd baled for

posed gener

e will be uti

hipped and s

ty. In Phase

e including o

es, and a sm

y intended t

as mini tran



transport. T

ral layout of

lised only to

spread on t

e 2 of the p

on-site deve

mall-scale c

to rehabilita

sfer station

ew headline\RLM AIS

The residua

f the transfe

o weigh the

he site unti

roject, the t

elopment of

compost are

ate and dev

s for genera

SWM Needs Analysis

al waste wil

er stations (

e waste colle

l a compost

transfer stat

f growing ar

ea.

velop Garde

al and gard

s_v04_new.docx

l be taken to

BKS)

ection vehic

ting area wi

tion will be d

reas for frui

en Waste Si

en waste. H

Need

o the new W

cles. The ga

ill be establ

developed t

it and veget

ites in Krem

However, as

s Analysis

21

Waterval

arden

ished

to a

tables,

metart

s a

1



result of the public participation processes, the RLM Council has decided to rehabilitate

and close these sites2.

To replace the above mentioned garden waste sites, two waste drop-off centres (WDC)

will be established in Jabula and Strumosa.

In general, for the planned facilities, only the initial investment costs are calculated and

the operating costs or financial feasibility of the projects are not adequately assessed.

2.2.6.1 Mobile Equipment for Waste Transport

Currently RLM has three RoRo (roll-on/off) trucks which can transport 32 m3 RoRo

containers and four skip trucks for the transport of 6 and 9 m³ skip containers. According

to the reviewed IWMP, three skip trucks will be replaced by RoRo trucks. The

procurement of new trucks is in progress. The allocated budget is about 5.2 million ZAR.

Furthermore, 300,000 ZAR is planned for the procurement of RoRo containers. However,

both procurements cannot be finalised because of lack of funding.

2.2.7 Disposal

The location of the RLM landfills, used for disposal of municipal waste, is shown in Figure

3. Currently the collected waste from Rustenburg city is disposed at the Townlands

landfill. At this landfill all incoming traffic is registered and waste amounts are calculated

based on the transportation volume of trucks. The Townlands landfill is operated by a

private company (PWR), and the consulting company Zitholele is assigned for

management supervision as a technical advisor on operations. The Townlands landfill

does not comply with sanitary landfill standards and will be closed as soon as the new

Waterval landfill is available.

The waste collected in the rural areas of RLM mostly is not delivered to Townlands but

disposed on communal landfills/ dumpsites (see map of waste management

infrastructure). No data on waste amounts delivered to the communal landfills are

available.

2.2.7.1 New Waterval Landfill

At present, RLM is constructing a new landfill site (Waterval Landfill Site) in order to close

the current Townlands Landfill as well as further, non-permitted landfills. The Waterval

2 Public Participation Report for the Proposed Waste Licence for Closure Application for the Kremetart and Zinniaville Garden Waste Sites, Rustenburg, June 2011 and January 2012



General Waste Disposal Facility, for the Rustenburg Local Municipality, will be located

approximately 5 km southeast of Rustenburg. The new Waterval sanitary landfill has been

licensed in 2012 and construction is ongoing. Aside from the typical landfill and associated

infrastructure, the licence includes provision for specific additional activities:

a temporary storage facility for waste such as batteries, oil, paint, fluorescent tubes;

a recycling yard and building;

a composting facility;

a material recovery facility; and

a landfill gas processing facility.

The Waterval landfill is located approximately 5 km southeast of Rustenburg. The site is

approximately 115 hectares in total and the landfill cells will be developed in several

phases.

Figure 7 Layout plan of Waterval landfill

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

Start

landf

Figur

The o

Gold

far ha

calcu

The W

also

are c

close

landf

closu

2.2.8

The o

deliv

for o

the tr

below

of a w


RLM Implementation\

t of operatio

fill construct

re 8 Con

operational

der Associat

as not been

ulation of co

Waterval la

for the othe

currently be

ed, the trans

fill. A detaile

ure of existi

8 Waste

only availab

veries by the

peration of

rucks is use

w, gives an

waste treatm



on was expe

tion is now

struction of

manual for

tes. Operati

n tendered.

ost covering

andfill shall s

er communa

ing prepare

sfer stations

ed impleme

ng dumpsit

Amounts a

ble data on

e private co

the Townla

ed for calcu

indication o

ment facility



ected for Ja

scheduled

f Waterval la

r the new la

ion services

Also, no ca

g tariffs have

serve not on

al landfills/ d

ed by AECO

s will be use

entation plan

es and star

and Waste

waste amo

mpany Plat

ands landfill.

lation of wa

of waste am

y.

ew headline\RLM AIS

anuary 2014

for August

andfill durin

andfill will be

s shall be co

alculation of

e been prep

nly as a rep

dumpsites i

OM (BKS) c

ed for long

n, which coo

rt of long dis

Character

ounts in RLM

tinum Wast

. Since no w

aste amoun

mounts, but

SWM Needs Analysis

4 but due to

2014.

ng August 20

e prepared

ontracted to

f unit costs

pared.

placement fo

n the munic

onsultants.

distance tra

ordinates th

stance trans

ristics

M derive fro

e Resource

weighbridge

ts. Therefor

is not reliab

s_v04_new.docx

o recent dela

013

by the cons

o a private c

for landfill o

or the Town

cipality. Lan

Once the c

ansport to th

he individua

sport, is not

om the regis

es (Pty) Ltd

e is availabl

re, the landf

ble and ade

Need

ays finalizat

sulting comp

company, b

operations a

nlands land

ndfill closure

communal s

he Waterva

al working s

t available.

stration of w

(PWR), con

le, the volum

fill data pre

equate for p

s Analysis

24

tion of

pany

but so

and no

fill, but

e plans

sites are

al

teps for

waste

ntracted

me of

sented

planning

4

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

Table

Ye

201 201 201 201

Rega

is a h

imple

deliv

Furth

comm

Wate


RLM Implementation\

e 3 Was

ear WasteGeneWas

0 56,1 59,2 49,3 51,

arding a for

high level of

ementation

veries from i

hermore, no

munal landf

erval landfill



ste amounts

e Types regeral ste

IndusWas

,659 24,,826 60,,910 59,,798 77,

ecast of the

f uncertaint

of tipping fe

industry.

