National Radioactive Waste Management Agency Bill: Department Briefing & Konserve Energy Presentation

Meeting report

National Radioactive Waste Management Agency Bill (the Bill):  Briefing by the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME)
Ms Ditebogo Kgomo, Acting Director: Nuclear Safety, DME, noted that the background to this Bill included the activities that generated radioactive waste and the status of radioactive waste in South Africa. The White Paper on Energy Policy of 1998 concerned the development of a radioactive waste management policy. This critical short term objective was approved in 2005. The background on the current governance framework was discussed and special mention was made of South Africa's accession to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Joint Convention in 2006. This sought to provide assurance that radioactive waste was managed safely through the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), which issued nuclear authorisations and implemented compliance programmes.

The Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy background was also reviewed, specifically referring to the statutory bodies: namely, the National Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (NCRWM), the National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (NRWMA) and the Radioactive Waste Management Fund (RWMF), that were all established by an Act of Parliament. Only after these bodies were established could the development process start. Ms Kgomo explained that it was international best practice to have an independent agency for the disposal of radioactive waste, to allow the generators of such waste to concentrate on their core mandates. Examples of other countries following the same approach were France, Spain, Hungary and Canada.

The purpose of the Bill was discussed. It was to establish the independent Management Agency, which would be responsible for management of radioactive waste disposal on a national basis, on behalf of the Minister and would be wholly owned by the State. A Board of Directors would control and manage the Agency, and this Board would include members from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), the DME, and the Department of Health, up to five other directors, as well as a CEO and a CFO. The functions of the agency were reviewed. The licensing of the Agency was of such a nature that they would need nuclear authorisation from the NNR. The Agency would be a Schedule 3 public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and would be allowed to accumulate surplus funds. It would be funded by monies appropriated by Parliament, monies transferred from the RWMF, payments for services to the radioactive waste generators, income and interest earned on cash balances and donations that were to be approved by the Minister. The responsibilities of generators of radioactive waste were clearly stated in the policy. The Agency was to meet the institutional obligations of the Minister related to management of radioactive waste, as provided for in the Nuclear Energy Act, design and implement disposal solutions, develop radioactive waste criteria, assess and inspect the acceptability of waste for disposal and issue a disposal certificate, manage, operate and monitor operational and closed disposal facilities, investigate the need for any new facilities and site, design and construct them as required. It would also conduct research and development aimed at long term radioactive waste management. It would maintain a national radioactive waste database. It would manage any ownerless radioactive waste on behalf of the State. It would further assist the generators of small quantities of radioactive waste in managing their waste and would provide information on waste management to the public living around disposal facilities, and the public in general. The Bill provided for the Minister to make regulations. She concluded by reporting on the deadline, noting that the DME had until 2010 to have the agency in place.

Discussion
Mr O Monareng (ANC) wanted to know who was responsible and how radioactive waste was managed.

Mr Tshidiso Maqubela, Chief Director: Nuclear Energy, DME, responded that the Act was clear on responsibility. The management was the responsibility of the Minister of the DME. The minister would consult with the DEAT and the DWAF on environmental protection.

Ms Kgomo replied that Eskom was handling its own low level waste from Koeberg. Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) disposed of its own waste and that of other generators on behalf of the State. The backlog would refer to the used fuel stored on site. This fuel still contained recyclable material. There were three options for this material. The first would be long term storage above ground. The second was reprocessing. The third was deep geological disposal, where the fuel elements were disposed of 500 metres underground. Eskom’s low and intermediate level waste was sent to Vaalputs for disposal. Necsa’s radioactive waste was stored on site. One of the issues the Agency would have to deal with would be how to take over free operators' disposal responsibilities to allow them to concentrate on their core mandates.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) remarked that radioactive uranium also came from gold ore. The gold mining process produced uranium as a by product. He asked where this uranium was stored on the mine dumps and whether it was dangerous.

Dr Schalk de Waal, Senior Nuclear Specialist: DME, confirmed that uranium did also come from gold mining. Mines also extracted uranium exclusively. The contents of the mine dumps were processed by the mining companies. The mines had improved their gold and uranium extraction to reduce by-products. Mines were subject to registration by the NNR, who would ensure the safety of facilities. The DWAF, DEAT and the DME all had an interest in this.

