AS NEW EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT ABOUT FAULTY NUCLEAR FACILITY VENTILATION FILTERS…..
MEDIA STATEMENT: 2 April 2009
Is the unabated greed associated with South Africa’s scandalous Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) nuclear experiment the real reason for Pretoria’s “disgraceful” decision to withhold a visa from the Dalai Lama, the anti-nuclear Pelindaba Working Group asked in a statement today?
Having failed after 10 years of taxpayer funding – and now 10 times over budget – to produce a safe PBMR to generate electricity in South Africa, the PBMR Company has now teamed up with their Chinese nuclear counterparts to cause great international embarrassment merely to foist its nuclear agenda on this country rather than scrapping the project.
The ink on this nuclear agreement is barely dry yet nuclear authorities are trying to push through amendments to the Record of Decision (RoD) on the new scaled-up PBMR nuclear fuel factory at Pelindaba seeking an “exemption” from an environmental impact study for a radioactive waste incinerator to “reprocess” spent fuel. This, in spite of there being no final design or safety approval for the PBMRs failed technology.
It seems our nuclear industry have no scruples and will stop at nothing.
Lengthy documents submitted to the Environment Minister on the RoD amendment yesterday provided new evidence that High-Efficiency Particulate Air filters, commonly known as HEPA filters, to be used in the fuel plant have inherent vulnerabilities that are potentially catastrophic.
In declarations currently before a U.S. District Court in Northern California, evidence of veteran U.S. nuclear scientist Marian M. Fulk states HEPA filters won’t protect public health or workers.
Fulk says in his declarations authorities have relied “on unduly optimistic assertions about HEPA filters” derived from an internal lab report that has never been made publicly available and is now “missing from the Administrative Record”.
“There is a wealth of peer-reviewed, credible and publicly-available expert data on the efficiencies of and problems associated with HEPA filters. Therefore, the omission of this information and any detailed analysis of HEPA filter deficiencies…is both baffling and inexcusable,” Fulk says in his declaration under oath.
HEPA filters are all that stands between the radioactive materials inside many a nuclear installation and the surroundings outside of these facilities and is the best the world has to offer. Yet the risk inherent in the vulnerabilities of HEPA filters is potentially catastrophic, even under “best operating conditions”, says Fulk.
They are fitted in the ventilation applications of every one of South Africa’s nuclear facilities, existing and proposed – including Koeberg and Pelindaba.
At which point will authorities in this country say we’ve had enough secretive manipulation from the nuclear industry agenda? Or are the vested interests for some worthy of the huge risks involved, including a snub of the Tibetan spiritual leader the Tibetan government in exile blames on “intense pressure” from China?
Issued by:Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP& member of the nationalCOALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGYTel: 012 – 205 1125Cell: 083 740 4676EMail: pelindabanonukes@gmail.com
PLEASE NOTE: Fulk’s declarations can be forwarded to those who are interested. In them, this is how he describes his right to a view on HEPA filters:
“I am a Chemical Physicist, retired from the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1984, where I served 18 years as a staff scientist in chemical physics and material sciences. At LLNL most of my work was classified, but it included the study of radioactive rainout and aerosols; their dynamics, initiation and growth. At LLNL, I studied problems associated with aerosolized particles and their capture by High Efficiency Particulate Air filters, commonly called HEPA filters. I also studied various toxic and radioactive materials including uranium and plutonium. I have worked professionally on these issues for the University of California and the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies, including the Atomic Energy Commission, since my work at the University of Chicago where I conducted research on biological systems beginning in 1945.”
SA, China PBMR projects to cooperate By: Keith Campbell
Published: 30 Mar 09 South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) company has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with its Chinese counterparts, the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) of Tsinghua University and the Chinergy company. INET and Chinergy are also developing PBMR technology.
The MoU is intended to encourage cooperation in specific areas of common interest, both strategic and technical, concerning both countries’ PBMR projects, to create opportunities regarding the commercialisation of the technology in the future, and to reinforce the supply chains in both countries.
PBMR technology was originaly developed in Germany and subsequently licensed to both South Africa and China, each country further developing the concept, although in somewhat (but not fundamentally) different directions.
The Chinese, unlike the South Africans, actually have an operational PBMR reactor, although it is only a small – 10 MW (thermal) – research unit. Located at INET in Beijing, it is the only operational PBMR in the world, and was started in December 2000, achieving full power in January 2003.
The main difference between the two PBMR projects is that the Chinese will use an indirect cycle, steam turbine system for their commercial-scale demonstration plant, while the South Africans have been developing a direct cycle, gas turbine system.
