Introduction

The South African government and it’s nuclear industry is declaring a clear “fait accompli” message to this country of our “Nuclear Renaissance” despite no adequate participation from an informed public; arrogant and possibly illegal disregard in their various responses in official Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA); no adequate liabilities or insurance policies; unsafe practices at SA’s current nuclear facilities and uranium mines; nuked workers still battling for compensation; no monitoring of public health; nowhere in the world have they figured out what to do with the waste – ongoing radiated pollution into our rivers, sea and air – etc; and no public referendum on the issue.

The President re-opened Parliament in February 2007 pledging to expedite and ensure greater reliance on nuclear power generation. Simultaneously, the nuclear industry hosts two significant conferences:

14-16 February SOUTH AFRICA’S NUCLEAR ENERGY AND URANIUM RENAISSANCE link www.iir-conferences.co.za/nuclear at Southern Sun Johannesburg
28-30 March URANIUM AFRICA 2007 conference at the Balalaika Hotel Johannesburg
Some of the most influential players in the SA nuclear industry will address both these conferences.

The opportunity

These events – together with the speed at which the government and its nuclear industry is pushing through numerous nuclear plans possibly in anticipation of possible new officials taking over once a new President is in place – present an urgent need for informed public debate on uranium mining and nuclear energy.

Never before have South African citizens, especially affected communities, been adequately educated on the risks of the nuclear option or afforded the right to vote on it. Never before has this been more necessary than now.

Based on the rights as enshrined in the Constitution, the people of South Africa must demand the suspension of nuclear and uranium mining activities, insist on transparency and call for a referendum on nuclear energy.

The “renaissance” myth

Italy closed its 3 plants after a referendum; Austria closed its plant without operating it, after a referendum; Sweden is committed to closing its plant; the Spanish government ordered work to stop on several unfinished reactors in the 1980s after an informed public protested as was the case in Turkey; Germany recently committed to phasing out nuclear power and Uranium mining, and there are strong indications that Switzerland and the Netherlands are likely to follow suit. Nuclear power has been taken out of Thailand’s 1994 energy plan after a World Bank study; and the Philippines cancelled a nuclear plant as a symbol of the folly of nuclear power. The African Union’s stance is that Africa should be a nuclear free zone.

And, in the largest single-day shutdown in history, seven commercial atomic reactors closed permanently on December 31, 2006. These included Kozloduy 3 & 4 in Bulgaria; Bohunice V-1, unit 1, in Slovakia; and Dungeness A, units 1 and 2 and Sizewell A, units 1 and 2 in the United Kingdom. Despite so-far hollow nuclear industry claims of a “resurgence”, the reality is that the world’s nuclear reactors continue to decline in number.

While politicians and nuclear industrialists gloat over rising uranium prices without taking into consideration the full cycle costs of mining it, and propagate a myth of worldwide nuclear “renaissance”, informed countries are turning away from it.

The reality

Nuclear polluters do pretty much as they wish while the regulators fob responsibility off from one to another as the truth is covered-up. Generally the SA public is none the wiser and those who are concerned, either move out of nuclear areas or get co-opted into discredited “Community Forums” of nuclear supporters.

The nuclear industry hides behind “background radioactivity” and now climate change to justify itself. Respected scientists and reports categorically state that no radioactive dose is a safe dose. The nuclear industry consumes huge amounts of energy and its emissions are deadly. And taxpayers, who will get cancer and have deformed future generations, will not only be paying billions for this privilege, but have to pay billions more to contain contamination for thousands of years to come. The half-life of Depleted Uranium is about 4, 5 billion years. Why is this country not concentrating on sustainable renewable energy sources where power is decentralised and regionally owned?

In most cases, contrary to public statements, construction on nuclear developments supposedly still under the constraints of the EIA process, or as with PBMR court hearings, were started and parts bought long before any resolution of EIA processes. We are witnessing a renaissance of that industry’s old-style dishonesty and thorough unconstitutionality. Never mind that the “community at large” have been disadvantaged in all of the EIA processes. We have heard nothing on the radio to warn/advise illiterate people that they may be interested in participating in the scoping phase (but only AFTER they have been given sufficient balanced education to understand the threats and to be part of the process!!)

While SA sleeps IGNORANT of realities and a massive scientific knowledge base that’s been around for a long time, power failures assist a handful of people to welcome nuclear power despite the entire EIA and “public participation” processes being fatally flawed, if not fraudulent attempts at greenwashing.

The truth about our nuclear regulators & EIAs & “public participation”

The shocking situation recently exposed in Wonderspruitfontein (Beeld February 2), for example, and the determined resistance from authorities to act swiftly, transparently and honestly should send shivers down the whole country’s spine particularly as we’re being steamrollered into a full-on nuclear future. Once again the integrity and ability of the SA’s national environmental management and regulators is questionable.

It has long been contended that the National Nuclear Regulator’s (NNR) members are neither qualified for their particularly important role nor impartial, and certainly do not act in terms of their legislated mandate to ensure public participation, health and safety. If anything, the NNR is no more than an apologist for the nuclear industry helping to conceal information on inappropriate practices while disregarding the concerns of interested and affected parties.

