en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:44:49 +0200 enviroadmin@environment.co.za 60 http://www.environment.co.za/ Environment South Africa - NEWS - FORUMS - ARTICLES - LEGISLATION http://www.environment.co.za/ http://www.environment.co.za/images/rssfeed_ORANGE.gif 66 11 Noddi@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?whichpage=-1&TOPIC_ID=2471&REPLY_ID=482 Environmental Crime and Justice in South Africa Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:18:46 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2471 Quote:
I was in the Banganek area from the 17th to the 19 Febr 2010, and I can say that Isimangaliso has caused more damage to the environment!! They removed 3 huge trees with a bulldozer, just to destroy a small braai area behind the tree, build with about 10 bricks. What is more upsetting to me, is the fact that they did not only destroy the so called house of one developer, but also the small (you can’t even call it a building) where the owner of the land stayed in. He is a local, part of the community that Isimangaliso is supposed to uplift and look out for. The land owners of al 3 those camps where left without a place to stay. They where also told to leave their own land, FOR GOOD and should never return. Does Isimangaliso have the right to decide this? Those sites where given to them by the iNkosi. Those people have no where else to go.
I know that allowing these people to develop without any control or guidance and advice from Isimangaliso or Ezemvelo, would have horrific results, but I am sure the people who have been making a living there for many years, also have rights. It almost seems as if Isimangaliso has a hidden agenda, plans of their own to develop this area without benefit to these people.
I think the camp with its light shining on the beach, is the Beach front camp, which is the 4th camp to be demolished. I wouldn’t see much wrong with CLOSING the camp, because of the lights and the fact that they have dug out a huge part of a dune, to build a restaurant!!! They have also cleared several large areas for camping. But any one who has ever been to this camp, can just imagine the damage those bulldozers would do. Imagine them braking down the partly build restaurant, all the rubble that will have to be dug into a hole, and set alight!! There MUST be a better, balanced, environmentally friendly way of doing this. They don’t have to demolish the place. Maybe by having a meeting and EXPLAINING, teaching and helping the locals to understand why they are prohibited to keep on building. The locals have asked Isimangaliso on several occasions for a meeting, but alas.
The community camp is further away from the beach and has been in use for more than 25 years. I believe the community has permission from Ezemvelo and have even received subsidy from the City council in Manguzi to maintain the camp. But because of the threats made by Isimangaliso to demolish those other 4 camps, there was not even one visitor to that camp December 2009. The local community depended on visitors to that camp for an income. Lots of people are without jobs now. This mean they have to practice agriculture to survive. Does this not mean they are over-exploiting the land?
I spoke to lots of the locals, they are scared of Isimangaliso. And they have reason to be......
Isimangaliso game with ---- 1 Bulldozer, 3 front end loaders (TLB’s), 10 vehicles from Ezemvelo and 11 police vehicles. Most of the officers were armed. Why????? The lives of the people in those camp, where threatened. I cannot seem to get my head around this.
Isimangaliso also wants the local people to pay for and replace all vegetation that was destroyed by Isimangaliso!!







]]> enviroadmin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2516 Global Warming, Climate Change, Renewable Energy Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:48:10 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2516 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari

Why did America's leading environmental groups jet to Copenhagen and lobby for policies that will lead to the faster death of the rainforests--and runaway global warming? Why are their lobbyists on Capitol Hill dismissing the only real solutions to climate change as "unworkable" and "unrealistic," as though they were just another sooty tentacle of Big Coal?

At first glance, these questions will seem bizarre. Groups like Conservation International are among the most trusted "brands" in America, pledged to protect and defend nature. Yet as we confront the biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green organizations meant to be leading the fight are busy shoveling up hard cash from the world's worst polluters--and burying science-based environmentalism in return. Sometimes the corruption is subtle; sometimes it is blatant. In the middle of a swirl of bogus climate scandals trumped up by deniers, here is the real Climategate, waiting to be exposed.