o data is ava

fills. With th

l, thus addin



s registered

gistered attrial

ste GardRefu

314 13,913 16,216 16,600 11,

e future was

ty. Currently

ees in the fu

ailable rega

e closure o

ng to the ov

ew headline\RLM AIS

at Townland

t Townlandden use

Foostuf

,891 2,,605 11,,713 12,,169 8,

ste amounts

y, RLM doe

uture will m

arding the w

of these land

verall volum

SWM Needs Analysis

ds landfill fr

ds landfill [td-ffs

BuildRubb

948 43,918 24,188 26,814 31,

s for waste

s not charg

ost likely ha

waste amou

dfills, the wa

me.

s_v04_new.docx

rom 2010 to

tons per yeing ble

Gran

138 5,686 4,680 5,720 7,

deliveries fr

e any gate

ave an impa

nts currentl

aste will be

Need

o 2013

ear] Tot

nite

545 146893 178300 170150 188

from industr

fee at the la

act on the

ly delivered

transported

s Analysis

25

tal

,495,842,007,251

ry there

andfill;

to the

d to the

5

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

A wa

fenci

figure

Figur

The c

cons

very

Table

Frac

Orga

Pap

Plas

Glas

Meta

Othe

Tota1Revie2Advan3Advan


RLM Implementation\

aste compos

ing project”

e below.

re 9 Was

Was

comparison

siderable dif

high and th

e 4 Com

ction

anics

er; Cardboa

stics

ss

als (Cans e

ers

al

ew of the Integra

nced Integrated

nced Solid Was



sition analy

led be Boff

ste composi

ste Managem

n of the resu

fferences. E

he organic f

mparison of

Ru

ard

etc.)

ated Waste Man

Solid Waste M

ste Managemen



sis recently

fin and Fund

tion of RLM

ment Plan; C

ults with sor

Especially, t

raction is ve

results of so

ustenburg Municipal

15%

19%

24%

5%

9%

28%

100%

nagement Plan;

anagement Sys

t for the City of

ew headline\RLM AIS

y has been c

di. The outc

M general wa

Consolidate

rting analys

the plastic f

ery low.

orting analy

WaLocal

lity1

Consolidated R

stem for Manga

Cape Town; Fin

SWM Needs Analysis

conducted

come of this

aste accordi

d Report (Ja

sis from othe

raction and

ysis

aste Compo

Bloemfon38%

21%

14%

9%

5%

13%

100%

Report (January

ung Local Muni

nal Feasibility R

s_v04_new.docx

in the scope

s analysis is

ing to Revie

anuary 2014

er South Af

the metal f

osition

ntein2

%

y 2014)

cipality; Feasibi

Report (Septemb

Need

e of the “rin

s presented

ew of the Int

4)

frican cities

fraction in R

Cape Tow26%

18%

15%

5%

2%

33%

100%

ility Study (Febr

ber 2012)

s Analysis

26

g-

d in the

tegrated

shows

RLM are

wn3

%

ruary 2011)

6



Furthermore, the analysis so far has only been conducted for general (domestic) waste.

No data are available for industrial waste, which makes up for the highest share of the

deliveries to the landfill.

Additional sorting analysis and investigations will be conducted by the AISWM

Consultants to verify and amend the available data. As a result of these investigations

relevant design parameters for the treatment plant shall be defined such as:

Input amount for the treatment plant

Average waste composition, particle size, moisture content

Recycling potential

Estimation of output amounts and calculation of calorific value.



Part 3 The Project

As a result of the assessment of different waste treatment options it has been agreed

upon that the future AISWMS will comprise a

• Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for reclamation of recyclables and a

• MBT with biological drying to produce refuse derived fuel (RDF)

The two components will be built within the boundaries of the new Waterval landfill.

For the MRF grant funding from the mining industry has been envisaged, provided that the

plant can be operated financially sustainable. A feasibility study has been recently

prepared providing evidence of the economic feasibility of the plant. Implementation of the

MRF is expected for 2015. Although the MRF is part of the overall treatment process the

intended MPPP project is focussing at the MBT for production of refuse derived fuel.

3.1 Technical Concept of the Plant for Biological Drying

Unlike other aerobic treatment options, the biological drying of waste is not aiming for a

maximum degradation of the organic matter but for a short term drying process of around

seven days in order to enhance significantly the sorting capabilities for an efficient sepa-

ration of RDF and recyclables (e.g. metals). The fraction to be landfilled is reduced to an

amount of 15 – 20 % and consists mainly of non-organic (inert) parts such as sand,

stones and glass. Once the waste is dried, combustibles like plastics, paper, textiles,

wood and fine organic matter can easily be separated by means of air separation due to

their low density. This density separation works very effectively and as a result, the

amount and the quality of such RDF is highly superior to an RDF arising from wet separa-

tion. Recyclables like ferrous and non-ferrous metals can be separated with high purities

in order to sell them directly to the recycling market. Due to the short drying period, the

organic matter of the waste remains predominantly in the RDF.

Mass balance

The biological drying process leads to a mass reduction of expected 30 %. The separation

of ferrous and non-ferrous metals is expected to be at around 2 % of the treated waste.

The amount of separated RDF is expected to be around 40 % of the waste amount. The

remaining fraction of mainly inert particles, which has to be landfilled, is reduced to an ex-

pected amount of 15 %.



The following flowchart illustrates the mass balance of the described aerobic drying op-

tion.

Figure 10 Mass balance of aerobic drying MBT process (including MRF)

Main Benefits

The main benefits of the treatment are

Compliance with South African waste reduction targets and environmental regulations, as well as the target of the RLM Waste Management Policy (IWMP)

Environmental benefits (climate, groundwater, odour)

Creation of employment

Minimizing required landfill volume and environmental risks of disposal

No long term costs for mitigation of environmental impact of landfills

Production of secondary fuel from waste and separation of recyclables

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

The c

very

rema

expa

respe

Mark

RDF

in sp

purpo

Alter

subs

recov

indus

minin

Figur

Beca

recov

- C

-


RLM Implementation\

construction

small and m

ain in aerob

anded due t

ectively.

keting of R

, the high c

pecifically co

oses or in t

rnatively, RD

stitute for so

very. Along

strial use of

ng related im

re 11: Opti

ause RLM is

very seems

Coal fire

Cement



n of gas dra

methane de

ic condition

o the MBT

RDF

calorific valu

onstructed p

urn would b

DF can be c

olid fossil fue

with a sign

f RDF offers

mpacts.

