 |
|
|
|
|
Date: 25 December 03. Earthlife Africa Cape Town Submission on Radio-Active Waste Management Policy and Strategy Attention: Dr Schalk de Waal, The Director-General, Department of Minerals and Energy Private Bag X59 Pretoria 0001 Introduction: Earthlife Africa Cape Town believes that the development of a sound radioactive waste policy for South Africa is the decision which has the most far reaching implications that the country has ever made. Radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations such as Koeberg remains highly toxic for very many years. According to international standards, radioactive materials and their daughter products remain toxic for millions of years. For example, the hazardous life of uranium 235, with a half life of 710 000 years, is 7 million years. This time period is longer than humankind has existed. According to scientists, early man evolved 200 000 to 400000 years ago. The decisions that are taken with regard to the best storage option for radioactive waste will impact for generations to come. Given that this has implications for all South Africans and is an issue of intergenerational equity, it is therefore important that we expend some effort analyzing each option. It is also important that all citizens have a meaningful opportunity to engage with the issue and sufficient capacity to provide input. A. Process related issues: 1. We submit the following in spite of serious misgivings about the process to date to formulate this policy. In particular, we site a. the short time period available for comment (from September to December 2003); b. the fact that promises to hold capacity building workshops for communities (made during the hearings at Koeberg) were not kept c. that while we welcome the belated translations of the proposed policy into Afrikaans and Xhosa, other relevant languages like Sepedi were left out, and d. that no time was given for communities to use these translations, thereby raising suspicions that the translations were an empty formality. 2. Participation: We welcome the opportunity ?– for the first time ever ?– for the public to participate in formulating and deciding about Radio-Active Waste Policy. This is a historic change from the secretive approach of apartheid times. Some affected communities live close to nuclear power stations, experimental facilities, which contain high level waste, such as Koeberg and Pelindaba, while others, that is Vaalputs, have been made the neighbours of low and intermediate level waste disposal facilities. These communities have historically been subjected to risks from radio-activity without any say in the matter, or proper information. 3. The first test for the sincerity of the participation approach in the Radio-Active Waste Policy, is in the process to debate this policy. There are, unfortunately, many worrying signs that the policy process is not following its own prescriptions. We note that the policy draft is dated ?“July 2003?” , but that it was released to the public only in September with a final deadline of 31 October 2003, subsequently extended after an intervention on our part, to 31 December. Apparently the policy was three years in the making , implying that some stakeholders had extensive access to the policy. Civil society access was four months in total. This deadline means that the comment period for the policy is going to be closed without adequate opportunity for capacity building. And then, the process after the deadline by which the policy is to be accepted has not been announced. For example, there is no assurance that the relevant parliamentary portfolio committees will have the opportunity to study the policy, and to listen to public presentations on the policy. This arouses suspicion that the policy is being passed in a hurry in order to enable the PBMR to be built, following on this being imposed as a conditionality in the EIA. If the participation process for deciding on this policy is not sincere, are the other principles sincere? The process for developing the proposed policy should be an example of the application of the enlightened principles contained within it. The sites where the policy meetings have been held are not neutral. With the exception of the DME offices in Pretoria, they all belong to NECSA and cannot be said to be neutral and aimed at encouraging participation. 4. Capacity building: The principles of the policy prescribe capacity building to enable fully informed participation , and it is noted that before a waste facility is decided on, a broad process of public participation will be followed . We believe that ?“free and fully informed prior consent?” should be the touchstone for decision making on radio-active waste. It is therefore disturbing that promises for such capacity building made in the policy process itself were so easily broken. 5. We welcome the strong pronouncement that the days of a ?“design-announce-defend?” approach to nuclear decision making are over . However, we fear that the process of formulating and debating this policy does not live up to that promise. It also does not live up to the promise made in the 1998 White Paper on Energy, that a radio-active waste policy process subject to structured participation and consultation of all stakeholders would take place. 