Government pulls plug on PBMR

0 comments

Posted on 20th July 2010 by Pelindaba Working Group in Alternative Energy |Blogroll |DME - Minerals and Energy |Eskom |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Pollution |Radiation

Jul 18, 2010 | By PREGA GOVENDER

The government has pulled the plug on its ambitious nuclear energy programme after pumping more than R9-billion into it over more than 11 years. There have been suggestions that this figure is far higher than declared and allegations that PBMR funding resulted in various slush funds. There are also suggestions that the PBMR project may continue to be funded in the US and may yet try to rear its ugly head in South Africa. What we want to know is what will happen with the PBMR “test” fuel factory established at Pelindaba and why were no environmental reports made public from the several years of pebbles experimentation that transpired in the hills of Hartbeespoortdam? And what ever became of the nuclear pebbles produced at Pelindaba that were shipped overseas for testing? – Comment from CANE

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company (PBMR), which was established in 1999 to build small nuclear power reactors, faces imminent closure.

In a letter dated July 5, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan told the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM): “The minister of finance has clearly stated that there will be no further funding for the company, and I would like to reiterate that this position has not changed.

“It is clear that the remainder of the cash on hand is to be utilised solely for the winding down of the company as well as the preservation of the intellectual property.”

One objective was to design, license and build a prototype nuclear reactor plant, which, if successful, would have paved the way for building small power plants to help meet SA’s needs.

The company operates as an independent entity governed by an agreement between founding investors Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and US nuclear giant Westinghouse.

It has spent R5-billion on projects since 1994, including R2.7-billion on a demonstration power plant, which was to have been built at the Western Cape’s Koeberg nuclear power station, but was later scrapped. In the process, the company wasted R268-million on the manufacture of a major component of the demonstration power plant, a 2000-ton reactor pressure vessel.

The vessel, which is due to leave the Spanish port of Santander next Sunday, will be stored at Saldanha Bay for R10000 a month as the company can no longer afford the R1.4-million it will cost to transport it to Pretoria.

Business Times was told that the company decided to have the component shipped to SA as it would have been liable for R34-million in VAT had it remained in Spain. Nuclear experts were unanimous this week that the vessel would have to be scrapped as the PBMR company changed the original design of the demonstration power plant last year to 200MW from 400MW. The vessel can function in a 400MW power plant only.

Although the part is unfinished, as the contract for its construction was cancelled last year, PBMR was forced to pay the Spanish builder R268-million for the incomplete product. The original contract price was R317-million.

Payments to companies that made parts for the demonstration power plant include:

  • R503.2-million to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for a helium turbine for the power plant;
  • R256.8-million to German company SGL Carbon for manufacturing carbon reflector blocks; and
  • R256-million for graphite for the demonstration power plant.

The company also spent millions of rands manufacturing coated uranium oxide particles encapsulated in graphite fuel spheres, which were sent to Russia for testing.

However, staff say the financial cut-off did not stop the company recently giving golden handshakes of R1.8-million each to some of its general managers.

Last year, the company’s 11 executives were paid a combined R18-million in salaries and other benefits. Other big payments since 1994 include:

  • R2-billion to mostly overseas consultants;
  • R115.9-million for building rental;
  • R707.9-million for the construction of a pilot fuel plant; and
  • R172-million for overheads.

Hogan recently turned down a rescue plan proposed by the NUM that included a request for a R262-million government bail-out until March next year. In a detailed submission to Hogan, the union called on the auditor-general’s office to conduct a forensic investigation into the company’s financial affairs.

The union also called on the government to suspend the company’s board and executive officers. It said some engineers and scientists were “inappropriately qualified” for nuclear reactor engineering applications.

“The actions of certain individuals can be treated as sabotage for changing the design almost every second year. It seemed as if they did not want to see the reactor built.”

Union general secretary Frans Baleni deplored the company’s “wasteful expenditure. The closure is marked by serious allegations of corruption and unethical conduct. We would be pleased if it can be investigated thoroughly,” he said.

A nuclear expert employed at PBMR blamed the board and executives for the company’s failure. “The technology in terms of electricity production was good, but the only problem was that it was not well managed. Nothing was ever achieved by the company. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

Eskom said in a short statement that it was a minority investor, and referred queries to PBMR.

PBMR’s acting chief executive Alex Tsela declined to comment, referring all questions to the company’s corporate communications department, which could not be reached for comment.

The chairman, Alistair Ruiters, could not be reached for comment either.

