Tourism on Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa
31 August 2007
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk
has considered the appeals lodged against the department's decision to grant an
environmental authorisation for the proposed installation and operation of a
test smelter and the subsequent installation and operation of two induction
smelters within the existing facilities of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of
South Africa (Necsa) at Pelindaba.
After evaluating all the appeals and relevant information submitted to him,
the Minister has come to a decision, a copy of which is attached hereto.
Appeal decision, Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
1. Introduction
The project in question relates to the installation and operation of a test
smelter and the subsequent installation and operation of two induction smelters
within the existing facilities of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South
Africa (Necsa) at Pelindaba. The applicant in this project is Necsa.
The purpose of the smelters will be to melt down metal products with various
low levels of radioactivity that formed part of equipment which was used to
enrich uranium (including to weapons grade) before South Africa agreed by
international treaty to discontinue doing this practice. It is submitted by the
applicant that by melting down the radioactive components, the technology will
be prevented from falling into the wrong hands.
In terms of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations made under
the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989 (ECA)), and which Act
still governs this project, the construction of a facility for the disposal of
nuclear waste is subject to environmental impact assessment and an
environmental authorisation.
A positive Record of Decision (ROD) was granted for the development of the
smelters on 14 July 2003, but a number of appeals were received by my office
against the proposed development.
My decision regarding the administrative appeals lodged against the
department's decision to grant authorisation in terms of Section 22 of ECA on
the proposed development is indicated in paragraph 3 hereunder.
2. Background
In reaching my decision, I have considered the following information:
* the contents of the project file
* the appeals documentation related to this matter, the consultant's responses
and the appellants' reply thereto
* the external expert's comments on the appellants' reply
* the external expert's report
* the department's response to the grounds of appeal contained in the appeal
submission and the responses thereto
* other relevant information.
The documents before me indicate:
2.1. The appeals
After the ROD in this matter was issued, my office received 16 appeals from
various parties. Most of the appellants are acting on their own behalf as
concerned residents, but there are also a number of other entities including a
Trust, a close corporation and private companies that have appealed the
decision. These entities are all controlled by certain appellants that have
also appealed in their own right. The appellants are:
Mrs C T Garbett; Mr R C H Garbett; WAT Props (Pty) Ltd; Karee Trust;
Crossroads Valley Properties (Pty) Ltd; Itumaleng Farms CC; Skilya Property
Investments (Pty) Ltd; Ms M Ashwin; Ms J Mooney; Mr and Mrs P and J Spencer; Mr
A Brooke; Mr A van der Mescht; Ms J Naschenweng; Mr and Mrs V and J Hattingh;
Ms S Brown; and Mr R J Brown.
Several grounds of appeal emerged from the above appeals that could broadly
be categorised, in my view, as follows:
Alleged shortcomings in the EIA reports
* the expected radiation dose to the public is not calculated correctly and
has been misrepresented
* the dispersion model of the expected radiation is incorrect
* the wrong alternative process (smelting) has been chosen.
Alleged procedural flaws cited by the appellants
* The allegation was that the public participation process was inadequate,
in that it was assumed that the target was 100% literate and English or
Afrikaans speaking, and furthermore that the small advertisements did not
adequately inform the public about the health hazards in non-scientific terms.
Also, the physical area of impact of the emissions was not mentioned. The
public participation meetings excluded disadvantaged and illiterate communities
such as Atteridgeville and Diepsloot.
* No attempt was made to appoint independent experts that had no affiliation
with the applicant to objectively explain the potential dangers.
* Assessment of the best alternatives was not undertaken, such as ceramic
encapsulation.
* Numerous interested and affected parties were not advised at all, or were not
advised at all within the legally prescribed five days of ROD
notification.
* There was no independent input during the site visit by the department. The
departmental project officer was accompanied only by Necsa personnel and no
independent expert was available to guide the Department in its
assessment;
* The use of the Pelindaba Communication Forum was unacceptable to the
appellants for certain reasons, inter-alia, that it was not elected by the
broader community, included a handful of pro-smelter residents and had meetings
that were attended by more Necsa employees than members of the public.
Unsubstantiated opinions
A wide range of opinions were expressed on topic such as:
* radioactivity
* the provisions of the Constitution
* efficiency of filters
* recycling
* property values
* decommissioning
* the commencement of the activity.
Matters falling under the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) that cannot be
addressed by the department several matters regarding the NNR have been raised.
The following are some of the concerns mentioned by appellants:
* the increase in uranium emissions poses an unacceptable health risk
* contamination of groundwater
* the advertisement announcing Necsa's application for a radioactive waste
smelter was badly published
* no public hearings were held on the smelter
* Necsa's safety record
* Necsa has not complied with requirements relating to emergency
procedures.
The external expert and his recommendations based on an initial review of
the appeals, the matter was considered complex and an external expert was
appointed to review the appeals and the EIA process and to advise me
accordingly. The external expert selected was Doctor PJ Aucamp, D Sc, M SA Chem
I, Sci Nat.
The external expert reviewed the contentions of:
* the appellants
* Necsa's consultant in reply to the grounds of appeal contained in the
appeals
* the appellants' countering of the submissions made by the consultant
* found that the appeals lacked substance and recommended that they be
dismissed.