ons for the

s more or le

s to be the m

d power

kilns

Bio



ainages is d

ecompositio

n. In total, th

process and

ue fraction o

plants in ord

be transform

co-fired in d

els like coa

nificant redu

s significant

use of RDF

ess surroun

most likely o

stations

omass re

ew headline\RLM AIS

dispensable

on will happe

he lifespan o

d the landfi

of mixed wa

der to obtai

med into ele

designated i

l or coke an

uction of the

t benefits in

F

ded by a nu

one for the

RDF

s

elated ca

SWM Needs Analysis

e because m

en in the m

of the landf

ll costs will

aste streams

n thermal e

ectricity for t

industrial pl

nd in order t

e amount of

n terms of gr

umber of ce

proposed M

F

arbon cre

for in

s_v04_new.docx

methane gen

ost upper la

ill will be sig

be dramatic

s (mainly M

nergy like s

the energy m

ants (e.g. c

to create a

waste to be

reenhouse

ement kilns,

MBT concep

edits

Powe

ndustrial

Need

neration wil

ayers, which

gnificantly

cally reduce

MSW) can be

steam for in

market.

cement kilns

useful ener

e landfilled,

gases and

, this option

pt.

er plants

energy

s Analysis

30

ll be

h

ed,

e used

dustrial

s) as a

rgy

, the

coal

of RDF

supply

0



In the vicinity of Rustenburg there are several cement kilns operated by four different

companies:

• AfriSam (Pty) Ltd;

• Lafarge;

• Pretoria Portland Cement (PPC);

• Sephaku Cement (starting operations in 2014).

Already during the preparation of the feasibility study in 2009 these companies have been

approached regarding their interest and potential to utilize the RDF produced in the MBT.

These companies, again, have been contacted in 2012 and 2014. Overall, the cement

companies are showing a high interest in the project. Also there is more than sufficient

capacity for utilization of the RDF amounts produced in the MBT.

3.2 The Site

At present, RLM is constructing a new sanitary landfill (Waterval Landfill Site) in order to

close the current Townlands landfill as well as further, non-permitted landfills. The

components of the Waterval General Waste Disposal Facility are a landfill, a materials

recovery facility, a public drop-off area, and a composting area. The licence for the facility

has been provided in 2012.

Within the boundaries of the Waterval landfill site, an area for construction of the MBT has

been assigned and kept free from other uses.



Part 4 Budget Analysis

4.1 Operational Expenditures

For the initial financial analysis the Consultant has reviewed the budgets and expenditure

of the waste management unit for the financial years 2009/10 to 2013/14.

Table 5 Operational expenditures of the RLM waste management unit

Total operational expenditures in 2012/13 amount to 102 million ZAR. Wages, salaries

and other staff related costs in 2012/13 make up for 35% of the overall costs. Service

contracts (without landfill operation) amount to 17% of total costs.

4.2 Revenues

Tariffs paid by households and businesses are the main source for financing of waste

management services.

Table 6 Revenues for RLM waste management services

In 2011/2012 and 2012/13 revenues actually exceeded the operational expenditures for

these financial years. The main reason for the increase in revenue was the increase of

waste tariffs, which have been almost doubled within a period of five years.

Description

[1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] Wages, salaries and other employment costs 18,843 20% 23,871 21% 28,452 34% 35,877 35% 36,803 28%

Contracted services 13,247 14% 13,615 12% 12,614 15% 17,718 17% 15,961 12%

Transport 5,984 6% 5,010 4% 10,511 12% 9,491 9% 7,122 5%

Landfill management 3,967 4% 3,825 3% 5,243 6% 4,715 5% 6,180 5%

Irrecoverable debts 39,578 41% 37,850 34% 1,463 2% 4,325 4% 7,231 6%

Depreciation 3,387 4% 4,984 4% 2,586 3% 2,586 3% 26,009 20%

Supply of wheel bins - 0% - 0% 1,989 2% 3,000 3% 5,000 4%

Hiring of equipment - 0% 10,016 9% 2,188 3% 2,809 3% 2,900 2%

Free basis refuse 1,776 2% 2,071 2% 3,273 4% 3,050 3% 2,392 2%

Other expenditures 2,592 3% 4,742 4% 7,242 9% 7,730 8% 8,877 7%

Administration costs 6,695 7% 6,281 6% 9,193 11% 11,152 11% 11,193 9%

Total 96,068 100% 112,265 100% 84,752 100% 102,452 100% 129,667 100%

Operational expenditures 2009/10

Actuals


Actuals


Actuals


Budget


Actuals

Description Revenues 2013/14 Budget

[1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%] [1,000 ZAR] [%]

User Charges -49,200 63% -66,420 68% -74,274 67% -82,256 68% -77,338 58%

Equitable share -28,064 36% -30,384 31% -36,275 33% -38,360 32% -45,668 35%

Others -563 1% -296 0% -289 0% -311 0% -9,350 7%

Total Revenues -77,827 -97,100 -110,838 -120,927 -132,357 Total Expenditures 96,068 112,265 84,752 102,452 129,667

Balance 18,241 15,165 ‐26,086 ‐18,475 ‐2,689

Revenues 2009/10Actual



Revenues 2012/13 Actual



Table 7 Excerpt of the RLM refuse removal tariffs 2013/2014

Tariff description [ZAR/month]

Standard Container, 1 emptying per week 96Standard Container, 2 emptying per week (business/commerce) 237Bulk container 1.5 m³, 1 emptying per week 1,279Bulk container additional 1.5 m³, 1 emptying per week 1,114

Bulk container 6 m³, 1 emptying per week 5,101

Since most households currently still don’t have special waste containers (major part of

the waste is still collected in bags), the costs mainly refer to fees per property/ household.

However, one of the problems with the billing is that several families may live at one

property.

4.3 Capital Expenditures

In the table below capital expenditure for the last 5 years are presented.

Table 8 Capital expenditures for the last 5 years

A major part of the investment is funded through MIG funding. For example in 2012/13,

96 % of the capital expenditure was financed through Municipal Infrastructure Grants.

4.4 Assessment of the Financial Status

In the table below a balance of annual costs and revenue is shown for the last five years.