The Chinese demonstration plant will comprise two 250 MW (thermal) reactor modules and a 210 MW (electric) steam turbine generator set.
However, recently, the South Africans have started developing technology for indirect cycle, steam turbine systems, as a result of increasing interest in process heat and co-generation applications for the PBMR.
This means that the South African programme is now converging with the Chinese, creating more synergies between them. This became very clear at an international high temperature reactor (HTR) conference in Washington, DC, in December.
This was followed, earlier this year, by a visit to South Africa by representatives of INET and Chinergy, who, with their local counterparts, worked out the framework for cooperation.
The PBMR is an HTR design and is so named because its fuel is in the form of spheres. These take the form of enriched uranium oxide coated with silicon carbide and pyrolytic carbon, in turn encased by graphite. The resulting sphere is about the size of a billiard ball.
A fully-loaded PBMR reactor core would contain some 450 000 fuel spheres. Because of its design and and the nature of its fuel, it will be possible to remove spent fuel spheres from the bottom of the PBMR, and feed fresh fuel spheres in at the top, while the reactor is running.
In other designs, the reactor has to be shut down for refuelling to take place.Copyright Creamer Media (Pty) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dalai Lama’s South Africa conference ban causes uproar
By Chris McGreal in Johannesburg guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 March 2009 18.33 GMT Two of South Africa’s Nobel peace prize winners, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and FW de Klerk, have pulled out of a Johannesburg conference to fight racism after what they branded as Pretoria’s “disgraceful” decision to ban the Dalai Lama from attending following Chinese pressure.The Nobel peace prize committee also said it would boycott this Friday’s conference, which is dedicated to tackling racism ahead of the 2010 World Cup.The row threatens to draw in Nelson Mandela, who, with his fellow South African laureates, invited the Tibetan spiritual leader, and further embarrasses South Africa, which has been accused of squandering its moral authority since ending apartheid by blocking UN security council moves to pressure rogue governments in Burma and Zimbabwe.Tutu, who won the prize for his resistance to white rule, told Johannesburg’s Sunday Independent newspaper he will not attend the conference to discuss how to use the World Cup preparations to combat racism and xenophobia if the Tibetan spiritual leader is not present.“If His Holiness’s visa is refused, then I won’t take part in the coming 2010 World Cup-related peace conference. I will condemn [the] government’s behaviour as disgraceful, in line with our country’s abysmal record at the United Nations security council, a total betrayal of our struggle’s history,” he said.“We are shamelessly succumbing to Chinese pressure. I feel deeply distressed and ashamed.”The FW de Klerk Foundation, established by South Africa’s last white president, said it would also pull out of the conference, albeit reluctantly.“South Africa is a sovereign constitutional democracy and should not allow other countries to dictate to it regarding who it should and should not admit to its territory,” the foundation said in a statement.“Mr De Klerk has been in touch with Archbishop Tutu and identifies himself with the views that he has expressed with regard to the refusal of the South African government to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama.”The Norwegian Nobel peace prize committee also condemned the South African decision.“It is impossible for us to be part of an event where one of the main participants is not able to enter the country,” said Geir Lundestad, the committee’s secretary.The Tibetan government in exile in India today blamed “intense pressure” from China, which has become one of South Africa’s largest trading partners. The claim was apparently confirmed by the Chinese embassy in Pretoria, where the minister counsellor, Dai Bing, was quoted as telling the South African media that his government had warned that allowing the Tibetan spiritual leader to attend the conference would damage bilateral relations.But the South African government denied its decision had anything to do with Beijing. It said the Dalai Lama had been refused a visa because his presence would draw attention away from the World Cup preparations.Thabo Masebe, the spokesman for the president, Kgalema Motlanthe, said the conference organisers had not consulted the government before inviting the Tibetan leader.“We in the South African government have not invited the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa, because it would not be in the interests of South Africa,” he said. “The attention of the world is on South Africa because of it being the host country for the 2010 World Cup, and we wouldn’t want anything to distract from that.”Pretoria has shied away from the Tibetan leader before. Ten years ago, South Africa’s then president, Thabo Mbeki, said he was too busy for a one-to-one meeting with the Dalai Lama.The actors Morgan Freeman, who is to play Mandela in a new film, and Charlize Theron, a South African, are also due to attend the conference.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/dalai-lama-south-africa-world-cup-ban
South Africa’s nuclear industry want to try to get the PBMR fuel ROD amended yet again – with the third or fourth new set of Environmental Consultants appointed – each one more driven than the last to get through the public comment period as fast as possible & drive the process using the new legal loopholes as far as we will allow them.