Ms N Mathibela (ANC) asked which minister was responsible for waste management. She referred to the ownerless generators of radioactive waste and asked if this was dangerous. She also asked if there was enough monitoring of radioactive waste.

The Chairperson stated that the Agency seemed to duplicate the functions of the nuclear regulator and the DEAT. The DEAT was supposed to look into everything regarding the environment, including radioactive waste. He said he was not sure of the role of the Agency.

Mr Maqubela indicated that the DME respected the provisions of the Constitution to ensure that there was co-operative governance, and tried to ensure that this was met. The Board of the NNR had members from the DEAT. He said the DEAT had a role in the management of the mining and waste management as there had to be environmental impact assessments. The DEAT was part of the nuclear licensing process. The Radioactive Waste Management Agency would be doing the work. It was not a regulator. It would be disposing of radioactive waste. This activity had risks within itself that would have to be managed and regulated. It was a licensable process and the Agency would have to apply to the NNR for a license. The sites would also have to be suitable for the disposal of the waste.

The Chairperson referred to his experience of having too many structures with conflicting roles. He said that Sweden was a leader in radioactive waste management, and was able to turn around negative perceptions due to good management. They had reduced conflicting structures and involved the key stakeholders. They had succeeded to such an extent that two cities were actually competing to host the repository. He asked if this was not a case of too many regulators being involved to no good reason. He wondered how the Agency would interact with the DEAT and the NNR.

Mr Maqubela responded that his view of the international practice was that none of the nuclear regulators internationally disposed of radioactive waste. The question could be asked as to why NECSA was not doing this. The DME’s response was that those who generated the waste should not be the ones disposing of it. NECSA and institutions similar to it, which generated radioactive waste, already had diverse mandates. NECSA, specifically, needed to channel its resources toward research and development. In Sweden the organization SKB was the equivalent of the NNR. This agency was owned by the companies that produce the waste. South Africa did not think this was a good course of action to follow. There was potential for conflict of interest. The work needed checks and balances.

Dr de Waal said there were different generators of radioactive waste. They could not dispose of it individually. A central body was needed for disposal.

The Chairperson asked for more detail about the positions of CEO and the CFO, and what their competencies would be. These were very central positions in the department and they should be highly competent.

Dr de Waal responded that the Agency was very technical and needed a technically competent CEO in the management of radioactive waste.  The CFO would require competency in financial management.

Mr Monareng asked for a simple explanation of what radioactive waste was.

Ms Kgomo responded that radioactive waste was radioactive material for which no further use was envisioned. It could be fresh or unused, but if there was no use for it, it would be classified as waste. Spent fuel referred to the fuel elements used in a reactor to generate electricity. This could be disposed of in geological disposal. When useful material could be recycled it was referred to as fuel.

Mr Maqubela added that petrol was a hydrocarbon. During combustion it split into water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as waste. Uranium was a metal. In transforming that into electricity, the uranium atom split, and this splitting process would generate waste in the form of other metals. There was often uranium left over from the fission process that mixed with the other waste, and this all comprised the radioactive waste produced from electricity generation. In mining, radioactive material occurred naturally in the ore. By extracting gold from the ore, the other radioactive material was concentrated. These were solids that needed to be managed.

The Chairperson asked if the training in nuclear science and engineering included the transportation and disposal of radioactive waste.

Mr Maqubela replied that South Africa had internationally recognised scientists. The committee that established the international standards for radioactive waste had been chaired by a South African for the past four years. In the past year, three South Africans had been awarded nuclear engineering PhDs. They were part of a huge team of young people that were coming through at the DME.

The Chairperson asked how disposal sites were managed, with regard to identifying the geological aspects and other factors to be considered.

Mr Maqubela responded that this was an area that needed attention. The Department had made enough provision for the management of waste at present. They would need to engage seriously, going forward, to make sufficient provision for managing the waste from the new power stations envisioned by Eskom.