Capital expenditures

2009/10


2010/11


2011/12


2012/13


2013/14

Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget

[1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR]Waste Depot 23,130 6,187 98 87 700

Landfills 1,319 765 3,879 74,851 45,458 Garden waste sites and transfer stations - 3,607 436 2,047 20,396

Others (furniture etc.) 218 1,150 50 299 105

Containers 391 - 514 1,093 300

Vehicles 1,067 10,187 - - -

Total 26,123 21,896 4,976 78,378 66,960

thereof MIG 24,448 10,559 4,327 75,045 52,458

percentage of MIG-Funding 94% 48% 87% 96% 78%

Description



Table 9 Balance of annual costs and revenues for the last five years

Actually, in 2011/12 and 2012/13 the revenue exceeded the expenditure, thus at first

glance suggesting financially comfortable situation of the RLM waste management

services. However, on closer inspection, the financial situation reveals:

Major share of the capital investment (financed from MIG or other grants) is not included;

The increase in revenue is mainly due to increase in tariffs. Thus, in spite of considerable efforts to improve the fee collection rate, the situation of poor billing and fee collection efficiency still remains;

The unit costs for different types of services are not known. Even for new projects, the focus is on investment costs (i.e. acquisition of MIG funds), without thoroughly calculating the full costs of the measure and the financial implications on the waste management system. For example, for the new Waterval landfill (which currently is built mostly from MIG funds), no calculation of unit costs has been conducted, in spite of the fact that the operation costs of the new landfill will be significantly higher compared to the Townlands landfill;

Currently, waste management services in RLM are still rudimentary. In order to comply with national requirements, services need to be further developed, which will result in a considerable cost increase. Even, if future investments are mainly financed from grant sources, increase of operating costs has to be expected, for example for the following measures:

• Operation of the new sanitary landfill (compared to operation of the Townlands landfill)

• Closure of communal landfills, and transfer and long distance transport of the waste to Waterval landfill

• Implementation of separate collection for recyclables and hazardous waste

• Material recovery facilities, drop off centres, and garden waste sites

Revenues and expenditures

2009/10 Actuals


2010/11 Actuals


2011/12 Actuals


2012/13 Actuals


2013/14 Budget

[1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR] [1,000 ZAR]

Operational expenditures 96,068 112,265 84,752 102,452 129,667Captial expenditure without MIG 1,675 11,337 649 3,333 14,501

Revenues -77,827 -97,100 -110,838 -120,927 -132,357

Balance 19,916 26,502 -25,437 -15,142 11,812



• Composting of garden waste

• Advanced waste treatment

Approaches to deal with the additional costs, besides increasing the household tariffs,

include:

a) Extending the revenue basis for services

b) Improved efficiency of service delivery

a) Extending the Revenue Basis for Services

Currently, besides the refuse removal fees for households and businesses a considerable

part of the RLM waste management services is provided for free. For example no gate fee

is charged at Townlands landfill for industrial waste. Thus, currently, private households

are subsidizing the waste disposal of the industry. Other free services include waste drop

off at the transfer stations and garden waste sites.

In the current situation, where the waste management system mainly consists of collection

and disposal, a complex tariff system, based on full cost accounting might be dispensable.

However, with adding additional (costly) components to the system, the revenue basis has

to be broadened as well, in order not to overburden the private households. Required

measures include:

Calculation of unit costs for individual (existing and planned) services

Development of tariffs for different types of services, based on actual costs (with consideration of social, environmental and economic aspects)

Since the current accounting and waste information system does not support the

identification and evaluation of unit costs, there is the need to develop a new structure for

accounting (full cost accounting), tariff setting and billing.

Furthermore, the overall billing and collection rate of fees needs to be improved.

Considerable efforts have been and are being made with regard to registration of

customers (i.e. new project conducted by Boffin & Fundi). Nevertheless, the Consultant

has not received a comprehensive list of the targets and achievements of this initiative.

The information of the available revenues indicates that, so far, this initiative was not very

successful.



b) Improved Efficiency of Service Delivery

Improvement of efficiency is a main target of this project. Even though the present

accounting and Waste Information System does not provide sufficient tools for

performance monitoring, there still would be a possibility to implement fairly simple

measures, such as monitoring the performance of each collection crew (i.e. number of

deliveries to the landfill per months). However, within the Waste Management Unit, the

organogram of the waste management unit does not show any position, explicitly being

assigned for efficiency monitoring. As a consequence, so far efficiency assessment within

the RLM waste management services is not visible.

The weaknesses already described in the previous sections are also reflected in the

overall costs of service delivery. The available data do not allow a clear differentiation

between collection costs and costs of other waste management services. Therefore, it is

difficult, to specify and compare the unit costs for individual services. Nevertheless,

according to the simplified estimation unit costs for collection are in a range of more than

2,000 ZAR per ton. There is indication that the collection costs are approx. three to four

times higher compared to the unit costs of a private service provider. Still, on the RLM

side capital costs are not included, which would even increase the cost difference.

4.5 Costs of the MBT

In the Feasibility Study prepared in 2009 the initial investment costs have been calculated

with 258 million ZAR.

Table 10 Estimated dynamic unit costs [ZAR/ ton] for different scenarios of the future

RLM SWM system (project period of 20 years, with contingencies and costs of

implementation consultant)

Baseline MBT A1 MBT A2 SWM system without MBT

SWM system with MBT initial investment as loan

SWM system with MBT initial investment as grant

operation total operation total operation total Administration 172 181 172 181 172 181Collection, sweeping, transport 343 600 343 600 343 600MRF 99 136 99 136 99 136MBT 0 0 180 382 180 220

Landfill 28 98 11 16 11 16

Total 1 643 1,014 806 1,314 806 1,152Revenues MRF -71 -71 -71 -71 -71 -71Revenues CDM 0 0 0 -68 0 -68

Transport Costs RDF 0 0 0 71 0 71

Total 2 572 943 735 1,246 735 1,084



Based on these calculations the MBT will increase the waste management costs

compared to the baseline (without waste treatment) in a range between 13% and 24%

depending on financing conditions for initial investment (grant financing or loan). The

overall financial impact of the MBT will be highly dependent on the successful marketing

of the products (especially the RDF).

Cost calculations will be updated and revised during the preparation of the feasibility

study.



Part 5 Capacity and Commitment

5.1 Project Officer and Project Team

The Municipality’s Project Team and the Transaction Advisory Team structures are set out

in the diagram below. The diagram includes the lines of decision-making within the project

team. The roles and responsibilities of the Municipality’s Project Officer and the TA Team

are summarised below.

Figure 12 Project officer and project team

5.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities

5.1.1.1 Project Officer

The Project Officer from the Municipality is responsible for:

• Reporting to and taking direction from the RLM council;

• Developing project plans and assigning tasks to other RLM project personnel, including monitoring project staff and the progress of the project, as well as managing risks and escalated issues from project work-stream teams;



• Controlling Departmental budgets, scheduling resources, and recommending suitable work approaches, all with a view to assuming overall responsibility for the successful conclusion of the project;

• Measuring project success against budget, original scope, and business objectives, including assuming responsibility for planning resource requirements and coordinating the daily tasks of all Department project team members in conjunction with contract resources;

• Ensuring that all resources and their respective skills are optimally utilised, and providing quality assurance of work undertaken by Department staff assigned to the project; and

• Providing the principal point of contact between the RLM council and the Transaction Advisory team, including obtaining and delivering regular reports on the project progress and outstanding issues.