Nuclear polluters such as the National Energy Corporation of SA (Necsa) have been pumping so-called “semi-radioactive waste” into the Crocodile River that flows into the Hartbeespoortdam since its inception in the 1960s. This practice continues to this day and is passed off in official reports as safe dosages. (Koeberg nuclear station pollutes the Atlantic Ocean). Apart from this, deadly radioactive spillages on “Radiation Hill” storage repository at Pelindaba also leaked into the ground in the 90s, quite possibly ending up in the underground water. People farm with this water and have to drink this water.

The Vaalputs nuclear waste dump site in Namaqualand was recently “celebrated” 20 years of existence with great fanfare by the nuclear industry claiming it was “safe” despite publicly recorded leakages and community problems there.

In the midst of ongoing “safety celebrations”, Minister Van Schalkwyk in February approved the ROD on a nuclear fuel plant at Pelindaba. He said the EIA process had taken long enough and disregarded appeals against it. The Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor (PBMR) at Koeberg (the first of an intended 30 or so) is now virtually a fait accompli. Within days of this, Minister Erwin announced a several more nuclear reactor will be built in SA. Why has no Scoping Report been issued for an EIA?

A throw away line in a report to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee this February, said the aging research reactor Safari 1 at Pelindaba had been “switched” to enrich uranium – and this without any EIA or pretence of public participation. It’s only a matter of when the long-dormant Scoping Report of the Nuclear Smelter Plant at Pelindaba is resurrected, pushed through a “public participation” process and starts smelting as much nuclear waste as the rest of the world can dump on SA, issuing deadly radioactive emissions in perpetuity over the area.

More often than not, we are shown that the EIA processes intended to protect us and to provide a “fair” chance for every individual to interact in these processes is merely a farce and a formality. The decisions on large governmental projects are literally granted from day one, then of course they have to appease the public and make us believe we are part of the decision process.

The negligent and cavalier attitude displayed by both the nuclear industry and the relevant Ministers flies in the face of any semblance of acceptable transparent and democratic governance, showing scant regard for the legal processes and/or the vast sums of taxpayer’s money being sunk into their untested and internationally discredited nuclear experiment.

Necsa uses evasive and often sarcastic comments to reduce the EIA appeals process into a points-scoring sham, with little regard for the concerns of citizens who have a democratic right to be adequately informed. Especially disconcerting is Necsa’s repeated responses of “no adverse impacts incapable of adequate mitigation” without providing ANY further information. In its most far-fetched response, Necsa claimed that an aircraft strike on Pelindaba’s nuclear plant “would not result in any environmental impacts incapable of adequate management and mitigation or appreciable health risks to the surrounding population”. Such a response must be assumed to be a fob off with little real meaning.

Necsa has also turned its back on its dying nuked ex-workers and denied in its February report to Parliament that any suffered radiation illnesses despite confirmation of this by a respected occupational health practitioner. Medical surveillance of affected communities has also never been implemented although it is required by law. How can the NNR can claim it is committed to health and safety?

There have already been numerous contamination incidents from nuclear installations and radioactive waste dumps as well as uranium mines in South Africa … what would make these new projects any different?

The economics

This country is buying into thirty year old failed technology at projected losses of billions of rand to our taxpayers and impoverished communities. Nuclear, even when subsidised, is not cheap power, neither is it a clean power; when the full cycle is taken into account it is barely better on emissions than coal. Further, the cost of dealing with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years is prohibitive and renders the experiment uneconomic at the onset if such costs and risks are borne by the PBMR Company and not passed to the taxpayer, as is currently the case. When one adds to this the spiraling future costs of enriched uranium to fuel the PBMR, the finite supply of this resource and constant surveillance to prevent theft of hazardous materials by terrorist groups, there is no question that we should abandon the PBMR before, and not when, it becomes an unprecedented economic disaster.

Add to this the inherent and ever present risks to health and life from any nuclear activity and in our case endangering two of South Africa’s foremost World Heritage Sites.

Alternative energy sources have clearly not been properly considered in spite of the enormous and irreversible dangers inherent in nuclear power. Clean and risk free technologies can be readily and speedily implemented for just a fraction of the 20 year cost of nuclear (assuming at best for the PBMR experiment that it works which is by no means proven, and does not cause a catastrophe). South Africa has the ability to generate a substantial portion of our power requirements with zero emissions and a zero fuel cost component. Products can be developed that will have far greater job creation and export potential, are wholly sustainable and will relieve our planet from unnecessary green house emissions, which, as the dirtiest power producer in Africa, we have a duty to mitigate.

What about insurance?

