GROUNDWORK's QUARTERLY
NEWSLETTER
Volume 7, No 3
September 2005
IN THIS ISSUE:
From the Smokestack
Lead Story - Does Africa have a promising
future if it dabbles in the business of oil?
Air Quality – Talking and more talking
Corporate Accountability - Sasol and
sustainability
Air Quality Project -
The Vaal Triangle is declared a Priority Area
Waste Project -Killing us softly:
dioxins and human health
News from groundWork USA - An
addiction by any other name
Community News – Not
another cover-up
In Brief
Publications
From the Smokestack
by groundWork Director, Bobby Peek
Aids Safe Waste. Yes, you read it correctly. A South African
based waste company has named itself using three words that
resonate with weighty meaning in the everyday lives of people!
Exactly how this company operates to give substance to these
three words is yet to be understood. But Aids Safe Waste has
somehow succeeded in convincing the authorities that a dying
and polluting technology – namely, incineration - is
SAFE!
While the company uses “safe” in its name, it
is willingly and knowingly engaging in an activity (incineration)
that releases dozens of harmful chemicals into the environment
- chemicals such as dioxins and furans that have been linked
to serious health problems. In the US, health care waste incinerators
have been identified as the major source of dioxins and the
second highest source of mercury pollution.
groundWork and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) have for
three years opposed the commissioning of a new medical waste
incinerator in Benoni for Aids Safe Waste. But now the Gauteng
provincial Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment
and Land Affairs (GDACEL) has given Aids Safe Waste permission
to burn. This comes at a time when other waste companies have
been changing to alternative, non-burn technologies for health
care waste management (see page 12).
There is much that can be written about the merits or demerits
of the case, but one of the key issues to be considered is
the fact that the Department specified that the EIA process
for the incinerator must include dioxin testing as a prerequisite
to a Record of Decision being made by the Department. However,
the Department subsequently ignored its own directive and
has given a record of decision granting permission for the
process to go-ahead without dioxin testing having taken place.
It is alarming that this is occurring when the new EIA legislation
is about to come into force.
In this coming period Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, Martinus van Schalkwyk, will be announcing the promulgation
of the Vaal Triangle as a priority area in terms of the new
air quality legislation. This is indeed positive and it is
a result of the very many years of dedicated advocacy of civil
society organisations and local residents. Let us hope that
the government moves fast so as to ensure that, by next winter,
the residents of the Vaal Triangle do not have to experience
again the annual incidence of high pollution levels in winter.
Sasol and Iscor (Mittal Steel) have been named as the two
major industrial polluters in the Vaal Triangle. It will be
interesting to see how government deals with the hard-nosed
attitude of Iscor. Government has just recently decided to
attach the assets of one Strike Matsepe, a pensioner living
in Steel Valley, as a result of a cost order against him from
Iscor. Matsepe has chosen to challenge Iscor on its pollution
of his neighbourhood (see September 2002 newsletter).
The National Environmental Advisory Forum (NEAF) has so far
held two meetings during which the members have sought to
spell out the NEAF’s role. The Minister has started
out on a poor footing by telling the NEAF that the government
has decided that nuclear energy is part of South Africa’s
energy provision for the future and the matter is now closed
to debate to the NEAF or anyone else! The fact that the Department
of Environment and Tourism has returned USA financial support
to the department because of the US’s stance on the
Kyoto Protocol bodes well for the Ministry. However, the department’s
position on nuclear energy, and the Minister’s refusal
to take advice on the matter, are conundrums that have to
be unpacked in the NEAF.
The focus areas for the NEAF over the next two years are:
Pollution and Waste Management; Marine and Coastal Zone Management;
Biodiversity, including Biosafety; and Climate Change and
Energy. These four areas will be reviewed using the thematic
areas of governance, environmental justice and the principles
of the National Environmental Management Act as guidance.
It is hoped that the Minister takes our advice seriously.
Finally, Shell’s disrespect for community struggles
continues all the way up to the Chairperson, Lord Oxburgh,
who did not provide a written report back to the Shell Board
on his visit to south Durban in March this year. Could we
have expected more? Why do we always fool ourselves that industry
has good intentions! Now after three years of struggle the
Chief Executive Officer of Shell has decided to meet with
us. Will it be any different this time?
back to top
18th World Petroleum Conference
Does Africa have a promising future if it dabbles in the business
of oil?
By Bobby Peek
Working for the “benefit of mankind” is a noble
objective. But how can one trust such an objective on face
value when it is being stated by the big names in the oil
industry?
Perhaps the biggest corporate “greenwash”[1]
event to be held on the African continent since the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), will be taking place
in Sandton, South Africa in September. The event is the 18th
World Petroleum Conference (WPC), which will be bringing together
representatives of oil corporations and governments from 57
member countries. The WPC’s mission statement states
that: “The purpose of WPC is to promote the management
of the world ’s petroleum resources for the benefit
of mankind”.
The WPC’s greenwash is so undisguised that an advert
for this event actually conceded that the petroleum industries
took flak from civil society during the WSSD and they now
want to use this year’s event to respond and restore
their image.
To show the real face of the oil industry in Africa, groundWork
will be hosting an alternative pre-conference to the WPC on
the 24 and 25 September. The aim of the groundWork gathering
is to ensure that the world, particularly Africa, is not deceived
by the corporate spin that will be emerging from the proponents
of oil in Sandton. groundWork will seek to do this by creating
a platform where ordinary people can tell their true stories
about the devastation and suffering brought upon them by downstream
and upstream oil operations.
groundWork will also use this gathering to release The groundWork
Report 2005 entitled “Whose
Energy Future? - Big oil against people in Africa”.
This report, by way of case studies and historical records,
demonstrates the destructive, unrestrained power that is wielded
by oil corporations operating in Africa and looks at how civil
society responds to these environmental injustices. It asks
how this power can be returned to the people who have a right
to choose their own energy future.