5.1.1.2 Project Leader

The Project Leader is responsible for:

Reporting to and taking direction from the Municipality Project Officer;

Developing project plans and assigning tasks to other TA project team personnel, including monitoring project resources and the progress of the project, as well as managing risks and escalated issues from project work-stream teams;

Controlling the project budget, scheduling resources, and recommending suitable work approaches, all with a view to assuming overall responsibility for the successful conclusion of the project on the part of the TA team;

Measuring project success against budget, original scope, and business objectives, including assuming responsibility for planning resource requirements and coordinating the daily tasks of all TA team members in conjunction with contract resources;

Ensuring that all resources and their respective skills are optimally utilised, and providing quality assurance of work undertaken by TA team resources assigned to the project; and

Providing the principal point of contact between the Municipality Project Officer and the TA project team, including preparing and delivering regular reports on the project progress and outstanding issues.

The Project Leader is supported by the Expert for MPPP Guidance, especially concerning

all formal questions of MPPP procedures and steps.



5.1.1.3 Project Work-stream Leaders

The Work-stream Leaders are responsible for:

Managing tasks for a specific process, functional or application area defined as part of the work breakdown structure of the project;

Supporting the daily tasks for the assigned team;

Initiating and managing the issue research and resolution process;

Monitoring and reporting the progress of the assigned team, completing tasks and deliverables assigned by the Project Leader, and keeping the Project Leader informed of progress and issues in a timely manner.

5.1.1.4 TA Project Team

Members of the TA Project Team are comprised of Consultants and Analysts with diverse

skill-sets, to fulfil the requirements of the project. The role of each member of the Project

Team is to:

Undertake the fulfilment of the assigned work breakdown structure of the project as defined;

Communicate suitably with all persons involved and concerned with suitable fulfilment of the work tasks and activities defined for the project;

Produce all project documentation in accordance with the standards deployed for the project;

Co-ordinate and generate the design, development, and deployment of all common-usage materials that may be required for the fulfilment of the specific work tasks and activities of the project (process narratives, explanatory recordings and responses, analyses workings and formulations, change management notes and related references), in accordance with project standards as implemented.

The transaction advisory team and their roles are summarised in the following table.



Table 11 Roles of the transaction advisory team

Name Description Company

Team Leader

Gernod Dilewski Project Leader INFRASTRUKTUR & UMWELT Professor Böhm und Partner

MPPP Guidance

Sheila Galloway Guidance of MPPP Feasibility Study and processes

Utho Capital

Financial Advisor

Roland Hunter Work-stream Leader Mott MacDonald PDNA

Reginald Muzariri Support to preparation of MPPP Feasibility Study

Utho Capital

Technical Advisors

Dr Wolfgang Müller Waste Treatment INFRASTRUKTUR & UMWELT Professor Böhm und Partner

Andreas Puchelt Biological Drying/ RDF INFRASTRUKTUR & UMWELT Professor Böhm und Partner

Orhan Boran Tendering INFRASTRUKTUR & UMWELT Professor Böhm und Partner

Vijay Domun Procurement Mott MacDonald PDNA

Hugh Robert Tyrrell Stakeholder communication

Mott MacDonald PDNA

Dhanashree Naidoo Environmental and EIA Mott MacDonald PDNA

Marius ELS Quality and compliance control

Mott MacDonald PDNA

Legal Advisor

Duard Barnard Work-stream Leader Mott MacDonald PDNA

Institutional Advisor

Anita Botha Work-stream Leader Mott MacDonald PDNA

5.2 Capacity in Project Team

The Project Team, comprising both the Project Officer and the Transaction Advisory

Team, has the capacity to undertake the Feasibility Study. The TA team is available to

assist the Municipality where an external mechanism is preferred for the procurement of

the service.



Further, the Municipality has the capacity to guide the feasibility study and procurement

based on its previous experience.

5.3 Skills Transfer Plan

The RLM have since appointed a service provider, Boffin & Fundi (B&F), to assist in the

establishment of a waste entity. The brief of Boffin and Fundi is to establish a waste

management entity that will “have to deal with INTEGRATED waste management within

RLM proximities so as to ensure creative but sustainable and waste management

solutions for the municipality.”3

The establishment of an entity goes beyond ring-fencing the unit, and ring-fencing forms

one part or component of entity establishment. The new entity will have to make provision

for providing the necessary support required for successful implementation of the

AISWMS.

In the scope of the consultancy services comprehensive capacity building measures will

be provides to the Solid Waste Management the SWM Unit in RLM. The capacity building

measures in general focus on the improvement of the efficiency of SWM service delivery.

The capacity building measures are divided into seven key activities as shown in the

following table.

Table 12 Measures for improvement of the efficiency of municipal SWM services

Activity Sub-activity

1) Improved Financial Management Development of Internal Income and Cost Centres and Modification of Accounting

Solid Waste Management Tariffs and Improvement of Cost Recovery Systems

Review and Update of Solid Waste Management By-laws

2) Improved Organisational Management Structures

Institutional Assessment

Business and Organisational Planning

Organisational Development of the PEA

3) Optimisation of Operational and Administrative Processes

Planning of Waste Management Services

Analysis of Waste Collection and Sweeping

Fleet Maintenance

3 Rustenburg Local Municipality. RLM/DI/0128/2012/13: Review of Integrated Waste Management Plan and Establishment of a Waste Entity. Scope of Work



Activity Sub-activity

Separate Collection of Household Hazardous Waste

4) Waste Information Management System

Immediate Measures

Data Collection and Monitoring

5) Awareness Raising Measures and Public Campaigns

Concept for Awareness Raising for Citizens and Political Stakeholders

Preparation of Products (Brochures, Leaflets, PR Events)

Waste Entity Specific Web Site

6) Cooperation with Informal Sector Data Base of Waste Pickers on Townlands Landfill

Facilitation of Discussion Process with Waste Reclaimers

Support Program for Waste Reclaimers

Concept Preparation for Selected Pilot Measures

7) Training, Capacity Building and Excursions

Training Needs Assessment, Preparation and Implementation of Training Programs

International Study Tour

Study Tour in South Africa

Trainings for SWM Unit Staff

Additional training packages will be developed with regard to the implementation and

operation of the waste treatment plant.