No insurance company will insure you, your business or your family in the case of nuclear radioactivity. In other words if a nuclear accident had to occur you will be asked to evacuate you house, home and business and will be left with nothing but medical bills. The government is the “insurer of last resort” which means they will be responsible to pay you out your losses and there is not much chance of that ever happening. Are you willing to lose everything and get nothing back in return? Nuclear accidents CAN and DO happen. Nuclear Technology is NOT as safe as they would have you believe. There have already been a number of strange incidents at Pelindaba and at Koeberg in the Cape in a little over the period of one year. Note also how quickly such incidents have been silenced and hushed. The fallout zone surrounding the Pelindaba Plant outside Pretoria stretches as far as Randfontein, Alberton, Benoni, Mamelodi, Modikwe and way beyond Soshanguve. This includes Tshwane and Johannesburg. A similarly frightening scenario exists around Cape Town’s Koeberg Nuclear Station.

What about safety?

Given the security record of South Africa over the last few years you have to ask yourself how safe it is going to be having Uranium mines and nuclear reactors all over South Africa with Uranium Pebbles being transported via road all over this country. Highly secure cash-in-transit vehicles cannot escape the crime rings of this country so HOW does government propose to protect Uranium from being hijacked in transit or polluting the national highways in accidents? In addition, SA will import uranium downgraded from old Russian nuclear warheads to fuel its PBMRs. These will be transported over our roads.

International standards have clamped down regularly. SA has been lied to about “continued vigilance”. The truth is the Draft Safety Standards and Regulatory Practices published for comment on 13 June 2003 (No 868, GG No 25086) has apparently never even been finalised. They’ve been in the nuclear business since the early ‘60s!!!

Why Uranium?
The Uranium extraction should be of the greatest concern to any citizen of this country. The processes involved in extracting and enriching Uranium affect not only local communities; they affect people downstream and downwind. There are enough official reports worldwide proving the dangers of Uranium mining and quite simply these facts cannot be concealed any longer. There are major health concerns for anyone living anywhere near such mining activities and YOU should be concerned too. Be responsible to your health, that of your family and that of generations to come and become involved. There have already been numerous contamination incidents from mines in South Africa more recently in Krugersdorp … what would make any new project any different?

Only since Eskom and the Government have been pushing for the Pebble Bay Modular (NUCLEAR) Reactors (PBMR) to be forged ahead has there been an increase in applications for Uranium Mining around South Africa. The government wants desperately to go ahead with elaborate nuclear projects and of course they need Uranium to run these reactors. Communities all over South Africa are finding themselves flung into EIA processes regarding mining of Uranium and in many cases are being subjected to many tactics to try and silence their objections.

The Law & Constitutional Rights

The constitution of South Africa states: Every person shall have the right to an environment which is not detrimental to his or her health and well-being.

The environmental management principles of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 (Section 2, subsection 4 (f); (g); (h); (k) and (q)) states:

Ø “The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.

Ø “Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognizing all forms of knowledge, including traditional and ordinary knowledge.

Ø “Community wellbeing and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means.

Ø “Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law.

Ø “The vital role of women and youth in environmental management and development must be recognized and their full participation therein must be promoted.”

Furthermore, in terms of Section 40 of the National Nuclear Regulator Act, No 47 of 1999, the Regulator must on the request of any person, make the record of nuclear accidents and incidents available to that person; and no person is civilly or criminally liable or may be prejudiced or harassed on account of having disclosed, in the interests of the public, any information of a health or safety risk or failure to comply with a duty imposed by the said Act to organs of state or to the news media in order to avert an imminent and serious threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public, to ensure that the health or safety risk or the failure to comply with a duty imposed by the said Act was properly and timeously investigated, and to give due weight to the importance of open, accountable and participatory administration. (Emphasis added.)

Also relevant is the following principle of the NEMA, namely: “Environmental justice must be pursued so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons.”

Most of these communities have never been consulted, let alone educated on the issue.

Protect your constitutional rights and those of all the unborn children of all future generations now.

Activities

· A broad base of affected communities are being mobilised to publicly voice their concerns;

· The President will be petitioned to re-evaluate his stance on nuclear energy and uranium mining, and conduct commissions of enquiry into Eskom and the country’s environmental management;

· A public liabilities and insurance policy and fund comparable with the best standards internationally will be demanded;

· Earthlife Africa (Nuclear Energy Costs The Earth Campaign) Johannesburg will be holding its own international parallel conference on Nuclear and Uranium Mining Renaissance, and a protest march during the 28-30 March URANIUM AFRICA 2007;

· The nuclear debate will be encouraged as an electioneering issue;

· Civil society will demand its constitutional right to be educated on nuclear issues and be granted the opportunity to a referendum on the issue;

· The nuclear industry will be urged to turn its attentions to decontaminating its mess in this country, transparently determine the full extent of radioactive pollution on land and both surface and underground water, and compensate disadvantaged people immediately and willingly.

Participants & References in Debating Forums

The nuclear industry and government has no shortage of apologists who are happy to air opinions.

Locally there are numerous academics, scientists, doctors and educated activists who oppose the nuclear option.

During March several international speakers on the subject will be available in South Africa.

Uranium Road “Questioning South Africa’s Nuclear Direction”, 2005: David Fig.

Nuclear Power: Myth and Reality “The risks and prospects of nuclear power”, 2006: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER).

Countless scientific and medical reports and studies are available.