Page 1
DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY
CONSOLIDATED REPORT TO COUNCIL ON COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY (WTE)
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
T R A N S A C T I O N A D V I S O R S :
J a n P a l m C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s
Specialist Engineering Consultants
PO BOX 931 BRACKENFELL 7561 60 BRACKEN STREET PROTEA HEIGHTS BRACKENFELL 7560 TEL + (27) 021 982-6570 FAX + (27) 021 981-0868
Jan Palm : [email protected]
Anita Botha : [email protected]
Prepared and Submitted by JPCE
19 March 2014
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3
2 COMMENTS RECEIVED .................................................................................................................... 3
3 DISCUSSION/RESPONSE IRO COMMENTS ........................................................................................ 3
4 KEY POINTS GOING FORWARD ...................................................................................................... 23
5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 23
6 ANNEXURES – COMMENTS RECEIVED ............................................................................................ 23
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 3
1 INTRODUCTION This report seeks to record, analyse and provide a contextual response to comments received from the public, interested parties and national and provincial government departments on the Waste to Energy Feasibility Study Report. On 12 June 2013 the Mayoral Committee resolved that:
1. the Waste to Energy (“WTE”) Feasibility Study Report (“FSR”) be submitted to the relevant national and provincial departments inter alia National Treasury, Provincial Treasury and Environmental Affairs and be made available to the public and organised labour for comments as legally required; and
2. the comments received be taken into account by the transaction advisors in a final report and such report to be submitted to the Drakenstein Local Municipality (“DLM”) for the Portfolio Committee and Mayco to consider and the Council to take a final decision in terms of the recommendations.
Duly authorised thereto the DLM distributed the FSR for comments to all relevant parties on 25 July 2013. Initially the submission date was 30 August 2013 but since the public requested more time for comments the period for comments was extended until 30 September 2013. Due to a request received from National Treasury for further information from the CFO of DLM and thereafter a further request from National Treasury for the DLM transaction advisors to respond to their comments as provided, the comments period took extensive time. However, all comments and responses thereon have now been finalised as detailed in this report and supported by the annexures hereto.
2 COMMENTS RECEIVED
Comments were received from the following parties: 1. National Treasury’s Views and Recommendations – a consolidated report that includes the
comments of other departments – refer to Annexure 1; 2. Western Cape Provincial Treasury – refer to Annexure 2; 3. CFG Fick from Lee Plant Hire cc (“LPH”) – refer to Annexure 3A; 4. Johann von Wielligh (“JvW”) – refer to Annexure 3B; 5. S J van Schalkwyk (“SvS”) – refer to Annexure 3C; 6. Vlakkeland Besigheidsvereniging (“VBV”) which included a presentation from Imperial Cargo
on Green Initiatives (latter not attached as not project related) – refer to Annexure 3D. 7. National Treasury’s Final Views and Recommendations (“TVR1”) – Annexure 4.
3 DISCUSSION/RESPONSE IRO COMMENTS
In respect of each of the Annexures, the transaction advisors have categorised the comments in table format under the following sections:
A. Institutional B. Statutory & Legal C. Technical D. SHE – Safety, Health and Environment E. Financial F. Socio-Economic
Page 4
RESPONSE TO CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS FROM NATIONAL TREASURY AND OTHER NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS (REFER TO ANNEXURE 1)
A INSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Project alignment 1. A confirmatory comment was made that the project is in line with the national and provincial objectives of waste
management.
• It also be noted that the project is also fully aligned to the IWMP of the DLM.
Section 1, item 2,
p. 45, FSR
2 Extent of the Project 1. A confirmatory comment was made to indicate that NT understands which services and activities will be included in the WTE
project and as such become private party risks and which, i.e. waste collection will remain with the DLM.
• Noted.
Section 2, item 2,
p. 132, FSR
3 Risk transfer 1. The confirmatory statement was made that significant risk will be transferred to the private party.
• Noted.
Section 4, item
4.9, p. 225, FSR
B STATUTORY & LEGAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Procurement compliance.
Clarify, i.e. rationale and
motivation, why the legal
process as detailed in s78 of
the MSA and s120 of the
MFMA was not followed, i.e.
why a service provider was
selected before completion
of the comments and
approval process of the
Feasibility Study.
1. Comment made referred to the DLM selecting a private party without conducting the full MSA s.78 study first and entering
into a MOA with this party prior to the DLM knowing if there was indeed a feasible project as would normally be determined
through the s.78 process.
2. Further comments related to the above, question 1) the objectivity of the report given that the s.78(1) study already
included reference to the existing municipal infrastructure to be included in the WTE project, 2) that the s.78(1) study
already took the preferred party’s technical expertise and financial credibility into account; 3) that some of the work for the
s.78(3) study was carried out by the preferred party, i.e. the waste analysis, a revised technology analysis and financial
modelling.
3. The request was also made that the DLM must provide the evaluation report to NT in order for it to check for compliance of
the process.
EXPLANATION:
• The DLM WTE project process started prior to a s.78 study. The intention was to first determine the possible feasibility of a
WTE project (given the total absence of such in SA except the LFG project in eThekwini) and the market appetite for it prior
to funding an internal feasibility study to determine if the DLM had the financial, technical, operational and human
resources capacity to embark on such a project.
• No pre-feasibility study was done prior to the RFP simply because the waste quantities at the time were an estimate and the
choice of technologies was unknown. The RFP provided all the bidders with a waste quantity and waste composition wrt
p 40 – 42 of FSR
Also refer to
procurement
documentation
including the
evaluation report.
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 5
organic fraction to enable them to offer a proposal based on the same data.
• The RFP put to the market inviting private parties to do a feasibility study at own cost included clear objectives leading to
the DLM being able to do a proper evaluation and comparative analysis of the responses.
• The RFP was structured such that the Municipality would only contribute towards a gate fee for waste that was diverted
from landfilling and also for purchasing the surplus electricity from the successful Bidder.
• A sufficient number of companies’ responded and reputable companies were shortlisted. The rules of competitive bidding
were applied and the primary criteria, i.e. technical expertise and financial credibility were tested. The RFP and its
adjudication process took 2 years with full commitment from the shortlisted private parties and confirmed that a WTE
project would be feasible.
• The preferred Bidder was selected based on the lowest Net Present Value of the cost to the Municipality and the lowest
perceived risk to the Municipality.
• The DLM is satisfied that it was an objective process.
• Prior to signing an MOA with the selected party, the Municipality clarified its process and obligations with NT and the project
was subsequently registered with NT.
• The MOA entered into with the selected party was subject to completion of all legal processes.
• Attached are the 8 documents which formed part of the procurement process, i.e. the complete document trail.
• The feasibility to include other waste services and activities, i.e. the landfill, TS and MRF operations in the WTE project was
without doubt established by the feasibility studies and thus right from the start included in the s.78(1) study analysis.
• The s78(1) and s78(3) studies did an independent and thorough needs analysis from a municipal perspective to verify
feasibility even though the private party gave further technology, waste volume/composition assessment and financial
option modelling inputs as required.
• The value assessment thoroughly analysed the various scenarios and options as identified as well as the financial modelling
done by the private party. In doing so, the DLM arrived at its own conclusions which supported the WTE project.
• The CFO analysed the financial modelling and also recorded his support for the project.
• Contract negotiations will be determined by the conditions of the various statutory authorisations as well as the conclusions
of the S78 investigation.
2 The REFIT no longer applied. • This is true and at the time of writing the FSR this already appeared as a given. Therefore, the tariff which will apply has also
been included in the Feasibility Study as well as the financial modelling on how this tariff was structured and arrived at.
Various options were discussed and analysed.
• The supporting letter of the CFO of DLM also addressed the tariffs and it was concluded that the tariff linked to the WTE
project as per the most preferred financial option would be much more feasible and affordable for the public if the WTE
Refer to the letter
of the CFO
attached hereto.
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 6
project goes ahead vis-à-vis it not going ahead.
3 Due diligence 1. A confirmatory comment was made that the report thoroughly covers due diligence on applicable legislation and policies.
• Noted.
Section 5 of FSR
4 Contracting – requirements
from lenders
1. Comment was made that bankability of the project is the key issue if the full WTE project including the AD and DC plants is
implemented.
2. A further statement was made that the requirements from lenders will need to be carefully considered before contracting.
• Noted. This will be done during the contracting phase.
All references in
FSR to scenario 4.
5 Contracting iro. consent,
statutory licenses and
approvals. Risk ownership.
1. The statement was made that obtaining statutory approvals should be a private party risk.
• Noted and confirmed. The risk analysis and assessment as contained in the Report clearly indicates that regulatory
risks, including approvals, permits, licences, the EIA, etc. are private party risks.
• The primary contract will contain suspensive clauses pertaining to each of these risks.
Section 4, Value
Assessment, 4.9
DLM Risk
Assessment and
specifically Table
4.10 on p.227 FSR
6 Contracting & Contract
Management
1. Comment was made regarding the SPVs, i.e. Interwaste SPV and Farmsecure SPV and that uncertainty exist iro how these
will relate to the DLM contractually and operationally.
2. Comment further pointed out that the DLM will need to comply with its legal contract monitoring obligations and do so
extra carefully given the possible complexities involved.
EXPLANATION:
• It should be noted that the DLM will only contract with IW and in turn IW and Farmsecure will enter into a back-to-back
agreement. However, the DLM will also make its inputs iro the back-to-back agreement to ensure the agreement serves its
purposes.
• It is noted that the DLM’s contract management will need to be good. It should be noted that the DLM is of the opinion that
contract management should already kick in at the start of contract negotiations and accepted the Provincial Treasury’s
invitation to undergo contract management training with the said training workshop in the process of being organised.
Section 3, Item
4.4, p. 200 of FSR
7 Ownership of project assets 1. The question / comment was made that project assets are part of the project and not for ownership by the private party?
The statement presumably wishes to argue that the project assets should belong to the DLM given that it would be
established on municipal land?
EXPLANATION:
• It should be noted that the ownership of current municipal assets which will be included in the project will remain with the
municipality.
• In respect of WTE infrastructure, note that the private party will lease the land from the DLM. Further that the private party
Section 2, Item 2,
p. 132 of FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 7
will invest R433m to erect the infrastructure and install the equipment and will own the WTE plant until transfer thereof to
the DLM at the end of the project period as a going concern. Financing risks, design risks, construction risks, insurance risks
and all other related ownership and operational risks will be that of the private party.
• Such significant risk transfer is what makes this a PPP.
C TECHNICAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Feedstock volumes 1. The comment was made that, since the DLM will not be responsible for taking the waste from the Paarl TS and MRF to the
WTE plant, the volume of feedstock going to the WTE plant may not be guaranteed by the DLM. Noted.
EXPLANATION:
• It is true that the private party will take the waste from the Paarl TS and MRF to the WTE plant thus IW will get what is
received at the Paarl TS and MRF but the DLM waste trucks will, as is the case now, take the waste as collected to the
landfill/WTE plant.
• All that IW requires is for all of the current waste to be delivered to the landfill/WTE plant. Simply status quo.
Section 2, Items
3.2 and 3.3, p.
132-133 of FSR
2 Waste from Stellenbosch 1. The comment was made that engagement with Stellenbosch Municipality must take place to secure its waste (feedstock)
before contract negotiations since the report is inconclusive on this.
EXPLANATION:
• Discussions were held with Stellenbosch and Cape Town officials and it is currently uncertain whether the additional waste
requirement will be filled by Stellenbosch or the City of Cape Town or both. Stellenbosch appears to have its own plans for
the organic fraction of their waste.
• From the discussions it appears that procuring additional waste would not be all that difficult.
Section 2, Item
5.2, p. 137 of FSR
3 The bankability of the project
is dependent on IW securing
the required volumes of
feedstock. Clarify the
availability/certainty of the
feedstock as required.
Clarification was sought on:
1. How will IW secure the required volume of feedstock? (process and volume wise)
2. Where does the feedstock go currently?
EXPLANATION:
• Interwaste will source the additional feedstock required to make the WTE project financially viable. In return DLM will
benefit from the additional electricity/energy generated from the waste and diversion from landfill. Other municipal
landfills will also benefit from landfill diversion and existing industrial waste generators could potentially benefit from having
a more cost-effective disposal facility (the WTE plant) closer to their own facilities which would result in a savings on
transport as well. Interwaste is committed to supplying the ~100 000 tonne/annum for the Direct Combustion facility. Part
Section 2, Item
5.4, p. 139
onwards - FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 8
of this would potentially be digestate as well (if no market exists), as anaerobic digestion only diverts 40% of the incoming
waste through gas production. Therefore, DLM has no doubt that the integrated waste to energy solution provided is the
most suitable in terms of waste diversion from landfill, energy generation and capital and operational expenditure.
• The feedstock currently goes to other municipal landfills (e.g. Stellenbosch and Cape Town).
4 Demand risk is mitigated by a
take-off agreement between
IW and DLM. Clarification is
needed iro the ownership of
the risk incl. its cost
associated with system
losses.
1. Clarification was sought iro the ownership of the risk incl. its cost associated with system losses.
EXPLANATION:
• The WTE project will account for all generation losses up to the approved connection point, which was assumed to be the
nearby substation (~2km away), any distribution losses within the municipality is therefore outside of the project’s battery
limits. Given that the power plant (AC and DC) will be within the borders of the DLM the actual distribution losses should
not be substantial for Drakenstein. Electrical supply in kW will be measured at the approved connection point and the WTE
project will bill the municipality according to these readings that will be logged.
Section 2, Item
9.5, p. 191 of FSR
5 Usage of waste-water sludge 1. Comment was made that the report refers to the usage of waste-water sludge as additional feedstock but in the end the
report is silent on it.
• It should be noted that the report contains various references to waste-water sludge definitely forming part of the
project except the first phase when only Drakenstein’s waste is involved.
Refer to Executive
Summary p. 20,
further to pp 141-
145, 165-168, 223
244, 248, etc. FSR
D FINANCIAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Payment risk – DLM to
guarantee payment
1. A question was asked regarding clarity on what is envisaged under this guarantee? Reference was also made to IW requiring
NT to back the project.
EXPLANATION:
• IW’s technology partner, i.e. Farmsecure, mentioned that it would like the national government, by name National Treasury,
to provide some sort of guarantee or counterindemnity. With an intended investment of R433m and the financial instability
of municipalities as an ever-looming risk, the request is understandable.
• The DLM’s transaction advisors as well as Provincial Treasury have made it clear that the national government will not stand
in for the contingent liabilities of municipalities, neither will provincial government. Municipal government is an
independent sphere of governance which implies that the DLM has to provide Farmsecure and their bankers with adequate
security and Farmsecure would need to accept what is offered for the project to proceed. Together it is the DLM and private
party’s responsibility to see to it that the project is a success.
Section 5, Project
due diligence,
p.246 under
‘Government
Guarantees’ - FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 9
• Farmsecure/IW is aware of the Small IPP project ito which national government has given Eskom its backing.
2 Revenue risk 1. Refer to explanation above.
• The DLM will abide by its contract responsibilities iro payment to IW.
3 Internal Rate of Return - IRR 1. The point was made that the required IRR of the Equity Investors is 30%. Is this a nominal or real number? Comment is made
that this is a high number irrespective of whether nominal or real.
EXPLANATION:
• This is a nominal rate of return which includes systematic risks, regulatory risks and inflation risks (this can also be seen in
how the internal rate of return was calculated on undiscounted cash flows). The real rate would be the nominal rate less
inflation and currency adjustment. In the feasibility report, it was, however mentioned that the most suitable equity investor
will be selected based on risk appetite and returns requirements and the detailed term sheets would only be negotiated
once Drakenstein has contractually committed to the project in terms of a 20 year off take agreement. The weighted
average cost of capital was calculated taking into consideration the senior debt portion as well, which accounts for 70% of
total capital required.
• This number (equity IRR) is higher than expected returns from investors when doing typical “balance sheet” financing
because of the project finance model being used. Therefore all the risk is passed on to the shareholder/investor in terms of
non-delivery and non-performance as well as all related technological risks even though this would be mitigated through
process and performance guarantees from the technology suppliers and EPC (who would be responsible for providing a
“wrapped” pricing and performance guarantee for the plant). The operations contractor would also be responsible for
providing appropriate guarantees, however all residual risk still remains with the “owner” which in this case would be the
equity providers for the WTE portion.
Section 4, Item
3.10, p. 213 of
FSR
4 Affordability 1. The comment was made that considering waste collection and disposal are already done by the DLM, the DLM will save on
the reduced waste to landfill and thus the project is affordable.
• The statement is supported by the DLM and the report of its CFO.
Refer to CFO
report.
5 Payment mechanism 1. The comment was made that a suitable payment mechanism be recommended.
• Various payment mechanisms formed part of the financial modelling detailed in the report. The DLM has weighed
these and decided on the payment mechanism most feasible to it.
Refer to CFO
report.
E SHE – SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE NO POINTS RAISED
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 10
F SOCIO-ECONOMIC
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Job creation 1. A confirmatory comment was made as to the positive impact that the number of jobs to be created will have for the
municipality.