The Chairperson referred to the NNR and stated that international best practice was to allocate funds to any Agency. The NNR was supposed to regulate generators of nuclear activity. Every stage must be monitored, and they must interact with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Private agencies created more risks than protection. The NNR could establish divisions to transport and deal with nuclear activity to ensure that radioactive waste generators complied with policy and regulations. In conclusion, he had reservations against international best practice.

Mr Maqubela responded that the Agency would be wholly owned by the State. This was not privatisation and these concerns were not relevant. The Agency would be funded by monies appropriated by Parliament. Funds would also be transferred from the generators for disposals according to the “polluter must pay” principle.

The Chairperson asked what the considerations of the other five directors were. He noted that it was important to define the duties.

Dr de Waal referred to the three pillars of nuclear governance. Nuclear safety was regulated by the NNR. Nuclear technology was handled by NECSA and Nuclear non – proliferation was the responsibility of the Minister of the DME. The draft Bill made clear provision for directorship by disqualifying certain individuals. For example Members of Parliament could not be directors.

The Chairperson said that Vaalputs had recently sparked some trouble from environmental groups, yet the DME continued to use it. He asked if this would be indefinite or would there be a new repository.

Mr Maqubela replied that the Department was convinced that it was a safe repository and would continue to use the site for low and intermediate level radioactive waste. There had been an issue of cracked drums. This had been investigated and corrective measures were taken. This went back to the issue of separation between generators and disposers of waste and the question of whether such an issue would have come to the fore if the generator was the one responsible for disposal.

The Chairperson asked about the types of reprocessing and how far the DME or NECSA were engaged with the process.

Dr de Waal responded that some countries disposed of spent fuel directly. Other countries called it used fuel and re-used approximately 95% after reprocessing. South Africa favoured the latter approach, as it was sustainable. The USA had been opposed to reprocessing but were changing their position due to the energy crisis.

Mr Kekana asked if new value could be extracted from the mine dumps. He referred to the fact that the price of uranium governed what happened to it. He asked if the uranium was not radioactive and if it constituted a disturbance and a danger to the environment.

The Chairperson asked how far the DME was with cleansing radioactive sites.

Mr S Louw (ANC) referred to the East Rand mine dumps and said that they were the most dangerous mine dumps and needed focus.
 
Mr Maqubela responded that legacy issues were a challenge. If the mine dumps were left unmanaged they would eventually present a hazard. He recounted the Wonderfontein case where mine waste had found its way into the environment, after it had been concentrating over the years. Quite an effort would be required to deal with that, but this was not the DME’s jurisdiction. Their responsibility was to ensure that the radioactive component of the waste was managed. There were also chemical components to the waste. The structures created by the NNR, the community, DEAT and DWAF were dealing with this. There was no linkage to the nuclear programme. This originated from mining activity. Historical dumps posed a problem.

Ms Mathibela asked what would happen to the people of Wonderfontein. She asked if this would affect their health.

Mr Maqubela responded that the matter belonged to the NNR. He did not want to answer on their behalf as he may misinterpret their position. He said he would record the question and ask the NNR to provide the Committee with a written response. Based on the reports submitted to the Minister, there was currently no immediate danger. The reports, however,  did indicate that if nothing was done, the situation could become hazardous. Again, this referred only to the radioactive component. There was no information made available to the Minister on the chemical component.

Commenting on the Bill generally he said that the State Law Advisers were ready to certify the Bill and the DME was ready to engage with the process in order meet with Parliament’s August deadline on finalisation of Bills.

Konserve Energy – KE24 Project Proposal to Parliament:
Mr Kidar Ramgobin, Director: Konserve Energy, and Dr R Singh, Consultant: Konserve Energy, said that Konserve Energy (CC) had approached the Portfolio Committee to introduce KE24 fluorescent tube lights to them. The three highlighted benefits to the product were no load shedding, a cleaner environment and more money in the pockets of consumers.

The objectives were outlined as suitable and sustainable energy solutions that reduced depletion of scarce fossil fuels, and also reduced pollution, greenhouse gases and global warming through active environmental stewardship and sustainable development. Other objectives included providing products and solutions that supported efficiency, properly managing utilisation of scarce energy resources and products, and meeting the needs of current consumers and future generations.

