2012 SAEO: Chapter 9 – Waste Management – Draft 2
2012 SOUTH AFRICA ENVIRONMENT OUTLOOK
Chapter 9: Waste Management
Draft 2
18 January 2012
Written comments to be submitted to:
Ms Anna Mampye or Ms Mbali Mkhize
Tel: 012 310 3618 012 395 1757
Fax: 086 640 6264 Fax: 086 640 6264
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Closing date: 17 February 2012
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
1
Table of Contents
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... 2
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 3
2 THE NEW WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY APPROACH ......................................... 4
3 CLEAR DIVISION OF WASTE FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES (NATIONAL,
PROVINCIAL, AND LOCAL SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT) ..................................................... 5
3.1 Enabling legal framework ................................................................................. 5
3.2 Division of roles and responsibilities .................................................................. 6
3.3 South Africa as a global player .......................................................................... 8
3.4 Government performance monitoring ................................................................ 9
4 A WORLD CLASS WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE SYSTEM ....................................... 10
5 WASTE GENERATION, RISKS AND TRENDS IN SOUTH AFRICA ................................. 11
5.1 Municipal Solid Waste...................................................................................... 11
5.2 SPECIAL WASTE TYPES ................................................................................... 12
5.2.1 Healthcare Risk Waste .............................................................................. 12
5.2.2 Hazardous industrial waste ........................................................................ 17
5.2.3 eWaste .................................................................................................... 18
5.2.4 Mining Waste ........................................................................................... 19
6 WASTE HANDLING INITIATIVES IN SOUTH AFRICA ................................................. 20
6.1 Waste management services............................................................................ 21
6.2 Waste Disposal ............................................................................................... 24
7 EMERGING ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 25
8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 29
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
2
Acronyms
CDM Cleaner Development Mechanism
CFLs Compact Fluorescent Lamps
COGTA Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DPLG Department of Provincial and Local Government
HCRW Healthcare Risk Waste
IDP Integrated Development Plans
IPWMP Integrated Pollution and Waste Management Policy
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plans
MIG Municipal Infrastructure Grant
NECSA Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa
NEMWA National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008)
NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of
1998)
NWMS National Waste Management strategy
ODS Ozone Depletion Substance
PCF Prototype Carbon Fund
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants
RSA Republic of South Africa
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
3
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND1
South Africa’s commitment to sustainable development is aimed at balancing the
broader economic and social challenges of a developing and unequal society
while protecting environmental resources. For the waste sector in South Africa
this means care is given to raw material use, product design, resource efficiency,
waste prevention, and minimization where avoidance is impossible. However,
South Africa’s growing economy and population result2 in increased waste
generation now and in the near future.
In this chapter, an overview of the status of waste management in South Africa
is presented. Firstly, specific focus is placed on the waste management hiereachy
within the context of South Africa’s National Waste Management Strategy, and
National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) NEMWA. It is
according to this waste management hierachy that all waste management
actions across the country are analysed.
Secondly, the South African waste management policy framework is presented.
Attention is drawn towards national and international legislation and how it
affects waste management in South Africa. Implementation, enforcement and
compliance monitoring issues are discussed within the legal ambit of national
government departments’ competencies. Particular attention is given to the shift
in policy and legislative direction since promalgation of the NEMWA.
Thirdly, the roles and responsibilities of government institutions and legislative
mandates for key spheres of government including cooperative governance are
presented. A synthetic view on key responsibilities in the provision of waste
management services across the spectrum is presented. Challenges and
opportunities regarding the management of waste are also highlighted. Emphasis
is given to the role payed by municipalities in rendering waste management
services.
Fourthly, an analysis of the key types of waste, namely: i) Municipal Solid Waste,
Ii) Healthcare Waste, Iii) Electronic Waste, Iv) Hazourdous Industrial Waste, And
1 It shall be noted that data disparities may arise within the chapter due to unavailable recent
reliable data/information. The South African Waste Information System (SAWIS) is refined through
the development of a revised waste classification and management system, and would be
formalised through National Waste Information Regulations at the later stage. Therefore, at the
time of developing this chapter, no suffienct baseline data could be made available
2 It is anticipated that Stats SA will only avail census outcome towards the end of 2012. This will
also have a bearing on the data presented
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
4
V) Mining Waste is provided. An overview is presented for each waste stream per
waste type. This overview is based on the waste management hierachy.
Finally, the country’s response to waste management challenges is presented.
This is also measured against the adopted approach based on the waste
management hierachy i.e. waste minimisation, recycling and re-use. Key
emerging issues are also identified.
A waste-to-energy project implemented by a municipality in response to climate
change is presented in a case study.
2 THE NEW WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY APPROACH
The waste management hierarchy provdes a technical outlay and a new
approach to waste management. It offers a holistic approach to management of
waste materials, and provides a systematic method for waste management
during the potential waste product lifecycle addressing in turn waste avoidance,
reduction, re-use, recycling, recovery, treatment, and safe disposal as a last
resort. The waste hierachy, as presented in Figure 1, is linked to national policy
action plans on waste management in South Africa.
The South African Waste legislation is influenced and informed by the key
elements of the waste management hierarchy, and therefore dictates the overall
strategic approach for waste management in South Africa. The waste hierarchy is
also clearly visible in the National Waste Management Strategy for South Africa.
Waste avoidance and reduction
Re-use
Recycling
Recovery
Treatment
and disposal
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
5
Figure 1 Waste management hierachy
This new innovative way towards waste management put emphasis on the
following key elements:
• Reduction: products and materials must be designed in a manner that
minimises their waste components or in a manner that reduces material
quantity and potential toxicity of waste generated during the production,
and after use
• Re-use: materials can be used in a similar or different purpose without
changing form or properties. This approach seeks to re-use or recycle a
product when it reaches the end of its life span. In this way, it becomes
inputs for new products and materials
• Recycle: This involves separating materials from the waste stream and
processing them as products or raw materials. The first elements of the
waste management hierarchy are the foundation of cradle-to-cradle
waste management
• Recovery: reclaiming particular components or materials or using the
waste as a fuel. Where the quantity of waste cannot be further reduced,
they will be discharged to landfill. Landfill is considered the most
affordable way to manage the final stage of waste. Currently, there is no
more sufficient land space availabale for landfills. This is no longer a
favorable option in South Africa.