• It should also be noted that the down-stream effect of the job creation would significantly contribute to LED.
p. 10 and 175 of
FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 11
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WESTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL TREASURY (REFER TO ANNEXURE 2)
A INSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Information to the public 1. The point was made that the s.78(4) decision and progress regarding contracting and construction processes must be
communicated to the community in more ways than just using the municipal website.
• Comment noted.
p. 121, par. 4
of FSR
2 Site office, boardroom, staff
change rooms, etc.
1. Clarification was sought if the needs analysis addresses these issues.
• The needs analysis did not specifically discussed these issues but these would ito SHE requirements and logistical
requirements be necessary and put in place during the construction phase.
None
B STATUTORY & LEGAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Procurement if WTE is not an
option.
1. The statement was made that the DLM must consider other procurement options should it decide to go for Scenario
1/Phase 1 in terms of which only DLM waste would be involved and also not the option of a WTE.
• Subsequent to PT making this comment, the CFO of the DLM has made his recommendations which concluded
that a WTE option would be the most feasible, thus a PPP.
p. 20, par. 5 of
FSR
2 Environmental authorisations
and waste management
licensing.
1. The question was posed as to how the EA and WML processes will impact on the project if hazardous waste is involved.
• The Wellington landfill is licensed as a general waste disposal facility and as such cannot receive hazardous waste. This
means that Interwaste will have to dispose of the fly ash at a hazardous waste facility such as Vissershok. The new
waste classification regulations may show that the fly ash is general waste or that it is hazardous. The new regulations
with the improved liner systems may be able to accept these waste types but the Wellington site still has the old liner
and as such the ash may in all likelihood not be disposed there. The hazardous classification or not should not have a
negative effect on the statutory processes.
p. 56, par. 5 of
FSR
3 Public Sector Comparator (A PSC Model is the costing of a project with specified outputs with the public sector as the supplier. Costs are then based on recent, actual costs of a similar project, or best estimates).
1. The point was made that the FSR did not include a Public Sector Comparator.
• The output expected from the WTE project cannot be assessed through a Public Sector Comparative (“PSC”) model due to the Municipality never having implemented these waste support activities, i.e. the recycling activities, waste haulage, AD, DC, etc. and there is no current model composed of all these components in SA to serve as a benchmark for the project. (The eThekwini project is only LFG). For some of these, e.g. the MRF, comparability of certain cost components is possible but not so valuable given that it would not be implemented
Section 4,
Value
Assessment,
Item 2, p. 203
of FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 12
as a standalone system.
• Based thereon, it was possible to carry out a Simplified Value-for-Money Assessment by assessing whether VfM drivers were demonstrated in the ERM. Simultaneously the affordability of the various phases/scenarios of the WTE Project for the DLM was assessed.
C TECHNICAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Waste from Stellenbosch 1. Clarification was sought iro the impact on the project if Stellenbosch does not come on-board, i.e. risk implications, the
mitigation strategy, etc.
• Discussions were held with Stellenbosch and Cape Town officials and it is currently uncertain whether the
additional waste requirement will be filled by Stellenbosch or the City of Cape Town or both. Stellenbosch appears
to have its own plans for the organic fraction of their waste.
• However, from the discussions it appears that procuring additional waste would not be all that difficult.
p. 12, par. 2 &
Section 2, Item
5.2, p. 137, FSR
2 Regionalisation of Waste 1. The comment was made that a key NWMS objective is to promote the regionalisation of waste. Clarification was sought iro
the impact on the project if this objective is realised.
• Regionalisation will not impact significantly on this project since 300t/d of waste must be sourced outside
Drakenstein. This is more waste than what is generated in Stellenbosch and will have to include waste from Cape
Town as well. Should regionalisation include Cape Town, e.g. looking at regionalisation within the peninsula, the
situation will still be the same since the WTE plant will have a certain capacity, but this could reduce the risk to
secure the feedstock.
p. 50, par. 3 of
FSR
3 Project related services and
activities
1. The point seems to be made that the Municipality should not include the whole value chain of waste treatment and disposal
including the MRF, Paarl TS, the Wellington Landfill, long haulage from the Paarl TS to the Wellington Landfill, etc. in one PPP
contract but put the various components to the market for competitive bidding.
• The FSR includes substantial argument and explanation including economic, financial, technological, operational, etc.
argument to clarify the reasons for including the selected services and activities in the WTE project.
p. 10 – 11 of
FSR
4 Storm water drainage 1. Management of storm water will be necessary.
• Specific stormwater detention ponds will be provided to intercept stormwater run-off from the composting
yard(s).
• With regard to the run-off from the general parking, vehicle turning, logistics and container management areas,
care will be taken that the post development run-off will not exceed the pre-development run-off and that low-
p. 174, par.
6.11.7 of FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 13
flow interceptors are provided to capture most of the pollutants associated with the first flush.
• In the case of run-off from the roofs of buildings, rain water tanks will be provided.
5 Water for the DC process 1. The point was made that water shortage might affect the DC process.
• As pointed out in the FSR, water supply and electricity provision to the WTE Park is adequate.
p. 163, table
2.16 / p. 174
FSR
6 Viability of the WTE depends
on adequate feedstock
1. The point was made that the WTE will not be feasible without additional feedstock.
• Interwaste will source the additional feedstock required to make the WTE project financially viable.
• Refer for more complete comment to Response to NT Comments under Technical.
p. 166, item
6.6.1; p. 211,
etc. of FSR
7 Future landfill situation 1. The question was posed that relates to the useful life of landfill sites after the 20 year PPP period, i.e. what will the DLM do
to prevent further problems for the next generation.
• Future landfill capacity will become problematic for Drakenstein within the next ten years in the event of a WTE
plant and within five years without such a project. All studies to date have failed to identify suitable future landfill
sites due to the stringent siting criteria. Without relaxation of some of the criteria the Drakenstein or Stellenbosch
areas will not have any future new landfills and will have to dispose their waste at the City’s future landfill.
None
8 Haulage of waste 1. The point was made that the transporting of waste on the municipal roads poses a risk of damaging the roads and/or
infrastructure and that an impact assessment should be done.
• The impact of additional vehicles transporting the additional waste to the landfill site will make up a small portion
of the transport load carried by the R44 (a provincial road). However, a full traffic impact assessment will be done.
p. 225, Item
4.8 of FSR
9 Rehabilitation of the
Wellington landfill site
1. The point was made that the risk of rehabilitation of the landfill site also be transferred to the private party.
• The financial options provided to the DLM included such an option. The DLM has elected not to make it a
preferred choice but the option is still on the table should it wish to investigate it further prior to contract
conclusion.
p. 208, Item
3.8 of FSR
D FINANCIAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Waste tariffs 1. The question was posed as to how the PPP will affect the rates paid by the community.
• As per the CFO report, the WTE project will have a positive impact given that maintaining the status quo will in a
few years lead to excessive tariff increases.
Refer to CFO
report.
2 Contingent liability 1. The comment was made that NT will not be able to underwrite the DLM’s contingent liability.
• Refer to detailed response under Responses to NT, Financial, item 1.
p. 220 of FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 14
3 BBBEE and SPV structuring 1. The comment was made that BBBEE be more clearly addressed and that the structure of the SPV be detailed.
• Agreed, these matters will be further addressed during contract negotiations.
p. 194 of FSR
4 Waste revenue collection 1. The point was made that the DLM should put measures in place to increase waste revenue collection.
• Noted and DLM to attend to it.
p. 116, item
8.3, par. 2 of
FSR
E SHE – SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE NO POINTS RAISED
F SOCIO-ECONOMIC
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Job opportunities
1. Comment was made as to the current jobs vis-à-vis job opportunities mentioned in the FSR.
• The current jobs are not affected. The municipal staff will be redeployed as per own choice. The jobs mentioned in
the report are new jobs.
p. 10 & p. 175
of FSR
Page 15
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS (REFER TO ANNEXURES 3A, 3B, 3C AND 3D)
A INSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Questioning of the regional
perspective as adopted by
the FSR (SvS)
• Various national and provincial policy documents emphasize the need for regional solutions – also for waste disposal - and it
is thus obligatory that municipalities include such a focus in a feasibility study such as the WTE FSR. The Cape Winelands
District Municipality has also followed this approach wrt the regional waste disposal site study. In the case of the WTE
project, the study was done from a local and regional perspective taking only local as well as regional waste volumes into
consideration and building various financial models for both options since the FSR needs to enable the Council of DLM to
take an informed decision based on its own governance perspectives. In alignment thereto, the two most feasible scenarios
are only Drakenstein waste and Drakenstein plus external waste. These scenarios are adequately discussed and modelled in
the FSR for the Council to make an informed decision.
Section 2, item
5.2, p. 137 of
FSR
B STATUTORY & LEGAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Critique of MOA and Waste
By-law as not aligned to
NWMS, NEM:WA
• The WTE project will have to comply to regional and national environmental legislation pertaining to the waste handling and
feed, air emissions, safe disposal of bottom- and fly ash, wastewater (if applicable) and health and safety regulations during
day to day plant operation. Contractual stipulations in this regard will be very clear.
FSR
2 Assumption re. PoAs and
non-transparency at public
meetings
• It is true that Interwaste’s WTE technology partner, Farmsecure, has concluded two Programmes of Activity (PoA) that were
submitted to the UNFCCC.
• It is untrue that this was done for Drakenstein’s WTE since Farmsecure has many other projects that falls under these PoAs
of their own and not related to municipalities or SA. This information became evident in 2013 after the public meetings and
was thus included in the FSR.
• The purpose of the PoA is that any future project (that complies with the methodologies) can be registered under the
programme to earn Carbon emission reduction credits (CERs). Each project will, however, be validated in its own capacity
and this process has not been initiated for Drakenstein as the FSR is awaiting approval.
• The reason for presenting the PoA for anaerobic digestion and direct combustion is that it acts as an enabler to earn CERs
post 2012 and to this date has been the only accepted way of off-setting carbon tax to be implemented in South Africa in
2015 and only later iro the waste sector.
• The details and mechanism of Carbon Tax is yet to be finalised by the Government and therefore the potential financial
benefit to the project is at this stage too uncertain to be considered part of the feasibility modelling.
Section 1, item
5.6.3, p. 83 of
FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 16
C TECHNICAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Impact on current recycling
by the Municipality. (JvW) • The current municipal recycling project will be expanded from 5/31 wards to include all wards. Section 1, item
6.7.1, p. 103 of
FSR
2 Adequacy of the waste
stream – technology and
related risks (SvS)
• The selection of the technology is critical to completely combust the fuel and the travelling grate of the combustion furnace
will be designed based on a “worst-case” fuel to provide sufficient residence time for complete combustion (This is
explained in detail in the FSR technical section).
• Ash content is taken conservatively as 22% on a dry basis which correctly equates to 12-13% of total fuel feed taking
moisture content into account. There is, however, minimal unburnt fuel in the bottom ash as only a certain particle size can
drop through the travelling grate and sufficient residence time is allowed for before the fuel is passed to the bottom ash
conveyer.
• Furthermore, it would not be possible to comply with the strict air emission regulations for SOX and NOX and CO if the fuel
was not combusted efficiently no matter how robust the flue gas cleaning system.
• The FSR acknowledges that the plastic materials and other waste streams utilized in the combustion plant are not renewable
and have therefore always referred to the project as “waste-to-energy”.
• The FSR further acknowledges that recycling is a more sustainable solution and therefore only the waste streams that have
no market or that are land filled will be combusted for electricity production.
• To be conservative, no CERs for the combustion project under methane avoidance methodology were taken into
consideration even though some of the streams might be complaint to earn credits.
Section 2 of
FSR
3 Link between the WTE
Project and the proposed
Regional Landfill (SvS)
• The investigation into a regional landfill was triggered by Stellenbosch Municipality who requested the Cape Winelands
District Municipality to investigate and identify a regional landfill since their landfill capacity was diminishing. After
identifying the need for landfill capacity District-wide, the District Municipality commissioned a project to identify a regional
landfill(s) for the District. Due to the physical boundary of the mountain range, the decision was made by the District to
consider one regional landfill on each side of the mountain.
• The study on the western side of the mountain has since then concluded that no suitable land could be identified for the
development of a regional waste disposal facility within the District’s boundaries and in accordance with statutory
parameters.
• It was pure coincidence that one of the candidate sites for the regional site was in close proximity to the existing Wellington
landfill and therefor also in close proximity to the proposed WTE project.
Section 2, item
5.2, p. 137 of
FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 17
4 Alleged incorrect waste
figures and calculations (SvS) • The comments on page 17 are based on the incorrect assumption that there is a calculation error on Table 1.7. The waste
received during a period at the Wellington does not equate to the waste transferred to Wellington for that specific period.
This is due to the volume of waste still at the Transfer Station at the beginning and at the end of the period. Clearly the Bulk
Refuse to Wellington line is therefore not an add sum but simply the tonnes transferred on average per month to
Wellington.
Section 1, item
6.2, p. 90
onwards of FSR
5 Clarity request re. the type of
waste to landfill that will be
allowed (SvS)
• The comment that fly-ash is hazardous waste is made using the British Columbia Hazardous Waste Regulation. South Africa
has passed new regulations in August 2013 regarding landfill classification, waste classification and landfill basal liner
designs. These regulations introduce a new, somewhat complex, classification of waste and due to the significant
improvements in liner design requirements wastes that previously were disposed at hazardous facilities can now be
disposed at Class B disposal sites. Each waste type must therefore be analysed to determine whether it requires a Class A or
B disposal site.
• It is premature to speculate at this stage since the composition of the fly ash is directly related to the composition and
quantity of the feedstock.
Section 2, item
6.4.2, p. 156
onwards of FSR
D FINANCIAL
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Ownership of financial risk,
e.g. if project fails. (JvW) • Except for provision of the land and the bulk infrastructure which is already in place, the Municipality will not be carrying the
financial risk for the WTE Facility.
• Contractual stipulations will include performance guarantees, monthly monitoring, annual performance reviews, three-year
contractual reviews for ‘red flag’ identification and management and will provide for termination with restoring of land to a
pre-construction situation.
Section 4, item
4.9, p. 225 of
FSR. Relevant
to contract
negotiations
2 Impact on electricity cost
(VBV) • The cost of the electricity generated would, same as current, be based on the megaflex tariff structure of Eskom. (as per
energy regulations)
Section 4, item
3.3, p. 205 of
FSR
3 Risk of Special Purposes
Vehicle (SPV) being used to
relocate the risk away from
the parent company / isolate
risk in event of bankruptcy or
a default. (VBV)(SvS)
• The Municipality will sign a contract with Interwaste including therein the transfer of financial risk to Interwaste.
• The comments are taken cognisance of and it is agreed that the contractual arrangements need to be impeccable in
protecting the DLM against risks.
• In terms of Section 33 of the MFMA, the community and interested parties would have the opportunity to comment on the
contract and it will need to withstand the scrutiny of the MFMA Unit at National Treasury.
Relevant to
contract
negotiations
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 18
4 Contingent liability • The FSR is a frank and open document that attempted to give the public and all interested parties as much as possible
information and different viewpoints, e.g. from a DLM and a contractor perspective.
• The parties to a PPP will not come to the negotiation table with all issues neatly packaged or all issues been viewed from a
common perspective. 80% of the contractual issues would normally be moderately easy to agree on but approximately 20%
would require thorough negotiation to find an arrangement that caters for the requirements and concerns of both parties to
arrive at a “partnership” that can last for the full duration of the contract. In the process payment risks, waste stream risks,
etc. would be thrashed out and contractually stipulated.
• To reiterate, in terms of Section 33 of the MFMA, the community would get the opportunity to give comments on the said
contract.
Section 4, item
4.2, p. 220 of
FSR
5 Calculations underlying
Financial Modelling
Weighbridge calibration:
• The weighbridges are calibrated every two years or at shorter intervals when obvious errors are found. The last calibration
was done in November 2013.
MRF Management:
• The calculation of the R550,000 for the MRF management for 250 tonnes is based on the R110,000 pm payment during 2013
for 50 tonnes. The clear bag system will be increased to more wards to reach the 250 tonnes. Thus to compare like-for like
250/50 = 5: R110,000 x 5 = R550,000.
• The Municipality’s cost for the management of the MRF (R110,000pm as indicated in the report) does not only include the
cost of the Contractor, but also the contract management, advertisements, marketing of the source separation drive, etc.
Long-haul to Landfill: (R3m contract)
• The R3m was in 2011 thus with a 4% annual escalation over two years the calculation seems accurate.
Crushing at Landfill:
• The cost comparison is a like-for-like comparison based on current costs, extrapolated to 6577 tonnes on average C&D
waste received at Wellington landfill per month. The report does not lay claim to or comment on current efficiencies or
inefficiencies.
• The Municipality does not crush all builder’s rubble at the moment due to budget restraints.
Section 4 of
FSR
6 Financial calculations
underlying Affordability
analysis
• The affordability of this project is simply determined by the fact that Drakenstein is running out of airspace and that future
disposal will be at a remote landfill incurring excessive transport and disposal costs.
• The WTE does not make economic sense when such a small waste volume (even with the import of 300 t/d) is considered if
the local landfill had sufficient long term airspace available. The affordability therefor lies in the future avoided costs.