  • - govenderp@sundaytimes.co.za

Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article555632.ece/Government-pulls-plug-on-PBMR

Related posts:

  1. PBMR Fuel Factory at Pelindaba ROD to be amended yet again – register now
  2. ESKOM’s NUCLEAR DECISION IS NO CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM
  3. No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR
  4. Is SAs scandalous PBMR nuclear experiment the real reason for Dalai Lama blunder
  5. 300+ NGOS SAY NO TO MICKEY MOUSE CLIMATE “SOLUTIONS”

4 South Africans busted in alleged ‘dirty bomb’ sting shootout at Pretoria petrol station – radioactive material recovered

1 comment

Posted on 12th July 2010 by Pelindaba Working Group in Blogroll |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Radiation |Uranium

, , , , , , ,

10 July 2010

Closed-circuit video capture the shootout and arrest in South Africa where police obtained nuclear material that could have been used for a dirty bomb.

An international police sting at a Pretoria petrol station has netted four men involved in the sale of a highly radioactive metal suspected to be destined for use in a dirty bomb.

The high-risk operation by the Hawks’ specialised tactical unit was carried out yesterday.

Police recovered some Caesium-137 contained in a protective cover, but admitted they had yet to find a larger device, which was set to be sold on the black market for R45 million.

CCTV footage shows how undercover members of the Hawks’ organised crime unit stormed through a Sasol garage, opening fire on the suspects with semi-automatic weapons, sending terrified customers, motorists and petrol attendants fleeing.

Within moments of arresting the Mamelodi and Vanderbijlpark men, who are aged between 35 and 50, environmental officers and a field team of South African nuclear specialists sealed off the area as they gathered air samples and conducted tests on the radioactive material.

The lunchtime chaos brought an end to a lengthy police investigation involving Interpol agents around the world.

Police said they began their investigation after infiltrating a criminal organisation, which has allegedly been trying to source the highly radioactive Caesium-137.

Sources said the amount recovered, although small, could have been used in building a dirty bomb. According to the Wikipedia website, a dirty bomb combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. It is used to contaminate the area around the explosion and create terror.

A policeman said the source of the Caesium-137 was unknown and investigators were going all out to locate the larger device. “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly,” he said.

Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA spokeswoman, Chantal Janneker, confirmed the material was Caesium-137, and said there had been no contamination in the area.

Hawks spokesman, Colonel Musa Zondi, said the four were arrested as they tried to sell the stolen material which was a sample of a device which was to be sold for R45 million.

Zondi said the suspects would appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on charges of theft, possession of a radioactive device and violating the Health Department’s prohibition of handling this material in public.

* This article was originally published on page 1 of The Independent on Saturday http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20100710085544493C308461

The Pretoria News reported Saturday that police had recovered a limited amount of cesium 137, which has been identified as possible dirty bomb material (see GSN, July 6). The newspaper indicated, though, that the device that once housed the material had not been found.

“At this stage we don’t know where it comes from or where the remainder of the device is, which is of grave concern to us, especially as cesium 137 can be used in dirty bombs,” a police officer said. “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly.”

GSN reported that Friday’s operation was the result of an extended investigation that included Interpol officers from various countries and targeted a criminal group that had spent months trying to sell the radioactive material, police said. It ended at a gas station, with the suspects unsuccessfully trying to flee under semiautomatic fire from the Hawks.

The Right Perspective said in its report officers are still looking for a much larger device the suspects are believed to have.

The Digital Journal reported that Caesium-137 is radioactive isotope (radioisotope) of Caesium and is toxic in even small amounts. It is soluble in water and can be difficult to detect. It is used in small amounts for radiation testing and for some medical applications.
The isotope would make an effective component of a so-called “dirty bomb,” a device which is made up of a normal explosive like TNT and a radioactive isotope. When the bomb explodes, the area it affects becomes contaminated and people coming into contact with surfaces or water containing the radioisotope could become seriously ill or even die.
Caesium-137 was released into the atmosphere during the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown and was one of the three most toxic radioisotopes in the disaster. Dirty bombs are used primarily to created terror in populations, as the explosion itself is no worse than that produced by regular explosives, but the fear of radiation sickness could cause panic.

A policeman who was not named said:  “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly” according to the Digital Journal.

The suspects will appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court to face charges of theft, possession of a radioactive device and violation of health regulations pertaining to nuclear material.

The Global Security Network reports that police said the incident was not World Cup related despite earlier reports that Iraq claimed its security forces had detained an al-Qaeda militant suspected of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb” at a soccer stadium.

While it was not immediately clear where the device involved in Friday’s sting had come from, a significant amount of nuclear medicine manufacturing for treatment of certain cancers is manufactured at NECSA’s Pelindaba site near the Hartbeespoortdam outside Pretoria.