3 CLEAR DIVISION OF WASTE FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
(NATIONAL, PROVINCIAL, AND LOCAL SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT)
3.1 Enabling legal framework
South Africa’s legal framework on waste management is one of the most
progressive in the continent. There is a clear division of roles, responsibilities,
and obligations of different spheres of government. This alignment of the law
governing waste, demonstrates the country’s ambition towards a clean
environment and healthy society.
According to the Constitution, all South African people have the right to an
environment that is not harmful to health or well-being (section 24, Chapter 2).
This fundamental right underpins all environmental policies and legislations, in
particular the framework environmental legislation established by the National
Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA).
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
6
The Constitution further assigns legislative competence to national and provincial
government with respect to the environment and pollution control (Constitution,
section 146). It assigns exclusive legislative competence to the provincial
government matters of cleansing and refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid
waste disposal. Section 156(1)(a) of the Constitution, read with Schedule 5,
assigns responsibility for refuse removal, refuse dumps, solid waste disposal and
cleansing to local government.
The National Environmental Management Act provides instruments for integrated
waste management. It also places a duty of care on any juristic person who may
cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment, requiring them to
institute measures to either prevent pollution from occurring, or to minimise and
rectify the pollution or degradation where it cannot reasonably be avoided.
Based on the NEMA framework, the most innovative feature of the NEMWA is the
preference for the regionalisation of solid waste management services. The Act
also places considerable emphasis on the development of an integrated waste
planning system, through the development of interlocking integrated waste
management plans by all spheres of government and industry waste
management plans for specified waste generators.
3.2 Division of roles and responsibilities
The National Government, and in particular the Department of Environmental
Affairs (DEA), is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the NEMWA is
implemented and that the various provisions are harnessed in the most
appropriate and effective way possible. The Waste Act specifies various
mandatory and discretionary provisions that the DEA must address. In terms of
mandatory provisions, the DEA is responsible for:
• Establishing the National Waste Management Strategy
• Setting national norms and standards
• Establishing and maintaining a National Contaminated Land Register
• Establishing and maintaining a National Waste Information System
• Preparing and implementing a National Integrated Waste Management
Plan.
Provinces are the primary regulatory authorities for waste activities, except for
activities for which the Minister is the authority. It must promote and ensure the
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
7
implementation of the National Waste Management Strategy and national norms
and standards. Provinces have a number of discretionary powers, some of which
may only be exercised in consultation with the Minister e.g. setting provincial
norms and standards, declaring a priority waste, listing of waste management
activities, registering waste transporters, requesting the preparation of industry
waste management plans, identifying contaminated land and establishing a
provincial waste information system.
Municipalities must provide waste management services, which include waste
removal, storage and disposal services, as per Schedule 5b of the Constitution.
Municipalities must facilitate local solutions such as material recovery facilities
and buy-back centres, rather than provide the entire recycling infrastructure
themselves. They must also submit an integrated waste management plan to the
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), and the municipal annual
performance report must include information on the implementation of the
IWMP.
At their discretion, municipalities may set local waste service standards for waste
separation, compacting, management and disposal of solid waste, amongst
others. Local standards must be aligned with any provincial and national
standards where these exist. Table 1 provide a summary of allocation of waste
management functions.
Table 1: Allocation of Solid Waste Management Functions
Area Functio
n
Activity Current
assignment
Issue
Na
t
Pro
v
Loc
al
Pv
t
Policy
Making
Standard
Setting
Norms and
standards
Access targets
X
x
x
x
What is to
be
provided
Planning Plans for service
expansion
Plans for service
improvements
X
x
X
x
x
Adequate
facilities
and
services
Service
Provision
Assets
Creation
Social capital
Physical capital
X
x
x
Adequate
facilities
and
services
Financing Tariffs
Subsidies to
consumers
X
X
x
Financial
sustainabili
ty
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
8
Grants to service
providers
Operatio
ns
Consumer selection
Recurrent
expenditure
General area
cleansing
Minimizatio
n
Collection
Transportati
on
Disposal
Maintenance
Staffing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Effective
and
sustainable
service
Regulatio
n
Monitorin
g and
evaluatio
n
Economic
Finance
Operational
Monitoring &
Evaluation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Quality of
service
delivery
Source: Department of Environmental Affairs, 2007
3.3 South Africa as a global player
South Africa recognises the importance of international cooperation in dealing
with complex waste management issues, particularly as it applies to highly
dangerous materials and internationally prioritised waste types and/or streams.
As such, the country has acceded to various international agreements related to
waste management, non-binding conventions and protocols relevant to waste
management. It is through such corporation as the Basel, Montreal protocol,
Rettendam and Stockholmn conventions, that South Africa has become one of
the committed leading role players in the world when dealing with complex
waste management matters.
The Basel Convention, adopted in 1989, has the greatest bearing on the NEMA:
Waste Act. It addresses the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes and
their disposal, setting out the categorization of hazardous waste and the policies
between member countries. The Department of Environmental Affairs is
considering accession to the amendments to the Basel Convention that puts a
ban on import and export of hazardous waste materials. The DEA is currently
developing a policy on imports and exports of waste and is in cooperation with
the Department of Trade and Industry jointly addressing the import and export
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
9
control aspects of the Basel Convention, together with the chemical Rotterdam
and Stockholm conventions.