I mention also that a petition was signed by a number of people during March
2007. The petitioners allege that they did not know about the project and
object to the perceived health threats posed by the smelter. To the extent that
I am legally obliged to consider the petition, it is not necessary to consider
it separately as the matters raised therein are similar to issues raised in the
appeals.
2.3. Other relevant information
In reaching my decision on the matter, I have, in addition to the above,
considered a presentation made to me by departmental officials and the external
expert. At this meeting, certain concerns from a Waste Stream Management
viewpoint were made known to me, to which I will return again in paragraph 3,3
below.
Having considered the above information, I have decided as follows:
3.1. The need for the proposed smelter has been clearly demonstrated and
there is no other viable alternative to address the need.
3.2 The smelter represents internationally acceptable technology.
3.3 Although I am satisfied that the impacts of the smelter on the environment
will be insignificant, in complying with the precautionary principle, measures
must be put in place to prevent even the very slight possibility of fugitive
emissions.
3.4 The current ROD does not provide for the matter mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
I have therefore decided to dismiss the appeals, and annex hereto an amended
ROD addressing the concerns raised in paragraph 3.3.
Record of decision
Record of decision for project reference a24/16/3/248 proposed installation
and operation of two induction smelters in area 26 at the nuclear energy
corporation of South Africa, Pelindaba.
By virtue of the power vested in me in terms of section 33(1) Environment
Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989) ("the Act"), I hereby, in terms of section
22(3) of the Act, authorise South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) to
undertake the activity specified/ detailed below subject to the indicated
conditions as stipulated in this record of decision.
1. Description, extent and location of the activity
The project entails the installation and operation of a test smelter and
subsequent construction and operation of two induction smelters within the
Necsa site as part of Necsa's waste management and minimisation program. Part
of the program includes the decontamination of approximately 40 000 separating
elements that were part of the uranium enrichment plant.
The smelters will require the following infrastructure to be functional:
* off-gas stack with monitoring facility
* two cranes with additional two cranes for support
* five sets of Hepa filter
* and a power supply.
2. Key factors informing the decision
2.1 In reaching my decision in respect of this application, I have
inter-alia, taken the following information into consideration:
The information contained in the:
* Contents of the Environmental Impact Report dated the 14 March 2003
* Appeals documentation related to this matter, the consultant's response and
the appellants' reply thereto
* External expert's report
* Department's response to the grounds of appeal contained in the appeal
submission and the responses thereto.
Compliance with applicable departmental legislation, policies and guidelines
including:
* The objectives and requirements of the Act
* The principles set out in section 2 of the National Environmental Management
Act (Act 107 of 1998)
The site specific merits of the application, the acceptability of the
potential environmental impacts related to the proposal and the desirability of
the development in the local and regional context.
2.2. Based on the evaluation of the above information, I made the following
findings:
* The project is intended to decontaminate approximately 140 000 tons of
uranium contaminated waste through a melting process
* The smelter uses internationally acceptable technology
* The emissions of the smelter are well below the national regulatory
limits
* The impacts of the smelter on the environment will be insignificant
* The need for the proposed smelter has clearly been demonstrated and there is
no viable alternative to address the need
* Issues that were raised by the appellants are not substantive enough to
withdraw the authorisation
* Specific environmental specialist studies were commissioned as part of the
environmental impact assessment process and it was found that the impact of
this development was acceptable
* The public participation process undertaken has been extensive and it
complies with the requirements of the EIA regulations
* The mitigation measures proposed in the environmental impact report are
appropriate and practical for implementation
* It is envisaged that should the conditions as stipulated in this record of
decision be complied with, the negative environmental impact of this activity
will be minimised.
Based on the above, I have concluded that this development, as authorised
according to the provisions and conditions stipulated in Section 3 of this
record of decision, will not lead to substantial detrimental impact on the
environment, that potential negative impacts resulting from this development
can be mitigated to acceptable levels and that the principles of section 2 of
National Environmental Management Act (Act no. 107 of 1998) can be upheld.
I have accordingly decided to grant South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
(Necsa) authorisation in terms of Regulations R.1182 and 1183 (as amended)
promulgated under section 21, 22 and 26 of the Environment Conservation Act
(Act 73 of 1989) subject to the conditions and provisions listed below.
3. Conditions
3.1 Description and extent of the activity
The authorisation applies in respect of the installation and operation of a
test smelter and subsequent installation and operation of two induction
smelters within the Necsa site as part of Necsa's waste management and
minimisation program. The proposed site is situated in the Madibeng Municipal
Council on the farm Welgegund 491 JQ, Northwest Province.
The above activity falls within the ambit of sub regulation 1(b) and 9 of
Government Notice R1182 (as amended) promulgated under sections 21, 26 and 28
of the Act.
3.2 Specific conditions
The decommissioning of the smelters and the equipment used to facilitate the
smelting shall be subject to a separate EIA process as provided for in terms of
the GN R.385 and R.386 of 21 April 2006.