In 2007 a daring breach in security occurred at Pelindaba as two separate gangs of armed men broke into NECSA’s operations room during which an official was shot. NECSA passed this incident off as “crime-related” at the time and no further information was ever made available. There has been little fuss in South Africa over the security breach at Pelindaba but international media and  nuclear watchdog organisations remain severely disturbed believing that a significant amount of Highly Enriched Uranium at Pelindaba was a likely target for the break-ins.

Sources:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100712_8973.php

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/07/11/south-africans-arrested-selling-dirty-nuke/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/294511

Related posts:

  1. Securing the Bomb 2008
  2. Pretoria varsity to “minimise” PBMR radioactive waste
  3. THE RADIOACTIVE MERRY-GO-ROUND
  4. WHAT ABOUT INVESTING IN SOUTH AFRICANS?
  5. Former Pelindaba nuclear plant worker sues over cancer

What can I do about preventing a nuclear future?

0 comments

Posted on 13th June 2010 by Pelindaba Working Group in Alternative Energy |DME - Minerals and Energy |Eskom |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |Press Releases |Radiation

STOP THE MEDIA FROM LYING !

More and more mainstream media are ignoring the health and economic risk – let alone the legacy – involved with nuclear power and appear to be backing an  already well-oiled propaganda machine of the nuclear industry, hell-bent on foisting dangerous technology on this country. Their published views DO NOT reflect the vast and irrefutable evidence against this heinous form of electricity generation. Here are two letters recently written to the Business Day newspaper to set the record straight which we trust the paper bothered to publish.

10 June 2010

The Editor

Business Day

Dear Sir

Two undated articles from your newspaper were recently forwarded to me. One was an otherwise reasonable article by Siseko Njobeni on the state of play in the IRP2 process, but which had a disturbing caption attached to its photograph: “There is little debate about the benefits of nuclear power … as the least carbon-generating  technology.” Apart from the constant privileging of nuclear power over other and cheaper viable technologies for electricity production that this prominent photograph suggests (and belied in the accompanying article), the very idea of “no debate” is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s TINA: “There is No Alternative” – a Goebbelsian mantra, if ever there was one.

If your reporters had attended the recent Environmental Impact Assessments public meetings for the ill-starred “Nuclear-1”, they would have experienced an extremely robust and entirely hostile debate at all three sites. Indeed – with the rebirth of Earthlife Africa and the Koeberg Alert Alliance in Cape Town; the fierce resistance of the Save Bantamsklip campaign in the Overstrand; and the Thyspunt Alliance in the Kouga Municipality – one can honestly say that the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) has come of age. It also currently enjoys the active support from the National Union of Mineworkers, the faith-based SAFCEI, and a clear mandate from the Civil Society Energy Caucus to represent its anti-nuclear interests to the IPR2 process.

More objectionable, however, both in its cynical, “embedded” tone and its uncritical content, is Sarah Wild’s “Science & Technology” column on the subject. Quoting (without making it clear) standard nuclear industry propaganda, Wild writes that “fewer than 50 people” died and guesstimates the overall cancers at 4 000 from the disaster at Chernobyl. According to the Russian newspaper Pravda of 16 December 2002, however –

A total area of 50 000 square kilometres covering 12 regions was contaminated in that awful tragedy. Over three million people, including about one million children are suffering [in 2002] from diseases of the respiratory airways, thyroid gland, etc., which rates are higher in the regions contaminated after the tragedy as compared with the whole of Ukraine. About 600 000 people participated in the clean-up … of Chernobyl: 200 000 of them were exposed to an enhanced radiation dose. These people will now need special medical aid and supervision for the rest of their lives.

Within the first ten years after the Chernobyl tragedy, about 168 000 people (out of the total number of 3.2 million … victims) died. It was later discovered that 4 300 died [immediately] as a result of the tragic consequences, about 3 000 of [these] fatalities were those who participated the clean-up. Those victims of the tragedy who remained alive registered a worsening of their health condition.

While the red herrings may be trotted out about for cars and jets and coal stations and farting cattle, the scientific facts are that the two principle by-products of nuclear fission – Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 – both have a half-life close to thirty years and therefore tend to accumulate in the environment over many decades. Even the otherwise extremely reluctant Air Specialist Study in the EIA for Nuclear-1 admits as much:

The methodology described in IAEA Safety Report No. 19 (IAEA 2001) was adopted in the estimation of inhalation and immersion dose….. The inventory of long-lived radionuclides builds up in the environment, with the result that exposures may increase as the discharge continues. [emphasis mine]