The Montreal Protocol Treaty, revised in 1999, protects the ozone layer by
phasing out the production of several substances that contribute to ozone
depletion, with the aim of ozone layer recovery by 2050. This has relevance for
waste management in instances where such obsolete products that enters the
waste stream. Department of Environmental Affairs is in the process of
publishing the National Implementation Plan for the Montreal Protocol. The plan
includes the development on an Ozone Depletion Substance (ODS) strategy and
regulations will provide for the phasing out of specified substances and their safe
disposal.
The Rotterdam Convention promotes and enforces transparency in the
importation of hazardous chemical (but exclude waste). Some of these chemicals
may occur in stockpiles of obsolete chemicals such as pesticides that have been
identified as a major waste management challenge. Extended producer
responsibility schemes will be used to effectively manage obsolete chemicals. A
process to identify and ban pesticides and industrial chemicals listed in Annex lll
(that South Africa has not yet banned) has started.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which
entered into force in 2004, requires that member countries phase out POPs and
prevent their import or export. Parties to the Convention are also required to
undertake the following responsibilities: i) Develop and implement appropriate
strategies, ii) Identify stockpiles, products and articles in use that contain or are
contaminated with POPs; iii) Manage stockpiles and wastes in an environmentally
sound manner; iv) Dispose of waste in a way that destroys or irreversibly
transforms POPs content; v) Prohibit recycling, recovery, reclamation, direct re-
use or alternative use of POPs; and vi) Endeavour to develop strategies to
identify contaminated sites and perform eventual remediation in an
environmentally sound manner. A National South African Implementation Plan
has been developed and it will be reviewed in light of the NEMWA.
3.4 Government performance monitoring
The link of waste management to national performance targets is crucial as it
provides a yardstick to measure progress and identify possible challenges. As
such, the government has developed a system to monitor its performance in
rendering services to the citizens.
Waste management is directly linked to Outcome 10 of NEMA i.e. Environmental
assets and natural resources are well protected and continually enhanced, and
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
10
indirectly linked to others. Based on this performance system and its targets,
waste management also contributes to two of the outputs under Outcome 10,
namely:
• Output 2: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and
improved air quality; as waste minimisation, diversion of waste from
landfill, composting and reduced resource consumption will help to
reduce CO2 emissions
• Output 3: Sustainable Environmental Management, as less and better
managed waste is a key component of sustainable environmental
management practice.
4 A WORLD CLASS WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE SYSTEM
Over the past recent years, South Africa has strived towards an improved,
equitable and sustainable waste management regime. With good legislation in
place, clarity in functional roles and responsibilities, international lessons and
commitments, and sufficient technical capacity and human capital, the new
approach demonstrates the country’s drive towards an efficient world class
system for waste management.
A number of opportunities for continuous improvements exist within the enabling
legal framework and institutional arrangements on waste management. Emphasis
for future improvements is placed on key system elements that can triggers
higher efficiency in the waste service sector. These include the following:
• Service level agreements and contracting of services amongst key role
players in government. In instances where spheres of government (e.g.
district and local municipalities) share responsibilities, a clear contracting
framework is required. This contractual arrangement must ensure that a
single authority remains politically and administratively accountable for
the service
• Regionalisation of service delivery: The trend towards greater
decentralisation has a potential to complicate the waste management
system. A new emphasis on regionalisation means better efficiency and
transparency of service. This will ensure that resource mobilisation is
maximised. An obstacle to regionalisation is funding of services. This is
because according the Municipal System Act, when two local
municipalities perfrom the same function, that same function becames
elevated to the district. On the other hand, the Municipal Infrastructure
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
11
Grant (MIG) funds are no longer allocated to the districts. As a result,
funding of such functions by the districts also poses a challenge
• Ring-fencing of solid waste finances: A system where all revenue
collected from waste management service provision is ring-fenced
towards improving the same service is desirable within government
institutions. Such a system for South Africa will result in improved
financial management, re-investment into waste facilities and
infrustructure, improved financial accountability and fair waste
management service delivery.
South Africa remains in the forefront on environmental protection amongst
developing countries and is committed to implement a world class system that
will improve waste management in the country. This will take stalk of the fact
that government is, in some instances, in competition with the private sector
companies in rendering waste management service.
5 WASTE GENERATION, RISKS AND TRENDS IN SOUTH AFRICA
5.1 Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal solid waste constitutes a large percentage of the total waste generated
in urban and rural areas. Municipalities are the key players in dealing with
general non-hazardous waste. A total of 239 municipalities performed solid waste
management functions in 2009, up from 226 in 2005, servicing in 2009 around
8,4 mill households, or 64,5 % of all households. The data since 2005 suggests
that solid waste functions are increasingly being assigned to local municipalities
even in predominantly rural areas.
Table 2: Operating revenue for solid waste function by category municipality,
2006/7-2012/12
200
6/0
7
200
7/0
8
200
8/0
9
2009/
10
201
0/1
1
201
1/1
2
201
2/1
3
% average
annual
growth
R
Million
Outcome Preli
minar
y
Medium-term
estimates
2006
/07-
2009
2009
/10-
2012
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
12
estim
ates
/10 /13
Metros 1280 2465 2965 2841 4909 5343 5794 30.4
%
26.8
%
Local
munici
palities
673 731 1268 2256 3050 2895 3064 49.6
%
10.7
%
Second
ary
cities
476 506 737 1115 1540 1396 1522 33.6
%
10.9
%
Large
Towns
142 142 311 444 640 655 644 46.0
%
13.3
%
Small
Towns
50 57 130 581 653 628 662 126.7
%
4.4%
Mostly
rural
14 25 90 116 217 217 235 104.0
%
26.6
%
District
s
8 11 9 34 37 37 35 65.3
%
0.9%
Total 196
0
320
6
424
3
5131 799
6
827
5
889
3
37.8
%
20.1
%
Source: Stats SA, 2007, National Treasury, 2011
There is a positive indication in Table 2, illustrates municipalities’ revenue income
from solid waste services has been growing rapidly. Some of this growth can be
attributed to more complete reporting of this category of revenue as
municipalities move towards identifying the streams of revenue associated with
their respective services. Metros revenue related to solid waste services are
budgeted to grow by 27 % over the next decade. The growth in increased
financial resource allocation to waste services is a positive sign. This might be
attributed to growth in demand for service due to urban population growth (and
urban expansion), and increased economic activity.