The groundWork conference will attract participants from
around Africa, as well as from the Middle East, South America
and the US. It is hoped that one of the outcomes of this gathering
will be the beginnings of an African, people-centred movement
that will start to question whether Africa can have a sustainable
future, meeting local needs, if African leaders dabble in
the oil industry. The research and recommendations contained
in The groundWork Report 2005 will, we hope, be a catalyst
for this movement.
Much has been written on the environmental and social ills
of oil in Africa - a brief literature search will show plenty
of material. What makes The groundWork Report 2005 different
is that it brings together, for the first time, the upstream
and downstream impacts of the oil industry - where the oil
is drilled and where it is refined - and, most importantly,
it looks at how people are resisting the political domination
that accompanies oil and at the alternatives to corporate
rule that are germinating in civil society.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter,
which states that “the people shall govern” -
not “the corporations shall govern”. Yet, as the
18th World Petroleum Conference will likely demonstrate, the
corporates are only interested in partnerships where they
retain the power: power to reap profits, manipulate governments,
undermine democracy, and ride roughshod over ordinary people
trying to quietly make a living for themselves.
It is within this context that this month’s groundWork
gathering and The groundWork Report 2005 seek to understand
how a better world can be achieved -a world that is not held
to ransom by the oil industry as we are now, when the oil
price is approaching the $100 per barrel mark, and community
resistance is met with violence and political repression.
An oil-based future is highly questionable. It is patently
unsustainable because it is polluting, the main contributor
to global warming and oil reserves will eventually run out.
But it is also an energy future principally for the elite.
Ordinary people living next to oil wells and oil refineries
are most certainly not getting the benefits promised to “mankind”.
In fact they are the scapegoats for the elite of mankind,
for they not only have to live with the pollution of oil production
processes but the majority of them also do not have access
to the very energy for which they are made to sacrifice their
health and wealth.
One of the key processes to ensure that justice and true
democracy is achieved is to move the imagination and the practice
of political resistance beyond the oil era, to a place where
local people's movements define and control their own energy
needs and systems. It is hoped that this gathering will stimulate
thought on how we can achieve this.
The inevitable decline and disintegration of the fossil fuel
regime has perhaps already begun. What civil society needs
to do is to ensure that the world understands this, and that
we prepare ourselves for a future without oil, managing our
own energy provision in a sustainable manner at local level.
We can start at the 18th World Petroleum Conference.
NOTES [1] Greenwash refers to the phenomenon
of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting
to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends
of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate
poverty. It is environmental whitewash, or simply hogwash.
Air Quality Campaign
Talking and more talking:
Shell’s best line of defence
By Siziwe Khanyile
It may come as a surprise to some to know that groundWork
is a shareholder of oil giant, Shell. It may be only one miserly
share but this single share entitles us to attend Shell’s
Annual General Meetings, which we have been doing for the
past 3 years.
Our attendance at these AGMs (usually held concurrently in
London and The Hague) is directed at bringing to the attention
of Shell’s most senior leadership, as well as Shell’s
other shareholders, the ongoing human rights and environmental
abuses occurring at Shell’s various local operations
around the world. To this end groundWork is involved in an
international campaign [1] which seeks to
make Shell clean up its operations and minimise its effects
on the environment and human health.
2004 Shell Campaign
At the Shell AGM in London in June 2004, the non-executive
Chairperson of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, responded to the requests
from the various community campaigners present, and made a
commitment to visit the various fence line communities, including
those near the SAPREF refinery in south Durban.
Lord Oxburgh kept his word and arrived in Durban in March
2005. However, he refused to visit the community neighbourhoods
in which Shell operates but instead invited community representatives
to meet him behind closed doors at the refinery (SAPREF).
He took note of the concerns raised by groundwork, SDCEA and
the various community members about the numerous problems
they face as a result of Shell’s operations in south
Durban. These include health impacts on the neighbouring community,
incidents such as petrol leaks into the community, air emissions
and worker injuries on the site. Lord Oxburgh then committed
himself to communicating all the concerns raised to the International
Shell Board.
The community in south Durban perceived this visit to be
a small victory because an international Shell decision maker
had heard first-hand accounts of the damage and negative impacts
that the SAPREF refinery was having on the neighbouring community.
Even more so because he acknowledged, amongst other things,
that the refinery’s infrastructure was ageing and this
needed to be remedied.
Subsequently, groundWork received correspondence from the
Chairperson of Shell South Africa indicating that Lord Oxburgh
did not give a written report back to the International Shell
Board, but rather a “verbal” report back to his
“colleagues”. Considering the importance of the
issue at hand for the south Durban residents, and the fact
that Shell sent no less than its Chairperson to south Durban,
we expected a more formal report back. I ask myself why the
lord would travel all the way from the UK and sit through
a meeting with communities when, in fact, communities would
only ever get a response from local Shell management. It appears,
therefore, that the visit by Lord Oxburgh was just another
one of Shell’s public relations ploys. We were being
“greenwashed” yet again!
2005 Shell AGM
Thus the community campaigners felt that they needed to
step up a gear in their campaigning at the June 2005 Shell
AGMs in London and The Hague. About 16 representatives from
communities neighbouring eight of Shell’s global operations
– namely the Niger Delta (Nigeria), Sao Paolo (Brazil),
Sakhalin (Russian Federation), County Mayo (Ireland), Pandacan
(Philippines), Curacao (Netherlands Antilles), Port Arthur
(Texas, USA), Norco (Louisiana, USA) as well as groundWork
and SDCEA from South Africa - gathered to challenge Shell.
Inside the AGMs
Inside the AGMs, which took place simultaneously in both
London and The Hague, the proceedings were dominated by questions
from fence line activists asking the Shell board members about
the damage and destruction in the communities where Shell
operates. The responses from the Shell Board were not satisfactory
and did not adequately address the concerns raised.