When I studied Eskom’s own Environmental Science Laboratory reports to the National Nuclear Regulator on emissions and effluents from Koeberg Nuclear Power Station,
the following amount of Strontium-90 was recorded in liquid effluents in Becquerels per year:
1994 =   53 600 000
1995 =      9 560 000
1997 =   15 100 000
2001 =      3 140 000
It follows, therefore, that there is a genuine risk from routine operations of nuclear power stations, and this was borne out in a number of peer-reviewed studies. Writing for Global Research, Ian Fairlie (2008) drew attention to the following:

Last year [2007], researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston carried out a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukaemia in children under 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14 to 21 per cent, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5 to 24 per cent, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities (European Journal of Cancer Care, vol 16, p 355).
…
This was upstaged by the yet more surprising KiKK studies (a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results were published this year [i.e. in 2008] in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275). These found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with nuclear installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60 per cent increase in solid cancers and a 117 per cent increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. The most striking finding was that those who developed cancer lived closer to nuclear power plants than randomly selected controls. Children living within 5 kilometres of the plants were more than twice as likely to contract cancer as those living further away, a finding that has been accepted by the German government.

I am normally convinced that Business Day conducts proper research in order to better inform its readers of investment potential in one business sector or another. I therefore think it would be equally helpful for the newspaper to engage in a more critical investigation into the dubious merits of electricity production from nuclear power stations before questioning the “viability” of its critics. We may not be financially viable (or even properly functional) as a lobbying group, but at least we do our homework.

Mike Kantey
National Chairman
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE)
www.cane.org.za
072 628 5131

Endnotes

Ian Fairlie (2008) “Reasonable Doubt: Children living near nuclear facilities face an increased risk of cancer” April 24, 2008 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8785)

A follow-up for your self-confessed “science” writer may be made through examining Chris Busby’s 2009 study: “Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Volume 6. www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph]
Chris Busby et al (2006): A survey of cancer in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in north wales Report 2006/3, Green audit Aberystwyth, June

Communities adjacent to nuclear facilities in the U.S. and U.K. have increased rates of leukemia and other childhood cancers (Cragle et al. 1988; Morris and Knorr 1996; Beral et al. 1993; Pobel and Viel 1997; Cardis et al. 2007).

Arjun Makhijani (2008): The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection Standards and Guidance with Recommendations for Change, December (Revision 1, April 2009). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Maryland

Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al. Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726
Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363
Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190
———————————————-

Sent:     Tuesday, June 08, 2010
To:     busday@bdfm.co.za
Subject: What’s on my plate in a nuclear future?

Dear Editor

What’s on my plate in a nuclear future?

Koeberg emits, by their own admission, ‘permitted levels of radioactive waste’ from their site. This means that radioactive isotopes (such as Cesium-137, Strontium-90 and Iodine-131) become part of the environment in which they are emitted. When we eat the crops, or, the animals that graze on effected vegetation, we take in substances that, are not only carcinogenic to our bodies,  but, will also change the characteristics of our DNA, and, by implication the DNA of future generations. Wind dispersion allows for emissions to be spread over vast areas.

With the government’s planned ‘fleet’ of nuclear power plants to be rolled out in SA, how much of our farming land will be effected?  Which European country will import radioactive fruit, or, wine? Avian flu (a mere virus) decimated sectors of economies in the world. We could face a blanket  ban on all our export produce. So, not only will our health be adversely effected by a nuclear future, but our economy too. If I was a farmer I would definitely be toy toying.

The latter will be nothing compared to a nuclear waste accident…  even if it is  minor.  Consider that every month we transport radio active waste from Koeberg to Vaal Puts in the Karoo for ‘safe storage’. Our road accident rate is high. It is only a matter of time before a transit vehicle, carrying the waste, is involved in an accident. High level waste remains at Koeberg – over 1 million killograms of it.  Why? There is no actual plan for disposal (ps this goes for nuclear waste worldwide). And, as far as procuring material to create nuclear energy is concerned, personally, I will not be applying for a mining position on any uranium mine in the near future… call me crazy if you like. Let us not be duped into thinking that there is anything clean about nuclear energy.

Most countries in the world are actively sourcing renewable energy solutions. Countries with no wind or sun to speak of (incl Germany and Denmark) generate substantial  amounts of electricity via renewable sources. Yet, SA is committing to generating nuclear energy in spite of clean alternatives that will cost less financially.

South Africans have been given one chance in Jhb, to participate in the IRP2 process. This ends 10  June 2010 (one day before kickoff date???). This is unacceptable, particularly since Capetonians sit with the ‘permitted emissions’ in our own backyard. I recently wrote a letter to local (CT) organic producers of diary products… “I know that your products are RBST free, but, are they free of radioactive isotopes”, to which the response has been… ‘this is a valid point, we are looking into it’. What if our food producers cannot supply us with raioactive isotope free produce? National health is already strained and just how many lawsuites can our government afford to take on?