5.2 SPECIAL WASTE TYPES
5.2.1 Healthcare Risk Waste
Health Care Risk Waste consist of the following known five categories, namely i)
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
13
Infectious waste: Waste that may contain pathogenic micro-organisms; ii)
Sharps: Includes sharp and pricking objects that may cause injury as well as
infections; iii) Pathological waste: Includes parts that are sectioned from a body;
iv) Chemical waste: Includes all kinds of discarded chemicals, including
pharmaceuticals that pose a special risk to human health and environment; and
v) Radioactive Waste: This includes solid, liquid and gaseous waste contaminated
with radionuclides.
Due to the significant risks associated with Healthcare Risk Waste (HCRW), this is
an area of priority for regulation in terms of the NEMWA provisions for listed
waste management activities. In terms of implementing the waste hierarchy, the
key challenges regarding health care risk waste management lie in the safe
treatment and disposal thereof. The Policy on Health Care Risk Waste
Management being developed by the DEA already indicates that each health care
institution must develop a HCRW management plan to ensure that HCRW is
managed in a manner which is protective to third parties and which is
environmentally sound. The envisaged HRCW plans must include the
appointment of healthcare waste officers; provide information on waste
quantities and management measures, and awareness and training programmes.
Once the standards for non-thermal HCRW have been developed through the
HCRW regulations, all permits for non-thermal HCRW treatment facilities will be
reviewed to ensure alignment and compliance.
The primary sources of HCRW are public and private hospitals, clinics and
laboratories, whilst general practitioners, dentists etc. are smaller primary
sources. Furthermore, limited amounts of HCRW are generated by for example
old age homes, residential properties, etc. However, there are considerable
characteristic and qualitative differences between HCW that is generated at
different health care facilities. While the smaller health care facilities (like e.g.
primary health care clinics) only generate some of the categories of HCRW, the
larger hospitals usually generate all categories of HCRW.
Significant HCRW generators like hospitals and clinics generate the bulk of the
HCRW stream, other insignificant generators like general health practitioners,
veterinary surgeons, tattoo artists, home- based care, etc. also creates a
significant risk. HCRW that is poorly managed, e.g. during temporary storage,
before the collection, transportation and safe disposal, by insignificant HCRW
generators, by is mixing with domestic general waste containers, contribute to
very high health risks.
The estimated HCRW generation figures for SA are summarised in the Table 3.
Table 3 Summary of HCRW Generation is South Africa
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
14
Province Institution type CSIR estimate
2005 (T/Year)
Actual estimate
2007 (T/Year)
Eastern
Cape
Public hospitals and
clinics
2,540 3,400
Public hospitals and
clinics
870 1100
Totals 3410 4500
Free State Public hospitals and
clinics
1127 1270
Public hospitals and
clinics
495 630
Totals 1622 1900
Gauteng JHB Municipal clinics 3395 4150
Public hospitals and
clinics
4141 5750
Totals 7536 9900
KZN Public hospitals and
clinics
4405 5750
Private hospitals
and clinics
1031 2210
Totals 5436 7980
Limpopo Public hospitals and
clinics
1846 2030
Private hospitals
and clinics
87 120
Totals 1933 2150
Mpumalanga Public hospitals and
clinics
1040 1390
Private hospitals 333 450
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
15
and clinics
Totals 1373 1840
Northern
Cape
Public hospitals and
clinics
1253 1680
Private hospitals
and clinics
393 530
Totals 1646 2210
North West Public hospitals and
clinics
1142 1470
Private hospitals
and clinics
260 350
Totals 1402 1820
Western
Cape
Public hospitals and
clinics
2072 2080
Private hospitals
and clinics
1443 2970
Totals 3515 5050
All Mining Hospitals 1317 1680
GRAND TOTAL 29190 39030
Add: estimated intermediates &
small generators 8%
2335 3122
Estimate Grand Total 31500 42200
Source: DEA 2008
The table indicates that the overall HCRW generation in South Africa is estimated
to amount to approximately 40 000 tons per year. The main generators are
private and public health care facilities.
Against this, available commercial treatment capacity (non-burn facilities plus
incinerators with air-emission control) totals only about 30,000 t/yr. This figure,
however, increases to approximately 50,000 t/yr if commercial incinerators
without air-emission control are included, see table 4 (DEA 2008). There has
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
16
been some reduction in treatment capacity, inter-alia due to the closure of a
regional HCRW incinerator for non-compliance in terms of air emission standards,
the burning-down of another incinerator and the closure of two Electro Thermal
Deactivation (ETD) plants due to insolvency.
