Email to ARCUS GIBB
3 November 2008
Thank you for the letter submitted by Arcus Gibb to DEAT; it is now entirely clear why DEAT gave such an unacceptably short extension to I&AP’s, the Arcus Gibb letter recommended that DEAT only give 14 days extension.  Please urgently request that Arcus Gibb give reasons as to why they did not act independently as is their fiduciary duty, and resubmit the request to DEAT for the number of days requested by the I&AP’s concerned (90-180 days).

Kindly take note that we did not have 64 days to comment as has been erroneously advised to DEAT in the Arcus Gibb letter of 16th Oct 2008.  You will be aware that we have had the documents in our possession from only the 2nd October 2008 (date of receipt of documentation sent to us in post) to 24th October 2008.  We were only notified on the 27th Oct that in spite of our notification that we required 3 to 6 month extension to respond properly, we received only a minor extension until the 7th November 2008.  We therefore had only 22 days plus an extension of 12 days including the date of notification making a total of 33 days.

Many I&AP’s, including ourselves, have only weekends and evenings to prepare a response; to access these voluminous documents at a public library would be almost impossible out of normal business hours, in support of this we assert that very few, if any I&AP’s, access the EIA material at public libraries, and contend that it is not possible to do so adequately within such a short time frame – indeed even if one had the documents for the alleged 64 days, this would be an enormous undertaking for all I&AP’s, given the size and complexity of the documentation.

Further, we did not ask that Arcus Gibb request the permission of the proponent before sending the request for an extension of the comment period to DEAT on our behalf, nor were we notified of the unilateral decision by Arcus Gibb that they would not to make the request that they had undertaken so to do so at the focus group meeting.  Arcus Gibb, despite their undertaking to us, did not make the recommendation to DEAT that we be granted this extension; they chose instead to make a case on behalf of the applicant as to why our request should be changed to an unacceptably short period.

Kindly remind Arcus Gibb that they are ethically and legally bound to act as an entirely independent consultant.  We still await confirmation by their directors, as requested in our letter of 16th July 2008, that inter alia, Eskom will not be allowed by Arcus Gibb, as Independent Consultants, to foist its nuclear aspirations upon the general public, nor, to bring pressure to bear in any manner upon that organisation, to slant this EIA process towards a pre determined nuclear outcome. Further, that directors of Arcus Gibb and their employees will undertake to act within the framework of statutory, fiduciary and legal corporate governance principles while conducting this EIA and that public meetings will engage the public in a manner that provides a full & clear picture of all the negative aspects of the proposed nuclear expansion programme and the potential health and safety risks of all affected parties, the environment and any other problems identified during this EIA process.  This request holds good for the proposed PBMR EIA as well as the proposed nuclear 1 EIA as independence of the consultant is fundamental to both.

The actions of Arcus Gibb now speak for themselves; they act exclusively in the interests of their “clients” the proponents in this matter, clearly not as independent consultants. This EIA process as a consequence is fundamentally flawed.  We view this behaviour by Arcus Gibb as unethical, illegal and unacceptable, especially in the light of their depriving ordinary citizens of their rights to participate in this process.

We request that DEAT is approached again with regard to the extensions and that the public meetings and impartial information requested for the public be arranged prior to the closure of the draft EIR process.

Please request that a copy of the letter in which DEAT refused ARCUS GIBB permission to conduct a full economic study and requested that only a macro economic study be conducted is sent to us as a matter of urgency as it impacts on our incomplete submission that will be sent to you by the 7th November 2008.

We remind you that if there are no independent studies to be paid by the applicant we need six months to raise the funds to pay an independent consultant for at least the more important studies.

All further participation will be done on the basis that although we consider this EIA process to be fundamentally flawed, our withdrawal may impact on our rights in law.  We therefore will to continue to participate without prejudice to our rights, however in so doing, this may not be construed as any condonation of the manner in which this EIA is being conducted.

Insofar as Acer Africa is involved in this EIA process they are also answerable to the public for any or all of the complaints raised above and in previous correspondence in this regard.

All Rights and Interests of all I&AP’s who may have been marginalized through this process are reserved.

Sincerely

Christine Garbett & Robert Garbett personally and on behalf of the following I&AP’s and their members

Pelindaba Working Group (members of CANE – National Coalition Against Nuclear ENERGY)

Wat Props Pty Ltd

Karee Trust

Professional Aviation Services Pty Ltd.

And on behalf of all I&AP’s whose rights may have been unwittingly marginalised by this flawed process