Quite frankly, I find embracing a nuclear future to be just a tad unpalatable.

Your sincerely,

Jemimah Birch

Hout Bay
083 716 1010

Related posts:

  1. SAs future energy policy needs greater public scrutiny, input
  2. Urgent call to Parliament to debate nuclear policy before Nuke Bill is gazetted
  3. ESKOM’s NUCLEAR DECISION IS NO CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM
  4. Nuclear Power Has No Place in the Kyoto Protocol – NIRS petition
  5. State Sees Bright Future in Nuclear Energy

Should South Africans waste time with a consultation process on a pre-determined electricity plan (IRP2) that government calls “sausage machine”? You decide…

0 comments

Posted on 29th May 2010 by Pelindaba Working Group in Nuclear Energy

, , , , , , ,

Should South Africans waste time with a consultation process on a pre-determined electricity plan (IRP2) that government calls “sausage machine”? You decide…

JOIN THE URGENT CALL FOR  BROAD CIVIL SOCIETY TO UNITE NOW

to stop bad energy planning

The comment period for the “consultation process” government’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) to determine our electricity plans – including nuclear power – for the next twenty years has been extended to 11 June.

However, described as “ill-considered, rushed and presumptuous” even before it began,  broad based South African civil society is questioning whether it even makes sense to participate in government’s energy planning.

Those concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity are very disturbed by comments made by the Director-General of the DoE at a nuclear forum that were reported in Engineering News (21 May). She told the nuclear forum that the IRP2 process was a “sausage machine”. (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nuclear-will-make-up-a-significant-part-of-sa-power-mix—doe-2010-05-21)  This implies bad faith. Also, it is clear from her words that the nuclear project has already been decided.

Government appears to be fast-tracking the process to enable it to order nuclear units later this year – as already planned without bothering to take into account its much vaunted “consultation” process with the South African public which has not yet begun!

Moreover, it has failed to first undertake Energy Planning (IEP) upon which IRP2 electricity planning decisions are meant to be taken and thus IRP2 incorrectly suggests that IRP2 follow the IEP.

The broad South African Energy Caucus –the largest forums of civil society in South Africa – is vehemently opposed to nuclear power. It recently appointed a 3-person representative team which includes CANE’s Rod Gurzynski after resolving to participate as a stakeholder in the IRP2 despite the obvious flaws in the process, but this week asked for government clarity. The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) also lobbied the Department of Energy over concerns. Please see their well reasoned letter at the end of this article.  Here is the Energy Caucus letter which awaits response.

27 May 2010

To: Minister Dipuo Peters

Department of Energy
CC       Nelisiswe Magubane
Director-General
Dept of Energy

CC Ompi Aphane

Dear Minister Dipuo Peters

We write to you as representatives of the South African Civil Society Energy Caucus. The Energy Caucus is a coalition of civil society bodies, community-based organizations, labour unions and social movements that engage on energy issues.

We agreed at the recent Civil Society Energy Caucus session to engage in the IRP2 process as a stakeholder. We were assured by Mr Ompi Aphane on 14th of May at the session that the public participation process was in good faith and that all energy planning decisions remained open for the duration of the process. It is on that basis that we agreed to take part.

The Energy Caucus endorses the issues raised by SAFCEI in a letter send through on the 24th May 2010. (subjoined below-Ed)

It is with great concern therefore that we note your comments to a nuclear forum as reported by Engineering News (21.05.2010) that the IRP2 process can be compared to a “sausage machine”. This makes it appear that the process is not in good faith as far as the DoE is concerned. Please let us know if this is an accurate description of what you said and what you mean by this?

We are also concerned by the report in Engineering News that you encouraged the nuclear industry to “state the case of nuclear”. It would better if you appeared to be neutral at least during the period of the IRP stakeholder process, otherwise it would appear that the process is merely as you say, a “sausage machine”.

If that is really the case, we would have to re-consider our options.

Yours faithfully

Rod Gurzynski
Makoma Lekalakala
Phineas Malapela
for South African Civil Society Energy Caucus

Incidentally, last year’s letter from the Energy Caucus letter to the Speaker of Parliament asking for an urgent Parliamentary debate over South Africa’s future energy planning and mix was this week returned “deleted without being read”!

THE CALL TO SOUTH AFRICANS

Meantime, an urgent call has been sent for feedback by South African Civil Society concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity.

Objective: The call for feedback is a quick process to identify issues (areas of interest) and the related positions (or views) of organisations so as to (a) develop,  or (b) support the development of a joint civil society input into formal processes on these issues.

Method: This is an experimental process which is may be shaped by participants willing to contribute and make inputs. It is hoped the method will support (a) the development of joint positions.