Table 4: HRCW Treatment Capacity and Throughput: Commercial Facilities
Provin
ce
CSIR
Study
2005/6
Incineration Non-burn technologies
Incineratio
n and
non-burn
capacity
No air
emission
control
With air emission
control
Capac
ity
availa
ble
Jan
2008
Curr
ent
thro
ugh-
put
New capacity
coming on
stream
Act
ual
Plan
ned
Capac
ity
availa
ble
jan
2008
Curr
ent
thro
ugh-
put
Capa
city
avail
able
Jan
2008
Curr
ent
thro
ugh-
put
New
capacity
coming
on
stream
Withi
n 1
year
Withi
n 2-3
years
Easter
n Cape
156
0
600
0
1560 930 - - 374
0
- - 3650 -
Free
State
240
0
300
0
1680 1680 - - - - - - 4830
Gaute
ng
146
40
- 6640 5160 5770 3190 68
10
- - - 2640
0
2800
Kwazul
u
Natal
116
10
- - - - - - - 1152
0
1031
0
- 1640
Limpo
po
342
0
Mpum
alanga
Northe
rn
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
17
Cape
North
West
364
0
7480 6000 374
0
Wester
n Cape
314
0
970 3300 2540 117
0
1440
0
2640
Grand
Totals
369
90
134
00
2066
0
1631
0
5770 3190 68
10
865
0
2592
0
1295
0
3005
0
9270
Overall Capacity available Jan 2008: 52 350
Source: DEA , 2008
Total throughput was approximately above 30 000 t/yr (16,310 tons/yr
incineration without air emission control + 3,190 t/yr incineration with air
emission control + 12,950 t/yr non-burn). With estimated current generation
amounting to 42,200 t/yr the estimate is that approximately 5,000 tons per year
of HCRW was treated on-site at public health-care facilities, with the balance of
approximately 4,500 t/yr either being treated on-site or disposed of in an
unspecified manner (DEA 2008).
5.2.2 Hazardous industrial waste
All industrial waste is potentially hazardous. Waste is classified as hazardous
according to whether it is flammable, reactive, corrosive or toxic and it cannot be
dumped into a landfill without any treatment. Hazardous waste is also graded
from extreme to non-toxic in nature and this grading determines the appropriate
disposal techniques. Extreme hazardous waste, such as cyanide and mercury,
needs to be encapsulated, stored, treated and then destroyed.
Most South African companies cannot recycle hazardous waste because there is
no market for the by-products. Non-toxic waste is disposed of at “delisted”
landfill sites, which are sites that have been officially permitted to take waste
that is categorised as being a low grade hazard. These sites cannot dispose of
the higher grade waste hazard streams, but are able to dispose of waste streams
that are restricted from entering general waste landfill sites.
In terms of implementing the waste hierarchy for industrial, the NEMWA
emphasises waste avoidance and reduction due to the significant environmental
impact of this waste, and the potential harmful consequences for human health.
Where hazardous wastes cannot be avoided, emphasis is placed on regulation,
not only in defining standards for treatment and disposal, but also in ensuring
reuse and recycling takes place in a safe and responsible manner.
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
18
In as much as hazardous waste are regulated under separate legislation, certain
classes of hazardous waste are not regulated by the Waste Act. These include:
Radioactive waste, which is regulated by the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973,
the National Nuclear Regulator Act, 1999, and the Nuclear Energy Act, 1999;
Residue deposits and stockpiles from mining, which are regulated by the Mineral
and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002; Explosives, the disposal of
which is regulated by the Explosives Act, 2003; and Animal carcasses, the
disposal of which is regulated by the Animal Health Act, 2002.
South Africa’s sole nuclear waste management site, Vaalputs in the Northern
Cape, is lto house high-level waste within the next ten years, according to the
Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA). The site only deals with low
and intermediate level waste from the Koeberg nuclear power station. The high-
level waste is stored at underground facilities at Pelindaba and Koeberg but
South Africa needs a fully operational high-level waste management site by 2070
to deal with spent fuel accumulated at Pelindaba and Koeberg.
5.2.3 eWaste
Electronic Waste (e-waste) is relatively new, rapidly growing, and in some cases
highly hazardous due to heavy metals content. Electrical and electronic waste,
which includes white goods, consumer electronics, and IT is classified by
international convention as a hazardous waste, and is a growing global concern.
Many developed countries have taken steps to develop policy guidelines and
legislation for developing e-waste management systems.
Most countries in Africa have yet to develop practical solutions to e-waste
management, and have yet to practically recognize it as a hazardous waste
stream. Until recently, South Africa was no exception, and most of the e-waste
processing was done by the private sector, which responded instinctively to the
profit potential in recycling discarded technology. For instance, scrap metal
recycling, including white goods such as fridges and washing machines, had been
a going concern in the country for some time, as has the refurbishment of PCs
for use in social projects, including in schools or in disadvantaged communities.
At the same time, printer cartridges have been recycled, and ad hoc take-back
schemes tried out. However, most of these initiatives have been fragmented
(Alan, 2008).
With the rise of the information age, eWaste will continue to grow exponentially,
and rapidly become a major waste challenge. Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) can contain over one thousand different substances, many of
which are toxic and some that have a high market value when extracted.
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
19
In terms of implementing the waste hierarchy, the main challenge lies in
separating this waste from general waste to facilitate safe and economically
sustainable recycling of this waste stream. Informal recycling of eWaste is
relatively prevalent, but often done without safety equipment, resulting in
potential harm to health, and contamination of the recycling site, as well as the
release of noxious fumes through the burning of plastic to access the valuable
metals inside the equipment.
Formal recycling is typically a partially mechanized process which separates
materials, whilst WEEE is often dismantled by hand and then separated before
shredding. Some mechanized processes do not necessarily allow for re-use or
refurbishment, as the whole object is put through a shredder, and the shredded
output is then mechanically separated using water, air or magnetism. The
separated shredded plastics and metals are then sent for reprocessing as
recycles.
5.2.4 Mining Waste
General, hazardous and industrial wastes from the mining industry fall within the
scope of the Waste Act, and therefore are addressed by the NWMS. Section
4(1)(b) of the NEMWA specifically excludes residue deposits and stockpiles from
the scope of the Act, in as much as these are regulated in terms of the Mineral
and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, (MPRDA). The regulatory
framework for mining residue stockpiles and deposits is under review. In terms
of the amendment to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,
responsibility for the performance of environmental authorisations will revert to
DEA.