At both AGMs, groundWork presented the Shell Boards with
a Corpse Award for SAPREF’s leaks, spills and accidents
in south Durban (see groundWork’s June 2005 newsletter).
Expressing displeasure with the rhetoric from the Shell Board,
the campaigners at the London AGM removed their outer clothing
revealing T-shirts with slogans saying, “Shell is Hell”,
chanted and sang songs dedicated to the memory of Ken Saro-Wiwa,
a Nigerian activist who was executed 10 years ago for challenging
Shell in Nigeria. The campaigners were summarily removed from
the auditorium by security and the protests continued outside.
Outside the AGMs
In the lead-up to the AGMs and during the AGMs the community
activists, supported by local chapters of Friends of the Earth,
engaged in several campaigns which sought to influence Shell’s
direction. These included:
- Meeting investors interested in making ethical investments
that benefit society in a positive way, and bringing to
their attention Shell’s global record of injustices;
- A briefing with British Members of Parliament in the
House of Commons to call for support for legislation that
will allow British multinational corporations to be held
accountable in the UK for human and environmental wrongdoing
elsewhere in the world;
- Meeting European Parliamentarians and the European Commission
in Brussels around the issue of voluntary environmental
agreements and controls, which are based on allowing big
business to regulate itself rather than being regulated.
The campaigners presented what they perceived would be the
negative outcome of such a position;
- Briefing the Corporate Social Responsibility NGO, which
is made up of Dutch civil society;
- Meeting with political parties from the Dutch Parliament;
- The launch of an alternative shadow report on Shell,
called “Lessons not Learned - The Other Shell Report
2004” [2] which captures the experiences
of communities living next door to Shell’s operations
all over the world and counters the sterling picture presented
by the Shell Report;
- A visit to the heavily industrialised town of Teesside
in England to meet communities and to share the various
struggles and experiences of people living on the industry
fence line; and
- Networking, making presentations and holding briefings
with various media, environmental activists, students and
local community groups.
Outcome of the campaigns
In London, Peter Voser, one of Shell’s Directors,
indicated that Shell would spend US$ 50 million in recoating
pipelines belonging to the SAPREF oil refinery. But, the fact
is that Shell has recoated pipelines in the past and this
has not always solved the problem. One such leak from a previously
recoated pipeline on 21 July 2001 resulted in more than a
million litres of petrol being spilled under people’s
homes. The recovery of this leaked petrol is expected to continue
until 2015. What is really needed is a replacement of the
over 40-year-old pipelines.
In The Hague, Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell
Group, made a commitment to hold discussions with communities
who neighbour Shell about the numerous problems they face
as a direct result of Shell’s operations. These discussions
have been scheduled to take place within the next couple of
months.
The irony is that, for two years in a row, senior Shell agents
have committed themselves to “talking” to communities.
At every level of Shell operations from local to international,
communities are talking and engaging with Shell management.
So once again, Shell’s best line of defence is simply
talking! We can only wait with bated breath!
Notes: [1] The Shell International Corporate
Accountability Campaign is comprised of fence line communities,
non-governmental organisations, researchers, and environmental
human rights attorneys from all over the world who are dedicated
to the protection of the environment and the protection of
communities who live near Shell’s production facilities.
For the past 3 years members of this network have attended
Shell AGMs at their headquarters in the United Kingdom and
The Hague to make their voices heard.
[2] www.groundwork.org.za/Press%20Releases/AEHRshellreportFIN.pdf
Corporate Accountability
Project
Sasol and sustainability – A mismatch?
By Bobby Peek
Within Sasol, there is presently a buzz of activity with its
representatives undertaking various processes that they would
like us to believe are improving Sasol’s environmental
performance. Is this a genuine attempt on the part of Sasol
to make sense of how to improve it’s environmental and
occupational health and safety records or is it just another
form of “greenwash” that Sasol has been particularly
good at dishing up? Consider that, in both 2002 and 2005,
Sasol has received “awards” from civil society
for “greenwash” and bad practice. I guess only
time will tell if Sasol’s current promises indicate
a genuine will to clean up.
The reason why we have decided to give so much space to Sasol
in this newsletter is that Sasol has requested much time from
groundWork and other civil society organisations over the
last few months. On the 2nd August, believe it or not, three
different sections of the Sasol Group wanted to meet with
groundWork and our various partners in the Sasolburg area.
I wonder if they were talking to each other? I guess not!
Sasol’s Sustainability Report, 2004-2005
Sasol is presently preparing its Sasol Sustainable Development
Report for 2004/5. This will be Sasol’s fourth sustainability
report, the first being in 2000. Sasol is now going to be
undertaking these reports annually rather than biennially
as it has been doing to date.
In preparing its current report, Sasol has employed consultants
Common Ground to make sense of civil society’s concerns
with regard to Sasol and sustainability. On 2nd August groundWork,
the Sasolburg Air Quality Monitoring Committee (SAQMC) and
the Boipatong Environmental Working Group (BEWG) met with
the consultants at the Rosebank head quarters of Sasol. It
was an interesting meeting for it was recognised by all, including
the consultants, that Sasol is facing a serious challenge
with regard to recent environmental and worker safety records.
The SAQMC questioned Sasol on the role Sasol is playing in
managing public opinion of its operations through the Sasol-created
Sasolburg Environmental Forum. This forum is also being used
as the vehicle for environmental impact assessments (EIA)
processes, which could lead to the exclusion of other interested
and affected parties in future, if this forum is seen as the
legitimate forum for residents to deal with environmental
issues in Sasolburg.
Other key discussions during the meeting included: Sasol’s
relationship with its labour, considering the fact that there
have been several worker deaths and injuries at Sasol facilities
over the last year; and the possibility of supplying Sasol
gas to homes in the local neighbourhoods (it is being used
successfully in the elite areas in Johannesburg).