Inputs sought: See below for more details. Inputs are sought on issue areas, comments, critiques.

Issue areas are suggested below. These are general descriptions of issues that may lack nuance but are based on clear values that would allow organisations to indicate support for them (recognising that there may be differences at a greater level of detail, which may warrant that organisation making a more detailed substantive input separately).

Mandates: Refer to representation issues.

It would suffice for an organisation to indicate that the entity supports the position. Should an organisation be a network, or representing a community or have a mandating process that would contribute to the gravitas of the statement, they are encouraged (but not obliged) to indicate this.

NOTE: This process is NOT intended to get 100% agreement, but rather to begin to work on the areas we do indeed have in common… the rest can follow…
Please cut and paste your responses to the numbered items below and email to muna @ iafrica.com


Indicate  “agree” , “disagree” or “not sure”


Organisational contact details:
Mandate:


1. no more nukes
2. no more coal
3. just transition for workers
4. disconnect as many parts of the economy from massive energy use as possible
5. halt fossil subsidies, and move to SA driven and people-centred solutions
6. price energy correctly, no discounts for volume users
7. 200kWhr free basic electricity for all
8. rapid fossil import replacement programme, not including food for fuel and the like
9. rapid implementation programme for distributed generation and distribution of energy / electricity
10. the future energy path must be people-driven and justice driven, not determined mainly by the interests of conspicuous consumption or business interests
11. Clarity is needed on the role of civil society in the decision making process
12. Energy process (IRP2) needs a transparent, empowered and participatory process with broader civil society
13. technical / social / environmental / economic capacity building needed (by the org responding)
14. waste to energy is a polluting, destructive, harmful and jobs-, materials- and energy-losing process
15. unscrubbed landfill gas to energy releases over 1000 toxics into the air – any landfill gas to energy process must fully scrub the gas prior to use.

It is requested that all organisations respond on or before the 31 May 2010.

Thank you – hopefully, this process will contribute to a more positive energy future for South Africa.

————————————————

SOUTHERN AFRICAN FAITH COMMUNITIES’

ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE (SAFCEI)

SAFCEI is a registered Section 21 Company no 2006/014388/08 053-498-NPO PBO 930024255

“Faith communities committed to cherishing living earth.”

www.safcei.org.za

Executive Director: Bishop Geoff Davies                                                       P O Box 106

Office Tel: (+27) 21 7018145 Fax: (+27) 86 6969666                                  Kalk Bay,

Home Tel: (+27)21 788 6591                                                                         7990

Email: geoff.davies @ safcei.org.za South Africa

__________________________________________________________________________________

24th May 2010

Attention:

Mr Ompie Aphane

Department of Energy

Email: ompi.aphane@energy.gov.za

Dear Mr Aphane,

Consultative Process for IRP2

SAFCEI has been aware that an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) that will determine our electricity plans for the next twenty years is currently underway.

From our interactions with government officials, particularly at the energy caucus on the 14th May 2010, it is disappointing to hear that while government professes to value and be committed to public participation in the IRP process, its actions undermine such statements.

SAFCEI is deeply disappointed in the proposed current government consultation plan for IRP2. The schedule pays lip service to public participation, the deadlines put forward for the consideration of government documents do not enable any meaningful participation and we would submit that this process appears to be not only inadequate but unlawful.

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) provides for reasonable time- periods for public input with a minimum of 30 days, depending on the complexity of the information. . The novelty and complexity of electricity planning clearly warrants a longer period for adequate consultation, particularly in view of the fact that most citizens (educated and uneducated, rich and poor alike) have been excluded from these decision-making processes until now.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) suggests that in order for stakeholders to participate meaningfully, they need access to sufficient information to enable them to understand and critique the information put out by Eskom and Government.

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that applies to all environmental decisions by state bodies states that public participation must be promoted so that all interested parties can participate in a meaningful manner.

It is clear that sending out via email a set of documents, in excess of 30 documents, with a response time of initially 7, extended now to the minimum 30  days is not reasonable.

At the Energy Caucus meeting, held in Gauteng on 14th May 2010, you indicated that DoE would welcome suggestions and ideas for a process of consultation.

SAFCEI therefore submits the following as a constructive input towards strengthening the democratic decision-making process around electricity planning for the next twenty years.

Firstly, SAFCEI believes that electricity planning is a subset of energy planning which in turn should be informed by our national response to climate change, the nature of our commitment to renewable energy, and future economic plans. We therefore believe that the review of the Renewable Energy White Paper, the finalization of our response to climate change and our Integrated Energy Plan should be informants into the IRP2 process.  Any IRP2 should therefore remain in draft form until the other planning processes have been completed.