South Africa produces around 450 million tonnes of waste annually, with 70% of
this generated by the mining industry. Gold mines on the Witwatersrand Basin
alone produce 105 million tonnes per annum (23% of the total) with about
200,000 tonnes of waste generated for every tonne of gold produced. Much of
this waste is deposited into tailings dams, of which there are more than 270 on
the Witwatersrand Basin, covering some 400 km2. These dams are all unlined
and many are unvegetated, and can be a source of extensive dust, as well as soil
and water pollution.
Environmental planning of waste disposal by the South African gold mining
industry in the past, although legal and recommended by government at the
time, has since been proven to be environmentally unsound. Among common
practice was the location of unlined tailings dams on natural pans, wetlands,
water courses and catchment areas, and the disposal of mine process water into
pans and unlined evaporation dams. Consequently, there has been a number of
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
20
negative environmental impacts as a result of this practice.
The production of mining waste on such a large-scale waste has serious
consequences for the environment. It causes dysfunctional hydrology, as well as
acidification and salinisation of soils, groundwater and surface water bodies,
resulting in breakdowns in nutrient cycling and environmental degradation. This
can lead to losses in biodiversity and ecosystem services, and, therefore, both
tailings and contaminated water can be expected to eventually contribute to
negative health impacts in humans if mitigation measures are not put in place.
6 WASTE HANDLING INITIATIVES IN SOUTH AFRICA
The nature, composition, and quantities of waste generated can be predicted.
Therefore, waste management can be planned. As the South Africa grows and
develops, the pressure to provide sustainable waste management services and
facilities inherently increases.
Waste streams begin at the point of generation, flow through collection and
transportation, separation for resource recovery, treatment for volume reduction,
recycling and/or energy recovery. Traditionally most solid waste has been
disposed at landfill sites. Recent growing recognition of the need for resource
conservation and environmental protection has increased solid waste recycling
and treatment before disposal in many developed countries. In South Africa,
recovery of valuable material at collection, during transportation and at landfills
has been common.
Economic growth and demographic change have quickened the pace at which
waste is being generated. Urban residents typically generate more waste than
their rural counterparts. Urban household waste also is less conducive to on-site
disposal, due to settlement density, and thus these households contribute
greater volumes to the waste stream.
There have been efforts by municipalities to encourage households to minimise
their generation of waste. Some municipalities provide incentives for waste
minimisation, though this is neither widespread nor effective. For instance, the
city of Johannesburg limits each household to two bags of waste per week,
though for reasons of public health. Tshwane has recently introduced volumetric
user charges that discriminate between households on the basis of the volume of
waste produced. In the city of Cape Town, almost 15% of waste is diverted from
landfill sites for recycling or reuse.
Based on the analysis of waste generation by nine South Africa provinces, there
is an indication that waste generation continued to increase to about 12 million
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
21
tons p/y over the last years, see Table 5. This has resulted in an increase of
about 2 million tons in a period of less than 10 years. The national average
waste generation rate is estimated at 0.8 kg/capita/day for more developed
areas and 0.3 kg/capita/day for less developed areas of South Africa. Collection
and transfer efficiency is, however, not at the desired level compared to
international standards. Waste disposal in South Africa is mostly in landfills, but it
is estimated that only 10% of landfills are managed in accordance with the
Minimum Requirements (Patrick, 2007).
Province Predicted Total Waste
m3/year t/year
1. Eastern Cape 3 105 989 802 090
2. Free State 3 877 380 745 535
3. Gauteng 26 085 304 4 207 608
4. Kwazulu Natala 5 749 959 1 437 762
5. Mpumalanga 11 200 387 1 783 766
6. Northern Cape 956 369 191 669
7. Northern Province 2 374 864 623 678
8. North West 2 296 489 542 135
9. Western Cape 12 979 785 2 129 647
Total 68 626 526 12 463 890
Table 5 Summary of provincial waste generation predicted for 2010 (Patrick,
2007)
Influx and rapid urbanisation, plus social and political pressures, have put land at
a premium in the city and town areas. Landfill sites once thought of as being at
an acceptable distance from residential areas, now sits in close proximity with
housing. The identification of acceptable disposal sites within an economically
viable radius of collection operations has become more and more problematic for
some municipalities.
6.1 Waste management services
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
22
The overall municipal waste service delivery target is to provide waste
management services to all urban and dense settlement households in South
Africa. However, without measurable waste targets it will be difficult to track any
improvement in waste service delivery. Waste management targets should
therefore be set to ensure that waste services is extended to all urban and dense
settlement households (including tribal areas). These can be done over time and
in line with the targets set in the Draft National Waste Management Strategy
(DEA, 2010), as well as the Local Government Turnaround Strategy (COGTA,
2009), and the Presidential Delivery Agreement (COGTA, 2010).
The big metropolitan municipalities continue to allocate more budgets, appoint
better qualified staff, and have well organised structures to deliver this service.
There is a need for continued strengthening and expansion of waste services to
reach people still without access.
Total
number
of
househ
olds
Consumers receiving services % of all
househ
olds
Categories 2007 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2007
Metros 4 714
022
3 421 122 4 029
732
4 358
630
4 355 942 548979 92.5%
Secondary
cities
2 207
003
1 232 347 1 253
940
1 389
260
1 393 949 1596674 62.9%
Large
town
1 095
456
564 322 587 670 628 276 643 503 696636 57.4%
Small
towns
1 637
412
983 981 1 066
597
1 204
108
1 071 349 1118202 73.5%
Mostly
rural
2 824
259
493 226 413 560 453 061 388 900 408704 16.0%
Districts 22 482 6 357 28 906 29 531 27 224 27379
Total 12 500
634
6 701 355 7 380
406
8 062
866
7 880 867 8 396
574
64.5%
Table 6 Access to refuse removal services, 2005-2009 (Stats SA, 2007, National
Traesury, 2011)
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
23
Levels of service differ markedly by type and size of the municipality. Bulk of
consumers with basic services are receiving at least a weekly collection service.