5.4 Key Stakeholders

The Key Stakeholders will include

Table 13 Proposed Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder Roles RLM

Local Municipality: RLM – Council, Mayoral Committee and relevant Portfolio Committee

Receive, comment on and approval of Feasibility study and contractual arrangements

Local Municipality: RLM – Solid Waste Management Unit

Mandated to implement the project

Local Municipality: RLM – PMU Project management unit that manages several projects that might have a bearing on this project including the Boffin & Fundi contracts

Local Municipality: RLM – Municipal Manager Project Champion and Accounting Officer

Local Municipality: RLM – Chief Operations Officer

Overall management of the services level framework for outsourced services

Local Municipality: RLM – Corporate Support Services

Human Resources, ICT and Legal Services



Stakeholder Roles Local Municipality: RLM – Budget and Treasury

Budget and financial management, Billing services

Local Municipality: RLM – Infrastructure Directorate

Directorate within which RLM Solid Waste Management Unit falls and responsible for infrastructure capital projects

Local Municipality: RLM – Rustenburg Rapid Transport

Project synergies

Local Municipality: RLM – Directorate Planning and Human Settlement

Development Planning and Environment Management

Other Local Municipalities

Local Municipality: Madibeng Local municipality within the BPDM – east of RLM

Local Municipality: Moses Kotane Local municipality within the BPDM – north, north-west of RLM

Local Municipality: Moretele Local municipality within the BPDM – east of Madibeng Local Municipality

Local Municipality: Kgetlengrivier Local municipality within the BPDM – west of RLM

District Municipality District Municipality: Bojanala Platinum District Municipality (BPDM)

District Municipality within which RLM sits and which has its seat in the RLM

North West Provincial Government (NWPG)

NWPG Department of Health/Waste involvement and inputs

Tribal Communities Royal Bafokeng Nation (RBN)

Treasuries National Treasury Guidance/Advice/Support/TVR iro PPP North West Provincial Treasury Guidance/Advice/Support/TVR iro PPP

Banks IDC Funding

DBSA Funding physical, social and economic infrastructure

KfW Entwicklungsbank Feasibility Study/Technical Advisory/Technical Assistance Funder on Project

Local Communities RLM Ward Councillors and ward committees For local community consultation Local Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs)

Relevant local Community Based Organisations (CBOs)

For local community consultation

Other interested and affected parties For local community consultation Reclaimer Communities Reclaimer community input and involvement



Stakeholder Roles National Departments

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) Project Champions/KfW Contact

Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA)

Consultation iro views and recommendations iro PPP

South African Local Government Association (SALGA)

Represent , promote and protect the interests of local government

Cement Producers

Afrisam (Pty) Ltd Potential Offtaker: Utilize the RDF produced in MBT

Lafarge Potential Offtaker: Utilize the RDF produced in MBT

Pretoria Portland Cement (PPC) Potential Offtaker: Utilize the RDF produced in MBT

Sephaku Cement Potential Offtaker: Utilize the RDF produced in MBT

Business/Industry Associations Association of Cementitious Material Producers (ACMP)

Industry Association for information dissemination and stakeholder support

Rustenburg Association of Business Business Association for information dissemination and stakeholder support

Labour Organisations South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU)

Engagement on labour issues

National, Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)


North West Employers Organisation Engagement on labour issues Independent Municipal and Allied Workers Trade Union (IMATU)


Mining Houses AngloPlat Land lessor

Serviced Providers to the RLM/Private Operators Landfill Operators/Managers MRF Operators/Managers Compost Producers

5.5 Stakeholder Engagement Plan

This project is one that has many key stakeholders. It is therefore critical that a

“consultation plan”, which details how consultations with key stakeholders will occur

during the project and how their views will be incorporated into the project, is developed.



This also includes the results of any consultation that the Municipality has already

undertaken.

A Stakeholder Communication Plan needs to be prepared containing the following

elements:

Description of the Project

The process of inclusion of the stakeholders

The expectations of the stakeholders

Receive feedback from key stakeholders

Details of the stakeholder engagement plan will be developed in the next step of the

feasibility study.



Part 6 Project Outputs

6.1 Activity to be Undertaken

The activity to be undertaken is the treatment of municipal solid waste before disposal by

means of mechanical and biological processes.

The main benefits of the treatment are

Compliance with South African waste reduction targets and environmental

regulations, as well as the target of the RLM Waste Management Policy (IWMP)

Reduction of greenhouse gases, thus protection of climate

Decrease of leachate generation, thus protection of groundwater sources

Reduction of bad odours and poor visibility of landfills

Creation of employment

Minimizing required landfill volume

No long term costs for mitigation of environmental impacts of landfills

Production of secondary fuel from waste and separation of recyclables

Solution for sewage sludge treatment

6.2 Outputs Required to Deliver the Activity

The main outputs of the project will be:

Reduction of the quantity and volume of waste to be disposed in the landfill

Production of refuse derived fuel (RDF) to be used as a secondary fuel in cement plants or similar facilities

Separation of recyclables like ferrous and non-ferrous metals.

The implementation process of the envisaged activity is supported by an international

consultancy funded by German KfW Entwicklungsbank. In addition to this support,

following outputs from this consultancy are expected for the RLM Waste Unit:



Improved financial management system

Optimised organisational and administrative processes

Improved organisational management structures

Successfully operated waste information system

A number of public awareness measures and public campaigns

Integration of informal sector into to the formal waste management.

6.3 Minimum Standards for the Outputs

Reduction of the quantity and volume of waste to be disposed in the landfill: The

quantity of waste to be disposed shall be reduced by 67% to 72% after the mechanical

biological treatment processes. Another 13% will be sorted out by the upstream material

recovery facility (MRF) so that the total reduction will be about 80% to 85%. In addition to

the reduced quantity, the output to be landfilled shall have an inert character so that

minimal efforts will be required for emission control at the landfill. The density of the

materials to be landfilled shall be at least 0.85 t/m³ so that for the emplacement and

compacting of waste fewer efforts will be required. Hence, the required volume for waste

disposal will be decreased by approx. 90 %. More savings in airspace will come on top,

because the mainly inert material does not require daily earth cover since its material

properties are quite similar to gravel.

Refuse derived fuel (RDF): The RDF shall be used as a substitute for fossil fuels in

designated plants, such as cement kilns, coal fired power plants or special incineration

plants in order to produce energy. Therefore, the minimum standards of the prospective

facility shall be applied. In general RDF to be produced shall have following specifications.