• While the local landfill still has avaiable airspace WTE is more expensive than the current operations, but because WTE
significantly reduces the volume of waste to be transported and disposed at a future remote landfill, it presents the more
Section 4 of
FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 19
economic solution in the long term (20 years).
7 Alleged incorrect financial
calculations iro crushing and
chipping, brick-making
activities
• It is agreed that there is a difference between tonnage and cubes and that: C&D : 1m3 is heavier than 1 ton; Chipping of
Compost: 1m3 is lighter than 1 ton.
• C&D waste weighs on average 900 kg/m3 and garden waste 160 kg/m3. The average monthly cost to the municipality in the
report of R513,006 and R45,000 should read R 569,486 and R278,118 respectively, further increasing the Municipality’s
current cost rate per tonne.
Section 4 of
FSR
E SHE – SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 SHE impact due to pollution
from combustion process –
air & water incl. smell (JvW)
• As described in detail in the technical section of the FSR, the combustion process has to comply with strict air emission
regulations aligned with EU Standards which has to be guaranteed by the technology provider before an air emission license
is granted.
• The project will not be financed and, hence, constructed without all the necessary regulatory approval. The lenders will also
conduct a strict due diligence to assure that the guarantees put forward by the technology provider is proven and that there
are other reference sites to their satisfaction that serves to mitigate the risk of non-compliance.
• The plant will have continuous emission monitoring systems and in Korea and Europe, these plants are shut down remotely
if the flue gas does not meet any of the threshold values as indicated in the FSR. The latter will apply.
Section 2, item
6.4.3.2, p. 164
of FSR
2 Inconsistency with / influence
on the Green Building Code
adopted by DLM (VBV)
• There is no inconsistency with the Green Building Code.
• Pertaining to this project, the latter places an obligation on the minimisation and recycling of waste and the saving of
energy. The DLM itself is practising it.
• What is meant by ‘entire waste stream’ to be given to Interwaste does not imply that waste minimisation practices should
be discouraged, it simply means the waste that the Municipality or service providers disposing at the Paarl TS and the
Wellington LS, collects; thus what is left and to be disposed of after minimisation had been practised by residents, business,
etc.
FSR
3 Allegations of environmental
law contraventions against
Interwaste as published in
Business Times, 31/03/2013
(SvS)
• It needs to be noted that the article relied on information which was not verified, false or taken out of context. Interwaste
has subsequently received an apology from Susan Smuts, the Sunday Times Legal Editor, which article and other related
correspondence that the transaction advisors have in their possession clearly sets the record straight iro the integrity of the
company.
4 The WTE Project does not • Refer to 1 above and 1 under Statutory and Legal.
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 20
align with the NEMA (SvS)
5 Concern re. the monitoring of
the atmospheric emissions of
the DC Plant as per the
NEM:AQA (SvS)
• SA has the legislation and, as indicated in the FSR, the MSW incineration plants of the technology partner, as verified, meet
the EU and much stricter Korean standards ito air emission regulations and would also meet SA standards. However, it is
agreed that monitoring practices to ensure compliance with legislation are serious lacking.
• The PPP contract is legally obliged to stipulate the contract management practices as per the MFMA and National Treasury
would at least wish to initially be involved in setting up these practices. A contract monitoring plan must from the start be
included in the contract.
• There is no reason why the DLM could not allow community representative/s to be observers on a contract monitoring
committee. In fact, Section 17 (4) of the MSA allows a municipal council to establish an advisory committee consisting of
persons who are not councillors to advise the council on any matter within the council’s competence.
Section 2, item
6.4.3.2, p. 164
of FSR
F SOCIO-ECONOMIC
ISSUE CONTEXTUAL RESPONSE REFERENCE 1 Impact on current private
waste collection and recycling
initiatives (VBV) (JvW) (SvS)
• The project would not interfere in the private waste collection and recycling businesses in Drakenstein. The project does not
include waste collection, only waste treatment and disposal. Albeit the municipal separation at source and ‘clear bag’
programme focused on recycling would be expanded to include all wards.
• The DLM Integrated Waste Management By-law, 2013 makes provision for the registration of private waste businesses with
the DLM and does not curtail the economic activities of these businesses.
• Current private recyclers in Drakenstein source their recyclables from pre-collected wastes and this project only deals with
the post-collected wastes.
FSR
2 WTE impact on local
economy incl. job creation vs
job losses (VBV)(SvS)
including
critique on Memorandum of
Agreement between DLM
and Interwaste; critique on
waste by-law, etc. (SvS)
• As indicated above the project would not impact on the current economic activities of waste businesses since it focuses on
municipal collected waste and external waste obtained by Interwaste, who deal with other sources of waste than the private
waste collectors in Paarl and Wellington. It will, as the Municipality currently does, receive the waste privately collected at
the Paarl TS including the recyclable products at the Paarl MRF or the Wellington LS where a MRF for recyclables will also be
established and further deal with the treatment and disposal thereof.
• For noting is also that the market for recyclables is highly volatile therefore no figures whether it be job creation or revenue
related linked to recycling can be set in stone. However, the capacity of the DC Plant to absorb an oversupply of recyclables
mitigates the impact of a saturated recyclables market.
• The MOA between the DLM and Interwaste also refers to the municipal collected waste stream. The MOA states that the
DLM must not consent to, register or approve or license other external service providers to operate a commercial service of
FSR
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 21
which the effect would/could be a reduction of the general waste stream to the WTE facility. This MOA must be seen within
the context as meant, which context relates to the circumstances experienced by the private sector at other projects in SA.
E.g. in eThekwini the Marian Hill MRF which was operated very successfully by Re-SA had to close primarily due to the metro
inter alia contracting with SAPPI to do paper recycling while the latter was one of the MRF’s main revenue streams. This the
metro did despite its contract with Re-SA, i.e. a breach of contract. Interwaste expects from the DLM not to do what
eThekwini did.
• The Integrated Waste Management By-law, 2013 of the DLM makes provision for registration and licensing of commercial
waste businesses and also for exemption from certain provisions so as to accommodate the needs of its public but also, and
this needs to be noted, such licensing is necessary to enable the DLM to fulfil its requirements iro IPWIS.
• Job creation figures would remain an estimated number until the project is rolled out but it remains a fact that a substantial
number of job opportunities would be created. The FSR did not attempt to estimate the number of jobs that could be
created through downstream economic activities, e.g. local contractors acting as service providers to the WTE but such
should also be noted.
• It is the intention to engage local skilled and unskilled labour from the surrounding communities and South African citizens
for the development and transfer of skills by the appointed Operations Contractor, responsible for the key component
maintenance and operation.
• The appointed local contractor will provide project management and site supervision during the construction phase over a
18 – 24 month period. During this phase the contractor aims at utilizing skilled and unskilled labour from the local
community for site establishment and clearance, on-site civil and architectural work, transport and logistics, machine hire,
raw materials and other related services. The lead EPC contractor further undertakes to also be the Operations and
Maintenance contractor for the project. It is the intention to engage local skilled and unskilled labour from the surrounding
communities and South African citizens for the development and transfer of skills. All un-skilled labour for the waste
management and recycling will be sourced from the surrounding rural communities and existing jobs and activities
pertaining to waste recycling will not be affected as only waste to be land filled (where no market exists) will be digested
and combusted for waste diversion and electricity production.
• There is also a real opportunity for enterprise development during the construction phase of the waste-to-energy projects as
it is the intention to procure preferentially from local black empowered companies (to the extent possible) in an attempt to
increase the local content of the project. New enterprise will be created during the construction phase of the project
through manpower, services and raw materials. The procurement of equipment and materials will focus on enhancing local
enterprise by supporting proudly South African companies. During the final agreements between all shareholders (after the
necessary debt financing is secured), there is an opportunity to establish a community trust as part of the project Special
Drakenstein WTE Project Consolidated Report to Council on Comments Received on the WTE Feasibility Study Report 19 March 2014
Page 22
Purpose Vehicle (SPV) aimed at community upliftment and enterprise development which will result in more support to
SME’s, investment into community health, education and infrastructure development and general improvement in the local
economy.
Page 23
4 KEY POINTS GOING FORWARD Some of the key points raised to be taken into a contracting phase were:
• Phasing of the project
• Structure of the Special Purpose Vehicles and legal agreements between the SPVs
• Clarification of BBBEE and a possible community trust as part of the SPV
• Lender requirements and conditions impacting on the DLM/Interwaste contract
• Contractual stipulations regarding statutory processes, e.g. the EIA and various Licences
• Traffic impact assessment
• Further risk and liability analysis including feedstock
• Contract management – all aspects
• Local job creation and labour management
5 CONCLUSION Very constructive comments were received from National Treasury (including the other state departments) and Provincial Treasury. These comments support the DLM’s value assessment that the
project will provide value for money, be affordable and transfer significant risk to the private sector. It also highlights the issues which should be looked at during a contracting phase.
The comments received from the public indicate that the community served by the DLM is vigilant
and takes an active interest in matters which may affect the livelihood of community members. A number of important points were made which will also ensure that the DLM enters a contracting
phase with the best interests of its community at heart.
None of the comments received brought matters to the table that led the DLM or its transaction advisors to question the findings of the feasibility study and ultimately the recommendations of the
study as will be presented to Council in order to take a section 78(4) decision on whether to proceed with the contracting phase of the WTE project.
6 ANNEXURES – COMMENTS RECEIVED 1 – NATIONAL TREASURY & OTHER DEPARTMENTS 2 – PROVINCIAL TREASURY
3A – LEE PLANT HIRE 3B – JOHANN VON WIELLIGH 3C – S J VAN SCHALKWYK
3D – VLAKKELAND BESIGHEIDSVERENIGING 4 – NATIONAL TREASURY “TVR1”
Comments on Drakenstein Municipality Waste to Energy Feasibility
Report:
17 February 2014.
Section A
1. GENERAL
The process followed seems to be reversed from the normal PPP Cycle – in that a
Preferred Bidder (Interwaste) was selected and that the DLM is ready to enter into
contract - following the successful completion of the process as required for the
approval and consideration of the Feasibility Study.
It would be useful to include the rational as to why the process is reversed. Questions
that does come to mind are: Was a pre- feasibility done before the RFP was issued
in 2008? What was the output specification and contract requirements? How was the
Preferred Bidder selected? How will the contracting negotiations work?
2. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE FEASIBILITY:
2.1 Under the legal considerations there are still reference to a Renewable
Energy Feed In Tariff – this is no longer applicable. The tariff is now the
outcome of a competitive process.
3. Risk Matrix:
3.1 It is clear that the bankability of the project (up to Scenario 4) is
dependent on sufficient waste volumes. – the Financial modelling shows
that with only Drakenstein waste the WTE Facility is not feasibile. The
Risk mitigation is for IW to secure feedstock from suppliers per contract.
How will this process work? Where does the feedstock go currently?
3.2 Demand risk is mitigated by a take- off agreement between IW and DLM.
How will losses between generation and distribution be dealt with. Will this
be a DLM risk and cost?
3.3 Payment risk – DLM to guarantee payment. What is envisaged under this
guarantee? There is a reference to a requirement for NT to back the
project – not clear what is included or implied.
3.4 Revenue risk – the mitigation also refers to backing from NT. Please
provide clarity as to what is envisaged?
4. Project Due Diligence – refers to Government Guarantee – by NT – this will be a
huge stumbling block for bankability and project finance. IW/Farmsecure will have to
take a view on DLM risk. – This brings to mind again the option for IW/Farmsecure to
participate in the Small IPP programme where government stands behind Eskom.
5. The required IRR of the Equity Investors is 30% - Not sure if this is nominal or real
number but anyway this is a high number on both counts.
6. Bankability of the project will be the key issue especially for scenario 4 and the
requirement from the lenders will have to be carefully considered before contracting.
7. Consent, Licences and Approvals required is also key risks for the project.
Contracting should be clear that this risk is a Private Party risk.
Section B
Procurement compliance
The municipality carried out a full procurement process knowing well that it was
required to have conducted the MSA Section 78 process. The process outlined is
suitable for unsolicited proposals wherein the proponents often come with no prior
knowledge of the requirements. The private party was selected already, but there
was no feasible project.
Procurement was not concluded by means of a valid appointment, but an MOA.
The MSA Section 78(1) already takes into cognisance the preferred bidder’s
financial credibility and technical expertise.
A proposal that the Wellington Landfill, Paarl transfer station, Paarl MRF be included
in the WTE project is already included in MSA Section 78(1), seemingly
strengthening the intention rather than an empirical exercise. The objectivity of the
report is hampered. Pg43
The Section 78(1) recommendation, amongst others was that some of the work that
is typically part of Section 78(3) would be carried by the preferred bidder, i.e waste
composition/calorific study, revised technology analysis and financial modelling.
Pg44
It makes a difference in instances where the municipality was not aware of the
process at the time of procurement. The variance between the size of the project
The municipality needs to forward the evaluation report so that we may check for
compliance of the process that was carried out as the issuance of TVRs is an indirect
validation of the process.
The transaction advisor was appointed by the municipality. (hopefully the private
party paid)
Overview of the project
The project is in line with the national and provincial objectives of waste
management.
There is a claim of job creation and poverty alleviation, about 191 new jobs excluding
the current 12 staff at the Wellington Landfill. This is a positive impact for the
municipality.
The project involves the construction and operation of a WTE plant as well as
operation of the Wellington Landfill site, Paarl Transfer Station and Paarl MRF.
Waste collection will remain within the municipality as it is currently doing it efficiently.
The private party will have to apply for licences for waste storage, MRF , anaerobic
digester and direct combustion. The responsibility of transportation of feedstock from
these stations (MRF/Transfer Station) to the WTE plant will be carried out by the
private party.
Feedstock volumes- Since the municipality is not delivering the feedstock to the
“gate” the convertible feedstock is a result after the TS and MRF – the volume of
feedstock going to the WTE plant may not be guaranteed by the municipality.
Due diligence on applicable legislative and policy framework is thoroughly covered.
Project related assets – the issue of ownership by Interwaste, i.e WTE plant and
MRF. Project assets are part of the project and not for ownership by the private
party? The facilities will be erected on municipal land. Pg132
The 4 scenarios include scenarios where waste stream will come from Stellenbosch
and Interwaste. While Interwaste feedstock is almost guaranteed, no engagement
was made with Stellenbosch and from scenario analysis onwards the report seems to
include Stellenbosch Waste as though it was finalised. They need to engage with
Stellenbosch before negotiations.
The are two SPV mentioned namely Interwaste SPV and Farmsecure SPV they are
mutually exclusive yet joined by the primary agreement (each with own financiers). It
is not clear which one leads or how they will relate with the municipality contractually
and operationally. Emphasis is placed on the requirement of contract monitoring by
the municipality, meaning that DLM will need a more than usual monitoring
mechanism to manage the 2 SPVs. Capacity and resources may need to be looked
at. Pg200
Considering that Waste collection and disposal are currently carried out by the
municipality the municipality will save on the reduced waste to the landfill. The project
is thus affordable.
The significant risk is also transferred to the private party
There is a perception that NT will give a Government guarantee, it is the private party
and the municipality’s responsibility to see to it that the project is a success.
The municipality needs to decide on whether it will consider:
o Whether to use own feedstock and that of Interwaste only or add
Stellenbosch’s as the report is inconclusive on this.
o The suitable payment mechanism needs to be recommended.
There is mention of waste-water sludge as a possible additional feedstock, but in the
end the report is silent on it. Possible extra consideration for sludge
handling/dewatering etc could be additional cost factor?
DRAKENSTEIN WTE PROJECT: COMMENTS AS RECEIVED
From: Heinrich von Wielligh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 September 2013 11:58 AM To: Ronald Brown
Subject: Projek: Waste to Energy Importance: High
Geagte meneer Reaksie op inligting ontvang - Weens die enorme hoeveelheid ekstra vullis wat benodig word om genoemde stelsel te laat werk, aanvaar ek dat die huidige herwinnigsproses van huis- en ander afval gestaak sal word. - Die voorgestelde verbranding van die vullis vir die opwekking van elektrisiteit sal verseker 'n groot besoedelingseffek to gevolg he met gepaarde gesondheidsgevaar - lug en water. - Tans is 'n paar werkgewers aan die gang om vullis bymekaar te maak en te verwyder in belang van 'n skoner omgewing. Hoe sal hulle geraak word? - Na etlike jare van uiters onaangename reuke afkomstig vanaf die leerlooiery op die grens van ons dorp, is hierdie probleem opgelos. 'n Herhaling is egter ongewens. - Die finansiele implikasie van gemelde energieprojek sal etlike miljoene rande beloop. Indien dit sou misluk, wie gaan die gevolge dra? Dankie vir u aandag. Johann von Wielligh 082 339 2574
1
KOMMETAAR OP DRAKENSTEIN WTE
PROJECT DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY
REPORT
A. TERMS OF REFERENCE BL 2
Tender CES 27/2007 vra vir 3 objektiewe
“Generation of renewable energy from municipal solid waste
The reduction of municipal solid waste to the landfill
The development of clean development mechanism (CDM) project in order to sell the
Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) achieved by the generation of electricity from non-fossil
fuel”
DOELWIT 1
Opmetings van Wellington storting-terrein(privaat) gedurende Januarie 2013;Februarie 2013 en
Maart 2013 dui aan dat ons huidiglik 164 Ton vullis per dag stort binne die Wellington-stortings-
terrein.