The Air Quality Act and Sasol
To Sasol’s credit, Sasol environmental managers have
been asking questions about how they are going to meet the
challenges of the pending implementation of the new National
Environmental Management: Air Quality Act. To this end, Sasol
has employed the services of the ex-manager of Engen, John
Mackey, and Jim Lentz, who was the manager of the Los Angeles
air quality agency.
It was clear from the meeting between groundWork and these
two consultants that Sasol is presently operating from a base
which affords it the luxury of picking off the low hanging
fruit – easy environmental improvements. This affords
Sasol the opportunity to make good, speedily on some of its
promises with regard to pollution reductions often mentioned.
One of the interesting approaches in this process was the
request made to Sasol to assist in tackling the domestic air
pollution problems experienced in the Sasolburg area, i.e.
would Sasol invest in technology/processes that could improve
household energy use patterns? A similar request to Sasol
to supply gas to the local residents as an energy source has
been made before. There was a rider, however, in this debate:
Sasol is proposing that a system of trading pollution credits
would be developed in order that the reduction in domestic
pollution could be used by Sasol to pollute, with an ever
decreasing amount of credits every year being used by virtue
of the credits having a set life span. While groundWork staunchly
opposes the trading of pollution, our government is slow on
taking action with regard to domestic pollution and as a result
we cannot oppose a proposal that will bring relief to people
at a local (and indoor household) level.
The discussion also touched on the very sensitive issue of
how the petro-chemical industry employs labour - something
that John Mackey is fully aware of as a result of his tenure
with Engen, where there was worker unrest due to the contract
labour system, that divorces the worker from the company to
which they are providing their services. It is a known fact
that many of the recent incidents at Sasol plants were linked
to contract labourers working on site. When is Sasol going
to learn that employing people fulltime does not only give
people security of labour, but knowledge of their plants,
and respect for the company? Maybe then these incidents will
decrease?
Finally, these Sasol consultants pointed the finger at Eskom,
South Africa’s power utility, and legitimately so. Unless
government acts firmly on Eskom’s pollution, the reality
is that Sasol and other companies are going to use Eskom as
a convenient scapegoat to avoid meeting their own duties to
reduce pollution.
Sasol and Secunda
Finally, I would like to make short mention of the proposed
new Sasol Solvents Olefins and Surfactants plant in Secunda.
What is alarming about this process is that Sasol wants to
limit the EIA for this new development to the public scoping
phase. There is general consensus that the ambient air quality
in Secunda is already of poor quality. The local ambient monitoring
of chemicals in the Secunda area indicates that benzene, nitrogen
oxide and particulate matter is of concern for they are elevated
above international levels that will cause health impacts.
Of concern is that a comprehensive emissions inventory for
this region does not exist and, furthermore, there is no information
on the population and health demographics of the residents
of Secunda. Sasol cannot claim to be striving towards sustainability
when they continue to push for developments such as these
based on such scant information. The time has come for Sasol
to not only talk well, but also act well.
Air Quality Project
The Vaal – A Priority Area?
By Bobby Peek
What is a “priority area” some of you will be
asking? According to the National Environment Management:
Air Quality Act (Section 18), the Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism and/or an MEC responsible for environment
in a province may declare an area a priority area if they
reasonably believe that:
“ambient air quality standards are being, or may be,
exceeded in the area, or any other situation exists which
is causing, or may cause, a significant negative impact on
air quality in the area; and the area requires specific air
quality management action to rectify the situation.”
In both the above requirements, there is no doubt that the
Vaal Triangle fits “snugly”.
The declaring of the Vaal Triangle as a priority area by
Minister van Schalkwyk in September 2005 does not happen out
of the blue or in a vacuum. It occurs in the context of a
history of civil society’s strong engagement with government
on the matter since the late 90’s. Civil society started
challenging the petrochemical industries’ operations
nationally in the nineties as these industries were emerging
from an apartheid governance system that allowed them to pollute
at will.
In the late 1990s, the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) challenged
the proposed expansion plans of the crude oil refinery Natref,
which is a joint venture between Sasol and Total. At the same
time other communities were challenging refineries elsewhere
in SA. In 2000, groundWork, together with civil society actors
in the Sasolburg area, took air samples that indicated high
levels of dangerous pollutants in the area. Consequently Sasol
took its own air samples, which came up with very similar
results, detecting the same pollutants, but at even higher
concentrations.
All of this was cause for concern. In 2002, the LRC commissioned
research into pollution in the Vaal Triangle. This research
provided the necessary information for civil society, in November
2004, to demand that government take immediate action in the
Vaal Triangle to reduce pollution levels. The demand was made
on behalf of the Sasolburg Air Quality Monitoring Committee,
the Boipatong Environmental Group, the Steel Valley Crisis
Committee, the African Genesis Heritage Society and groundWork,
who have campaigned at all levels - including hearings in
parliament - for both immediate action and new laws to bring
relief to the Vaal Triangle residents.
During this process, national parliamentarians started referring
to the Vaal Triangle as a “pollution hotspot”,
and visited the area on several occasions, including in February
2004 when they decided that the then version of the National
Environment Management: Air Quality Bill, was unsatisfactory
and needed to be redrafted. This was after civil society had
in fact vetoed this version of the Bill for being inadequate.
So, after all of this campaigning and mobilising, we have
the Vaal Triangle declared as the first designated “priority
area” in terms of the new Act. The question that I ask
myself as I write this is: will it work? Will the pollution
levels be lower next year in the Vaal Triangle? Who will verify
these pollution reductions? How will government hold industry
accountable for pollution and reductions when industries such
as Mittal Steel have refused approaches by civil society to
discuss pollution concerns? How is government going to deal
with the real issue of indoor household pollution and lack
of household energy provision? Who is going to manage such
a complex area as the Vaal Triangle so that it does not take
ten years of talking to finally nail the guilty polluters?
These questions are all based upon the difficulties that the
community in south Durban had to endure before Engen could
be held accountable for its air pollution.