At least 19% (or 1.3 million) of households in metros and secondary cities do not
receive weekly refuse services, with 23% of households in secondary cities
making use of their own refuse dumps. Outside these areas, 13% (or 726,000)
of households do not receive any refuse service or make use of on-site disposal.
Table 7: Households with inadequate access to services by municipal context
Less
than
wee
kly
Comm
unal
refuse
dump
Ow
n
refu
se
dum
p
No
rubbi
sh
dispo
sal
Oth
er
Underse
rved
Total
HH
%
Total
Househ
olds
Metros 81
558
113 496 255
026
133
474
17
861
601 415 12.8
%
4 714
022
Second
ary
cities
30
313
54 398 512
993
113
776
3
448
714 928 32.4
%
2 207
003
Large
town
22
316
23 665 - 70
639
4
662
121 282 11.1
%
1 095
456
Small
towns
41
947
39 372 - 124
337
4
418
210 074 12.8
%
1 637
412
Mostly
rural
- - - 449
004
9
130
458 134 16.2
%
284 259
District
s
- - - 1 379 141 1 520 6.8
%
22 482
Total 1761
34
230931 7680
19
89260
9
39
660
2 107 353 16.9
%
1 250
0634
Source: Stats SA, 2007, National Treasury, 2011
The data from the Community Survey (2007), as presented in Table 7 indicates
that the backlog in the provision of solid waste services is around 2 million
households, with some 900 000 households not receiving any service. The
information gathered by Statistics South Africa, during the same period, also
suggest the same, but shows substantial increase in the waste service backlog.
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
24
The annual service delivery survey indicates that this figure has doubled over
time in the last few years.
The backlog in waste service delivery was confirmed by the assessment of the
status of waste service delivery and capacity at local government level. Key
findings from the local government capacity assessment (DEAT, 2007) are as
follows:
• The waste service function is often not accounted for in small rural towns
• In rural areas staffing is often skewed towards labourers with few middle
and top managers
• There is a shift towards outsourcing of the recycling function to small
community contractors
• A total of 87% of municipalities do not have the capacity or infrastructure
to pursue waste minimization
• More than 80% of municipalities are initiating recycling but projects are
struggling due to a lack of capacity
• Metros and secondary municipalities provide the highest percentage of
weekly collection services within their areas of jurisdiction
• Metros and secondary municipalities have with 54% of the national waste
management service backlogs.
6.2 Waste Disposal
Waste management services rely heavily on landfills for the disposal of waste,
which account for the majority of licensed waste facilities. Over 90% of all South
Africa's waste is disposed of in landfill sites. This is despite the existence of a
range of alternative disposal technologies, including waste incineration (for
HCRW) and/or recycling.
Waste disposal facilities like landfill sites, waste storage facilities, recycling
facilities, materials recovery facilities and waste transfer facilities, are critical in
determining where municipal solid waste material ends up. These facilities also
end up receiving waste streams that they are not supposed to. The capacity
assessment conducted by DEA, estimated the number of waste handling facilities
to be more than 1 000, and close to 600 licenced ones (DEAT, 2007).
Type of Facility Number of
facilities
Number of
permitted
facilities
% Backlog
in permits
General Waste landfill
site
1203 524 56.4%
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
25
Hazardous waste
landfill site
77 41 46.8%
Medical waste storage
facility
12 4 66.7%
Recycling facilities 9 2 77.8%
Transfer stations 35 12 65.7%
Total 1336 583 56.4%
Table 8: A summary of waste management facilities permit status in South Africa
(DEA: 2005)
It is evident from the data in Table 8 that waste disposal by landfill remain the
most dominant method of disposal in South Africa. The reliance on waste
disposal by landfills has limited the incentive to devise alternative methods of
dealing with waste. An assessment of available information on these facilities
revealed a need for addressing the backlog in the permitting of these sites. Over
1 000 waste facilities were included in the capacity assessments (DEAT, 2005).
The results of the assessment is summarised in Table 8. It is critical for all waste
facilities to be permitted in order to avoid potential negative environmental
impacts. It is through the permitting process that any fatal flaws are identified,
and mitigation actions prescribed.
7 EMERGING ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS
A number of waste issues has emerged during the last years. These in particular
relates to e-waste streams, waste-to-energy and the green economy. Each of
these emerging issues is outlined below.
eWaste: Consisting of electrical and electronic waste (WEE), eWaste is a
relatively new waste category for which there is currently a lack of formal
disposal mechanisms. Due to the many hazardous components and materials
used in the manufacture of electronic goods, including mercury, brominated
flame retardants, and cadmium, tis is considered a hazardous waste stream.
Used electrical goods are often imported into the country as donations – but in
some cases, what is being imported is effectively WEE. There is significant job
creation potential in the recycling of eWaste, and several initiatives have and are
being set up. The hazardous nature of this waste stream and the small margins
of profit generated must be carefully considered when encouraging the recycling
of WEE.
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
26
Data and Information Management: The South African Waste Information
System (SAWIS) is refined through the development of a revised waste
classification and management system, and would be formalised through
National Waste Information Regulations. The main objective of waste data
collection is to allow for adequate waste management planning and prioritisation,
and to enable national reporting on the success of national waste policy and
waste management initiatives aimed at moving waste up the hierarchy from land
filling to reuse, recycling, recovery or treatment. The SAWIS comprises a central
registry and a data capture facility. All waste management facilities as well as
hazardous waste generators (generating more than 20 kg/day) are required to
register on the system. The waste categorisation system will be incorporated into
the National Waste Information Regulations, and will be mandatory for the waste
management industry to report in accordance with this system once the WIS
Regulations come into force.
Fluorescent Lamps: Fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of mercury which
is used in the illumination process. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can be harmful in
even small amounts. The promotion of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) by
government and Eskom as an energy saving measure has significantly increased
the numbers of CFLs that require disposal when expired. Although Fluorescent
lamps can be successfully recycled and the mercury recovered, no such facilities
are currently available in the country.