I have spent the past few years reporting on how global warming is remaking the map of the world. I have stood in half-dead villages on the coast of Bangladesh while families point to a distant place in the rising ocean and say, "Do you see that chimney sticking up? That's where my house was... I had to [abandon it] six months ago." I have stood on the edges of the Arctic and watched glaciers that have existed for millenniums crash into the sea. I have stood on the borders of dried-out Darfur and heard refugees explain, "The water dried up, and so we started to kill each other for what was left."

While I witnessed these early stages of ecocide, I imagined that American green groups were on these people's side in the corridors of Capitol Hill, trying to stop the Weather of Mass Destruction. But it is now clear that many were on a different path--one that began in the 1980s, with a financial donation.

Read the full story at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari

]]> enviroadmin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2515 The NUCLEAR Energy Debate Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:37:18 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2515 GENERAL PRESS RELEASE

Immediate release
9 March 2010

“NUCLEAR 1”
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
FATALLY FLAWED AND DESIGNED TO CONFUSE


The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a nuclear power station at the Bantamsklip site has been released for public comment, with a closing date set for 10 May 2010. Bantamsklip is situated near the Pearly Beach resort, 50 km east of Hermanus.

The Save Bantamsklip Campaign and its affiliates and associated organisations are happy to have been placed third on the list of priority sites, but the battle to have the Bantamsklip site removed entirely from the list is far from over. We assert that the Government has already confirmed their whole-hearted support for a "nuclear fleet" with all the ancillary nuclear fuel-chain components. Unless this commitment is opposed, we expect to see construction begin at Bantamsklip in ten year's time, at the latest.

Like the Trojan House outside the gates of Troy, we believe that the wording of the Executive Summary of the draft EIR for "Nuclear-1" has been designed deliberately to counter the highly visible and successful advance of the Save Bantamsklip Campaign. The idea behind the proponent’s propaganda is to sow discord and confusion in the ranks of the campaign by appearing to shift focus away to Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape as the first site.

Furthermore, the draft EIR suffers from a number of fatal flaws, such as the failure to specify the type of reactor envisaged for the site. How can we determine scientifically and accurately the environmental impact of a nuclear fission reactor when we don’t know what it is? It is rather like ordering a fleet of motor vehicles at an exorbitant cost, knowing absolutely nothing about the brand, its performance, nor its safety features!

We therefore call on all our supporters to redouble their efforts to defend and consolidate our position to have Bantamsklip and Groot Hagelkraal entirely removed from the list of potential sites.

We support and endorse the positive campaign of strengthening and deepening the drive for a World Heritage Site status and for the site to be taken away from Eskom and incorporated into the Agulhas National Park.

We ask all our supporters to study carefully the EIR and to register their objections to the report, available at www.savebantamsklip.org and to join us in a march in opposition to this proposal on Monday 26 April 2010. Further details will be released closer to the time.

John Williams
Chairman
Save Bantamsklip Association
082 923 1839
john @ savebantamsklip.org
www.savebantamsklip.org

]]> enviroadmin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2514 The NUCLEAR Energy Debate Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:21:24 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2514
February 26, 2009

In the midst of trying to account for 80 missing or stolen computers, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is now under fire for a new problem. Critical deficiencies in its system for keeping track of its huge stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium—enough for hundreds of nuclear weapons. According to a February 23 internal Department of Energy letter, the amount of nuclear material that LANL could not account for in January "exceeded alarm limits." While Los Alamos says there is no suspicion of theft or diversion, if it does not know where the material is, it cannot say for certain that the material has not been stolen.

DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) sent a Special Review Team earlier this month to assess Los Alamos' Material Control and Accountability (MC&A) program. The Team found inaccuracies in accounting, a lack of adherence to requirements, and that "key personnel in critical positions lacked a basic understanding of fundamental MC&A concepts." In fact, in light of the Team's findings, both government and contractor officials have recently been removed from their positions. According to the letter, if identified weaknesses remain unresolved it "would impact the ability of the facility to continue operations."