Table 14 Composition of RDF

Parameter Unit Min Max N % 0.52 0.52 S % 0.1 0.2 Cl % 0.28 0.7 CV kj/ kg 13,000 22,000 Humidity % 2.9 34 Sb ppm dry 9 14.7 As ppm dry 0.9 8.8 Cd ppm dry 0.18 2.6 Cr ppm dry 11.3 140 Co ppm dry 0.6 4 Mn ppm dry 28 210 Hg ppm dry 0.1 0.4 Ni ppm dry 0.85 21 Pb ppm dry 25 157 Cu ppm dry 45 266 Sn ppm dry 4 500 Tl ppm dry 0.02 0.5 V ppm dry 0.3 7 Zn ppm dry 225 340

Depending on the final utilisation process for RDF, some of the fore mentioned

parameters are of more importance than others in terms of process stability and air

emissions. With regard to a possible utilisation of RDF in a cement kiln the more important

parameters are the heavy metal contents of chrome and mercury, the chlorine-content

and the calorific value of RDF. However, especially the cement industry is rather flexible

towards diversifying RDF qualities as to a number of process related reasons (high

temperatures, long retention time, de-dusting system, by-pass systems, e.g. for chlorine,

composition of raw meal).

Separation of recyclables: After the drying process, the ferrous and non-ferrous metals

shall be separated with high purities so that they can be sold directly to the recycling

market. About 2% of the input of the biological treatment process shall be sorted as

recyclable materials.

Of course, the composition of the input (mixed municipal waste) and the sorting of

recyclables and hazardous wastes at the upstream MRF will affect the achievement of the

minimum standards. During the course of the TA project, a waste analysis will be carried

out in order to confirm the composition of the waste from RLM.



6.4 Assessment of the Output Specifications

In 2011 a Study on the Feasibility of Regional Waste Facilities in BPDM was conducted, in

order to determine whether existing and planned waste management facilities can be

used as regional facilities for the whole BPDM, in order to share existing resources

between municipalities and to determine, if a collective approach for waste minimisation

techniques will be beneficial to achieve the targets set out within the South African

National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS). As a result of the study, a regional landfill

site shall be implemented, within close proximity of the major waste generator in BPDM,

i.e. RLM.4 For this reason, it is expected that the Waterval Landfill Site, which is currently

under construction, will serve as a regional landfill site for BPDM in the near future.

In this respect, the reduction of the quantity and volume of the waste to be disposed will

allow disposing of the waste from the entire district with a constant or even longer lifetime

of the landfill.

Since any activity beyond the simple disposal of waste creates additional costs, revenues

through this activity have to be generated. Ideally these revenues should be generated on

a continuous basis and the influence of the supply and demand of the market should be at

minimum. A long-term RDF delivery contract with the energy consuming industry would

allow constant revenues for the MBT operator on the one side and supply of secondary

fuels to the industry at a stable price on the other side. The latter leads to sustainable

energy and process costs compared to the uncertainty of future price development of

fossil fuels. Because RLM is more or less surrounded by a number of cement kilns, this

option of RDF recovery seems to be the most likely one for the proposed MBT concept.

The statutory requirements for alternative waste treatment options as well as an increased

interest of the South African cement industry to expand their cement production capacities

in conjunction with the aim to lower their energy related production costs will increase the

importance of environmentally friendly substitutes for fossil fuels. The same development

has been observed in Europe and in other industrialised countries mainly within the last

10 years.

4 Bojanala Platinum District Municipality: Feasibility of the Regional Waste Facilities in the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality; 2011.



The various advantages for the use of RDF (co-incineration) can be summarised as fol-

lows:

• The cement manufacturing process has remarkable energy requirements, on the order of 3,000 – 5,000 kJ/ kg of produced clinker5.

• High process temperature in conjunction with a counter-current movement of fuel and fumes lead to a high degree of thermal destruction of organic pollutants without causing adverse environmental impacts.

• Contribution towards a lowering of emissions such as greenhouse gases by replac-ing the use of fossil fuels with materials that would otherwise have to be incinerated or landfilled with corresponding emissions and final residues.

• Full energetic and material recovery of RDF as to the fact that the provided energy is used directly in the kiln for clinker production and non-combustibles are substi-tuting raw material in the cement. Disposal of ash and slag can be avoided.

• Benefits related to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the amount of at least 1.6 kg of CO2 per kg of RDF compared to coal.

• Benefits related to the reduction of NOx-emissions at around 0.36 kg/ Mg RDF.

In line with the requirements of the National Waste Management Strategy and the IWMP,

the separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals will contribute to achieve the recycling

targets of the RLM.

6.5 Key Indicators for Performance Monitoring

The performance of the proposed activity will be monitored and measured by means of

following indicators:

Quantity and composition of the input to the MBT

Quantity and composition of the produced RDF

Calorific value of the RDF and quantity of substituted fossil fuel

Quantity and composition of the residuals to be disposed at the landfill

Quantity and type of the separated recyclables

Environmental parameters of the MBT, like condensate and air emissions

Environmental parameters of the landfill, like leachate, landfill gas, and odour.

5 EU, 2001. IPPC reference document on best available techniques in the cement and lime manufacturing industries



6.6 Service Interface Expectations

The following figure presents the interfaces with municipality’s other services as well as

services of other private operators.

Figure 13 Service interfaces

The waste collected by the internal and external service providers will be first weighed at

the weighbridge at the entrance of the Waterval Waste Disposal Facility. A small amount

of waste will be delivered directly by the waste generators at the public drop off area.

From there, the waste will be forwarded to the MRF and after sorting of recyclables to the

MBT. The separately collected green waste will be delivered directly to the MBT. While

the products of the MBT, RDF and recyclables will be marketed to the end users, the

residuals will be disposed at the landfill.

RLM plans to contract private operators for the operation of the above mentioned facilities.

However, it is currently not yet clear; if there will be only separate operators for each

facility or only one operator for all facilities. Most probably, the weighbridge will be

operated by the landfill operator. In any case, the RLM Waste Unit will have the function of

contracting and monitoring.

Furthermore, the necessary water and electricity will be delivered by the municipal

suppliers. The Environment Management Department will be responsible assessment and

monitoring of the operation in respect of compliance with environmental standards.

External waste collection services

Internal waste collection services

Weighbridge MRF MBT

Landfill

RDF consumer

Recycling market

Private Operators Private Operator Private Operator Private Operator Private Operator

RLM Waste Unit Contracting / Monitoring

RLMElectricity Supply

Water SupplyEnvironment Management



6.7 BEE and Socioeconomic Targets for the Project

The BBBEE scorecard and targets recommended hereunder were determined after

having reviewed the Integrated BBBEE generic scorecard, the needs of the RLM for

empowerment, the new BBBEE codes, the BEE scorecards for the previous PPP

arrangement, performance achieved thereon and inputs received from the Department.