In order to avert “energy crises”, SAFCEI submits that IRP1 can be amended (as has already happened) in order to accommodate any increased commitments to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency that may arise over the next year or two. No reason advanced by DoE for its inability to extend the final deadline for completing IRP2 has been found to be compelling and SAFCEI believes that the IRP2 process is of extreme importance and cannot be rushed through.  SAFCEI would also like to point out that despite commitment from government that the public participation process for IRP2 would start in January 2010, the public process has been delayed 5 months and it seems unreasonable to expect that the public consultation must suffer because of government ineffectiveness.

We would also like to point out that at the energy caucus meeting, a number of issues were raised. As a representative of DoE, you promised to provide responses in writing by Wednesday 19th May 2010.  It is now 25th May and no responses have been forthcoming.  No explanation for the delay has been communicated and we must express extreme disappointment with this failure to adhere to timeframes on government’s part.

It is also of concern to read in the recent media that senior government officials are quoted as categorically committing South Africa to building future nuclear energy power plants.  The implication of such statements is that the IRP2 consultation process is a farce, a public relations exercise and that the decisions have already been made.  Such undermining of PAJA and other related laws makes a mockery of our democracy and we seek assurance that this is not the case.

The public consultation process put forward by DoE has a number of serious limitations. It presumes that all stakeholders have access to the internet, and are fluent in English.  It also assumes that one or two adverts placed in mostly business press or Gauteng newspapers are sufficient to inform the nation and alert any potential interested and affected parties.  SAFCEI does not feel that this is in any way adequate, and that in order to ensure that quality inputs are solicited from the communities of South Africa, an awareness campaign to alert the public about IRP2 should be conducted.

The views of interested and affected parties who may not be able to prepare written submissions will also need to be accommodated. (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000, Regulations on Fair Administrative Procedures, 2002, Chapter 1 section 5. See also section 3 of the Act)

We understand the budgetary constraints faced by Government but government has a duty to consult and in the case of energy and electricity planning, this is something that underpins and impacts on all livelihoods, could affect the quality of life for all citizens and cannot be reduced to a plan for supplying bulk electricity to industry.

We believe that a radio advertisement campaign, much less costly than TV, and conducted over a number of weeks at specific times in the consultative process would be useful, as would posters placed in local government offices, libraries and community spaces.

Given the accuracy of the saying “garbage in equals garbage out”, it seems that careful attention needs to be paid to the first phase of stakeholder consultation, discussion around the assumptions and parameters that inform the modeling.  In a confusing array of emails, distributed by Eskom, on behalf of DoE, the first stage comment period has now been extended to the legal 30 days.  While, we welcome DoE’s commitment to the letter of the law, we do not believe that this is sufficient.

The DoE has also suggested a process of a “stakeholder workshop”, where a limited elite of stakeholders (who can afford to travel to the venue and are able to produce ppt presentations) are given 15 minutes to make a few points.  SAFCEI believes that this is totally inadequate and fails to provide space for dialogue and meaningful engagement.

We propose that the first stage comment period be extended to at least 60 days.   During this time, DoE officials should make themselves available to attend civil society meetings when invited in order to explain the assumptions/parameters and enable those stakeholders interested in participating further to make informed inputs into this stage of the process.

Such meetings would necessarily take place where stakeholder groups are located.  SAFCEI would therefore request that a government person familiar with the modeling attend a SAFCEI meeting in three provincial workshops.  We would be happy for our constituency to combine with other civil society groupings that would also support such an approach.  Furthermore, given the delay in government releasing the assumptions documents for comment, it seems that an unavoidable delay will take place over the World Cup period when most people’s attention will be focused away from electricity planning!

It is also important that government publicises, via its awareness campaign, the various methods of consultation that it will use to reach those without access to internet and those whose preferred language is not English.

Once the first phase of stakeholder inputs has taken place, there needs to be a transparent manner of responding to all the comments received.  We suggest a comments and responses document is published (as takes place in other government processes) so that all stakeholders can see how their inputs have been considered and addressed.  Such a document could be published within 30 days of the closing date for comments. This would be an important opportunity for government to both educate and empower citizens with deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of electricity planning, enabling them to make more substantial contributions to the decision-making process.

Once the modeling has been complete, the scenarios are then released for public comment. It would appear that a second round of consultative workshops would then be in order, further enhancing stakeholders’ ability to understand the rationale for the scenarios etc. These workshops would need to be attended by those people responsible for, and familiar with the detailed modeling, rather than government officials performing some sort of PR role.

Depending on the density and complexity of the scenarios, the comment period would be minimally 60 days but possibly extended to 90 on request.