POGO met with NNSA staff yesterday, who would not talk about the issue, claiming it was classified. Yet today, Los Alamos sent out a press release on the subject. The release misleadingly states that the problem was first reported to NNSA in January, yet MC&A concerns was an issue for a greater part of last year. According to the internal DOE letter, there were MC&A "issues identified during assessments over the last year," including an on-site review in June 2008. Also, POGO had raised concerns about these MC&A problems in a September 2008 press alert.

Despite being aware of MC&A problems during the 2007-2008 performance period, DOE still granted LANL the full $1.43 million performance award fee for security, which includes “Material Control and Accountability,” as one of the areas of performance evaluated.

"This letter shows that DOE is not afraid to use vigorous inspections for identifying potential security problems. Unfortunately, DOE did not use its power of the purse to get its contractor to quickly resolve the problem," says Peter Stockton, POGO Senior Investigator. "A sharply worded letter is a good step, but without financial penalties, improvement is much less likely."

DOE and LANL have tried to downplay the risk of stolen bomb-making material by pointing to LANL's "strong and effective physical security." However, based on the results of security tests throughout the weapons complex, including last year's debacle at Livermore Lab, POGO is concerned that the weak MC&A program at Los Alamos could be exploited by an insider and pose a serious security threat.

DOE appears focused on preventing this latest bad news from becoming publicized and sent out messages to staff warning them not to release critical information to the public. If the information was sensitive enough to pose a security concern, there is a process in place at DOE to classify the information. However, the letter is stamped "Official Use Only," which is not a classification marking but is generally used to prevent internal documents from seeing the light of day. POGO finds this objectionable, as taxpayers have a right to know what they are getting for their $2.7 billion tax dollars spent at LANL.
Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

# # #

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/aler...0090226.html
]]> Gavin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2513 Poisoning, Carcinogens, Heavy Metals and Mining Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:01:43 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2513 Wine farmers in shock over plan to reopen mines
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?f...leId=5364301
Business Report on February 23, 2010.
By MURRAY WILLIAMS Staff Writer

A government which could destroy part of the Cape Winelands by re-opening defunct mines has been met with widespread dismay.

A state-owned mining company, the African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation (AEMFC), has applied for rights to prospect for tin, zinc, lead, lithium, copper, manganese and silver on several landmark farms in the municipalities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch.

The company wishes to re-open mines closed decades ago - and landowners and residents in the area are concerned that this could ruin the region.

The plan is explained in a "background information document" which the state mining agency commissioned consultants GCS to produce.

GCS has also been commissioned to produce an environmental management plan, and interested parties have until March 9 to comment.

Among the farms are some of South Africa's best-known wine estates, some of which produce five-star wines which are exported internationally.

The historic De Grendel estate, on the slopes of the Tygerberg hills, owned by the Graaff family is one.

Also threatened are Zevenwacht and Saxenberg outside Kuils River and numerous other estates in the Bottelary and Stellenbosch wine-farming districts.

Yesterday news of the plan was met with disbelief.

Gary Jordan, of Jordan wine estate, said the mining plans were bizarre, as the government itself had actively encouraged and helped wine farmers, over many years, to restore and protect the natural environment on their farms.

An urgent meeting is planned for Saturday morning at Zevenwacht estate to which the public has been invited, where farmers, land-owners and residents of Kuils River will meet to discuss the threat.

Already, the Graaff family has sent a legal letter to the consultants expressing vociferous objection to the plan.

"When you look at everything that's been spent setting up the Biodiversity in Wine Institute, when you look at everything that's gone into setting up conservancies to protect nature and the natural heritage of this area, this makes a mockery of everything we've tried to achieve," Jordan said.

He said it was particularly worrying that the state company appeared to be exempt from following normal legal procedures. "It's not morally right and it's not good for the industry, or for South Africa."

The AEMFC is owned by the Central Energy Fund and is mandated to "acquire and hold exploration and mineral rights" for the government.