Hierdie 164 Ton sluit MSW(with potensial % of recyclables) ;CONTAMINATED RUBBLE ; % DIRECT
DISPOSE GREENS in !
DAAR IS TE MIN MIN VULLIS IN DRAKENSTEIN VIR DIE OPWEKKING VAN ELEKTRISITEIT !
DIE PROSES GASIFICATION HET N MINIMUM VAN 500 TON PER DAG NODIG !
DOELWIT 1 : KAN DUS NIE PLAASVIND NIE ,AANGESIEN DAAR TE MIN VULLIS IS VIR DC
DOELWIT 2 :” REDUCTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO THE LANDFILL”
INDIEN ONS VULLIS MOET INVOER VAN ANDER PLEKKE OM DOELWIT 1 MOONTLIK TE
MAAK SAL ONS DUS NIE
DOELWIT 2 KAN BEREIK NIE,(REDUCTION OF WASTE) EN SAL ONS MET DIE VOLGENDE
SENARIO OPEINDIG!
2
VOLGENS PRIVAAT OPMETING GEDOEN JAN-MRT 2013 : STORT ONS HUIDIGLIK
GEMIDDELD 164 TON PER DAG 24 DAE VAN DIE MAAND.
INDIEN VULLIS INGEVOER WORD SAL ONS OP-EINDIG MET 14021 TON PER DAG (BL.140
TABEL 2.4)
VERBRANDING VAN MSW HET N BY-PRODRUK” BOTTOM AND FLY ASH” HOEWEL DIE % VAN
HIERDIE BY- PRODUK BY NORMALE VERBRANDING EN DIE VOER VAN N EENVORMIGE PRODUK VAN”
BIOMASS” GEREKEN KAN WORD AS 12% ,KAN DIT BY MSW GEREKEN WORD OP 25%-35% VAN DIE
INVOER GEWIG. MSW IS NIE N EENVORMIGE VOER-PRODUK VIR VERBRANDING NIE, EN DUS IS
PRESENTASIE “ASH” MEER.
DUS 25% VAN 14021 MSW = 3505.25 PLUS 1319 (BOUROMMEL) = 4824.25 DEEL DEUR 30DAE =
160.8 TON PER DAG WAT GESTORT GAAN WORD,MIN (30 DAE) AS ONS DIT TERUG WERK NA 24
DAE(huidiglik stort ons 24 dae) SAL DIT 201 TON PER DAG WEES
INDIEN DIE DC PLANT VAN 300 MILJOEN(bl 187) GEBOU GAAN WORD SAL DRAKENSTEIN
MUNISIPLALITEIT 160 TON PER DAG(30dae) “BOTTOM & FLY ASH” WEER-EENS STORT!!
GEEN VERMINDERING VAN DIE HUIDIGE 164 TON PER DAG NIE. TERUG VERWERK NA 24
DAE: SAL DAAR DAN 201 TON PER DAG GESTORT WORD ; DUS MEER AS DIE 164 TON WAT
ONS HUIDIGLIK STORT !
HOE MEER VULLIS ONS DUS INVOER HOE GROTER SAL DIE HOEVEELHEID RAAK WAT
ONS AS “BOTTOM &FLY ASH” MOET STORT.
201 TON SAL BESTAAN UIT AS : 10-20% “FLY ASH” GEKLASIFISEER AS “HAZARDOUS”
AANGEHAAL UIT: PROJECT NO. 1231-10166 DEUR STANTEC CONSULTING LTD
17.”Fly ash and air pollution control (APC) residue are more likely to contain leachable contaminants
and be classified as hazardous waste. Fly ash and APC residue must be disposed of in a secure landfill
authorized to receive this class of material.”
DOELWIT 3 :”CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM) PROJECT IN ORDER TO SELL THE
CERTIFIED EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACHIEVED BY THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY FROM NON
FOSSIL FUEL”
3
Die volgende aanhaling vanaf bladsy 4 “the intention was not that DML become involved in such
trading but the private party with the latter doing the very complex registration of such a project
and taking the risk but also the possible financial gain. Although farmsecure, the technology partner
of interwaste, has two cdm programmes of activity that could include the drakenstein wte project,
going this route is from a financial perspective at the moment not feasible given the changes in the
global economy, e.g. There is a current oversupply of carbon credits and the european market has
decided to conclude carbon trading agreements only with less developed countries which excludes
sa”
EK HAAL OOK VERDER AAN BL 84: “ IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT
INCLUDE THE CDM/CER OPTIONS AS PART OF ITS FINANCIAL VIABILITY PROJECTIONS.”
DUS DOELWIT 3 DIE CDM, IS OOK NIE HAALBAAR NIE.
HUMAN RESOURCES CONSIDERATION (BL 5-6 )
“Of great importance is the permanent jobs that will be created if the WTE Project is fully
implemented. This is in line with the “Green Economy Accord” signed at the end of 2011
between government, “
REEDS OP DIE VERGADERING VAN DIE 22 &23 NOVEMBER 2012 HET ONS AAN JAN PALM
SOWEL AS RONALD BROWN GEVRA OF HUL DIE STATISTIEKE VAN DIE WERKSKEPPING VAN
HERWINNING AAN ONS KAN VERSKAF!! GEEN ANDWOORD IS VERSKAF NIE!
HERWINNING HET ONTSAGLIKE POTENSIAAL M.B.T WERKSKEPPING. DAAR BESTAAN
REEDS N KLOMP PRIVAAT-HERWINNINGS-BESIGHEDE. HIERDIE BESIGHEDE VERSKAF WEER
PRODUKTE AAN VERSKEIE PLASTIEK FIRMAS ! HIERDIE PLASTIEK VERWERKINGS FIRMAS IS
DIREK AFHANKLIK VAN DIE PRIVAAT-HERWINNINGS BESIGHEDE, SOOS WAT REEDS
BESTAAN IN DRAKENSTEIN !
STATISTIEKE WYS DAT DIE AANVRAAG NA HERWINBARE PRODUKTE, OOK DEUR
DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT BESIG IS OM TE GROEI !
GEEN MELDING WORD GEMAAK OP DIE INVLOED WAT DIT OP DIE :
; KOMPOS BESIGHEDE,
;DIE STEENVERVAARDIGINGS BESIGHEDE,
;DIE”WASTE” BESIGHEDE, DIE CRUSHING BESIGHEDE ,
;DIE HERWINNINGS BESIGHEDE ,DIREK EN INDIREK .
HOEVEEL WERKVERLIES SAL DAAR IN HIERDIE BESIGHEDE WEES,DIE DIREKTE GEVOLG VAN
DIE WTE- PROJEK ?
DAAR SAL MEER WERK VERLORE GAAN AS WAT DAAR DEUR INTERWASTE GESKEP KAN
WORD!!
HIERDIE PROJEK IS SLEGS VAN EEN KANT AF BESKOU ! IS DAAR ANDER ALTERNATIEWE
ONDERSOEK ?
4
C. TECHNICAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS(BL6)
“In analysing the technical options applicable to these services and activities, it was firstly important
to note the primary reasons for their inclusion in the WTE Project:
1.”.the Municipality does not have the human resources and suitable machinery for optimal
compaction methods to improve the operations of especially the Wellington Landfill to the
extent needed to optimise extension of the current lifespan of the site;”
DIE REGTE MASJIEN WAS BESKIKBAAR OP DIE MASJIEN TENDER ! DRAKENSTEIN
MUNISIPALITEIT HET DIE MASJIEN TENDER VIR GEEN REDE VERKORT NA N JAAR,TOE WEER
STUKS-GEWYS VERLENG. DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT HET DUS DIE REGTE MASJIENE
TOT HUL BESKIKING GEHAD, DAAR WAS EGTER VERKIES OM NIE HIERVAN GEBRUIK TE
MAAK NIE !
DAAR WAS BY VERSKEIE GELEENTHEDE AAN AMPTENARE VAN DRAKENSTEIN
MUNISIPALITEIT UITGEWYS DAT DAAR TE VEEL “Cover” MATERIAAL IN WELLINGTON
STORTINGTERREIN INRY WORD!
WAAROM IS AL DIE BOUROMMEL GEDURENDE 2012 IN DIE STORTINGS-TERREIN INGERY?
DIE CRUSHER WAS BESKIKBAAR OP DIE MASJIEN TENDER! DAAR WAS OOK REEDS IN
OKTOBER 2011 CRUSHING GEDOEN !?
DIT WIL VOORKOM ASOF SEKERE BELANGRIKE AKSIES WAT MOES PLAASVIND IN
WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN MET OPSET AGTERWEE GELAAT WAS!
“2. the Municipality does not have the plant or the finances to purchase such to transport waste
from Paarl Transfer Station to the Wellington Landfill Site; “
DIE OORLAAISTASIE HET VROËR N MEUL GEHAD! BAIE MIN TOT GEEN VULLIS IS DUS NA
WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN GERY ! DIE VULLIS WAS OPGEMAAL EN AAN BOERE
BEKIKBAAR GESTEL AS KOMPOS ! HIERDIE TEGNOLOGIE WAS DIE ANDER MUNISIPALITEITE
VER VOOR! WAAROM IS HIERIE MEUL VERWYDER EN NIE HERSTEL OF VERPLAAS NA
WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN ?
INTERWASTE DUI AAN DAT DIT HUL R 1800,000 SAL KOS PER JAAR OM VULLIS VAN DIE
OORLAAISTASIE NA WELLINGTON TE VERVOER(BL187)
HUIDIGLIK KOS HIERDIE SELFDE AKSIE DIE MUNISIPALITEIT R800,000 – DUS INTERWASTE
IS R1,000,000 (MILJOEN) DUURDER AS DIE DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT !
EK HAAL OOK AAN VANAF BL 14 “WTE-REPORT”
“The study found that the revenue derived from solid waste could, if ring -fenced, be adequate to
service the additional monthly operational expenditure expected to be required by the WTE Project
including the obligatory contract monitoring and management fees that would be required by NT.”
5
DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT HET ELKE JAAR N SURPLUS BY DIE “WASTE” AFDELING
“figures indicate a continuous trend of increased surpluses.”(BL111)
DUS VOLGENS HIERDIE GEGEWENS KAN DRAKENSTEIN NIE DIE HUIDIGLIKE R 800,000
BEKOSTIG NIE, MAAR WEL DIE R1,800,000 VAN INTERWASTE VIR DIESELFDE AKSIE.
TEENSTRYDIG !?
“3. the Municipality does not have any experience of the operation of a MRF with the result that
these are already outsourced contracts and fit into the WTE Project and the financial viability and
sustainability of MRF operations are quite complex inter alia due to a volatile recyclables market,
making it essential to regard a MRF as part of an integrated waste management solution..”
DAAR WAS AANGEBIED OM HERWINNING VERNIET/GRATIS IN WELLINGTON STORTINGS-
TERREIN TE BEHARTIG! DIT WAS VAN DIE HAND GEWYS,WAAROM?
“It was found that rendering these services and activities did not involve highly innovative l
solutions but best practice technical and operational expertise, skills, capacity and resources
to rectify the current operational problems and increase operational and maintenance
effectiveness, and that these could be rendered by Interwaste. It was concluded that Interwaste
could take over the technical and operational risks and offer affordability and value-for-money
i.r.o. these service”
DIE VOLGENDE UITTREKSEL UIT DIE :
, Business Times
Source: Moyagabo Maake, 31 March 2013
“ALT -X -LISTED waste management company Interwaste' s recovery to profit could be
threatened by a fresh legal challenge for allegedly flouting environmental laws, leaving it
vulnerable to a hefty fine.
Interwaste published stellar result s for the year to December, including profit before tax
of R21-million compared to the previous period' s loss of R6. 7-million, but environmental
management inspectors from the Department of Environmental Affairs, also known as the
Green Scorpions, had been investigating the company since last July. Interwaste, which
collect’ s and disposes of waste for various client s and operates municipal rubbish dumps
on behalf of government , alluded to the investigation in it s results this week.”
HOE AANGEWESE IS HIERDIE FIRMA IN DIE LIG OP BO-GENOEMDE, EN WATTER INVLOED
HET HIERDIE ONDERSOEK OP DIE TENDER WAT REEDS TOEGEKEN IS AAN INTERWASTE?
DAAR WAS BY VERSKEIE GELEENTHEDE EN DEUR VERKEIE BESIGHEDE VOORSTELLE T.O.V
DIE WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN SOWEL AS HERWINNING GEDOEN. HIERDIE
VOORSTELLE SOU N GROOT VERMINDERING IN DIE VULLIS TEWEEG BRING , EN
VOORDELIG VIR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT WEES.
6
HIERDIE VOORSTELLE SOU WERKSKEPPING , PLAASLIKE BESIGHEDE SOWEL AS
DRAKENSTEIN OMGEWING IN GEHEEL BEVOORDEEL . DAAR WAS EGTER GEEN
BELANGSTELLING OF ENIGE VERDERE OPVOLG VAN HIERDIE VOORSTELLE DEUR DIE RAAD
GEDOEN NIE . WAAROM NIE?
Broad, Regional Perspective(BL7)
“The feasibility study did not only focus on the WTE options that would be possible if just
the Drakenstein waste quantities and qualities were taken into account. Instead it adopted a
broad, holistic long term view of the project which included the acceptance of additional waste
streams from an adjacent municipality, i.e. Stellenbosch as well as other sources, in
acknowledgement of the regional realities and recognising that higher waste volumes and
economy of scale phenomenally increased the viability of WTE technologies.Based on the reliable
waste content and volume information derived from a recently executed three month analysis of
the Drakenstein waste streams and waste information obtained from Stellenbosch, it was possible
to identify four waste scenarios that included recycling, composting from garden waste, brick-
making from builders’ waste and using the sewage sludge of the wastewater works. These
scenarios unfolded in three different but incremental phases of implementation.”
“Holisme (vanaf ὅλος holos, 'n Griekse woord wat alles, geheel, som beteken) is die idee dat al die
eienskappe van 'n gegewe stelsel (fisies, biologies, chemies, sosiaal, ekonomies, verstandelik,
linguïsties, esv.)”
DIE BELASTINGBETALERS VAN DRAKENSTEIN SAL GRAAG WIL WEET VIR WIE WORD
HIERDIE WTE-PROJEK VOORGESTEL?
IS HIERDIE WASTE TO ENERGY IN BELANG VAN DRAKENSTEIN OF IS HIERDIE WTE-PROJEK
IN BELANG VAN DIE HELE WES-KAAP.
DAAR WAS OP DIE VERGADERING VAN DIE 22 &23 NOVEMBER 2012 DIT DUIDELIK GESTEL
,DAT DIE ADVERTENSIE IN DIE PAARL POST ONVOLDOENDE WAS! DAAR WAS UITGEWYS
DAT DIE MEESTE MENSE REEDS OPPAD WAS MET VAKANSIE, EN OOK DAT BAIE MENSE NIE
DIE PAARL POS LEES NIE ! DAAR WAS VERSEKER DAT HIERDIE PROBLEEM AANDAG SAL
GENIET , EN DAT NOG VERGADERINGS GEHOU SOU WORD OM DIE PUBLIEK MEER
VOLLEDIG IN TE LIG ! GEEN AANDAG IS AAN HIERDIE PROBLEEM GEGEE NIE!
AS ONS DUS PRAAT VAN “HOLISTIC LONG TERM VIEW” UIT WIE SE PERSPEKTIEF IS DIT !
DIE MENSE EN BESIGHEDE VAN DRAKENSTEIN ?? IS DIE INSETTINGE VAN DIE ANDER
7
MUNISIPALITEITE VAN- WAAR ONS DIE VULLIS INVOER, MEER VAN BELANG AS DIE VAN
ONS EIE BELASTINGBETALERS!
DIT WIL VOORKOM DAT DAAR MEER KOMMUNIKASIE TUSSEN HIERDIE POTENSIELE VULLIS
VERSKAFFERS WAS AS WAT DAAR KOMMUNIKASIE TUSSEN DRAKENSTEIN EN SY
BELASTINGBETALERS WAS !!! DIE MENSE WAT DIE VULLIS MOET ONTVANG EN WIE SE
PROBLEEM DIT GAAN WORD !!!
DAAR IS GEEN VOORDEEL VIR DIE DRAKENSTEIN- OMGEWING NIE - GEEN VULLIS
VERMINDERING!- GEEN GOEDKOPER ELEKTRISITEIT! – GEEN GOEDKOPER
STORTINGSFOOI! - GEEN VOORDEEL VIR BESIGHEDE, IN TEEN DEEL BAIE BESIGHEDE GAAN
DIREK DEUR INTERWASTE BENADEEL WORD.
DIE BY-LAW IS GESKRYF OM HIERDIE MAATSKAPY TE BEVOORDEEL. HOEVEEL ANDER
BESIGHEDE, WAT DRAKENSTEIN SE EKONOMIE HELP BOU HET, HET AL HIERDIE VOORREG
ONTVANG!