The fact that the Vaal Triangle has been gazetted as a priority
area is a victory for community campaigning, but in reality
the work to deliver only starts now.
back to top
Waste
Killing us softly: dioxins and human health
By Llewellyn Leonard
“No incinerator, no matter how sophisticated,
can prevent the release of dioxins into the environment.”
Dr. Paul Connett
Civil society has long been calling on government to phase
out polluting incinerators and to replace them with non-burn
technologies. One of the reasons for civil society’s
outcry over incineration is the fact that incinerators are
responsible for the formation and release of toxic chemicals,
such as dioxins, into the environment and the consequent human
health effects.
While many countries (for example the US, France, Japan,
Greece and the Philippines, to name but a few) have shifted
away from incineration because of the serious health and environmental
risks it poses, South Africa continues to witness proposals
for new incinerators.
groundWork has been involved in fighting various incineration
proposals around the country. Recent proposals include Holcim
Cement’s nation-wide push to burn hazardous waste in
its cement kilns. There is also the on-going struggle to get
government to shut down one of the largest operating incinerators
in KwaZulu-Natal - the Ixopo incinerator. It is flabbergasting
that government has continued to allow the Ixopo incinerator
to operate, since past audit reports have shown that the incinerator
has failed to meet many important safety standards. It is
our understanding that the incinerator is, once again, currently
operating without a permit.
Aids Safe Waste incinerator in Benoni South
groundWork and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) have, since
November 2003, challenged the Gauteng provincial Department
of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs
(GDACEL) and private waste company, Aids Safe Waste to halt
the commissioning of a medical waste incinerator in Benoni
South. Of serious concern is the fact that government has
recently given the go ahead to Aids Safe Waste to operate
the incinerator. This is despite the fact that an independent
scientist, sent by groundWork and the LRC to the medical waste
incinerator site during a trial test, indicated that many
conditions set by groundWork, the LRC and the GDACEL were
not met. Those conditions not being met included measuring
for dioxin and furan releases during trial burns.
Was this a premeditated strategy by Aids Safe Waste to purposely
avoid measuring for dioxins during the trial burns knowing
that the final report would show unacceptable levels of dioxin
formation? Clearly all is not well here!
EnviroServ incinerator proposal quashed
Compared to Aids Safe Waste, JSE-listed company EnviroServ
Waste Management (Pty) Ltd, which previously applied to government
to operate a medical waste incinerator in Shongweni, Durban
West, has recently withdrawn the proposal due to opposition
from local communities and environmental activists. EnviroServ
is now proposing a non-burn technology (an autoclave) instead.
EnviroServ also announced at a recent public meeting in the
Eastern Cape, that the company is moving away from using incinerators
to dispose of medical wastes and, instead, plans to establish
large autoclaves at regional centres. We commend EnviroServ
on its decision to embrace alternative, non-burn technologies
that emit far less pollutants. This move by EnviroServ shows
how powerful civil society can be in influencing decision-making
processes, and that some private institutions are taking the
concerns of civil society seriously.
UN Convention tackles dioxins
The UN Stockholm Convention, which has been ratified by
South Africa, targets dioxins as one of the “dirty”
chemicals needing to be ultimately eliminated by the global
community. The first step towards achieving this goal is to
halt the development of any new industrial processes that
would create more dioxins. The Stockholm Convention identifies
incineration and cement kilns as the first and third processes
most responsible for releasing dioxins into the environment.
Will our government now go against the obligations enshrined
in the Stockholm Convention and continue to approve the proliferation
of new dioxin-forming processes? Will our government continue
to allow its people to suffer from environmental injustices
and poor health by continuing to approve polluting technologies?
Conclusion
Considering the pressures from civil society against incineration,
government and industry must consider substitute methods for
the treatment of waste, such as looking into alternative technology
processes and cleaner production mechanisms. However, while
groundWork welcomes the move by some from incineration to
non-burn alternatives, there are several other important processes
which need to be happening in parallel. For example, hospitals
need to be assisted in developing waste minimisation plans.
Secondly, segregation of waste needs to be occurring in hospitals.
Also, chemical, radioactive and cytotoxic wastes must be prevented
from entering some non-burn technologies such as autoclaves.
Hospitals should also follow Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
(EPP) procedures, which identify and avoid problems such as
unnecessary packaging and seek substitutes for mercury and
PVC containing products.
back to top
Dioxins
What are dioxins?
Dioxins comprise a group of some of the most toxic pollutants
known to science. According to the US Environmental Protection
Agency, there appears to be no "safe" level of exposure
to dioxins. Once dioxins have entered the environment or human
body, they are there to stay due to their ability to dissolve
in fats and their chemical stability. Transboundary movement
of dioxins can occur through weather patterns and through
the exportation of feed and foodstuffs around the globe. Thus
dioxins can only be effectively controlled through international
collaboration.
How do dioxins enter the environment?
Dioxins are formed during the burning of household, industrial
and hazardous waste, including open burning and burning in
cement kilns. They also are formed during the manufacture
of some herbicides and germicides, and the bleaching of paper
pulp. Once in the air dioxins can settle on land and water
bodies. Rainwater can carry herbicides containing dioxins
from farm fields into surface waters, and some factories discharge
dioxin-contaminated waste directly into surface water.
How are people exposed to dioxin?
Dioxins can enter the human body through the nostrils (breathing
contaminated air), through the mouth (ingesting contaminated
food/drinks) or through skin contact. Most people are exposed
to dioxins by eating contaminated fish, meat and dairy products.
For example, air borne dioxins may settle on grass, which
is then eaten by cows. The ingested dioxins dissolve in the
fat and are stored in the cow’s body and passed on through
the cow’s milk. Fish may ingest sediments containing
dioxins and retain the dioxin in their body fat, and tend
to have the highest dioxin levels. As dioxins move up the
food chain they bio-accumulate.
Dust contaminated with dioxins may be found on the outer
surfaces of fruits and vegetables which are consumed by humans.