---

Details:
African Exploration Mining & Finance Corporation
PROSPECTING RIGHT APPLICATION
DMR Reference Number: WC 30/5/1/1/2/422 PR

Comments by: "on or before Tuesday 9 March 2010"

Comments to:
GCS
63 Wessel Road Woodmead South Africa
PO Box 2597 Rivonia 2128 South Africa
Telephone: +27(0)11 803-5726
Facsimile: +27(0)11 803-5745

Reneé Francis-Steele Reneef@gcs-sa.biz
Estie Retief estie@gcs-sa.biz

Website: http://www.gcs-sa.biz/

]]> platanna@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2511 Jobs in the South African Environmental Sector Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:39:38 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2511
A position for an environmental legal consultant is available at a legal services firm in Pretoria.

Required Qualifications

• LLB degree
• At least 2 years environmental law experience.
• Candidate should have a good knowledge and understanding of environmental legislation, with specific reference to the following:
1. National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998;
2. National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008;
3. National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004;
4. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004;
5. Environmental Conservation Act – 73 of 1989;
6. Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act – 45 of 1965;
7. National Water Act – No 36 of 1998;
8. Mineral and Petroleum resources Development Act 28 of 2002; and
9. Legislation pertaining to dangerous goods and hazardous substances

The candidate must have an extremely good background and understanding of administrative law, the interpretation of statutes and co-operative governance.

The candidate will be expected to obtain a thorough understanding of the mining and heavy industry sectors in order to provide quality advice and opinions. Active involvement with various environmental managers, executive personnel and various government sectors will be required.

Please send Curriculum Vitae to Rosa Erasmus at rosa.erasmus@consult-cls.com
]]> diane.southey@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?whichpage=-1&TOPIC_ID=2482&REPLY_ID=479 Jobs in the South African Environmental Sector Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:49:58 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2482 Quote:
Applications are now closed]]> enviroadmin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2510 The NUCLEAR Energy Debate Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:12:32 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2510
The Development and Demise of South Africa's Nuclear Industry

By

Mr Mojalefa Murphy

Profile
Mojalefa Murphy is a scientist currently engaged in a research and development attachment at Areva’s CANBERRA Company in Toronto, Canada. He has postgraduate education from Canada (in physics and in nuclear engineering and science) and UK (in medical radiation physics) and has occupied senior management and scientist positions at the former Atomic Energy Corporation and iThemba LABS. He has briefly worked as an independent consultant providing science and technology management services before he relocated to Canada, where he also taught at University of Toronto.

Abstract
From the Nubian through the Roman to the British and lately the US empires, the development and maintenance of a sound technology edge to enable the sustainable provision of energy, national security (military defence) and food security for growing populations have been key governmental activities of the ruling elite. The rise of the Afrikaner ruling elite coincided with a rapid acquisition of energy, military and agricultural technological edge. Within a period of 17 years of assuming power in 1948, the then Nationalist Party government had commissioned the production of liquid fuels from coal in 1955, and developed a nuclear science and technology platform to support the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle for dual purposes of energy and advanced weaponry provision. In this consideration, a timeline account of the development and decommissioning of South Africa’s nuclear technology capability is discussed. The key driving forces of these developments are also explained as are the dire consequences of any failure to curb the post#8208;1990 lack of a sound nuclear vision.


Date: 16 February 2010
09:30 for 10:00 – 12:00
Africa Institute of South Africa
One Embassy House
Cnr Bailey Lane & Edmond Street, Tshwane

For more info:

Tel.: 012 304 9753
Cell: 073 334 3104
Fax: 086 510 0408
email: slekala@ai.org.za]]> enviroadmin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2509 The NUCLEAR Energy Debate Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:10:20 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2509 www.buanews.gov.za

Pretoria, South Africa - South Africa could have its first nuclear power plant by the year 2020 if Cabinet approves a proposal expected to be put forward by the Ministry of Energy.

Energy Minister Dipuo Peters announced on Friday that her ministry was to submit a proposal on the construction of a nuclear power plant to Cabinet next year. The department is currently engaging role-players such as the Science and Technology Ministry on the plan.

"In February next year or early next year we will be submitting to Cabinet our plan," said Peters.