HOLISTIES GESPROKE: WAAR IS DIE IMPAK WAT DIT GAAN HE OP DIE PLAASLIKE
BESTAANDE BESIGHEDE? DIE KOMPOS BESIGHEDE; DIE STEENVERVAARDIGINGS
BESIGHEDE; DIE PRIVAAT HERWINNINGS BESIGHEDE; DIE PLAASLIKE “WASTE”
BESIGHEDE; DIE” CRUSHING” BESIGHEDE !
WORD DIE NEGATIEWE IMPAKTE NIE GESIEN AS DEEL VAN N HOLISTIESE BENADERING
NIE.
GEEN MELDING WORD IN HIERDIE VERSLAG GEMAAK NA DIE
UITLAATGASSE/LUGBESOEDELING EN DIE NEGATIEWE IMPAK DAARVAN OP DIE
OMGEWING NIE ! HOE KAN DAAR VAN DIE PUBLIEK VERWAG WORD OM INSAE TE LEWER
AS DIE NEGATIEWE ASPEKTE GLAD NIE GENOEM WORD NIE! DIT IS JUIS HIERDIE
NEGATIEWE ASPEKTE WAT DIE BELANGRIKSTE IS VIR DRAKENSTEIN-OMGEWING, EN JUIS
VIR DIE INWONERS! DIT IS ONS WAT MET HIERDIE GEVOLGE VAN HIERDIE BESLUIT SAL
MOET SAAM LEEF,
“Phases and Scenarios(BL8)
“The phases as investigated were:
Phase 1: Managing of the landfill, the Paarl Transfer Station and MRF, the clear bag system,
crushing of rubble and chipping of clean greens”
HIERDIE AKSIE WORD REEDS DEUR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT GEDOEN.DAAR
WORD GEWYS DAT AS INTERWASTE OORNEEM SAL DAAR SLEGS 188 TON”
GELANDFILL” WORD DUS N REDAKSIE VAN 52%
DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT STORT HUIDIGLIK SLEGS 164 TON PER DAG, VAN
HIERDIE 164 TON VULLIS KAN NOG VERMINDER WORD DEUR DIE REGTE PERSOON
BY DIE WEEGBRUG TE PLAAS WAT SAL SORG DAT ALLE HERWINBARE MATERIAAL
UITGEHAAL WORD,EN DAT “CONTAMINATED” BOUROMMEL SKOONGEMAAK
WORD,EN SODOENDE NIE IN DIE GAT OPEINDIG NIE !! DAAR WAS AANGEBIED OM
DIT GRATIS VIR DIE MUNSIPALITEIT TE DOEN !
8
Generation of Electricity (Green Energy)(bl10)
“Thus with regards to the energy generating objective of the WTE Project, it was found that the
project would in Scenario 4/Phase 3 with the DC Plant in operation, be able to produce
green electricity of 12,1 MWh which, after subtraction of the parasitic load, could make
10,67 MWh available to be ‘wheeled’ through the Eskom network to Drakenstein therefore
enabling an immense carbon footprint saving since every MWh of green power produced
displaces one ton of carbon. The carbon saving amounts to 288 tonnes per day and 105,120
tonnes per annum.”
DIE VOLGENDE WORD DEUR DIE WTE-PROJEK VOORGESTEL
1. DAT 95 %VAN ALLE TUIN AFVAL SAL GEKOMPOSSTEER WORD(bl140)
2. .DAT 100% VAN DIE SEWAGE SLUDGE EN DIE “ORGANIC CONTENT” VAN DIE VULLIS SAL AD
ONDERGAAN(bl140)
3. .DAT 80% BOUROMMEL SAL GE”CRUSH” WORD VIR DIE MAAK VAN STENE (BL140)
4. OPTIMALE HERWINNING SAL GEDOEN WORD 100% (BL140)
DUS WATTER GEDEELTE SAL DAN GEBRUIK WORD VIR DIE DC (DIRECT COMBUSTION)??
INDIEN DIE “BIOMAS” GEDEELTE VAN DIE VULLIS REEDS IN DIE AD-PROSES GEBRUIK
WORD, DAN BLY DAAR WAT OOR WAT VERBRAND MOET WORD,SLEGS DIE “INORGANIC
MSW SUPPLIED BY INTERWASTE” (BL 143) INORGANIC = “Inorganic waste is composed of
material other than plant or animal matter, such as glass, plastic, metal, concrete and
chemicals”
EK HAAL AAN Bl 72 &73
5.4.4 NATIONAL ENERGY ACT, 34 OF 2008
“It defines renewable energy as “energy generated from natural non-depleting resources including
solar energy, wind energy, biomass energy, biological waste energy, hydro energy, geothermal
energy and ocean and tidal energy”.
5.4.7 RENEWABLE ENERGY (RE) : NEW GENERATION CAPACITY GENERATORS
In order for a project to qualify as Renewable Energy ( “RE”), the electricity should be
produced by means of naturally occurring non-depletable sources of energy such as solar, wind,
biomass, hydro, tidal, wave, ocean current and geothermal. Biomass energy (from organic matter)
can be converted in various forms of fuel that can be used to supply energy and to generate
electricity. Biomass inter alia includes plants, food production, fuel wood and organic components
in municipal and industrial waste (waste to energy). Biomass is grouped in two categories, i.e.
biomass (solid) and biogas. Biogas is obtained from anaerobic digestion and la ndfill gas. It thus
includes power projects using fuels derived from biological treatment of waste.
9
DUS DIE OORBLYWENDE GEDEELTE WAT DAN DC MOET ONDERGAAN SAL REEDS ALLE
ORGANIESE GEDEELLTES VERWYDER HE,WANT DIT IS MOS NOU GEKOMPOSTEER, OF DIT
HET DIE AD-PROSES ONDERGAAN!!
DUS KAN HIERDIE DC (DIRECT COMBUSTION) GEDEELTE NIE AS “GREEN ENERGY”
VOORGEHOU WORD NIE!! SLEGS DIE AD GEDEELTES SAL DAN GEREKEN WORD AS
“ GREEN ENERGY”
DUS DIE “ IMMENCE CARBON SAVING” IS FOUTIEF AANGEDUI ! “INORGANIC MSW
SUPPLIED BY INTERWASTE” (BL143) –WORD NIE GEREKEN AS “GREEN ENERGY”
INTERESSANTE FEITE
“Incineration involves the release of high levels of CO2, the main climate warming gas.
Accounting for recovered energy, incineration is accompanied by twice or more the CO2 per unit
of power than the same energy “
“Studies show that for electricity-only incinerators (incinerators that do not optimise the use of the
heat they produce), energy production is so inefficient that, from a climate change perspective,
incineration is worse than gas- or coal-fired power stations! See Dirty Truths: Incineration and
Climate Change and A Changing Climate for Energy from Waste? for further details.”
Socio-economic Impact (BL10)
“ The WTE Project would have a significant socio-economic impact in Drakenstein given the
unemployment and low income figures of a large section of the community which urgently
requires more job creation. It is estimated that in total 203 full time jobs will be created through the
project, i.e. 125 unskilled and 78 skilled positions. In addition thereto is the employment to be
generated during the construction phase which would in the order of 200 jobs for a period of one
year. Indirectly the project will also give rise to local enterprises that will provide supporting services
like transportation and food supply to plant staff. Also, there will be a significant transfer of skills and
technology through training courses, in-house training and employment opportunities.”
GEEN STATISTIEKE IS VERSKAF VAN HOEVEEL WERK VERLORE SAL GAAN INDIEN
INTERWASTE/ WTE-PROJEK VOORTGAAN !
GEEN STATISTIEKE IS VERSKAF VAN HOEVEEL WERKS-GELEENTHEDE DAAR REEDS BESTAAN
BINNE DIE PRIVAAT-HERWINNINGS BESIGHEDE IN DRAKENSTEIN NIE! BESIGHEDE WAT
NOU DEUR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT GESLUIT GAAN WORD ! MENSE WAT NOU HUL
ENIGSTE INKOMSTE SAL VERLOOR ! (SOOS AANGEDUI OP DIE MOA WAT DEUR
DRAKENSTEIN EN INTERWASTE ONDERTEKEN IS OP 30 MEI 2012)
GEEN STATISTIEKE WORD VERSKAF OOR DIE INPAK WAT DIT SAL HE OP DIE ANDER
BESIGHEDE SOOS DIE KOMPOS-BESIGHEDE, DIE STEENVERVAARDIGINGS-BESIGHEDE, DIE
CRUSHING-BESIGHEDE, DIE WASTE-BESIGHEDE!
10
WERKSKEPPING SOOS AANGEDUI DEUR INTERWASTE(BL175)
1. MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY(MRF) & TS : HET REEDS DIE HOEVEELHEID MENSE IN DIENS,
DUS AS INTERWASTE OORNEEM SAL HIERDIE MENSE SONDER WERK SIT,OF HULLE SAL WEER
INDIENS GENEEM WORD DEUR INTERWASTE- DUS GEEN EKSTRA WERKSKEPPING =(0)
2. MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY(MRF)-WELLINGTON: HIER IS REEDS 5 - ONGESKOOL; 2 -
GESKOOL ;DUS 26 -5 = 21 WERKSGELEENTHEDE WAT GESKEP WORD ! = (21)
3. LONG HAUL TRANSPORT: HIERDIE POSISIES BESTAAN REEDS BY SA METAL ,DUS DIE WERK
VERSKAF EN VERLOOR SAL MEKAAR UITKANSELEER-GEEN EKSTRA WERKSKEPPING = (0)
4. C&D AND COMPOSTING: DIE SUKSES VAN HIERDIE STEEN BESIGHEID IS BAIE
ONSEKER’AANGESIEN N STEEN HUIDIGLIK R1,30 KOS! DIE HOEVEELHEID BOUROMMEL WAT IN
HIERDIE VERSLAG AANGEDUI WORD IS OOK DEBATEERBAAR!( WORD LATER BEHANDEL )
VOLGENS STEENVERVAARDIGERS: 500 000 STENE PER MAAND SAL 30 WERKS-
GELEENTHEDE SKEP VOLGENS BESIGHEDE WAT REEDS 18 JAAR IN DIE BEDRYF IS , KAN
HIERDIE MANIER VAN STENE MAAK NIE WERK NIE EN SAL SLEGS N SUB-STANDAARD
PRODUK GEMAAK KAN WORD ! =(30)
INDIEN 500 000 STENE WEL VERVAARDIG WORD- IN WATTER MARK SAL DIT GEBRUIK
WORD. DIT SAL BESTAANDE BESIGHEDE NEGATIEF BEINVLOED, EN DIT SAL WERKS-VERLIES
BEVORDER IN BESTAANDE BESIGHEDE !
VOLGENS NAVORSING IN DRAKENSTEIN IS DAAR N PROJEK WAAR DAAR BLOKKE GEMAAK
WORD VAN AS. DIE PROJEK KRY EGTER SWAAR AANGESIEN DIE BLOK SUB-STANDAARD IS
EN DUS NIE DEUR DIE PUBLIEK GEKOOP WORD NIE !
DIE BESTAANDE CRUCHING BESIGHEID VOORSIEN HUIDGLIK 8 WERKS-GELEENTHEDE; DIE
CIPPING-BESIGHEID VERSKAF HUIDIGLIK 6 WERKS-GELEENTHEDE ! DUS 13 BESTAANDE
WERKS-GELEENTHEDE ! HIERDIE SAL NOU VERLORE GAAN.!
VOLGENS KOMPOS BESIGHEDE : ELKE 2000 M3 KOMPOS VERSKAF 10 WERKS-
GELEENTHEDE! DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT = 360 TON PER MAAND STELLENBOSCH:
=264 TON PER MAAND TOTAAL = 624 TON TUINVULLIS PER MAAND . 624 TON = 1248 M3
DUS TEEN 1248 KUBIEKE METER PER MAAND KAN DAAR MAKSIMUM 10
WERKSGELEENTHEDE GESKEP WORD !
=(10)
VOLGENS INTERWASSE SAL 77 WERKSGELEENTHEDE BY C&D AND COMPOSTING GESKEP WORD !-
VOLGENS BESIGHEDE WAT REEDS 18 JAAR ONDERVINDING HET IS DIT ONMOONTLIK, MISKIEN
MOET HIERDIE UITWERKING WEER BEKYK WORD!
11
5. ANAEROBIC DIGESTION (AD) Plant: Unskilled - 0 positions; Skilled - 15 positions. As also apply
to DC, the positions involved are none of an unskilled nature and “ =(0)
6. DIRECT COMBUSTION(DC): Unskilled - 0 positions; Skilled - 25 positions =(0)
7. LANDFILL: HUIDIGLIK VERSKAF DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT WERK AAN KONTRAKTEURS .
HIERDIE KONTRAKTEURS SAL DUS NOU HIERDIE WERK VERLOOR EN DUS VERKSVERLIES SAL
PLAASVIND ! 8 PERSONE SAL DUS HIER DIREK WERK VERLOOR ! =(12)
DUS : SLEGS 73 WERKGELEENTHEDE SAL GESKEP WORD DEUR INTERWASTE
MAAR DAAR SAL WERKSVERLIES INDIE VOLGENDE SEKTORE WEES
KOMPOS-BESIGHEDE = - 15 WERKSGELEENTHEDE
WASTE-BESIGHEDE = -50 WERKSGELEENTHEDE
STEENVERVAARDIGS-BESIGHEDE = -30 WERKSGELEENTHEDE
CRUSHING/BOUROMMEL - BESIGHEDE = -60 WERKSGELEENTHEDE
HERWINNINGS-BESIGHEDE = -100 WERKSGELEENTHEDE
HERWINNINGS- INTREPENEURS= -50
TRANSPORT/PLANT VERHUURINGS –BESIGHEDE = -20
DUS N TOTAAL VAN 325 WERKS-VERLEIS IN VERSKEIE BESIGHEDE
325-73 = 252 MINDER WERKSGELEENTHEDE WAT HIER SAL WEES IN DRAKENSTEIN INDIEN
INTERWASTE DIE WTE-PROJEK OORNEEM , EN OOK SAAMGELEES MET DIE NUWE BY-LAW WAT
DEUR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT OPGESTEL IS, SOWEL AS DIE MOA WAT OP 30 MEI 2012
DEUR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT EN INTERWASTE ONDERTEKEN IS !
GEEN POTENSIELE WERKSVERLIES, WAT GEPAART GAAN MET MOONTLIKE BESOEDELING
VAN DIE BERGRIVIER EN DUS DIE LANDBOU-SEKTOR IS IN BEREKENING GEBRING NIE !
GEEN POTENSIELE WERKSVERLIES VAN BESIGHEDE WAT AFHANKLIK IS VAN DIE
HERWINNINGS-BESIGHEDE WAT REEDS BESTAAN, IS OOK IN BEREKENING GEBRING NIE !
GEEN POTENSIELE WERKSVERLIES, WAT BESKOU WORD AS DIE “RIPPEL” EFFEK, AS
BESTAANDE BESIGHEDE SLUIT , IS IN BEREKENING GEBRING NIE !
12
ONDERSTAANDE TABEL DUI POTENSIELE WERKSKEPPING AAN
Job Creation: Reuse and Recycling Vs. Disposal
Type of Operation Jobs per
10,000
TPY
Product Reuse
Computer Reuse 296
Textile Reclamation 85
Misc. Durables Reuse 62
Wooden Pallet Repair 28
Recycling-based Manufacturers 25
Paper Mills 18
Glass Product Manufacturers 26
Plastic Product Manufacturers 93
Conventional Materials Recovery Facilities 10
Composting 4
Landfill and Incineration 1
TPY = tons per year Note: Figures are based on interviews with select facilities around the
country.Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC, 1997.
D. SERVICE DELIVERY MECHANISM AND PROVIDER(BL10)
“The establishment of the WTE Park would be executed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPV”) “
“ AD and DC plants could end up being separate SPVs in their own right”(BL195)
“The contract would transfer significant technical and operational risk to Interwaste” (BL200)
GAAN DIE SPV’S WAT GESTIG WORD DIE RISIKO DRA OF GAAN INTERWASTE ?
13
1. EK HAAL AAN: “ Abbreviation of Special Purpose Vehicle. Sometimes referred to as a Special Purpose Entity
(SPE). SPVs are entities created for a specific, limited and normally temporary purpose. They are limited companies or partnerships to which the debt of another company is transferred. By transferring its debt off its balance sheet into an SPV a company is able to isolate itself from any risk that the debt might pose”. reuters.com
2. EK HAAL AAN WTE-VERSLAG BL 196 The following is a fact sheet of Interwaste:
Holistic Waste Management through the consistent implementation of the Hierarchy of Integrated Waste Management
Established 1989 Operational Experience in Excess of 23 Years National Footprint and expanding to Mozambique Capital Invested in Excess of R 350 000 000 250 + Units of Specialized Waste Handling Equipment Current Logistics Capable of Handling 27000m³ of Waste Daily, managing 32 landfills all over SA Level 5 BEE Contributor CIDB 7CE which means the company is registered to tender for civil contracts of around R35m ISO1400I Accredited and busy with OHSAS 18001 accreditation on some landfills Fully Compliant Service Provider
HIERDIE “FACT SHEET” IS VAN INTERWASTE EN NIE VAN DIE SPV’S NIE. HOE WORD DIE TENDER WAT REEDS TOEGEKEN IS AAN INTERWASTE DEUR HIERDIE SPV’S GERAAK,
MET WIE GAAN DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT DIE KONTRAK AANGAAN, MET INTERWASTE OF MET DIE NUUT GESTIGDE SPV’S ?