- The fuel manufacture is happening at Pelindaba but is another step towards the PBMR being built – so please mobilize country wide communities to lodge objections to the increased quantity of fuel (originally the ROD was given for the 110 MW PBMR) now they want to increase that to allow for the increased fuel for the new PBMR.
- They also want to include a (small) radioactive incinerator smelter and are asking for an EIA exemption.
- They are also asking for a change in wording of the ROD already issued (so that it is clear what the requirements are)
This falls into the grand scheme of things the State wants to do & includes:
1. Complete the PBMR Environment Impact Report and achieve a positive Record of Decision before the elections.
2. Continue with the EIAs for Nuclear-1 at Bantamsklip, Thyspunt and Koeberg up to an including a positive Record of Decision
3. Continue with the EIAs for infrastructure (Roads and Powerlines, included), so that there will be NO LEGAL OPPOSITION when the time comes to impose their will.
4. Spend several more billion rand on the PBMR (Pty) Ltd Company.
URGENTLY please take a few minutes TODAY before the 13th February 2009 to register as an Interested and Affected Person (I&AP) with Strategic Environmental Management Consultants about an application to amend the Record of Decision (ROD) for the PBMR Nuclear Fuel Plant at Pelindaba.
Public comment starts on 16th FEB closes 18th March 2009 but you need to register TODAY and ask for relevant documentation to be sent to you.
The contact is Sean O’ Beirne
PO Box 100339
Moreleta Plaza
0167
sobeirne@sesolutions.co.za
0829039751
ANYONE MAY REGISTER & IS URGED TO DO SO IF YOU WISH TO PLAY YOUR PART IN PUTTING AN END TO THE PBMR PROJECT .
Regards
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP
& member of the national
COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY
Tel: 012 – 205 1125
Cell: 083 740 4676
By Zelda Venter
The Star 19/12/08
A former operator at the uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba, west of Pretoria, believes he contracted multiple myeloma (cancer of the blood plasma) while on duty and is thus entitled to workman’s compensation.
Tilman Roux (62) claimed that the cancer might be related to his being exposed to radiation while he worked at the plant about 30 years ago.
The Compensation Commissioner (CC), however, earlier turned down Roux’s application on the ground that his illness was not work-related.
On Tuesday, Roux will head for the Pretoria High Court for an order to either declare that he is entitled to compensation or to force the CC to properly consider his application.
Roux also wants the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (Necsa) to make information available to the office of the CC to enable it to investigate the circumstances under which he worked at the plant. These include the radiation levels in the plant during the time he worked there, as well as records of all incidents and accidents relevant to his claim.
Roux said he was diagnosed with cancer last year and was told by his doctor that it might be related to exposure to ionising radiation. He said his only exposure to such radiation was when he was employed at Valindaba between 1974 and 1982.
“My condition has steadily worsened from June last year and I am now experiencing excruciating pain, for which I require high doses of morphine.
“I was advised by my doctor that my condition will become terminal unless I receive immediate treatment in the form of chemotherapy and stem cell transplant,” Roux stated in court papers.
http://www.security.co.za/fullStory.asp?NewsId=11115
Man seeks compensation for cancer
December 19, 2008
PRETORIA: A 62-year-old former operator at the uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba, west of Pretoria, who has multiple Myeloma (cancer of the blood plasma), believes that he contracted the illness while on duty and is entitled to workman’s compensation.
Tilman Roux said the cancer might be related to him being exposed to radiation while he was working at the plant 30 years ago.
The Compensation Commissioner, however, earlier turned down Roux’s application on the ground that his illness was not work related. Roux will ask the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday for either an order declaring that he is entitled to compensation or that the commission be ordered to properly consider his application.
Roux also wants the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa to make information available to the commission to enable it to investigate the circumstances under which he had worked at the plant.
These include the radiation levels in the plant during the time he worked there and records of all incidents and accidents which may be relevant to his claim.
Roux said when he was diagnosed with cancer last year was told by his doctor that it might be related to exposure to ionising radiation. He said his only exposure to ionising radiation was between 1974 and 1982 when he was employed at Valindaba. – Mercury Correspondent
http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4767721
COMMENT:
We are grateful that finally there is a case now before the courts involving the shoddy treatment of former nuclear workers at Pelindaba Complex. If the truth be known, there are over 500 ill former workers who have approached the environmental justice organisation Earthlife Africa seeking assistance for compensation. Their former employers have held back medical and work records in many cases and even denied knowledge of some of these workers – this despite the fact that many worked for sub-contractors to the nuclear plant but were required to comply with all the normal security regulations.