Workers may be exposed to dioxins during the burning of hazardous
waste in cement kilns or during the manufacture of some herbicides,
germicides or paper.
Industrial accidents are also responsible for dioxin poisoning
in humans. Fire fighters and cleanup crews responding to electrical
system fires, as well as hazardous waste accidents may be
exposed to dioxins.
How do dioxins affect human health?
Studies have shown that long-term, high-level exposure to
dioxins leads to an increased risk of developing cancer, reproductive
and developmental problems, heart disease and diabetes. (National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2001)
Short-term exposure to high levels of dioxins may result
in skin problems, such as chloracne, and altered liver function.
Long-term exposure is linked to the impairment of the immune,
nervous, endocrine and reproductive systems (WHO, 1999). Dioxins
are passed from mother to baby during pregnancy and breast-feeding.
How to avoid dioxin exposure?
Ø Wash fruits and vegetables before eating.
Ø Do not burn household waste (especially plastics).
Instead reduce, reuse, recycle and compost your waste.
Ø Oppose any developments that propose to burn medical,
hazardous and/or industrial waste, whether in cement kilns
or incinerators.
The South African context
The extent of dioxin environmental contamination in South
Africa is not known. South Africa does not even have a dioxin
testing facility. The fact that this unsafe manmade chemical
is allowed to be released into our environment without adequate
testing constitutes what is now being acknowledged within
the scientific community as the largest uncontrolled experiment
in our history. Therefore the continued production and release
of dioxins can be seen as violating our constitutional rights
as South Africans in that everyone has the right “not
to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without
their informed consent”. No doubt, the future sprouting
of proposals for incinerators will see battles between civil-society
on the one hand and big business on the other. It is, however,
hoped that government will meet the international commitments
agreed upon and will seek to do play its part in the global
push to eliminate dioxins.
back to top
groundWork USA
An addiction by any other name: New US energy bill fuels
petroleum dependency, funds corporations and threatens Native
Lands
By Toussaint Losier, groundWork USA
The negative side effects of the USA’s addiction to
cheap petroleum are evident everyday in ways both large and
small. They manifest in the simple fact that the US imports
60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil that the nation
consumes daily. They are evident in the six lane highways,
the popular Hummer2 Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) that gets
about twenty miles to the gallon , and in the thick haze of
smog that hangs over the morning skylines of Atlanta, Los
Angeles and other major cities. And they are the subtexts
to the car bombs, rocket propelled grenades and other symbols
of the armed resistance undermining the Occupation of Iraq
and the larger project of US control of Middle East oil fields.
No matter how one approaches the issue, it is hard to ignore
the fact that American society is heavily reliant on petroleum,
with few indications that this nation will kick the habit
any time soon.
Missed opportunity
An opportunity to push America in another direction arose
earlier in 2005 with the drafting of a new energy bill. New
legislation could have put forward a plan to decrease fossil
fuel consumption whilst promoting cleaner alternatives and
renewable sources of energy. This would not have been far
outside of the mainstream, as a national survey conducted
by Yale University in June found that 90% of Americans agree
that their country is too dependent on foreign oil and more
than 86% want increased funding for solar, wind and other
renewable sources of energy.
On 9 August 2005, President George W. Bush signed a $14.5
billion energy bill, the first major revision of the nation’s
energy policy in thirteen years. Supporters of the bill have
praised it for charting a policy that resolves America’s
dependence on foreign oil. But rather than refocusing energy
priorities, this new bill continues much of the status quo.
Subsidies for fossil fuel providers, coal, gas and nuclear
energy
To start, the new bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies
and tax breaks to fossil fuel providers. This includes oil
companies that have already benefited from high oil prices.
For example, Exxon Mobil recorded a $7.64 billion net income
in the second quarter alone, a record 32 percent increase
in profits!
The bill also provides subsidies to the coal and gas industries
while reviving, for the first time in thirty years, the construction
of new nuclear power plants. According to the Natural Resources
Defence Council, the nuclear industry gets 37% of the tax
breaks, totalling about $7 billion, as well as another $5
billion in subsidies. The bill also provides $2 billion in
risk insurance for at least six nuclear power plants to come
online in the next ten years, as well as putting forward an
expanded production credit. Rather than taking a step forward,
this new policy looks to take us two steps back!
Further exploitation of Native American Reservations
This new bill also has serious implications for Native Americans
living on reservations. While supporters have highlighted
the fact that it creates an office of Indian Energy Policy
and Programs in the Department of Energy, which is charged
with increasing the supply of electricity to reservation homes
and businesses, native environmental justice activists have
described the law as a means to further exploit native energy
resources.
Title V of the bill releases the federal government of its
traditional trust responsibility to tribes in the negotiation
and enforcement of energy and development agreements. As native
energy organiser Clayton Thomas-Muller of the Indigenous Environmental
Network noted, the bill removes protections that “grassroots
indigenous peoples utilise to ensure their full and meaningful
participation in major decisions related to energy development
in our homelands.”
By removing the federal government’s responsibility
to ensure fair and equitable negotiations on the part of powerful
corporations, this bill leaves under-resourced tribal governments
to review and enforce environmental policy, while at the same
time funding those same corporations seeking to exploit their
resources! Of particular concern for many activists is the
mining and storing of nuclear material on native lands - what
Thomas-Muller referred to as “nuclear colonialism”.
Mutually dependent
In some ways, the final version of this bill demonstrates
the immense influence of corporate power on the American political
system. Over the past five to seven years, the beneficiaries
of this bill (many of them oil companies) gave millions of
dollars in campaign contributions to both parties and now
they receive billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies.
Beyond a simple return on their investment, these industries
were also able to eliminate modest provisions calling for
renewable energy and conservation from the bill’s final
version.