WATTER FINANSIELE SEKURITEIT HET HIERDIE NUUT GESTIGDE SPV’S ?
D. SERVICE DELIVERY MECHANISM AND PROVIDER(BL10)
“As per the primary contract, the main obligations of the DLM would be the consistent delivery of
its entire waste stream to the WTE Facility and punctual payment of the gate fee. The main
obligations of Interwaste would be reduction of waste to landfill and effective operations and
maintenance of the municipal infrastructure and the WTE Facility to the effect that the lifespan of
the Wellington Landfill site could be extended; reclamation and recycling of waste; energy
supply and, if so elected by the DLM, rehabilitation of the Wellington Landfill Site at the
additional gate fee. A substantial responsibility and risk accepted by Interwaste would be the
provision of adequate feedstock (waste) for the DC Plant.”
“ENTIRE WASTE STREAM”
HOE SAL HIERDIE “ ENTIRE WASTE STREAM “ DIE VOLGENDE BEINVLOED
DIE “GREEN BUILDING CODE”: HIERDIE BEGINSEL IS GEBASSEER OP ENERGIE-
BESPARING,SOWEL AS DIE HERGEBRUIK EN HERWINNING VAN PRODUKTE. HIERDIE
BEGINSEL MOET DUS TOEGEPAS WORD IN DIE KONSTRUKSIE/BOUBEDRYF ! WATTER
PROJEK SAL DUS DIE VOORKEUR HIER GENIET. DIE WTE-PROJEK OF DIE “GREEN BUILDING
CODE” ?
DIE “CARBON TAX 2015” DIE HELE KERN VAN HIERDIE BEGINSEL IS GEGROND OP
BESPARING; VERMINDERING; EN HERWINNING MET DIE DOEL OM ELEKTRISITEIT TE
BESPAAR ! ALHOEWEL WASTE TO ENERGY BAIE GROEN KLINK, MOET DAAR ONTHOU
14
WORD DAT DIE VULLIS WAT VERBRAND WORD VIR DIE OPWEKKING VAN KRAG N SEKERE
“BTU” WAARDE MOET HE OM EFFEKTIEF TE WEES ! INDIEN ALLE “GREENS”
GEKOMPOSTEER WORD, EN ALLE ORGANIESE VULLIS ONDERGAAN DIE AD-PROSES,WAT
BLY DAN OOR WAT VERBRAND KAN WORD VIR DIE OPWEKKING VAN ELEKTRISITEIT ? ALLE
PRODUKTE HET N “BTU” WAARDE, HOE GROTER DIE “BTU” WAARDE HOE BETER VIR
VERBRANDING(DC) EN DUS BETER VIR DIE OPWEKKING VAN ELEKTRISITEIT
SOOS GESIEN KAN WORD UIT ONDERSTAANDE TABEL HET PLASTIEK DIE GROOTSTE BTU
WAARDE. DUS UITERS GESKIK VIR DIE DC-PROSES! DIE PLASTIEK MET DIE HOOGSTE “BTU”
WAARDE IS DIE HD-PLASTIEKE. HIERDIE PLASTIEK IS EGTER NET SO GEWILD AS
HERWINNINGS-PRODUK ! WATTER PROJEK SAL DUS HIER IN DRAKENSTEIN DIE
VOORKEUR GENIET? HERWINNING VAN DIE PLASTIEK OF VERBRANDING VAN DIE
PLASTIEK ?
PLASTIEK IS N PETROLEUM PRODUK , DUS DEEL VAN DIE NATUURLIKE HULP-BRONNE,
EN MOET DUS BESPAAR MOET WORD! HERWINNING VOOR VERBRANDING !
How do plastics contribute to waste-to-energy incineration? A: Plastics are derived from petroleum or natural gas, giving them a stored energy value higher than any other material commonly found in the waste stream. In fact, one pound of plastics can generate twice as much energy as Wyoming coal and almost as much energy as fuel oil. When plastics are processed in modern waste-to-energy facilities, they can help other waste combust more completely, leaving less ash for disposal in landfills.
Energy Values
Material Btu/pound
Plastics
PET 10,900
HDPE 18,700
Other Plastic Containers 16,400
Other Plastics 17,900
Rubber & Leather 12,800
Newspaper 8,000
Corrugated Boxes (paper) 7,000
Textiles 9,400
Wood 7,300
Average for MSW 5,900
Yard Wastes 2,900
Food Wastes 2,900
Heat Content of Common Fuels
Fuel Oil 20,900
Wyoming Coal 9,600
HERWINNING VAN PRODUKTE; ALHOEWEL INTERWASTE SE DAAR GAAN HERWINNING
GEDOEN WORD, VERBIED DIE MOA, ONDERTEKEN OP 30 MEI(PUNT 4.2.3 ) DIE
VERMINDERING VAN VULLIS ! DIE VRAAG ONSTAAN WIE VERMINDER VULLIS ? SLEGS DIE
PRIVAAT-HERWINNINGS BESIGHEDE!
INDIEN INTERWASTE WERKLIK HERWINNINGS VRIENDELIK WAS SOU DIE AKSIE VAN
ANDER HERWINNAARS , DUS DIE VERMINDERING VAN VULLIS NIE IN DIE MOA GE-
STIPULEER EN VERBIED WORD NIE!
KAN DAAR AANGEDUI WORD WATTER VULLIS DIE DC-PROSES GAAN GEBRUIK OM TE
VERBRAND?
15
BAIE MEER ENERGIE WORD BESPAAR DEUR HERWINNING AS WAT DAAR OPGEWEK KAN
WORD DEUR DIE PRODUK TE VERBRAND.
HERWINNING VAN PRODUKTE SORG DAT DIE PRODUK IN DIE SISTEEM BLY EN OOR EN
OOR GEBRUIK KAN WORD.
VERBRANDING VAN DIE PRODUK VERWYDER DIT VIR GOED.
HERWINNING = HERGEBRUIK ! = WERKSKEPPING = BESPARING VAN ELEKTRISITEIT =
BESPARING VAN NATUURLIKE HULPBRONNE = OMGEWINGS VRIENDELIK !
VERBRANDING (DC )= ENERGIE X 1
o HIERDIE TABEL DUI DIE ENERGIE BESPARING VAN HERWINNING AAN.
Table Comparing Energy Cost of Manufacturing Products from Raw materials vs. Recycled materials:
MATERIALS (per ton)
ENERGY COSTS (NEW MATERIALS)
ENERGY COSTS (RECYCLED MAT'LS)
NEWSPRINT 30 Million BTU 10 Million BTU
PET PLASTIC 98 Million BTU 12 Million BTU
HDPE PLASTIC 98 Million BTU 22 Million BTU
GLASS 16 Million BTU 15 Million BTU
METALS Aluminum from Ore 250 Million BTU
Aluminum from Scrap 12.5 Million BTU
DRAKENSTEIN HET NIE GENOEG VULLIS NIE !
HIERDIE PROJEK KAN SLEGS WERK AS DAAR GENOEG VULLIS BESTAAN !
DIE “GREEN BUILDING CODE” ; DIE “CARBON TAX”; DIE “WASTE ACT” EN SELF GROOT
MAATSKAPYE IS BESIG OM IN DIE RIGTING VAN VULLIS VERMINDERING EN HERWINNING
TE BEWEEG !
HIERDIE WTE-PROJEK , SPESIFIEK DIE DC-PROSES IS ALGEHEEL AFHANKLIK VAN DIE
HOEVEELHEID VULLIS BINNE DRAKENSTEIN AREA SOWEL AS DIE “BTU” WAARDE VAN DIE
VULLIS !
AANVRAAG NA VULLIS WORD NOU GESKEP, AANGESIEN DIE DC-PLANT NIE KAN WERK AS
DAAR NIE VULLIS IS NIE !
INDIEN DAAR R400 MILJOEN GESPANDEER WORD VIR DIE DC-PLANT , SAL HIERDIE DC-PLANT
OPERASIONEEL MOET BLY 24/7/365 DAE VAN DIE JAAR ! AANGESIEN DAAR REEDS TE MIN VULLIS
VIR HIERDIE PROJEK BESTAAN, SAL PRODUKTE WAT HERWIN KON WORD , GEBRUIK MOET WORD
VIR VERBRANDING !
DIE VERVOERKOSTE VAN VULLIS MOET INAGGENEEM WORD.
SAL MUNISIPALITEITE VAN WAAR DIE VULLIS INGEVOER MOET WORD BEIDE DIE TIP-FOOI
EN DIE VERVOERKOSTE KAN BEKOSTIG ?
INDIEN DIE DIESEL PRYS AANHOU STYG , MAG DIE VERVOER-KOSTE VEROORSAAK DAT DIE
INGEVOERDE VULLIS OF VERNIET GESTORT MOET WORD, OF DIT SAL NIE INGEVOER KAN
WORD NIE !
DIE INVOER VAN VULLIS OM N PROJEK VATBAAR TE MAAK IS BAIE RISKANT!
16
E. FINANCIAL MODELLING(BL11)
“These and other risks were clearly spelled out in the report and would have a determining impact
on the roll -out of the project. (Of necessity, the contractual arrangements would protect the
DLM against any risks and its impact).”
Ek haal ook die volgende belangrike punt aan Bl 220
“Contingent Liability:
With an intended investment in excess of R400m, Interwaste/Farmsecure is very risk-conscious and,
understandably so, very concerned about payment risks which, in respect of Rx/ton and the
purchasing of electricity fall within the ambit of the DLM’s contingent obligations. The private party
views underwriting of the DLM’s contingent liability schedule by National Treasury as a mitigating
measure and will table it as a contractual requirement. Provincial Treasury has however already
indicated that it is not government policy to bail municipalities out if a project fails or there is
premature termination but that the contingent liability will be the DLM’s sole responsibility. Thus
the parties will need to keep their fingers on the pulse of this project so that any red flag situations
can be picked up immediately”
HIERDIE TWEE STELLINGS IS TEENSTRYDIG MET MEKAAR, KAN DUIDELIKHEID VERSKAF
WORD ?
E. FINANCIAL MODELLING(BL12)
“The two primary revenue streams as modelled were the gate fees and electricity sales. In Phase 1,
the crucial factor that would determine the project’s viability is the gate fee. Secondary and
potential sources of income include revenue from chipped greens, the sale of recyclables and sale
of aggregate estimated to comprise between 17% - 27% of total revenue. In Phases 2 and 3 the
selling of electricity will be the primary source of revenue and the selling price used in the
modelling was based on the MYPD5 annual increase of 8% granted to Eskom.”
HIERDIE BEREKENINGE WAS GEDOEN OP DIE VULLIS –SYFERS SOOS AANGEDUI OP DIE
WTE-VERSLAG, DIE ONDERGENOEMDE OPTEL-FOUTE, FOUTIEWE BEREKENINGE EN
FOUTIEWE EN TEENSRYDIGE INLIGTING BESTAAN EGTER IN HIERDIE VERSLAG.
DIE VRAAG : IS DIE “FINANCIAL MODELING” GEDOEN OP HIERDIE FOUTIEWE INLIGTING
EN HOE WORD FOUTIEWE INLIGTING GESIEN AS DIT SAAMGELEES WORD MET DIE
“MUNICIPAL FINANCE MANGEMENT ACT” EK VERWYS NA SEKSIE 173(5)VAN DIE MFMA
WAT LEES AS VOLG:
17
“(5) A councillor, an official of a municipality or municipal entity, a member of the
board of directors of a municipal entity or any other person is guilty of an offence if that
person deliberately or in a grossly negligent way-
(a) .........................
(6) ..............................
(c) .................................
(d) ...................................
(e) ......................................
(f) provides false or misleading information for the purposes of any document
which must in terms of a requirement of this Act be-
(i) submitted to the council, mayor or accounting officer of a municipality or to the Auditor-
General or the National Treasury; or
(ii) made public.
FOUTIEWE BEREKENINGE EN TEENSTYDIGHEDE
TABEL1.7 OPTELFOUT LEES 578 MOET LEES 448.6
BULK FROM PAARL IS DUS OOK FOUTIEF OORGEDRA VANAF TABEL 1.7 (BL90) NA TABEL
2.2(BL137)
TABEL 2.2(bl 137) OPTEL-FOUT BY TABEL 1 MOET LEES 16254.2 EN NIE 13907.7
FOUTIEWE OORDRAG VAN TABEL 1.7 NA TABEL 2.2 MOET OOK IN BEREKENING GEBRING
WORD DUS MOET EERSTE KOLOM-LANDFILL(AVERAGE)(TABEL2.2) OPTEL NA 16124.80
VARIANCE SAL DAN OOK MOET LEES 7082.8 EN NIE 4865.7
TRANSFER KOLOM(TABEL2.2)(BL137) IS OOK FOUTIEF OPGETEL BY AVERAGE SOWEL AS 12-
DES: KOLOMME IS OPGETEL NA 578 EN 473 ONDERSKEIDELIK EN DAN IS HIERDIE TOTAAL
WEER BYGEREKEN OM DIE GROOT TOTAAL TE KRY!
DUS IS DIE TRANSFER KOLOM DUBBEL BEREKEN: TABEL 2.2(BL137) TRANSFER KOLOMME
AVERAGE KOLOM LEES 1026.6- MOET LEES 448.6:
12-DES KOLOM LEES 946 –MOET LEES 473
TABEL 2.4 (bl140) PHASE 1 :SCENARIO 1 KAN AANGEDUI WORD HOE DIE BEREKENING
VAN DIE MSW GEDOEN IS ?
VOLGENS BEREKENINGE MOET MSW LEES 3261 MSW LEES EGTER 4521
DIE WTE-VERSLAG BL 102 WORD DIE VOLGENDE STELLING GEMAAK :
“The inconsistencies between the data from the weighbridge and the data derived from the
topographical survey – a situation which was addressed through weighbridge re-calibration
and re-training of the staff.”
VOLGENS DIE WEEGBRUG-PAPIERE WAT IN PRIVAAT BESIT IS, IS GEEN KALIBRASIE OP DIE
WELLINGTON WEEGBRING GEDOEN NIE, AANGESIEN DIE WEEGBRUG-PAPIERE DUIDELIK
WYS DAT DIE VOERTUIE INGEWEEG,VOOR NOVEMBER 2012 EN NA NOVEMBER 1012
DIESELFDE GEWIG AAN-TOON !
18
“Crushing: the DLM is currently paying R78 per ton to crush the rubble”(bl135)
HIERDIE R78 PER TON IS FOUTIEF AANGEDUI –MOET LEES R78 PER M3(CUBE). DAAR IS N
GROOT VERSKIL TUSSEN TON EN KUBIEKE METER !
“Chipping: the chipping at the Wellington LS is done on contract for the DLM at
R91 per ton”.(bl135)
HIERDIE R91 PER TON IS OOK FOUTIEF AANGEDUI- MOET LEES R91 PER M3(CUBE). DAAR IS
N GROOT VERSKIL TUSSEN TON EN KUBIEKE METER !
VOLGENS PRIVAAT SATILIET OPMETING VAN DIE WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN
GEDURENDE JAN 213-MRT 2013 WORD GEMIDDELD 164 TON VULLIS PER DAG BINNE DIE
TERREIN GESTORT!?
E. FINANCIAL MODELLING(BL11)
“Interwaste used for its financial model a fee of R134.61/ton”
VERWYS NA BLADSY 135 WTE-VERSLAG
“comparison of existing services rendered through Interwaste.”(BL135)
MRF MANAGEMENT : HUIDIGLIK KOS DIE MRF DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT
R2470 635.00 (BL105), EN DAAR WORD 67 TON PER MAAND HERWIN (BL104).
INDIEN DIT NA R/TON VERWERK WORD IS DIT R1536 PER TON WAT DIT HUIDIGLIK
DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT KOS. INDIEN DLM 250 TON MOET HERWIN SAL DIT:
250 X R1536 = R 384,116 !
KAN N UITWERKING/AFBREKING VAN DIE R 550,000 SOOS AANGEDUI IN TABEL 2.1
VERSKAF WORD.
19
LONG HAUL TO LANDFILL: VOLGENS WTE-VERSLAG BL 103 IS DIE VERVOER N 3 MILJOEN
KONTRAK OOR DRIE JAAR. UITGEWERK PER MAAND SAL DIT DUS R83 333 WEES.
DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT HET EGTER BEGROOT VIR R800 000 VIR DIE JAAR. DIT
WERK UIT NA R66 666 PER MAAND. LONG HAUL TO LANDFILL KOS DIE DRAKENSTEIN
MUNISIPALITEIT DUS HUIDIGLIK R66 666 PER MAAND EN NIE R90 000 SOOS AANGEDUI.