There continue to be any number of these workers who, according to an Occupational Health medical practitioner who incidentally helped write the relevant legislation, believes they qualify for compensation. Yet, their former employers have white-washed the findings of the doctor’s study, and the Compensation Commissioner appears to have turned down their applications. Government officials have promised to help these people but to date no-one has. At last count, well over 20 of those former workers who came forward for assistance two years ago have now died.
Many of these people tell gruelling stories. Let’s hope the truth will out before it is too late – not only for the workers but also the surrounding populations. Nuclear waste, ionizing radiation and the emissions and pollution from normal operations (excluding accidents) is already deadly enough to cause long term harm which in many cases takes years to manifest. Then it’s too late.
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP
& member of the national
COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY
15 December 2008
By Derek Luyt
ESKOM might have decided to shelve its R700billion nuclear energy expansion programme, but there remain lots of good reasons why the public should be more actively involved in deciding energy policy in South Africa.
For a start, the Eskom load-shedding fiasco, which still hangs over the country, should remind us that the mandarins can get it wrong. Despite knowing more than a decade ago that SA was heading towards an energy shortage, government could not avert a crisis.
It may well be that there were vested interests involved, coupled with a belief that investors would be found to bring nuclear energy on stream in time to alleviate the looming crunch. We may never know for sure what led to the crisis, but what is quite clear is that government failed to respect the right of the South African public to participate meaningfully in the critical issue of our country’s future energy policy.
The public simply cannot afford to allow this situation to continue. We need to insist on the right to participate in the formulation of energy policy in our country because whatever policy gets adopted and implemented will have profound effects on all South Africans for decades to come.
The energy policy implemented in SA will have a major impact, for example, on efforts to eradicate the poverty which currently blights the lives of far too many citizens. It is imperative that such policy maximizes job creation and enhances opportunities for the improvement of the quality of life of the poor majority.
The issue of nuclear power is central to any consideration of future energy policy. Nuclear power is enormously expensive and there are coherent arguments that it is not cost effective, does not create the kind and number of jobs that our country desperately needs and that it poses unacceptable environmental risks.
Renewable energy, in the considered opinion of some, offers better prospects for job creation than conventional or nuclear energy. For a country with unemployment rates so high, this alone makes renewable energy worthy of far greater investment. But, as Liz McDaid points out, the main obstacle to developing renewable energy in SA is the “lack of political will to transform Eskom”. Hence civil society must “play a major role in lobbying government for change in the energy sector”.
The deputy director-general of the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE), Nelly Magubane, last week stated that “renewable energy is definitely on the cards … we are actually looking at ways of making sure that we get even more renewable energy in the system”. While this is encouraging, and although Eskom has postponed immediate plans for Nuclear One procurement – because, according to Portia Molefe, DPE director-general, “it is not affordable to Eskom” – it has made it clear that nuclear power remains firmly on its long-term agenda. According to Molefe, government “remains committed to introducing nuclear”.
This commitment has been made without any meaningful public participation, and none of the 26 comments recently submitted on the Nuclear Energy Bill have been made public.
Vast amounts of money – about R345bn – will be ploughed into developing energy infrastructure in SA over the next five years. While government has committed about R60bn towards these costs, Eskom is currently negotiating a 5bn (about R50bn) loan from the World Bank to help fund its expansion. It has already secured a 500 million (about R5bn) loan from the African Development Bank.
ANC leader Jacob Zuma, who last week said he and the ANC “are very concerned about the level of corruption in government and we must do something radical about it”, would presumably understand public concern that the amounts of money being pumped into energy development in SA provide fertile grounds for corruption.
The public would rightfully be even more concerned were Eskom to implement an offset based nuclear procurement policy, which seems, finances allowing, probable.
Despite such concerns, nothing especially radical is needed to ensure that SA’s energy policy does not degenerate into a carnival of elite enrichment. A healthy dose of public participation, coupled with legislated oversight and accountability, will be enough.
The public should therefore insist that both Eskom and the World Bank conduct its negotiations openly and transparently. After all, what is being considered is essentially a loan to the people of SA, and we have a right to know what the conditions of the loan are, since we will be repaying it.
The public should also insist that the World Bank, which is committed to promoting transparent and accountable governance, and the government of SA, which is constitutionally obliged to promote transparent and participatory policy-making, make any loan to Eskom conditional on guarantees of meaningful public participation in the formulation of SA’s future energy policy.
Finally, the public should also insist that both parties ensure that the terms and conditions of any loan are transparent, allowing both Parliament and the public to hold Eskom accountable for its use of such funds.