The minister said that a nuclear power plant would enhance the country's energy mix as traditionally South Africa has relied on coal generated electricity.

The introduction of nuclear technology will see the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs.

"If, for instance, we build the next generation nuclear fleet of 20 000mw, we estimate that we will create around 70 000 direct jobs in the South African economy. This figure will be much higher if we include approximately 300 000 indirect jobs that will be created throughout the entire nuclear value chain," said Peters.

The challenge is to make sure the country is able to develop the necessary technology. However, the minister said that the industry and role players would be given ample time to develop such technology before construction starts on the nuclear power station.

For South Africa to be able to produce nuclear power specialised skills will be needed and the minister said that the skills to perform the job will be first sourced in the country before looking abroad.

Source: www.buanews.gov.za]]> enviroadmin@environment.co.za http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2508 The NUCLEAR Energy Debate Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:09:08 +0200 http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2508 http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/

South Africa would implement interventions with regard to the export of uranium to ensure that the country retained an adequate supply for its own electricity-generation needs, the Department of Minerals and Energy's (DME's) director of nuclear non-proliferation Elsie Monale asserted on Wednesday.

Speaking at the Institute for International Research's Nuclear & Uranium Summit in Johannesburg, Monale stated that South Africa and Southern Africa had an abundance of uranium and that the country should benefit from its minerals.

She noted that South Africa was currently supplying uranium only to the export market.

Monale would not be drawn on how the DME or government planned to intervene in the export of uranium.

However, a former deputy DG Gordon Sibiya said that the government would not nationalise uranium mines and that the intention of such intervention was purely to ensure that South Africa had sufficient stocks of uranium to satisfy its own generation needs.

Sibiya agreed that South Africa "was well-endowed with uranium", noting that the country held 7% of the world's economically recoverable reserves and that it was the eleventh biggest producer of uranium.

Meanwhile, Monale said that South Africa's nuclear energy policy and strategy included other interventions, such as investment in nuclear capacity and research and development.

Also on the cards could be the rekindling of local uranium beneficiation, specifically participation in the production of nuclear fuel.

Monale said that the DME wanted South Africa to become self-reliant in terms of nuclear energy generation.

Sibiya noted that it was important for South Africa to mine and process its own uranium, saying that the nuclear policy allowed for the nuclear sector to participate in the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

However, he stated that it was unlikely that South Africa would in the reprocess nuclear waste in the near term, give the cost associated with such processes.

INVESTMENT PROMISE
Meanwhile, business development director at French nuclear power solutions provider Areva, Dr Yves Guinon, said that the group wanted to be more than just a vendor in South Africa and that it was investing in the local industry, in local skills development, black economic-empowerment and in mining.

The group had already, in 2007, bought a stake in UraMin, which had uranium projects in the Karoo in South Africa, in Namibia and the Central African Republic.

Guinon stated that the mining of uranium was important to the group.

Further, he noted that the world would require about 30 000 terawatt hours of nuclear electricity generation by 2030.

Meanwhile Westinghouse Electricity Company South Africa regional vice-president Dr Rita Bowser asserted that her company wanted to achieve "global growth through nuclear industry localisation".

Bowser stated that the company's business model incorporated the transfer of technology local suppliers, and had proved successful in a number of countries worldwide. Many of those local partners were now also supplying equipment into the nuclear-industry's global supply chain.

She explained that these suppliers would not necessarily be owned by Westinghouse, but would supply equipment or power components under a licence agreement.

Such a model was beneficial to the group as local suppliers usually had a better grasp of the differences in national electricity generation systems. But technology transfers also allowed for countries to become self-reliant in terms of the supply of equipment and construction of power plants.

Bowser added that Westinghouse's AP1000 pressurised water reactor programme presented immediate and long-term localisation opportunities for South African suppliers and suppliers in a number of other countries currently pursuing nuclear programmes.

Both Areva and Westinghouse had submitted bids to participate in Eskom's nuclear plans.

The utility was on record as saying that it would make a decision regarding Nuclear 1 by year-end.

Source: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/

]]>