CRUSHING AT LANDFILL: VANAF OKTOBER 2011 TOT EN MET SEPTEMBER 2013 IS DAAR
SLEGS 10716 KUBIEKE METER GE-“CRUSH” . INDIEN DIT NA MAAND HERLEI WORD SAL DIT
10716 / 24 MAANDE = 446.5 KUBIEKE METER PER MAAND. HERLEI NA GELDWAARDE IS DIT
DUS 446.5 X R78 =R 34 827. DAAR WORD AANGEDUI DAT DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT
R513 006 SAL SPANDEER !?
VOLGENS BL 140 WORD DAAR 6577 TON BOUROMMEL PER MAAND ONTVANG, IN
DIE TWEE JAAR IS SLEGS 10716 KUBIEKE METER GE-CRUSH. DIE BEREKENINGE VAN
DIE BOUROMMEL SOOS AANGEDUI OP DIE WTE-VERSLAG SAL WEER BEREKEN
MOET WORD AANGESIEN DIT DUIDELIK IS DAT IEWERS N FOUT BEGAAN IS.
IN DIE WINTERMAANDE WORD FYN BOUROMMEL GEBRUIK AS “COVER
“MATERIAAL. HIERDIE BOUROMMEL WORD DAN OOR DIE WEEGBRUG INGEWEEG,
WANNEER DIE KONTRAKTEUR DIT KOM WEGGOOI, MAAR DIT WORD WEER
GEWEEG AS DIT NA DIE STORTING-TERREIN GENEEM WORD VIR DIE TOEMAAK
VAN DIE VULLIS ! IS HIERDIE DUBBEL-WEEG VAN DIE BOUROMMEL IN
BEREKENING GEBRING ?
MANAGEMENT OF LANDFILL: (BL12)
VOLGENS UITWERKINGS IS DIE KOSTE VAN DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT T.O.V DIE
STORTING-TERREIN NIE R600 000 PER MAAND NIE . KAN N AFBREEK VAN HIERDIE
R600 000 VERSKAF WORD.
INDIEN ONS TABEL 2.1(BL135) OPTEL SOOS HIERBO AANGEDUI DAN IS DRAKENSTEIN
MUNISIPALITEIT GOEDKOPER AS INTERWASTE VIR DIESELFDE AKSIES !?
E. FINANCIAL MODELLING (BL 12)
“Since there is uncertainty whether Stellenbosch would come on-board, Interwaste is well aware
that it must be prepared to supply all the waste required for Scenario 2/Phase 2 in Year 3 when
the AD Plant becomes operational. This is a risk to which Interwaste committed itself. However,
in Year 4 when the DC Plant is scheduled to become operational additional tons of waste per day
would be needed to run the DC Plant and if Stellenbosch is then not on -board, both Interwaste
and Farmsecure, their bankers and equity partners would have to carefully consider the feedstock
20
risk before taking it on. These and other risks were clearly spelled out in the report and would
have a determining impact on the roll -out of the project. (Of necessity, the contractual
arrangements would protect the DLM against any risks and its impact).”
OP DIE VERGADERING VAN DIE 22 &23 NOVEMBER 2012 WAS DAAR AAN JPCE
UITDRUKLIK GEVRA OOR DIE INVOER VAN VULLIS VANAF STELLENBOSCH ! DIT WAS
ONTKEN ! KAN DAAR AANGEDUI WORD WAAROM DIE PUBLIEK ONDER N VALS INDRUK
GEBRING WAS ?
DIE OOREENKOMS TUSSEN DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT EN SPV ‘S; WATTER
BESKERMING KAN N NUUTGESTIGDE SPV MET N ENORME SKULDLAS VERLEEN, EN HOE
SAL HIERDIE SPV’S DIE NEGATIEWE IMPAK ( TE MIN VULLIS) ABSORBEER ?
F. VALUE ASSESSMENT (BL12)
“The report highlighted the qualitative issues that cannot be quantified and the realisation
was that overall the project enables a good fit between needs and contractible outcomes; will
support optimal municipal asset utilization; has clear boundaries that enables ring-fencing
which in turn eases interfacing with other projects, e.g. development of the regional landfill.”
OP DIE VERGADERING VAN DIE 22 & 23 NOVEMBER 2012 WAS DIE VRAAG GEVRA
OF DIE WTE-PROJEK EN DIE “REGIONAL LANDFILL” GEKOPPEL IS ! DAAR WAS DEUR
JPCE AANGEDUI DIT IS NIE ! KAN UITKLARING I.V.M HIERDIE SAAK GEGEE WORD,
AANGESIEN DIT WIL VOORKOM DIE TWEE PROJEKTE IS WEL VERBIND MET
MEKAAR ?
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS(BL13)
“These environmental aspects would be investigated in detail during the EIA and energy
licensing The assessment process is comprehensive and detailed where appropriate, aimed at
identifying potential positive and negative impacts on the environment (biophysical, socio -
economic and cultural), in order to:
Examine alternatives/management measures to minimise negative and optimise positive
consequences;
Prevent substantial detrimental impact to the environment;
Improve the environmental design of the proposal;
Ensure that resources are used efficiently; and
Identify appropriate management measures for mitigation and the monitoring thereof.”
HOLISTIES GEKYK NA HIERDIE PROJEK, MOES DIE OMGEWINGS IMPAK EERSTE
AANGESPREEK GEWORD HET. DRAKENSTEIN OMGEWING IS ONTWIKKEL RONDOM
DIE LANDBOU SEKTOR, DIT IS DUS VAN KARDINALE BELANG DAT N PROJEK WAT
DIREK INVLOED OP HIERDIE SEKTOR SAL HE, BAIE GOED OORWEEG SAL WORD.
21
DIT IS BAIE MOEILIK VIR DIE PUBLIEK OM WERKLIK SINVOLLE KOMMETAAR TE
LEWER AS NET DIE POSITIEWE ASPEKTE TEN EERSTE VOORGEHOU WORD IN DIE
WTE-VERSLAG.
DIE WELLINGTON STORTINGS-TERREIN LE REEDS TE NABY DIE BERGRIVIER, EN DIE
BERGRIVIER IS DIE VOEDINGS-AAR VIR DIE LANDBOU!
INTERWASTE HET NOG NOOIT N DC-PROSES BEHARTIG NIE
BL 130 : ” It should however be appreciated that the WTE project includes a
number of highly skilled jobs for which the expertise may not exist locally,
regionally or even nationally.”
AS HIERDIE MENSE NIE EERS BINNE SUID-AFRIKA BESTAAN NIE , WIE GAAN DIE
MONITEERING VAN HIERDIE WTE( DC)-PROJEK BEHARTIG?
IS DAAR ENIGE RIGLYNE VIR DIE MONITEERING VAN HIERDIE TIPE PROJEK? KAN
DIT ASB VOORSIEN WORD.
RISK CONSIDERATIONS(BL13)
“In respect of the financial structure of the WTE Facility (AD&DC Plants) there would be the
comfort of bank due diligence and it could be safely assumed that the DLM would also be
able to rely on the bank’s perception of the bankability of the project based on a long
term view of the SPVs balance sheet. Managing its risks would also ensure that the bank
keeps a close eye on any events and information that may affect the project. However, during
the entire project development phase (AD & DC) which may, due to the time taken up by statutory
approvals, exceed 3 years, the DLM would also need to be vigilant and monitor, analyse and
respond to any information that could negatively impact on the project. “
HIERDIE HELE WTE-PROJEK IS TOTAAL AFHANKLIK VAN DIE HOEVEELHEID VULLIS
BINNE DRAKENSTEIN, EN DAAR IS NIE GENOEG VULLIS OM HIERDIE PROJEK TE
DRYF EN FINANSIEEL VATBAAR TE MAAK NIE.
DIE VERSLAG IS VOL FOUTE EN TEENSTRYDIGHEDE, DIT IS BAIE MOEILIK OM
KOMMETAAR TE LEWER AS DIE HOEVEELHEDE VAN DIE VULLIS FOUTIEF AANGEDUI
WORD , EN FOUTIEF OORGEDRA WORD NA KOLOMME!
WIE GAAN DIE VERANTWOORDELIKHEID DRA AS DIE WTE-PROJEK GEBASSEER OP
FOUTIEWE INLIGTING SKIP-BREEK LEI ?
AFFORDABILITY(BL 14)
“The study found that the revenue derived from solid waste could, if ring -fenced, be adequate to
service the additional monthly operational expenditure expected to be required by the WTE
Project including the obligatory contract monitoring and management fees that would be required
by NT.”
DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT HET JAARLIKS N SURPLUS IN DIE “WASTE” –
AFDELING WAT HUIDIGLIK NIE “RING-FENCE” IS NIE, EN DUS AANGEWEND WORD
BY ANDER DEPARTEMENTE.
22
INDIEN INTERWATE DIE WTE-PROJEK BEGIN SAL DIT NODIG WEES OM HIERDIE
SURPLUS TE “RING-FENCE” EN DIT AANTEWEND AS BETALING VIR DIE WTE-
PROJEK.
MAAR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT HET NIE GENOEG VULLIS VIR HIERDIE WTE-
PROJEK NIE, EN MOET DUS NOU VULLIS INVOER OM HIERDIE PROJEK VATBAAR TE
MAAK.
DUS- DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT GAAN NOU VULLIS INVOER VANAF ANDER
MUNISIPALITEITE EN DIE HELE JAARLIKSE SURPLUS VAN 25,764,813 MILJOEN
MOET HUL NOU VIR DIE “VOORREG” BETAAL !?
EN HOEVEEL VAN HIERDIE SURPLUS SAL NOU OORBETAAL WORD AAN “contract
monitoring and management fees”
KAN HIERDIE “Affordability” ASB AAN DIE PUBLIEK VERDUIDELIK WORD ?
PROJECT VALUE(BL 22)
“ It was found that maintaining the status quo would be very costly for the DLM and is
outweighed by all four the scenarios discussed above but these scenarios do not provide
equal value for money.”
REEDS NA DIE VERGADERING VAN 22 & 23 NOVEMBER 2012 IS DAAR AAN JPCE
GEVRA VIR DIE BEREKENING VAN DIE STATUS QUO – DAAR WAS DIE VOLGENDE
ANTWOORD VERSKAF:
Die grafiek waarna julle verwys, is deur ons saamgestel van die syfers wat die gekortlyste Bidders in hul uitvoerbaarheidstudies aangedui het. Alle inligting wat julle hieronder aanvra, sal uiteengesit word gedurende die wetlik voorgeskrewe publieke kommentaar tydperk wat enige raadsbesluit tov PPPs moet voorafgaan, en beskikbaar gestel word.
DUS WORD DAAR WEER AANGEVRA VIR DIE UITEENSETING/AFBREKING VAN DIE
STATUS QUO- M.A.W KAN DAAR IN DETAIL UITGEWYS WORD HOE BY DIE BEDRAG
VAN DIE STATUS QUO UITGEKOM IS ?
VERDERE KOMMETAAR OP DIE WTE VERSLAG
5.3.2.2 NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
NEM:WA(BL 62)
“Securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable
economic and social development, e.g. increasing job creation in the waste services,
recycling and recovery sectors;”
23
DIE MOA(PUNT 4.2.3) WAT DEUR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT EN INTERWASTE
ONDER-TEKEN IS SOWEL AS DIE NUWE BY-LAW WEERSPREEK HIERDIE BO-
GENOEMDE PUNT. GEEN VERMINDERING IN DIE VULLIS SAL TOEGELAAT WORD
NIE: DUS GEEN HERWINNING DEUR PRIVAAT FIRMAS NIE, EN GEEN LISENSIE SAL
UITGEREIK WORD VIR ANDER KONTRAKTEURS NIE –SOOS DEUR DIE BY-LAW
UITEEN GESIT.
5.3.2.3 MUNICIPAL WASTE SECTOR PLAN, 2011 AS A PRODUCT OF THE
NWMS(BL63)
“ The MWSP emphasizes the role of industry partners to inter alia assist with
reduced waste disposal at landfill through increased recycling and building the
sustainability of the rather volatile recycling industry in SA and energy recovery
from waste. “
TEENSTRYDIG MET DIE MOA WAT ONDERTEKEN IS PUNT 4.2.2 EN 4.2.3
TEENSTRYDIG MET DIE NUWE WASTE BY-LAW
5.3.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 107 OF 1998 ( AS
AMENDED IN 2004)
“NEMA inter alia contains the following environmental principles applicable to this
study:
Environmental management must put people and their needs at the
forefront, and must serve their interest fairly
WERKSVERLIES SAL VEROORSAAK WORD DEUR DIE WTE-PROJEK !
Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
This means that the following things must be considered before there is
development:
Disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity
INDIEN HIERDIE DC-PROJEK NIE REG BESTUUR WORD NIE SAL
BESOEDELING VAN DIE BERGRIVIER PLAASVIND
Pollution and degradation of the environment
DIE DC-PROJEK SAL LUGBESOEDELING VEROORSAAK
Disturbance of landscapes and sites where the nation’s cultural heritage is found
Non-renewable resources must be used responsibly
INDIEN DAAR NIE GENOEG VULLIS VIR DIE DC-PROSES IS NIE, EN DAAR IS
NIE, SAL HERWINBARE MATERIAAL VERBRAND WORD OM DIE DC- PLANT
AAN DIE GANG TE HOU. PLASTIEK IS N PRETROLEUM PRODUK, DUS” NON
RENEWABLE RESOURCES”
The precautionary principle must be applied
24
WELLINGTON STORTINGSTEREIN IS REEDS TE NA AAN DIE BERGRIVIER
GELEE. DAAR IS NIE GENOEG VULLIS VIR DIE DC-PROSES NIE.
Negative impacts must be anticipated and prevented and if they cannot be
prevented they must be minimised or remedied;
Environmental management must be integrated and the best practical
environmental option must be pursued;
HERWINNING, KOMPOSTEERING EN CRUSHING EN DIE AD-PROSES IS DIE
BESTE VIR DIE OMGEWING, SOWEL AS WERKSKEPPING.
Equitable access should be provided to environmental resources, benefits
and services to meet basic human needs;
Responsibility for environmental health and safety of any policy, programme or
project must continue throughout the life cycle of a project;
DIE DC-PROSES IS NIE OMGEWINGS-VRIENDELIK NIE EN BEINVLOED DIE
GESONDHEID VAN DIE OMGEWING EN DIE MENSE.
Public participation in environmental decision-making must be promoted;
OP DIE VERGADERING VAN 22&23 NOVEMBER 2012 IS DAAR GEVRA DAT
DAAR NOG VERGADERING GEHOU MOES WORD , AANGESIEN BAIE MENSE
REEDS OPPAD WAS MET VAKANSIE, SOWEL AS DAT BAIE MENSE NIE DIE
PAARL POST LEES NIE. DAAR WAS BELOWE DAT NA HIERDIE PROBLEEM
OMGESIEN SOU WORD ?
VRAE WAT AAN JPCE SOWEL AS DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT GESTEL
WAS IS NIE BEANTWOORD NIE , WAAROM KAN DAAR NIE
DEURSIGTIGHEID WEES NIE .
OP DIE VERGADERING IS DAAR OOK STELLINGS WAT DEUR DIE PUBLIEK
GEMAAK IS ONTKEN, DIT BLYK NOU DIE WAARHEID TE WEES! WAAROM
WORD DIE PUBLIEK ONDER WANINDRUKKE GEBRING ?
Community well-being and empowerment must be promoted through
environmental education; and
HERWINNING SKEP WERK , BESPAAR ELEKTRISITEIT, BESPAAR NATUURLIKE
HULP-BRONNE, EN IS OMGEWINGS VRIENDELIK !
There must be inter-government co-ordination and harmonisation of policies and
laws.”
5.3.4 DRAFT STANDARDS AND WASTE CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
“Unlike the Minimum Requirements, the classification of waste as hazardous in terms of the
new Regulations would not pre-suppose or require any particular waste management
measures, e.g. disposal to a particular type of landfill. Rather, the purpose is to ensure adequate
and safe storage and handling of the waste, and to inform the consideration of suitable waste
management options. It therefore does not exclude the use of hazardous waste in WTE
processes. Due to the different parameters of the proposed system, it is also conceivable that
waste that is currently classified as hazardous in terms of the Minimum Requirements, could
be considered general waste in terms of SANS 10234, which means licencing of specific
hazardous waste storage, recovery, etc. activities may not be required as is the case now.”
25
KAN UITKLARING VAN HIERDIE STELLING GEGEE WORD.
GAAN “HAZARDOUS WASTE” NOU IN WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN
TOEGELAAT WORD, EN SAL DIE NUWE VOORGESTELDE STORTING-TERREIN TEEN-
AAN DIE BERGRIVIER OOK HIERDIE “HAZARDOUS WASTE “ NOU MAG ONTVANG ?
5.3.5 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AIR QUALITY ACT, 39 OF 2004
“Regulating air quality monitoring, management and control in general as well as activities that
may have an impact on ambient air quality, is the purpose of the National Environmental
Management: Air Quality Act, 39 of 2004 (the “NEM:AQA”). The act systematically replaced the
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, 45 of 1965 and came into full effect on 1 April 2010. It
provides for the listing of activities resulting in atmospheric emissions and the establishment of
minimum emission standards for substances resulting from these activities. The act recognises
that the minimisation of pollution can be achieved through control and the implementation of
cleaner production practices and cleaner technologies.”