The final comments and responses document would then be issued so that stakeholders could check how their inputs had been considered and addressed.

The IRP2 could then be finalized.

Another important point is the need for transparency in the decision-making.  Currently, there appears to be an advisory committee assisting government with decision-making around IRP2.  The process for the selection of such an advisory group is extremely opaque and the lack of transparency leads to the fear that vested interests or a small group of like-minded individuals will have a disproportionate influence over our energy future.  This is clearly inequitable.

SAFCEI therefore requests an explanation of how this group arose, its terms of reference, its constituents, and what steps are to be taken to address the transparency and governance issues that arise due to its existence.

Such a reference or advisory group should ensure that civil society is represented but it should also be made totally transparent.  The meetings of such an advisory group should be open to observers, from broader civil society and from the press.  In the age of high technology, such deliberations could be recorded and publicized through the web-site for those with access.  Minutes of the meetings can be distributed to those without web-access.

Should government embark on a consultative process as outlined above, and assuming that government responses can take place within a 30-60 day period (the modeling and responses to inputs), the IRP2 might be finalized by early 2011 .

Given the importance of such a twenty year electricity plan, the current DoE process appears  to undermine the value of public input, rendering it susceptible to legal challenge.  Such an approach seems short-sighted and likely to result in a poor product.  Committing to a meaningful public participation, as required by law, seems to justify a delay and it does not seem to be unreasonable to finalise the IRP2 in February 2011 instead of September 2010.

SAFCEI offers this input as part of a constructive engagement towards sustainable development, environmental justice and peace.

We look forward to your response,

Bishop Geoff Davies Liz McDaid

Executive Director Climate Change Programme Director

Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute

An official website has been set up by the Dept of Energy for the IRP2 process: http://www.doe-irp.co.za/ and useful information can also be obtained from IDASA’s blog at http://irp2.wordpress.com/

Coordinator

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP

& member of the national

COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY

Email: pelindabanonukes @ gmail.com

www.cane.org.za

Related posts:

  1. THIS IS URGENT IF YOU WANT A SAY IN SA’S ENERGY PLAN FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS
  2. WHAT ABOUT INVESTING IN SOUTH AFRICANS?
  3. South Africa’s R400bn nuke plan
  4. CANE RESPONSE TO ESKOM REQUEST FOR ELECTRICITY PRICE INCREASE
  5. Experts will decide on nuclear information

Tanzanian Uranium mining plans under spotlight

0 comments

Posted on 12th November 2009 by Pelindaba Working Group in Agriculture |DME - Minerals and Energy |Mining |Nuclear Waste |Pollution |Radiation |Uranium

 This week controversial plans for mining Uranium in Tanzania are being examined critically by a visiting group of international experts invited by Tanzanian NGO FEMAPO (Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign Against Poverty).

Many licences have already been issued for exploration. The delegation, consisting of academics and experts from Australia, Cameroon, Germany, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Zambia, has surveyed exploration sites and has met with concerned local communities.

Uranium mining poses a direct threat to the livelihoods of local communities as well as to ecotourism. Community members were outspoken in their opposition to the planned mining.

The group of experts is part of an international conference on the impact of Uranium mining which takes place 10th-11th November in Dar es Salaam.

UK-based Professor Chris Busby, a recognised expert in the health effects of Uranium, will present new scientific evidence of its radio-toxicity and the shortcomings of existing international safety standards. He will say: “New scientific discoveries in the last few years have opened a new era in the understanding of radiation risk. These discoveries significantly impact the regulations governing the mining and processing of Uranium which threaten the health of people and animals in Tanzania.”

FEMAPO is increasing its efforts to highlight the Uranium issue with a series of meetings and consultations in cities and towns in Tanzania, and is gaining national and international support for this work.

“Uranium mining is a new development in Tanzania and one with very serious long-term consequences. Citizens of Tanzania need to be fully informed and involved as stakeholders in any decisions about the future of this industry,” said FEMAPO Director Mathias Paul Boniface.

 A media conference will be held at 13:00 Tuesday 10th November at the Rombo Greenview Hotel, Shikilango Road, Dar es Salaam.

For further information contact FEMAPO at +255 787 876 997 Pr. Busby is on +44 7989 828833.

ISSUED BY: Low Level Radiation Campaign     http://www.llrc.org/

Related posts:

  1. Poisonous legacy of Gold and Uranium Mining
  2. Areva plans $750m Namibian uranium mine
  3. FARMERS STILL SUFFER THE POLLUTED LEGACY OF MINING
  4. Mass protest march against Uranium One & The mystery behind “Low Level Radiation”
  5. DME grants uranium prospecting rights
« Older Entries
lazy-submarginal
Afrigator