2012 south africa environment outlook chapter 9: waste...

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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


14

Province Institution type CSIR estimate

2005 (T/Year)

Actual estimate

2007 (T/Year)

Eastern

Cape

Public hospitals and

clinics

2,540 3,400


clinics

870 1100

Totals 3410 4500

Free State Public hospitals and

clinics

1127 1270


clinics

495 630

Totals 1622 1900

Gauteng JHB Municipal clinics 3395 4150


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


15

and clinics

Totals 1373 1840

Northern

Cape


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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)


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.


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%


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.


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.


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.


28


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.


(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


30

policy on pollution prevention, waste minimisation, impact management

and remediation. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,

Pretoria. ISBN 0-621-3002-8


(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

2012 south africa environment outlook chapter 9: waste...

Documents