The KE24 product was described as having the potential to reduce 2000 megawatts of power per hour. It was easy to install, utilising energy efficient lighting. It worked on the most commonly used light fittings found in virtually every office, factory, building or house. It was said to be inexpensive, uncomplicated and quick to install. According to their calculations, the capital investment in the product could be recovered within a year. This would be referred to specifically in the financial analysis. KE24 was also CE, ELI and IEC certified.

The financial analysis covered the parameters of the analysis, and gave cost comparisons between KE24 and traditional ballasts, a explanation of how costs could be recouped and an environmental impact comparison (see attached presentation for details).

Key benefits were that South Africa could use the savings to keep up supply to other African countries, make good on obligations to the poor and be equipped for the 2010 World Cup energy needs.

Konserve Energy stated that they needed support to fast track the implementation of this product. Their intention was to promote the installation of KE24 in all public buildings so that energy saving could be a national priority through policy development.

The Konserve representatives held a brief demonstration to show the Committee a comparison between the KE24 and the fluorescent tubes currently in use.

Discussion
Mr Kekana stated that the principle was accepted for the sake of information. He asked if the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy were the appropriate people to deal with bulbs. He asked how this related to Eskom’s bulb replacement strategy. He stated that Parliament could not pass an Act to push for this product. He also asked if Eskom could test what Konserve said. Eskom had the knowledge and expertise to test this, and he believed that they should provide a recommendation.

Ms Mathibela said that Konserve mentioned only public buildings. She asked if private homes could also use the product. She wanted to know how the fittings worked and whether the company did the fittings, and whether any home with a fluorescent fitting could use the product.

The Chairperson stated that this Committee was not the appropriate authority to address this proposal, as they had no way of testing the arguments. The presentation was useful and it gave Konserve the opportunity to present to members of the Department of Minerals and Energy. The Committee would have expected Eskom to interact with Konserve. The Portfolio Committee could help with contacts, but could do nothing from the operational side. It dealt with matters of policy.

Mr Singh accepted that the Portfolio Committee would not buying and selling the product. However, he reiterated that they were a small company and could not fast track the sale of the devices. The government owned 130 000 buildings and this could result in a potential 65 million fittings and savings from being more energy efficient.

Mr Mahlaba asked why it was called KE24.

Mr Singh responded that KE24 stood for Konserve Energy 24 watt lights.

Mr T Mahlaba (ANC) asked Konserve to elaborate on the previous mention of Eskom’s support.

Mr Singh responded that Konserve had Eskom’s support for the electronic ballast.

Mr Mahlaba queried the relationship with the University of Kwazulu Natal, who were mentioned in the presentation.

Mr Singh replied that the University had conducted a research programme on retrofitting, run by Gregory Diana. This programme had tested the savings in a library at the university. This was a published test case report supported by Eskom.

Mr Mahlaba pointed to a possible conflict of interest with Eskom.

Mr Singh replied that there was always bureaucracy to be found with State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and there would be a certain amount of conflict with Eskom. At the end of the day it was about payment of electricity costs. Eskom was calling for a 10% reduction and this would be a way to achieve that.

Mr Mahlaba asked what the disadvantages were.

Mr Singh responded that the only disadvantage was that people would have to pay for the fitting. It was not free, but the price could be recouped in energy savings.

Mr Mahlaba highlighted the fact that this presentation referred only to fluorescent bulbs. Eskom had only supplied globes. He asked if this product was available in the market.

Mr Singh responded that this product replaced the tube light, not the round light. Konserve Energy was attempting to bring it into the market. They were encouraging its use in schools, hospitals and public buildings.

Mr S Vundisa (ANC) wanted the Committee to check if the proposals and assertions were correct. Once that had been done then the KE24 proposal could perhaps be something they could discuss in the future.

Mr Kekana stated that the major consumers of electricity were cooking and heating. He asked if Konserve had any other products to address these issues.

Mr Ramgobin replied that Konserve was looking into other energy saving devices. They did not want their products to interfere with normal life but wanted to provide products that conserved energy.

The meeting was adjourned.