The arms deal may have taken the public by surprise. We still don’t know the extent of corruption involved in the procurement of the weapons involved. Nor do we have accurate information on the offsets which apparently persuaded our government that the deal was good for the country. We are not even sure that we needed the arms in the first place.
What we do know is that the public was not involved in deciding any of these matters. Vested interests took these costly decisions on our behalf. We dare not let our future energy policy become a hugely expanded repeat of the arms deal. There is a lot more at stake than keeping the pool pumps running.
Derek Luyt is media and advocacy head for the Public Service Accountability Monitor
Source: Daily Despatch Insight
by Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Thanks to everyone who signed the nukes/climate statement for release at the negotiations in Poznan, Poland. More than 300 organizations and more than 1200 of you signed as individuals. We appreciate your support! Below is the press release for the action in Poznan where the statement was released. Please feel free to send to your own local media. At the bottom of the release are links where you can obtain a formatted copy of the statement and a list of the organizational signers.
It can no longer be said that nuclear energy is acceptable anywhere in the world. Globally opposition to nuclear energy is mounting.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
**************************************************
Poznan, Poland. Three dozen environmental leaders from 16 countries braved icy cold weather on Wednesday morning in front of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power “a Mickey Mouse solution” to climate change. The activists were carrying banners and posters with lively slogans including “Don’t Nuke the Climate,” “No Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)” and “Nuclear Power, No Thanks!”
Most were wearing t-shirts with the familiar “Mickey Mouse ears” emblazoned with the radiation symbol. The activists, representing non-governmental organizations from nearby European countries and from as far away as Taiwan, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and California, announced the release of a global call for the elimination of proposals to include nuclear power as an approved investment for greenhouse gas mitigation in the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC.
In only one week, over 300 NGOs representing millions of individuals from 50 countries in every corner of the planet signed on to the public appeal to keep the nuclear power option out of the climate talks.
Spokespeople from the four organizers of today’s action made their case throughout the morning by talking one-on-one to hundreds of government delegates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they entered the conference site for morning sessions.
Speaking to the press, Sabine Bock, coordinator of energy and climate protection for Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said: “Nuclear energy has proven in the past that it is a threat not only to our health and the environment, but also to human rights.”
“In our work at WECF with local communities,” Bock continued, “we have encountered severe health problems and human rights abuses of populations due to the harmful effects of nuclear energy and radiation.” Bock added: “We can’t understand why governments still promote this dangerous technology rather than taking the opportunity to develop safe and sustainable new, renewable, and clean energy solutions.”
Jan Van de Putte, Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Greenpeace described nuclear power as an obstacle to effective climate protection saying that money invested in nuclear power is not nearly as effective as money invested in wind power, for example.”
“Nuclear power is a dangerous and dirty energy source – it provides too little energy for mitigation at too slow a pace and at too great a cost.” Van de Putte continued, “the cost per Kwh of nuclear power is double that of wind energy. It just doesn’t make sense to pursue this outdated energy source.”
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Ecodefense Russia, called upon his national government as well as other delegations to stop promoting nuclear power into the Kyoto Protocol via provisions for Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. “78 % of Russians are opposed to nuclear power,” Slivyak said. “We demand that the Russian delegation stop any plans to develop new nuclear plants.” “We further call on all governments to stop new nuclear development.”
Claire Greensfelder, Deputy Director of the International Forum on Globalization of San Francisco, California, said: “Despite year after year of rejection by the state parties to the Convention, the nuclear industry (and a small group of states) continues to promote the economic and public health disaster of nuclear power.” Greensfelder continued: “We also have grave concerns about the health and environmental impacts of increased uranium mining, milling and nuclear waste storage, much of which is on indigenous peoples’ lands, many of whom are opposed to continued nuclear development. Indigenous peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent of development on their lands, as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (passed in the UN General Assembly in September 2007), must be taken into consideration.”
Holding a colorful homemade banner proclaiming “No Fishy Nukes!,”, Gloria Hsu, Chair, of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU) said: “Using nuclear power for CO2 reduction is the same as drinking some poison to quench your thirst.”
“We have managed thus far to keep nuclear power out of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Peer de Rijk, executive director of World Information Service on Energy (WISE), speaking from Amsterdam. “We will continue to do whatever we can to achieve the same for a much needed post-Kyoto agreement. Nuclear energy is a deadlock, blocking real solutions. Don’t nuke the climate!
A copy of the statement can be found on NIRS’ website at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/pa_nuclearaction9dec17h1.pdf
A list of the organizational signers can be found on NIRS’ website at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/nonuclearcdm_signons_10dec08press-pdf.pdf
—————————————————————-
Thanks for all you do!
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