6. Nuclear power makes a modest contribution to the SA economy, if not a negative one: We agree with the deputy-minister that the nuclear industry makes a modest contribution to the South African macro-economy ?– if it is not indeed a burden on the macro-economy. South Africa?’s nuclear industry grew as a smokescreen for the production of apartheid weapons of mass destruction. It has drawn huge subsidies from the government, and has not operated at the expected efficiency. At most, it contributes 6% to electricity generation. Therefore, the nuclear industry should not be allowed to create any further financial burdens on the public purse, or create health risks or risks to other important industries such as tourism. A commission of enquiry into the past beneficiaries and victims of the nuclear industry including waste related issues in South Africa should be instituted as soon as possible. 7. Failure to adhere to National Environmental Management Act (NEMA): NEMA refers to the need for meaningful participation, the importance of addressing issues such as environmental justice, and the need for the best practicable Environmental option, amongst others. It would therefore appear that the drafters of the policy have, at best, been negligent and ignored existing applicable environmental legislation. It is important that the policy is reviewed to show meaningful adherence to existing law. B. Substance related issues: 8. Sound principles but management plan needs to be aligned to them: The first part of the policy ?– part A ?– contain excellent principles including the polluter pays, the precautionary principle and the principle of waste minimization or avoidance, which we welcome and support. But it is necessary to align the management plan in part B with these principles. Of particular concern are the management approach of BATNEEC , which is in shrill contradiction to the precautionary principle, and the composition of the proposed NECRWM , which excludes public participation in the permitting and monitoring of site specific waste practices. (See points 15 and 16 below for specific comment). 9. The precautionary principle. This sound principle holds that no development should be undertaken if there is any doubt about the safety of the development for people, or negative impacts on the environment. There is no solution for final disposal of radio-active waste, and it seems unlikely, following international experience, that such places will ever be found to hold radio-active waste permanently and safely for 240 000 years or more. 10. Do not impose a burden on future generations. This principle is at the heart of the debate on whether we need nuclear power at all. Nuclear waste remains dangerous for 240 000 years or longer. We cannot in good conscience impose this burden on our children and their children, for generations to come. 11. Minimisation or avoidance of waste. We do not need nuclear power. It provides very little power, at an expensive price, and at great danger to workers and to the public. Alternatives for providing safe, clean and renewable energy are available, and the vast amounts of money invested in the nuclear industry should be redirected to them. This principle should be applied to the full nuclear life cycle, since the waste from nuclear industry cannot be avoided and is particularly long lived. 12. The polluter pays principle. This is a sound principle in general, but in South Africa it means that the public pays since it is nominally the polluter because Eskom is a parastatal. We welcome the proposal to establish trust funds for decommissioning but are concerned that the time periods bear no relation to the toxic life of radioactive materials. (The policy refers to periods of 10, 50 and 100 years!) whereas international standards refer to 10 000 years (IAEA peer review team report of Yucca site, Dec 2000). We are disappointed that the proposals are left vague and argue that they be further developed as part of the proposed policy, before the policy is finalized. The full costs of the nuclear cycle including regulation and monitoring of operations, decommissioning and waste storage as well as the costs to local authorities of emergency plans, should all be clearly highlighted. Clear detailed proposals should indicate responsibility and liability in the worse case scenario, and for the long term. 13. Loophole for import and export of radio-active waste: The principle of NO IMPORT OR EXPORT OF RADIO-ACTIVE WASTE is qualified by the phrase ?“in principle?” , which means that such import and export will be possible. This contravenes the Basle and Pelindaba treaties, and allows for weapons and other waste to be imported for processing at the proposed Pelindaba smelter. We oppose this and demand that the qualification ?“in principle?” be scrapped from the policy draft immediately. If, as officials have claimed , the ?“in principle?” is there to provide for medical radio-active waste, this should be spelled out in the policy so that it can be judged on its merits before it is accepted. . 14. People?’ health is most important consideration. We welcome the emphasis that the proposed policy places on the protection of people?’s health as a priority. It points to an important gap in radio-active policy and regulation, since no studies on the health impact of radio-active operations have ever been done in South Africa. We demand that comprehensive, independent health studies under a steering committee on which civil society and other stakeholders outside the nuclear industry are represented, should be carried out before as a matter of urgency. Such studies should be used to inform the radio-active waste policy. 15. The BATNEEC (best available technology not entailing excessive cost) is not appropriate for dangerous and long-lived radio-active waste. This approach which could include exposing the public to radio-active materials through the recycling of radio-active scrap metals is not acceptable. It means that the public?’s health may be compromised because adequate technologies for radio-active waste disposal are not available or are too expensive. It equally means that cutting corners now will impose an unacceptable burden on future generations. This violates the precautionary principle. Instead, we propose that it be replaced with the principle of the Best Practicable Environmental Option, as enshrined in section 2(4)(b) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. 16. The proposed NECRWM will consist of a small circle of government officials who will issue permits based on radio-active waste management plans developed by the waste generators themselves, and monitoring the implementation of these plans. This will happen without involvement of the public. This violates the principle of public participation at the most crucial moment of waste management! The proposed NECRWM also seems to duplicate or possibly replace the existing National Nuclear Regulator, without expressly saying so. The NNR should be able to play its role of protecting the public from radiation with independence from the nuclear industry. 17. Public participation is also not taken seriously since according to the waste management plan ?– the public is only ?“informed?” until a solution has been formulated, and then only asked an opinion. This reflects a classical ?“design-announce-defend?” approach, instead of the proper approach which would invite public participation into a process of comprehensive options assessment. 18. A unilateral decision is implicit in the proposed expansion of Vaalputs . The Vaalputs community did not even have the opportunity of looking at this policy in their own language (see point 3). This trend is also apparent in the Pelindaba Smelter EIA, which decided that concentrated radio-active waste (after separation) will go to Vaalputs. There has been no consultation with the people of Vaalputs about changes in the status of waste at Vaalputs. This is unacceptable and in clear contradiction of the principles of the proposed policy. 19. The proposed waste classification is misleading. In particular, very dangerous wastes are included in a category called ?“Low and intermediate level waste?”, which is often abbreviated to ?“low level waste?” in common talk, creating the impression that that category of waste is not as dangerous as it is. 20. Mining waste should be treated properly and the health threat of dust from existing mine heaps investigated. Dilution of radio-active mining waste is no solution since it does not protect the communities from inhaling such particles. The 2000 paper, ?“The Status of Radio-active Waste Management in South Africa?”, which contains an audit of radio-active waste in the country, should be incorporated into the current policy paper as necessary information. 21. The only acceptable long term option for radio-active waste is above ground storage which allows for monitoring and adjustment of containers etc. over the very long period that radio-active waste remains dangerous. Reprocessing is dangerous to both workers and surrounding communities, creates extra waste and raises the risk of proliferation of materials for weapons of mass destruction. Deep geological disposal is unthinkable in the light of geological inconsistencies , accelerating climate change, institutional changes and the subsequent risk for future generations. Conclusion: Earthlife Africa believes that the route the DME has chosen to follow in determining a radioactive policy for South Africa is unreasonable and unlawful. We have highlighted some aspects of NEMA which we believe are contravened. This ominous disregard for the interests of the people bodes ill for any other nuclear related matter. It appears that in their haste to install another nuclear reactor on our doorstep DME is quite happy to disregard the constitution as well as other public participation related pieces of legislation. No matter if our safety is threatened. We appeal to all decision-makers to take action to ensure the human rights culture enshrined in our constitution and law is not made a mockery of. Yours in the struggle for environmental justice, Sibusiso Mimi and Liz McDaid Earthlife Africa Cape Town. Read more about the Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth Campaign ?? |
|
|
||||||||||||||||