REEDS VANAF 2006 SUKKEL DIE PUBLIEK IN DIE OMGEWING VAN DIE VLAKKELAND
AREA MET DIE KREMATORIUM. HIERDIE PROSES WORD OOK GEREKEN AS N
“INCINERATOR” GEEN MONITEERING VIND PLAAS NIE, EN DIE LUG WORD
DAAGLIKS BESOEDEL. VOLGENS DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT KAN HUL NIKS AAN
DIE SAAK DOEN NIE, EN VOLGENS HUL MOET DIE PROBLEEM DEUR OMGEWING-
SAKE OPGELOS WORD. OMGEWINGSAKE DOEN NIKS AAN DIE PROBLEEM.
INTUSSEN GAAN BESOEDELING VOORT EN MAAK MENSE SIEK.
OP PAPIER HET SUID-AFRIKA DIE WETTE, MAAR AS DIT BY DIE TOEPASSING KOM IS
DIT NIEMAND SE PROBLEEM NIE. INDIEN HIERDIE KLEIN” INCINERATOR” NIE EERS
GEMONITEER KAN WORD NIE, HOE GAAN DIE WTE(DC)- PROSES GEMONITOR
WORD, EN DEUR WIE ?
5.6.5 POTENTIAL CDM PROFILE OF THE WTE PROJECT
“Interwaste’s WTE technology partner, Farmsecure, has concluded the following two PoAs that
were:
submitted to the UNFCCC:
Anaerobic Digestion and Renewable Energy Generation in South Africa - submitted in August
2011;
Biomass Energy Generation through Gasification or Direct Combustion in South Africa -
submitted in December 2011.
26
“The PoAs were developed for CDM only. Both have been validated but not yet registered. The
main reason is that no ERPA has been signed and at current CER prices it might not be
worthwhile to include a project under the PoA as pointed out below.”
VOLGENS DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT SAL GESAMENTLIK DIE AD EN DC –
PROJEK DIE EERSTE IN DIE SUIDELIKE HALFROND WEES.
DUS KAN DAAR AANGENEEM WORD DAT BO-GENOEMDE AANSOEK WAS GEDOEN
VIR DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT.
OP DIE VERGADERING VAN DIE 22 &23 NOVEMBER 2012 IS DAAR DEUR R BROWN
EN JPCE AAN DIE PUBLIEK GESE DAT DAAR NOG NIE OOR DIE SPESIFIEKE WTE-
PROSES BESLUIT IS NIE !
UIT BO-GENOEMDE AANHALING IS DIT EGTER DUIDELIK DAT DAAR REEDS
GEDURENDE 2011 AANSOEK GEDOEN IS.
WAAROM WORD DAAR ONWAARHEDE AAN DIE PUBLIEK VOORGEHOU, DIT IS
BAIE DUIDELIK DAT DIT WAT OP HIERDIE VERGADERINGS AAN DIE PUBLIEK
VOORGELE WAS NIE DIE WAARHEID WAS NIE, WAAROM MOET DIE PUBLIEK IN
DIE DUISTER GEHOU WORD!?
5.9.1 FOCUS ON J OB CREATION(BL87)
“The WTE Project has to incorporate the various job creation incentives and possible learnerships
and internships into the project in so far as it is feasible and specifically focus on benefitting
the local community.”
DIE MOA PUNT 4.2.3 SOWEL AS DIE BY-LAW SPEL DIT DUIDELIK UIT : BESTAANDE
BESIGHEDE SAL TEN KOSTE VAN DIE WTE-PROJEK TOEGEMAAK WORD. MEER
WERK SAL VERLORE GAAN AS WAT DIE WTE-PROJEK KAN SKEP!
5.11.2 ENVIRONMENT & WASTE(BL88)
“The Prevention of Atmospheric Pollution, 11 of 2007 by-law deals with air quality which will
be a concern given the processes involved in the WTE Facility but should be a minor issue.”
INCENERATORS WAS NOG NOOIT SKOON TEGNOLOGIE NIE, EN DIE GROOTSTE
PROBLEEM IS JUIS LUG-BESOEDELING.
MECURY KAN NIE NET MENSE SE GESONDHEID NADELIG BEINVLOED NIE ,MAAR
VERGIFTIG OOK DIE OMGEWING.
KANKER, GEBOORTE-DEFEKTE, ASMA, ENS, WORD DEUR BESOEDELING VAN
INCENERATORS VEROORSAAK!
MECERY WORD OOK DEUR LANDBOU PRODUKTE GEABSORBEER EN WORD DAN
DEEL VAN DIE VOEDSEL KETTING.
27
INAGGENEEM DIE ONDERSTAANDE AANHALING, KAN DAAR MET SEKERHEID
VERWAG WORD DAT BESOEDELING SAL PLAASVIND !
BL 65 “Unlike the Minimum Requirements, the classification of waste as
hazardous in terms of the new Regulations would not pre-suppose or require
any particular waste management measures, e.g. disposal to a particular type of
landfill. Rather, the purpose is to ensure adequate and safe storage
and handling of the waste, and to inform the consideration of suitable waste
management options. It therefore does not exclude the use of hazardous
waste in WTE processes. Due to the different parameters of the proposed
system, it is also conceivable that waste that is currently classified as
hazardous in terms of the Minimum Requirements, could be considered
general waste in terms of SANS 10234, which means licencing of specific
hazardous waste storage, recovery, etc. activities may not be required as is the case
now.
5.12 A LIGNMENT OF THE WTE PROJECT(BL89)
“The three project objectives stated in the RFP will enable sustainable economic development
through a number of secondary objectives such as providing an incentive for other
downstream activities related to the project development or operational phases and real
permanent job opportunities.”
AL DRIE OBEKTIEWE WAT DAAR GEVRA IS MET DIE TENDER, KON NIE BEREIK
WORD NIE !
6.5.3.2 SITE INFORMATION(BL100)
“The cost of hiring the equipment is unfortunately very high and clean rubble is still only half of the
volume of contaminated rubble received at the site but finding a use for it and diverting it from
the landfill could reduce waste to landfill with a further 8 tons/day or 3%.”
VOLGENS HIERDIE AANHALING IS 8TON = 3%
DUS 100% = 266 TON VULLIS PER DAG: OP BL 140 SENARIO 1 ,WORD AANGEDUI
DAT DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT 395 TON PER DAG” LANDFILL”
OP DIE VERGADERING VAN DIE 22&23 NOVEMBER 2012 IS DAAR AAN DIE PUBLIEK
UITGEWYS DAT DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT 486 TON PER DAG” LANDFILL”
PRIVAAT SATELIET OPMETING GEDURENDE JAN 2013-MRT 2013 DUI AAN DAT ONS
HUIDIGLIK 164 TON PER DAG” LANDFILL”!
DIE WTE-PROJEK SE SUKSES IS DIREK GEKOPEL AAN DIE VULLIS HOEVEELHEDE!
DAAR BESTAAN EGTER GROOT TEENSTRYDIGHEDE BY DIE VULLIS-HOEVEELHEDE !
28
6.5.3.3 EXTERNAL AUDIT RESULTS(BL102)
“The most recent External Audit was done in November 2012 by JPCE.”
Other identified problem areas were:
The inconsistencies between the data from the weighbridge and the data derived from the
topographical survey – a situation which was addressed through weighbridge re-calibration
and re-training of the staff.
WEEGBRUG PAPIERE VAN VOERTUIE IN PRIVAATBESIT DUI AAN DAT DIE
WEEGBRUG NIE GEKALIBREER IS NIE ! KAN DAAR UITKLARING VERSKAF WORD
The low compaction density of waste, i.e. 650kg/m3 which was due to the relatively
inefficient plant used for compaction and cover purposes at the landfill.
DIE REGTE MASJIENE WAS BESKIKBAAR OP DIE TENDER, WAAROM IS DIT NIE
INGEHUUR NIE ?
Insufficient compaction vehicles used.
DIE REGTE MASJIENE WAS BESKIKBAAR OP DIE TENDER, WAAROM IS DIT NIE
INGEHUUR NIE ?
Poor condition of the landfill perimeter service road due to rain and construction traffic.
Lack of internal storm water control works with contaminated run-off treated as leachate
and contained within the cell. In fact, storm water is a major problem given the flat terrain
which causes storm water arising outside of the landfill footprint to pond thus interfering
with the day to day operations around the site. The answer would be the construction of an
external storm water management system to drain the catchment area.
A large garden refuse stockpile which poses a fire risk due to proximity to the office building.
DIE CHIPPER WAS BESKIKBAAR OP DIE TENDER ! DAAR MOET OOK AANGEDUI
WORD DAT DAAR WEL CHIPWERK GEDOEN WAS TEEN R91 PER M3(BL135)
DAAR WAS EGTER N TENDERAAR BESKIKBAAR(CES 3/2011) TEEN R55 PER M3!
Poor screening of waste at the access despite the availability of an inspection platform.
DAAR WAS AANGEBIED OM HIERDIE AKSIE VERNIET TE DOEN VIR DRAKENSTEIN
MUNISIPALITEIT, DIT WAS GEWEIER !
DIE TENDER VAN HIERDIE WTE-PROJEK WAS UITGEGEE IN 2008,
DIE WELLINGTON STORTINGTEREIN WAS OP DAARDIE STADUIM IN BAIE GOEIE KONDISIE
VOLGENS DIE OUDIT VERSLAG IN 2009.
2009= PUIK TOESTAND : 2012 = UITERS SWAK TOESTAND
DIT WIL VOORKOM ASOF DIE WELLINGTON STORTING-TEREIN MET OPSET VERWAARLOOS IS , EN
SEKERE AKSIES IS MET OPSET AGTERWEE GELAAT!
29
6.7.1 RECOVERY AND RECYCLING(BL 105)
“A number of other waste recovery efforts are being implemented by the industry in Drakenstein,
e.g. used oil and oil products, printing chemicals, medical waste disposal and the wine
industry by composting peels and pips and recycling bottles and cardboard.”
DAAR BESTAAN N KLOMP PRIVAAT HERWINNINGS BESIGHEDE BINNE
DRAKENSTEIN AREA !
DAAR IS GEEN MELDING VAN HIERDIE HERWINNING/BESIGHEDE GEMAAK NIE,
PLASTIEK WORD OOK INGEKOOP BY HIERDIE BESIGHEDE.
HET DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT/ JPCE STATISTIEKE VAN HOEVEEL REEDS
HERWIN WORD BINNE DIE MUNISIPALE GEBIED
WAS DIE OPSIE ONDERSOEK VAN HERWINNING VERSUS DIE WTE-PROJEK ?
6.10 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE(BL171)
“With the annual available building materials received on site it is envisaged that about 500 000
bricks per month could be manufactured, thus creating about 50 jobs.”
VOLGENS STEENVERVAARDIGERS WAT REEDS 18 JAAR IN DIE BEDRYF IS WORD
DAAR VIR ELKE 500 000 STENE 30 WERKSGELEENTHEDE GESKEP!
STENE WAT VAN “CRUSH” BOUROMMEL GEMAAK WORD IS SUB-STANDAART!
“ Technical specifications and procurement policies by Drakenstein Municipality that make
provision for and/or encourage the use of a) second hand bricks, b) bricks from crushed
concrete and c) the use of sub-base like material from crushing and demolition, where
appropriate, e.g. under sidewalks or driveways.”
DUS MOET DAAR VOORKEUR AAN HIERDIE SUB-STANDAARD STEEN GEGEE WORD
DEUR DIT TE PROCURE ?
The brickmaking is potentially an ideal opportunity for a local BBBEE entrepreneur. For instance,
the “Hydra Form” system of brick/block making be used, the advantages of which are:
Cost effective : GEEN SUBSTANDAARD STEEN KAN KOSTE EFFEKTIEF WEES NIE.
Eco-friendly building blocks: AL IS DIT “ECO-FRIENDLY DIT BLY NOG STEEDS SUB-STANDAARD
Thermal excellence
High quality: VOLGENS STEENMAKERS WAT 18 JAAR IN DIE BEDRYF IS IS HIERDIE TIPE STEEN
SUB-STANDAART
Simplicity
Minimal mortar required
Community involvement: DAAR BESTAAN VERSKEIE STEEN BESIGHEDE BINNE DRAKENSTEIN
AREA, DAAR IS NIE GENOEG AANVRAAG ,SODAT NOG N BESIGHIED KAN OORLEEF NIE! DUS DIE
EEN SE BROOD IS DIE ANDER EEN SE DOOD!
Attractive, face-brick finishes: DIT BLY NOG STEEDS SUB-STANDAART!
30
6.11.2 WEIGHBRIDGES AND WEIGH ROOM(BL173)
“All late payers will be blacklisted and refused entry into the site.”
SAL DIE TIP FOOI WAT VASGESTEL WORD TUSSEN DRAKENSTEIN MUNISIPALITEIT
EN INTERWASTE OOK GELD VIR DIE BESIGHEDE/PUBLIEK ? SAL BESIGHEDE DIE TIP
FOOI KAN BEKOSTIG ?
INDIEN DIE PUBLIEK WEGGEWYS GAAN WORD ,WAAR SAL DIE VULLIS GESTORT
WORD ?
9.3 OPERATING COSTS(BL190)
“The following operational expenses have been built into the DC model:”
INDIEN DIE WELLINGTON STORTING-TERREIN VOL IS, WAAR SAL DIE BOTTOM EN
FLY ASH GESTORT WORD ? SAL DIT NIE VERVOER WORD NIE ?
VOLGENS BEREKENINGE SAL DIE BOTTOM EN FLY ASH 201 TON PER DAG WEES ?
HOE SAL DIT VERVOER WORD-“ WASTE TRANSPORT” IS AANGEDUI AS R 0
5. VALUE - FOR - MONEY MODELLING(233)
“Scenario 4 / Phase 3 (DC) is the fourth feasible scenario with an additional capital
investment by the SPV of R300m to establish the DC Plant thus total Capex of R433,35m.
This scenario then adds waste to be provided by Interwaste for feedstock of the DC
Plant. Adding the feedstock and bringing it to the Wellington landfill might appear to be
counter-acting the aims of the WTE Project but this is a skew perspective since all such
feedstock will be going into the DC Plant and the electricity so produced would be
31
‘wheeled’ and be available for the DLM to purchase. With an estimated 86% of waste
been diverted from landfill and only an estimated 98 tpd waste going to landfill, this
scenario is by far the most feasible for the DLM and the region provided adequate
waste volumes are available. It is a win-win situation because the private party has
estimated an IRR over 10 years of 12% and over 20 years of 18% based on NPV and
the DLM would have an additional 8,28MWh of electricity with a really significant
reduction of its carbon footprint and that of other waste producers in its vicinity. “
VOLGENS BEREKENINGE SAL DAAR 201 TON PER DAG (24DAE) OP HIERDIE
STADIUM GESTORT WORD !
KAN AANGEDUI WORD HOE BY DIE BEREKENING VAN 98 TON PER DAG UITKOM ?
OPSOMMING
DIE WTE-PROJEK SE SUKSES IS DIREK AFHANKLIK VAN DIE HOEVEELHEID VULLIS WAT BESTAAN
BINNE DIE DRAKENSTEIN AREA! DIE VERSLAG BEVAT EGTER BAIE TEENSTRYDIGHEDE MET
BETREKKING TOT DIE VULLIS HOEVEELHEDE ! HIERDIE TEENSTRYDIGHEDE EN FOUTE SAL EERS
UITGEKLAAR MOET WORD, SODAT SINVOLLE KOMMETAAR GELEWER KAN WORD,OP DIE REGTE
INLIGTING!
HIERDIE PROJEK KAN WERK, MAAR DAN MOET DAAR GENOEG VULLIS BESKIKBAAR WEES. DIE FEIT
DAT DAAR REEDS VULLIS INGEVOER MOET WORD, IS BAIE NEGATIEF. DAAR KAN NIE N WTE-
PROJEK GESKEP WORD MET IETS WAT NIE GENOEGSAAM BESTAAN NIE ,IN DIE GEVAL VULLIS!
OM 400 MILJOEN TE INFESTEER OP N PROJEK WAARVAN DIE INLIGTING EN BEREKENINGE
FOUTIEF AANGEDUI IS, IS RISKANT EN ONVERANTWOORDELIK!
WIE GAAN DIE VERANTWOORDELIKHEID DRA, SOOS UITEENGESIT VAN DIE MFMA SEKSIE 173(5)
INDIEN HIERDIE PROJEK AS GEVOLG VAN FOUTIEWE INLIGTING EN BEREKENINGE SKIPBREEK LEI?
HET DRAKENSTEIN WERKLIK NODIG OM OP DIE VOORGROND VAN OU TEGNOLOGIE TE WEES!
VERBRANDING VAN VULLIS IS NIE N NUWE TEGNOLOGIE NIE, NIE ONGEWINGS-VRIENDELIK NIE,
EN SAL NIE N AANWINS VIR ONS PRAGTIGE OMGEWING WEES NIE !
S.J VAN SCHALKWYK