PARLIAMENTARY
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ORAL SUBMISSION: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA
HISTORIC
PRECEDENT OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL, MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE, P ARTICULARL Y URANIUM: WONDERFONTEINSPRUIT CATCHMENT
INTRODUCTION
The
following is submitted with deference and diffidence, but not with timidity
since the matter of U contamination and the handling of hazardous waste are of
appreciable magnitude. U is, as you may reflect, radio-active and chemically
toxic. The half life of U is 10 8 to 10 10. It
therefore implies a long term hazard or risk.
Prefatory or preliminary to my submissions, permit me please to briefly advert
to the Law of Evidence.
LAW OF EVIDENCE
In terms of the law of evidence, evidence of reputation or general character is
admissible in a Court of Law in order to adduce evidence or to suggest that it
is likely or unlikely that a person of historic reputation or record would have
committed the offence with which he is charged. Evidence can be adduced of
either good character or bad reputation.
For the purpose of our discussion I shall adduce evidence of the historic
precedents which were established regarding institutional control, the
monitoring and management of hazardous waste, particularly uranium and its
radioactive daughter or transformation products, such as thorium, radium; radon
and radon gas and the enforcement of environmental legislation pertaining to
hazardous waste. From the past or historical performance of organs of state,
particularly the DME, the NNR and the DW AF we can then arrive at the
conclusion whether there had been poor or good institutional control regarding
hazardous waste, particularly U. The historic management and monitoring of U
has relevancy because of the proposed pebble bed modular technology.
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: WONDERFONTEINSPRUIT
A historical precedent of U contamination and the handling of hazardous waste
have been established in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment.
In terms of official scientific Reports, inter alia the WRC Report
1095/1/02, the WRC Report 1214/1/06, entitled An Assessment of Sources,
Pathways, Mechanisms and Risks of Current and Potential Future Pollution of
Water and Sediments in Gold-Mining Areas 'of the Wonderfonteinspruit
Catchment and the Wetlands Report, 2005 of the Council
of GeoScience it was found that the uranium concentration at
many of the sites sampled, inside and outside mine property, significantly
exceeds the legislated exclusion limit for regulatory control. 16mg/kg uranium
is equivalent to an activity concentration of 0,2Bq/g,
the limit for regulatory control set by the NNR is 0,5Bq/g. The National
Nuclear Regulator was called upon to take a regulatory decision in this regard.
The NNR responded by disclaiming the radiological (carcinogenic) health risk
quotient of the U by stating that tl1e assessment was based upon the US
Environmental Protection Agency methodology and not upon international
methodology. The NNR undertook to conduct its own investigation and to make the
findings available to the public. At the time of this submission, the NNR has
not made the findings available. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the findings of the WRC. Report 1214 therefore hold.
The WRC Report No 1214 found that:
·
the tailings dams contain 100 000 tons of U;
·
the gold mining industry discharges 50 tons of U into the
water courses annually;
·
24 tons of U is discharged into the receiving water courses
from seepage or percolation from tailings dams. We are credibly informed by the
learned authors that the levels of U concentrations in the seepage water are 1
000 to 1 million times higher than the background U concentrations;
·
12 tons of U is discharged from point discharges
·
10 tons of U is discharged from storm water discharges
sinkholes that had historically been filled with uraniferous
tailings will become secondary sources of U contamination after mine closure,
when pre-mining flow patterns and volumes restore itself.
- Sediments in the
- One specific dam, the Andreis Coetzee's farm dam has
concentrations of up to 900 mg/kg.
At present the U and other heavy metals, such as cadmium, copper, zinc, arsenic
and cobalt are adsorbed in the sediment. Plausible environmental conditions
such
- Acid mine drainage
- Acid rain
~ Drying out of the sediment and influx of water
- Dredging operations
- Tailings spillages
- Turbulence caused by cattle
drinking the water or children playing in the water can cause the mobilization
or transport of uranium in the Wonderfonteinspruit.
We here refer our esteemed listeners to what had happened in 2002 in the KrugersorpRandfontein area where water has started to
decant from a number of shafts into the rates of HIV / Aids and chronic and
acute malnutrition is particularly vulnerable to additional stress of the
immune system by contaminants such as uranium.
Risks
associated with the ingestion of riverbank material by young children and
pregnant mothers - 'pica' - are widespread in rural African communities and are
not quantified. It is worth noticing that uraniferous
salt crusts were found to contain extremely high concentrations of uranium 9up
to 1 100mg/kg.)
At the time of this submission, there had been no efforts on the part of organs
of state to create awareness of the risks or hazards amongst affected
communities.
At the time of this submission there has been no epidemiological studies done in order to determine
pathways of contamination or health impacts. Abundant anecdotal evidence, however, exists of mental
retardation, pancreatic cancers,
etc .
Strong institutional control is required to prevent the remobilization of U
into the water column. Regrettably institutional control has been poor.
PROMULGATED ACTS OF PARLIAMENT
The duty of care provisions contained in both then National Water Act, No 36 of
1998 and the National Environmental Management Act, No 107 of 1998, and the
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No 28 of 2002 create a general
duty not to pollute and remediate where pollution has
been caused. In addition, these provisions create retrospective liability.
Under both the
MPRDA And NEMA (and by implication the NWA). Liability
is specifically extended to the director of the business concern in his or her
personal capacity, i.e
personal liability
·
MPRDA section 38(2): Notwithstanding the Companies Act, 1973
(Act No. 61 of 1973), or the Close Corporations Act, 1984 (Act No 69 of 1984),
the directors of a company or members of a close corporation are jointly and
severally liable; for any unacceptable negative impact on the environment,
including damage, degradation or pollution; advertently or inadvertently caused
by company or close corporation which they represent or represented, inside and
outside the mine property.
·
Under section 19(4) of the NW A costs to prevent further
pollution or degradation or to make the area safe can be recovered from any
other person who benefited from the remediation measures to the extent of such
benefits.
Apportionment
of liability is provided for in NEMA and the NW A, but not under the MPRDA
since the holder of the right or permit is deemed to be the responsible person.
If more than one person is liable under the NW A, "the responsible
authority (D WAF or CMA) agency must apportion the liability, but such
apportionment does not relieve any of them of their joint and several liability
for the full amount of the
costs" (section 19[8]). Liability may also be apportioned by DEAT in terms
of NEMA section 28(11): If more than one person is liable, "...the
liability must be apportioned among the persons concerned according to the
degree to which each was responsible for the harm to the environment resulting
from their respective failures to take the measures required.
Regrettably, in a written response to question raised in Parliament in March
2007, the honourable Minister of Water Affairs and
Forestry, stated that "No steps are being taken to lay criminal charges
against past polluters.
By the failure of the relevant organs of state to have taken timeous actions against polluters and to enforce the
Polluter must Pay principle, ordinary taxpayers, who have no connection
whatsoever to the harm and degradation caused by historic and current gold
mining activities, and derived no benefit from it, are now compelled to carry
the costs that is the health costs, the ecological degradation, the loss of
agricultural potential, the pollution of ground and surface water.
CONCLUSION
The only way we can judge future environmental performance is by historic
precedents. Poor institutional control and failure to adequately monitor and
manage the U contamination of the Wonderfonteinspruit,
and to enforce the Polluter must Pay principle have resulted in long term
ecological degradation and pollution and an inequitable and unfair
externalization the costs upon the general public. It is trusted that this
historic precedent will stand as testimony in the assessment of the foreseeable
environmental impacts of the pebble bed modular technology