The applicant must ensure that the building in which the cutting and
shredding occurs is fitted with a filtering system prior to operation to ensure
reduction of emissions to the atmosphere.
The applicant must ensure that they have an emission detection system before
operation to detect any abnormal emissions.
All monitoring results of the test smelter must be presented to the
Pelindaba Communication Forum and to the relevant authorities before the
commissioning of the main induction smelters. These monitoring results must
also be presented to the interested and affected parties upon request.
Monthly progress and audit reports on compliance with the conditions of this
record of decision must be submitted to Pelindaba Communication Forum. The
report must include, but not be limited to the following:
* what the applicant intends to do with the ingots after smelting
* handling of the radioactive materials (waste) from the smelting process
* detailed analysis of the decontamination chemicals used during smelting
* the impacts of the decontamination chemicals during the cleaning, cutting,
shredding and pouring over must be investigated and the results must be
included in the monthly progress and audit reports.
The applicant must submit six monthly monitoring reports to this department,
during the operation of the smelter, for a period of two years. These reports
must include, but not be limited to the criteria stipulated above. If no
incidents are recorded during that time, no further reporting will be
required.
The results of the test smelter must be presented to the Department prior to
the operation of the other two smelters.
The removal of resultant waste (slag, filters, linings etc.) through
transportation to Vaalputs shall be subjected to a separate EIA process as
provided for in terms of GN R.385 and R.386 of 21 April 2006.
All provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1983 and any
other applicable legislation must be adhered to by the holder of this
authorisation.
Mitigation measures stipulated in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Impact
Report dated 14 March 2003 become part of this authorisation. No-compliance
with any of the mitigation measures constitutes non-compliance with this record
of decision.
3.3. General conditions
3.3.1. Changes to the proposal resulting in significant environmental
impacts are only permissible if approved in writing by the department.
3.3.2. Hazardous and flammable substances must be stored and used in
compliance with the applicable regulations and safety instructions.
3.3.3. One week's notice, in writing, must be given to this Department
before commencement of the installation of the smelters. Such notice shall make
clear reference to the site location details and reference number given
above.
3.3.4. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the
conditions contained in this ROD by any person acting on his behalf, including
but not limited to, an agent, servant, or employee or any person rendering a
service to the applicant in respect of the activity, including but not limited
to, contractors and consultants.
3.3.5. The applicant must notify the Department in writing, within 48 (forty
eight) hours if any condition of this authorisation cannot, or is not, adhered
to. The notification must be supplemented with reasons for non-compliance.
3.3.6. Compliance/non-compliance records must be kept and shall be made
available on request from the authorities within five days of receipt of the
request.
3.3.7. Any changes to, or deviations from, the project description set out
in this letter must be approved, in writing, by the department before such
changes or deviations may be effected. In assessing whether to grant such
approval or not, the department may request such information as it deems
necessary to evaluate the significance and impacts of such changes or
deviations.
3.3.8. This Department may review the conditions contained in this letter
from time to time and may, by notice in writing to the applicant, amend, add or
remove a condition.
3.3.9. In the event of any dispute concerning the significance of a
particular impact, the opinion of the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT) in respect of its significance will prevail.
3.3.10. The applicant must notify the department, in writing, at least 10
days prior to the change of ownership, project developer or the alienation of
any similar rights for the activity described in this letter. The applicant
must furnish a copy of this document to the new owner, developer or person to
whom the rights accrue and inform the new owner, developer or person to whom
the rights accrue that the conditions contained herein are binding on them.
3.3.11. Where any of the applicant's contact details change, including the
name of the responsible person, the physical or postal address and/or
telephonic details, the applicant must notify the Department as soon as the new
details become known to the applicant.
3.3.12. If any condition imposed in terms of this authorisation is not
complied with, the authorisation may be withdrawn after 30 days written notice
to the applicant in terms of section 22(4) of the Environment Conservation Act,
1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).
3.3.13. Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall also be
regarded as an offence and may be dealt with in terms of sections 29, 30 and 31
of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989), as well as any
other appropriate legal mechanisms.
3.4. Duration of authorisation
If the activity authorised by this letter does not commence within five
years from the date of signature of this letter, the authorisation will lapse
and the applicant will need to reapply in terms of the applicable legislation
or any amendments thereto.
4. Consequences of non-compliance
The applicant must comply with the conditions set out in this letter.
Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may result in, inter-alia,
the Department withdrawing the authorisation, issuing directives to address the
non-compliance including an order to cease the activity as well as instituting
criminal and/or civil proceedings to enforce compliance.
Please note that this revised record of decision is issued as part of the
Minister's decision on the appeals lodged in terms of Section 35(3) of the Act
submitted against the authorisation granted by the department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism for this project on 14 July 2003.
5. Applicant
South African Nuclear Energy Corporation P.O Box 582
Pretoria
0001
Contact person:
Mr Elwin Raubengeimer
Tel: 012 305 6425
Fax: 012 305 6418
6. Consultant
Tswelopele Environmental (Pty) Ltd
P O Box 2083
Pinegowrie
2123
Contact person:
Mr Liam Whitlouw
Tel: 011 789 7170
Fax: 011 787 3059
Issued by: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
31 August 2007