Veteran forest protection activist Kelpie Wilson pointed
out that an earlier Senate version of the bill included a
non-binding directive to the President to find a way to reduce
oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015. A similar
resolution would have recognised global warming as a serious
problem. Incentives to encourage renewable energy were halved
to $5 billion and a renewable portfolio standard requiring
that at least 10 percent of the nation’s electricity
come from renewable sources by 2020 was cut from the final
version. The Senate version of the bill also supported the
phasing out of the gasoline additive MTBE over the next four
years.
While the American public generally supports higher fuel
standards, more sustainable energy, and less reliance on foreign
oil, their elected representatives once again bowed to the
dominant corporate interests.
The battle is not over
Following the passage of this bill, native EJ organisers
hope to at least gain small victories from the ongoing battles
over energy development on native land. In the Eastern portion
of the Navajo nation, residents are fighting a uranium mining
company seeking to use an in-situ mining process that injects
toxic chemicals into the ground to liquefy the uranium and
pump it out of the ground. In Alaska, the Athabascan community
of Galena is challenging the planned construction of a small
nuclear reactor 30 meters underground. This fall, the Gwich’in
nation, of which the Galena is part, will lead a national
campaign to block drilling in the Artic National Wildlife
Refuge.
Though these campaigns offer possibilities for success, another
such opportunity to overhaul how the US government approaches
renewable energy and our addiction to fossil fuels won’t
come around for another ten years.
Community News
Not another cover up
Bayer implicated in chromium cover-up in Merebank
By Rico Euripidou
During March 2004 Ethekwini Water undertook a routine process
of updating flow rate meters near the Bayer/Lanxess Chromium
Tanning Salts manufacturing plant in Merebank, Durban. Routine
water quality tests showed elevated levels of hexavalent chromium
(Cr6+) in the groundwater. Subsequently the eThekwini City
Municipality requested Bayer to investigate. Bayer then appointed
civil environmental engineers to investigate the source and
potential extent of this contamination.
Production of sodium dichromate, chrome tanning salts and
chromic acid started at this site in 1947 by Chrome Chemicals.
The plant changed various hands until 1974 when Bayer became
the majority shareholder.
This site has a long history of Cr pollution and contamination.
The eThekwini City Municipality’s historical record
shows that shortly after production began in 1947, the authorities
found extensive on-site and off-site contamination of sodium
chromate. During the 1980s and early 1990s further cases of
off-site contamination occurred, but were deemed not to pose
a health threat and consequently only monitored. “Reject
ore” generated at the plant, some of it containing water
soluble Cr6+, has been dumped in a number of “dumpsites”
in the Merebank area over the past 6 decades. At least one
of these sites is known to have leaked Cr.
One question that has arisen during recent meetings concerning
this site is whether there is any risk to residents from drinking
piped water, which in some cases may be continuous with contaminated
ground water. eThekwini Water has repeatedly stated that this
exposure scenario is unlikely due to the physical attributes
(high pressure) of piped water.
Whilst the contamination of drinking water may be unlikely
there may be several other routes of exposure to chromium
pollution. Cr6+ in the groundwater has been shown to be migrating
into the storm water drains and this contaminated water is
transported elsewhere, whether to sewage works or another
water body, and still requires further treatment or remediation.
Furthermore elevated Cr contamination within the groundwater
may, during fluctuations in the water table, move up into
and smudge onto surface soils, which in time might dry up
and become respirable, potentially posing a health risk.
Anecdotal evidence by local physicians reveals that there
is a historical record of chromium exposure in residents and
workers from the surrounding community. Some of these patients
in the past have presented with symptoms including perforation
of the nasal septum and upper esophageal cancers, consistent
with Cr6+ toxicity following inhalation exposure, further
reinforcing the suspicion that there may be other as yet unidentified
routes of exposure to Cr in this mixed industrial/residential
area.
Another community concern is that historically residents
used “ash dump” as fertilizer for their vegetable
allotments. This needs to be further assessed and the extent
characterised in order to determine if this “ash dump”
might have contained Cr reject ore.
Furthermore, there are additional concerns regarding the
conduct of this investigation as well as the reporting of
results to stakeholders and civil society. The reports that
are available are sometimes inadequate and incoherent with
insufficient data for a reader to be able to determine the
series of events that led to the current situation. In some
instances the results are presented in a raw form without
any context or explanation, which makes them un-interpretable
by the general public. Additionally there is little or no
interpretation or discussion on the results with no context
or explanation compared to national or international safety
standards.
All the above issues need to be addressed before we can fully
understand what is going on. Furthermore, a summary of what
has occurred in similar plants internationally, how the problems
were addressed, what health threats were posed etc. might
add further value to this investigation and allow the choice
of the best remedial methodology available.
In conclusion, accepting that there is no risk to public
health in this community on the basis of no risk from drinking
water, might be fundamentally flawed because of the possibility
that a health risk might exist from an alternative source
(or multiple sources) of Cr6+ elsewhere in or near the community
and that these sites might pose a more serious health risk
from an alternative more potent pathway e.g. inhalation. This
incident needs more investigation, transparency and re-thinking
in terms of health risk assessment.
back to top
In Brief
R8 million payout for Macassar victims
Ten years ago, on the evening of 16 December 1995, a veld
fire spread to stockpiled sulphur at the AECI factory in Somerset
West. The 15,000 tons of sulphur ignited and smoke plumes
quickly engulfed the nearby disadvantaged community of Macassar.
Two young men died the same night, and an estimated 15,000
people were poisoned to varying degrees. Pets also died, as
did garden plants and crops. During the late 1990s the Desai
Commission of Enquiry into the fire found AECI’s conduct
was “casually negligent”. Now, following years
of litigation, AECI has recently paid out an estimated R8
million to the victims of Macassar. (Source: Helderburg Sun)
Government to identify “filthy fifty” industries
The government intends to identify and rank the country’s
“filthy fifty” industries most responsible for
causing air pollution. This is according to Peter Lukey, the
new head of air quality management in the Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).