Waste-to-energy: Some municipalities have begun waste-to-energy schemes.
eThekwini is extracting landfill gas and generating electricity from the Marian Hill
and La Mercy landfills, and Johannesburg has piloted energy generation from
incinerating health care risk waste. Energy recovery schemes are incentivised by
the potential to generate carbon credits and their associated revenues. It is
estimated that landfill energy plants can have a capacity of between 20 and 50
megawatts, with a life-of-plant of 30 years.
Green Economy: Over the last two years, the concept of a “green economy” has
moved into the mainstream of policy discourse. Transitioning to a green
economy has sound economic and social justification. For South Africa, and in
the waste management sector in particular, this transition would involve levelling
the playing field for greener products by reforming policies and developing
incentives, strengthening market infrastructure, redirecting public investment,
and greening public procurement. For the private sector, this involve responding
to policy reforms and government incentives through increased financing and
investment, as well as building skills and innovation capacities to take advantage
of opportunities arising from a green economy in the waste management sector.
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
27
BOX 1 : Landfill Gas to Electricity Project – eThekwini
In March 2007, Africa’s first landfill gas to electricity project was launched; aiming to
enhance landfill gas collection and use it to generate electricity for export to the municipal
grid in Durban.Landfill gas is collected at the Bisasar Road, Mariannhill and La Mercy landfill
sites in Durban. The Mariannhill landfill site had received 850 000 tonnes of waste by 2004
and will continue accepting waste until 2024. The La Mercy landfill site is an old landfill that
will soon be closed; having received over 1 million tonnes of waste to date. Combined, the
Mariannhill and La Mercy landfill sites have the potential to generate up to 2 MW of
electricity. The Bisasar Road landfill site is the busiest landfill in Africa accepting 3500 to
5500 tonnes of municipal sewage waste daily and will continue to accept waste for another
ten years. It has the potential to generate up to 10MW of electricity through collection,
combustion and landfill gas. The final wells will be installed in approximately 2016.
With the annual estimation of emission reductions beginning in 2006, it is estimated that a
total of 480 000 tonnes of CO2 will be reduced at the three locations by 2013. There are
also significant positive effects on local air and groundwater quality and safety. The amount
of landfill gas in the atmosphere is reduced, thus reducing the risk of dangerous methane
concentrations.
eThekwini landfill gas project makes use of methane extracted from city landfill sites for the
generation of electricity. The project is registered with the Cleaner Development Mechanism
(CDM) and generates income from the sale of carbon credits through: The process of flaring
– burning methane to produce CO2 (methane is approximately 23 times more potent a
greenhouse gas than CO2); and Offset of coal generated electricity through the use of
methane powered generators for electricity (reduction in electricity use from coal fired
power stations). Three landfill sites were targeted – Marianhill (1MW generator - installed),
La Mercy (750kW generator – installed) and Bisasar (two 4MW generators installed, first
commissioned in early 2008). The project is expected to have reduced greenhouse gas
emissions by 7.8 million tonnes by 2021. Once fully operational, the project will also have
the capacity to generate a total of 10MW of electricity. Drivers of the project were e.g.
Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF)/World Bank with an offer to buy CDM carbon credits from
eThekwini Municipality through a landfill gas project.
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
28
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
29
8 REFERENCES
1. Alan F, and David L (2008) e-Waste Association in South Africa - e-Waste
Association of South Africa
2. Department of en Environmental Affairs (DEA), (2011) Draft Municipal
Waste Sector Plan (January 2011)
3. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2008) Survey of Generation
Rates, Treatment Capacities and Minimal Costs of Health Care Waste in
the 9 provinces of RSA
4. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2005)
Implementation plan for Transfer of the Waste Permitting Function.
5. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2006).
Implementation Plan for Transfer of the Waste Permitting Function.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria
6. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2007).
Assessment of the Status of waste service delivery and capacity at local
government level. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,
Pretoria
7. Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA)
(2009) Local Government Turnaround Strategy – Working together,
turning the tide in local government. Department of Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs, Pretoria.
8. Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA)
(2010) Delivery Agreement for outcome 9: A responsive accountable,
effective and efficient local government system. 5 July vs 4 EIA WIP.
9. Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), (2007) Policy
process on the System of Provincial and Local Government: Background:
Policy Questions, Process and Participation. Government Notice 936
Government Gazette No 30137 of 1 August 2007
10. Department of Provincial and Local Government (2007). Speech for the
Minister for Provincial and Local Government, Ms N. Hangana to be
delivered at a conference on waste management staged at the Emperors
Palace, Johannesburg, from 22-23 March 2007
11. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2000) White
Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa: A
2012 SAOE Waste Chapter
30
policy on pollution prevention, waste minimisation, impact management
and remediation. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,
Pretoria. ISBN 0-621-3002-8
12. Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA)
(2010) Delivery Agreement for outcome 9: A responsive accountable,
effective and efficient local government system. 5 July vs 4 EIA WIP
13. Fiehn, H and Ball, J. (2005). Background research paper: Waste. South
Africa Environment Outlook. National State of the Environment Project.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria
14. Levin, P.S., M.J. Fogarty, G.C. Matlock and M. Ernst.(2008) Integrated
ecosystem assessments. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-92
15. Oelofse, SHH and Godfrey, L (2008) Defining waste: Are we beyond the
age of ‘waste’? SA Journal of Science 104 (7/8) 242-246
16. Patrick K and Stan M. Jewasikiewitz (2007) Waste Management And
Sustainable Development In South Africa. Environment, Development And
Sustainability (2007) 9:163–185
17. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1996) The Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, Act No 108 of 1996
18. Universal Ownership: Why environmental externalities matter to
institutional investors. United Nations Environment Programme Finance
Initiative and Principles for Responsible Investment (2010)
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/universal_ownership.pdf