2007 SUBMISSION OF
HABITAT COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY
20 June 2007
Prepared by Marie- Lou Roux
Executive Officer
Honourable chairman and members of the Portfolio Committee, we appreciate the
opportunity to address the committee on this issue.
I speak here particularly on behalf of those of our members who are especially
concerned for the way in which we as a country are dealing with waste and
pollution which includes nuclear waste, and the plight of our poorer communities.
1. General disillusionment with the inadequate implementation of our
legislation and the gradual erosion of some of our environmental legislation
We are deeply saddened and concerned about what we perceive to be a gradual
weakening of the fine principles embedded in our Constitution,. (with its section 24, guaranteeing an environment not harmful
to the health and well-being of present and future generations), and in NEMA,
the National Environmental Management Act (15 of 1007). This weakening takes place
through the failure to implement and monitor implementation of our laws and
through progressive changes to these laws.
At the time NEMA was being finalised we suffered the disappointment, which
those of you who were members of this committee then will recall contained a
section providing for an Environmental Appeal Tribunal. Such a Tribunal (which
exists in some other countries), would hand down decisions in cases affecting
the environment based on the actual merits of the case, not merely review whether
the correct procedures had been followed in the origina1 trial. This provision ,vas thrown out by the Council of Provinces after
considerable lobbying by developers and industrialists.
During the past decade we have seen a gradual weakening of our environmental
safeguards. The first Amendment of NEMA scuppered the provision that any action
which would cause "significant environmental harm" would trigger an
Environmental Impact assessment. After this was to follow the NEMA have ill this regards, is
that inappropriate waste resources can be authorised as fuel. A case in point
is the burning of tyres in cement kilns, test burns of which are taking place
at the moment, and the lobbying to incinerate Municipal Solid Waste to produce
energy, (so-called waste to energy plants). Such processes indisputably produce
dioxins and furans and other heavy metal emissions and contaminated bottom ash.
These are serious threat to the health of communities and the environment.
2. Concerns with respect to nuclear waste management
2a Lack of independence of National Nuclear Regulator
This possibly lies at the heart of many of the incursions on human health that
have been taking place in the industry.
We wish to refer you to the Draft National Radioactive Waste Policy Framework
of 2003 (although to our knowledge this has not yet been finalised).
Section 2
gives International Policy Principles, developed by the international community
through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and applicable to all
countries, including
I quote:” As a member state of the IAEA.
and in accordance with National and International objectives, it is
government's policy to deal with radio active waste in a manner that protects
human health and the environment, now and in the future, in accordance with the
following principles”
It is important to note the principle of having an appropriate national Legal
Framework, with the requirement that provision shall be made for “ clear
allocation of responsibilities and independent regulatory functions”
This requirement is not honoured.
The Draft
Framework referred to is exemplary in its provisions.
The internationally recognised Precautionary Principle, which stems from the
Rio World Summit, in NEMA reads: "that a risk-averse and cautious approach
is applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the
consequences of decisions and actions".
Among the other principles listed are: Protection of Human Health, of the
EnvirolID1ent and of Future Generations, and that
radioactive waste management will not «impose undue burdens on future
generations".
2b Absence of transparency and public participation on the part of the
nuclear industry
Other parties present cite examples of this lack of
transparency today. We just wish to refer you to the Draft National Radioactive
Waste Policy Framework of 2003 (although to our knowledge this has not yet been
finalised).
The Draft
National Radioactive Waste Policy Framework, under section 3, has as its
second bullet point: Transparency regarding an aspects of radioactive waste
management, and requires "that the public shall have access to infom1ation
regarding waste management where this does not infringe on the security of
radioactive material. "
It cannot be clain1ed that information
requested on the number of spills and accidents, or the numbers of workers
falling ill can be seen to compromise the "security of nuclear
material".
This draft Policy framework includes the necessary principles, such as the Precautionary
Principle (bullet point 4). "Where there is uncertainty about the
safety of an activity, a conservative approach should be adopted."
and on Public Participation (bullet point 8): "Radioactive waste
management should take into account the interests and concerns of all
interested and affected, \"hen decisions are being made"
If the concerns of citizens were truly taken into accow1t, we believe that
there would be a change of heart by the authorities with respect to its nuclear
program. We are fearful of mishaps in the nuclear plants. Human frailty has
proven that human error can never be discounted. We here in the vicinity of
Koeberg feel especially vulnerabJe.
Without
transparency and dependable reporting, and public participation there can be no
honourable planning.
3. In conclusion
On a perhaps flippant note, I should like to admit that every time an
Orange Alert or Red Alert message flits across our television screens, I feel
that it is Eskom conditioning the people of South Africa to panic about our so
–called shortage of electricity and condition them to feel that we must get
nuclear power as soon as possible to fend off this disaster of cut-offs.
However , seriously, if Eskom were sincere when it
states that it does support alternative sources of energy , such as wind or sun
energy, the moneys spent on research of those technologies would show that. To
me the integrity of Eskom is compromised by the fact the more than 6 billion
rands have bben spent on the Modular Nuclear Pebble Bed and not yet even 50
million on wind turbine research in this country.
Considering the potential for job creation in a country desperate for work opportunities such as the development of these
alternate technologies offers, we hold this push for nuclear power generation
to be morally indefensible
Can the Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy be finalised, with the
retention of its laudable clauses for the protection and safety of our people
and environment?
We look to your committee to help is achieving these objectives.
I thank you