The main aim of this exercise will be to identify which industries
are causing unhealthy pollution and then to identify ways
in which to force these industries to reduce their pollution.
One method of forcing industries to reduce their pollution
will be to review and tighten up their permit conditions.
Lukey was quoted in the Mercury (Carnie, 28/07/05) as saying
that “some of the emission permits are so outdated that
it is possible for an industry to flout health quality guidelines
while simultaneously complying with the legal limits set in
its permit”.
The factors which will be used to rank the industries include:
overall pollution volumes; the type and toxicity of the pollution;
and proximity to densely populated residential areas. The
DEAT will target the worst industries first in a nationwide
effort to bring about measurable improvements in air quality.
This exercise will also assist the Department in characterising
– and regulating – polluting industries sector
by sector. (Source: Tony Carnie, Mercury, 28/07/05)
Vehicle emissions linked to childhood cancer
A new study at the Birmingham University, UK, claims to
have found a strong link between childhood cancers and chemicals
emitted from engine exhausts on cars and factories.
Scientists made the link by studying maps published by the
National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) of pollution
levels across Britain, as well as looking at the position
of particular emission sources such as hospitals, bus and
train stations, heavy transport hubs and oil installations.
These maps were overlaid with records of 22,500 children
who had died of cancer in Britain between 1955 and 1980. The
study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
found that for children living within 300m of a chemical emission
hotspot the risk of a child contracting cancer is at least
doubled and in some cases more than doubled.
In a breakdown of emissions, 1,3-butadiene and carbon monoxide
– both of which are produced by vehicle exhausts, and
particularly diesel engines - were among the primary culprits,
the study suggested.
The study recommended that accepted safety levels for 1,3-butadiene
should be lowered so as not to harm the health of children
in the womb and soon after birth - when they are most at risk.
It also recommended that all vehicles should be fitted with
catalytic converters, including lorries, and public transport
like buses and trains should have stricter guidelines against
leaving their engines running unnecessarily.
The findings of this study have been questioned by other
academics who remain unconvinced of a causal link between
pollution and childhood cancer. (Source: www.scotsman.com)
Refineries brief parliament on their emissions
Engen and Caltex recently briefed the parliamentary portfolio
committee on the steps they are taking to reduce sulphur dioxide
(SO2) and other emissions, the lack of engagement between
the refineries and their stakeholders and the impact of legislation
on refining activities.
Mr Wayne Hartmann from the Engen refinery in south Durban
said that there was a public perception that Engen was an
irresponsible polluter. He said this perception was not based
on scientific evidence. He also said that Engen had achieved
a 60% reduction in SO2 emissions but more work and substantial
capital investment were needed to comply with World Health
Organisation (WHO) guidelines.
Mr S Woodruff of the Caltex refinery in Cape Town said that
since 1996, SO2 emissions had been reduced by 79% and particulate
matter emissions had been reduced by 80%. He said the refinery’s
future plans included a water recycling project to purify
drinking water for 6 000 households, a cleaner fuels project
to produce lower sulphur diesel in line with regulations,
and a community involvement scheme to implement fence line
monitoring of VOC emissions. (Source: www.pmg.org.za)
back to top
Publications
The groundWork Report 2005: Whose Energy Future? –
Oil against people in Africa,
By Mark Butler and David Hallowes,
published by groundWork, September 2005
The groundWork Report 2005 is the fourth in our series of
yearly alternative reports on the state of environmental justice
in South Africa. This year’s report goes beyond the
borders of South Africa, and ventures into other African countries
which have been dealt devastating, irreversible blows by powerful
transnational oil corporations.
By way of case studies and historical records, this year’s
report demonstrates the destructive, unrestrained power that
is wielded by oil corporations operating in Africa, and asks
how this power can be returned to the people who have a right
to choose their own energy future. The report explores the
conflicting views put forward by industry, governments and
civil society on what the energy future should like, who should
be making the decisions around what it should like, and who
should be controlling it.
The launch of this report in Johannesburg this month was
timed to coincide with the 18th World Petroleum Conference
(WPC 18) taking place in Sandton, SA in September. The groundWork
Report 2005 contrasts the energy future being proposed by
the large oil corporations on the one hand, with the energy
futures being fought for in various environmental justice
struggles around the world.
The report begins by looking at the global context: the current
war on terror, being led by the US, the world’s largest
consumer of oil (did you know that the US military conducts
joint exercises and training programmes in 43 African nations
and that the Pentagon will spend a total of $500 billion in
2005?). A fascinating and eye-opening account of the history
of oil, from its first discovery in Pennsylvania in 1859,
is given as well as a synopsis of the dynamics of the industry
as it has been shaped by the major powers and dominant interests.
Africa’s ‘upstream’ industry – extracting
the crude oil – is examined using two case studies:
Nigeria and Chad. This is an industry characterised by corruption,
double-dealing and unequal relations of power, where “the
corporations are given the right to take what they want while
all rents, royalties and other monies received in exchange
for this right are taken by the state… What is left
to consultation amounts to little more than a public relations
exercise”.
The ‘downstream’ oil industry – the refining
and markets – is examined using South African case studies,
which again reveal a polluting, unsustainable and shamelessly
elitist industry.
The Report then explores the protests against the ravages
of the oil industry from social movements and the different
views of the energy future that are being shaped, debated
and acted on in different ways within civil society. It recounts
and reflects on stories of current struggle, defeat and partial
victory from the African continent and elsewhere.
So what is the answer? The Report argues that: “An
alternative world – and an alternative future –
is possible. It can only be based on people’s control
of resources. The call for resource control is now echoing
around the world and nowhere more so than in the oil producing
regions where people have experienced the assault of capitalist
extraction on their bodies, their environments and their livelihoods.”
Copies of the Report can be requested from Bathoko at the
groundWork office. Alternatively, an electronic version can
be downloaded from: www.groundwork.org.za.
|
