DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY CONSOLIDATED REPORT TO …...the Waste to Energy (“WTE”) Feasibility Study Report (“FSR”) be submitted to the relevant ... a revised technology analysis

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

mailto:[email protected]


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.

Anita

Text Box

Annexure 1

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?

Anita

Text Box

Annexure 2

Anita

Text Box

Annexure 3A

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


Anita

Text Box

Annexure 3B

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!

Anita

Text Box

Annexure 3C

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 ?

Anita

Highlight

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.

Anita

Highlight

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

http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grieks

Anita

Highlight

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!

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/dirty_truths.pdf

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/dirty_truths.pdf

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/changing_climate.pdf

Anita

Highlight

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!

Anita

Highlight

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

http://glossary.reuters.com/index.php?title=Debt

http://glossary.reuters.com/index.php?title=Balance_Sheet

http://glossary.reuters.com/index.php?title=Risk

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

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 ?


“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:

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

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!?


“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.

Anita

Highlight

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.

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

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.

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

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;”

Anita

Highlight

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

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

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.”

Anita

Highlight

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.

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

Anita

Highlight

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

Anita

Text Box

Annexure 3D

Anita

Line

Anita

Line

Anita

Line

Anita

Line

Anita

Text Box

Annexure A

Documents

DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY CONSOLIDATED REPORT TO …...the Waste to Energy (“WTE”) Feasibility Study Report (“FSR”) be submitted to the relevant ... a revised technology analysis