Table 15 BBBEE Scorecard

PPP BEE element Indicative PPP project Target

Recommended bid evaluation

weighting A: Private Party equity 15% A1: Black equity 30% A2: Active black equity 55% of A1 A3: Cost of black equity Value-for-money A4: Timing of black equity returns Early and ongoing returns B: Private Party management & employment

10%

B1: Black management control Commensurate with A1 & A2 B2: Black women management control

5% of B1. Increase to 10% over 20 years

B3: Employment equity Compliant with the law B4: Skills development 2% of payroll spent on the

development of Black employees

C: Sub-contracting 50% C1: Project CAPEX to black enterprises

40%

C2: Project OPEX to black enterprises

50%. Increase to 80% over 10 years

C3a: Black management control 25% C4: Black women management control

10% of C3. Increase to 10% over 20 years

C5: Employment equity Strong plan, legally compliant C6: Skills development 2% of payroll spent on the

development of Target Groups (of which at least 1% of the payroll must be spent on Black employees)

C7: Procurement Capex to black SMEs –Design & Construction

25%

C8: Procurement Opex to black SMEs – Facilities Management

30%



PPP BEE element Indicative PPP project Target

Recommended bid evaluation

weighting D: Local socio-economic impact 100% use of unskilled labour

from RLM 50% of semi-skilled labour from within the Province 20% of materials and supplies of total construction from within the Province.

25%



Part 7 Project Scope

7.1 Project Scope

The scope of this project is to implement a new waste treatment facility/ waste to energy

facility on Rustenburg’s new Waterval Landfill. This way the South African National Waste

Policies with regard to utilisation of waste as a resource (recyclables, energy recovery) by

applying innovative waste treatment technologies shall be achieved, while at the same

time the quality and efficiency of waste management services in RLM are increased. As a

most favourable solution a MBT with biological drying to produce refuse derived fuel

(RDF) has been identified, subsequent to a Material Recovery Facility for reclamation of

recyclables.

The implementation of the MBT shall be undertaken jointly between RLM and private

industry thus optimising the strength and opportunities of both sectors. The operation of

the MBT and the marketing of its products shall be given to the private industry.

Therefore, this project focusses on the justification and implementation of the foreseen

municipal PPP, strictly in accordance with the South African legislative frame work and

regulative policies.

Thus, this project entails the following:

a thorough feasibility study that will provide options to RLM with respect to the implementation of the new waste treatment/ waste to energy facility from an external service provider via a PPP; and

in the event that the RLM wishes to proceed with the preferred option, to assist in the procurement of the private sector partner.

7.2 How the Project Objectives will Address the Institution’s Strategic Objectives

Following table gives the ways of achievement of the RLMs strategic objectives by the

project objectives.



Table 16 Achievement of RLMs strategic objectives

Priority How They Will Be Achieved

Efficient provision of quality basic services and infrastructure within a well-planned spatial structure:

A logical and well planned spatial structure supported and sustained by high quality infrastructure

Citizens enjoy high quality of life.

Through the implementation of the new waste treatment/ waste to energy facility on the new Waterval Landfill Site and the related utilisation of materials and energy from waste RLM’s waste management will turn form ordinary disposal into resource management. Furthermore, from a spatially point of view the core infrastructure for waste treatment and disposal will be joint in one area in RLM. With the waste treatment facility, it can be ensured, that the waste generated in RLM has the least practicable impact on the environment, and low environmental pollution contributes to a high quality of life.

Drive diversified economic growth and job creation:

A diversified and resilient economy

Implementation of the new waste treatment facility/ waste to energy facility will address economic growth. Jobs will be created in the environmental technology industry, which is one of the industries of the future.

Ensure municipal financial viability and management:


Due to shortage of staff and skill the municipal PPP will attract private party to assist in the administration of the facility and the running processes.

Maintain clean, green, safe and healthy municipal environment for all:

Sustainable use and effective management of natural resources.

With the waste treatment facility, it can be ensured, that the waste generated in RLM has the least practicable impact on the environment. At the same time, the amount of waste to be disposed will be minimised significantly, while the consumption of virgin natural resources for energy production will be delayed and the maximum practicable benefits from products/ resources will be extracted.

Transform and maintain a vibrant and sustainable rural development:


The building of the new waste treatment facility will support and maintain a vibrant sustainable rural development to ensure that citizens enjoy high quality life.

Uphold good governance and public participation principles:


The project will assist the Municipality to uphold good governance and public participation principles.

Drive optimal municipal institutional development, transformation and capacity building

appropriately skilled labour force.

Implementation of the new waste treatment facility Project will assist in attracting appropriate skilled labour force for the municipality, to foster capacity building within the municipality as well as to develop and optimise existing municipal institutions.

AdvanImple

P:\1576 KfW R

7.3 L

The

treat

Site,

Wate

cons

(6,00

7.4 P

In ge

arran

opera

struc

Figur

In ad

proje

who

treat


RLM Implementation\

List of Sign

main gover

ment/ waste

which is lo

erval landfill

sumption for

00 m² and a

Project Str

eneral, a typ

ngements b

ators, finan

cture of this

re 14 Proj

ddition to the

ect are the c

are assigne

ment facility



nificant Go

rnment asse

e to energy

cated appro

l site is app

r the MBT (

additional 3,

ructure

pical PPP p

between a n

ciers, supp

kind of proj

ect structur

e parties sh

consulting c

ed as extern

y/ waste to



overnment

et necessar

facility will

oximately 5

roximately

aerobic dry

000 m² for

roject struct

number of pa

liers, contra

ject.

re

hown in the

companies I

nal experts

energy faci

ew headline\RLM AIS

Assets for

ry for the pro

be located.

km southe

115 ha in e

ying) will nee

extension).

ture is quite

arties includ

actors. The

figure abov

INFRASTR

to support

lity in Ruste

SWM Needs Analysis

r the Projec

oject is the

. This will be

ast of Ruste

extent, it is e

ed an area

e complex a

ding equity/

following fig

ve a further

UKTUR & U

the implem

enburg.

s_v04_new.docx

ct

land, on wh

e on the ne

enburg Tow

estimated th

of about 9,0

and involves

/ project spo

gure shows

participatin

UMWELT, P

entation of

Need

hich the new

ew Waterval

wn. While th

hat the spec

000 m² (0.9

s contractua

onsors, proj

s the project

ng group in t

PDNA and U

the waste

s Analysis

57

w waste

l Landfill

he whole

cific land

9 ha)

al

ject

t

the

UTHO,

7

needs anal ysis report - rustenburg · 2.2.1 organisation ... (mrf) for reclamation of ... this...

Documents