This was evidenced in the recently approved Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010). The IRP 2010 provides for 9600MW of nuclear energy in the energy mix from 2023. The approval of the IRP2010 was a clear indication that government has shown little or no regard for the many civil society objections and submissions to the Department of Energy and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee. The announcement of cabinet’s approval of South Africa’s nuclear plan was also made less than one week after the world was reeling from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant. It is hard to believe that government is oblivious to the impacts of nuclear energy.

So is this a case of a government being obstinate or has the government already signed agreements with France to build nuclear power stations?

While the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster has been attributed to a natural disaster, its impacts are incredibly widespread. As of 12 April 2011, the nuclear accident at Fukushima was rated as a Level 7 ‘major accident’ – the highest level on the international nuclear accident scale, and equivalent to that of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Level 7 is used to describe an event consisting of “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.” The Japanese government is now expected to extend the evacuation zone around the plant and declare the immediate area a no-go zone. About 22 000 residents have fled the area.

Ironically, this year is the 25th “anniversary” of the Chernobyl nuclear accident – the only other Level 7 accident in history. After 25 years, the area around Chernobyl remains uninhabitable with an exclusion zone of 30km still in place. Almost 200 000 people lived in the zone – which is now desolate. Radiation levels around the plant remain so high that authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years. The Ukrainian government is still heavily burdened by the costs of this disaster, a quarter of a century later.

Given these impacts, one would have expected a responsible government to exercise some caution with nuclear energy plans. In many countries the nuclear debate has been re-opened as a result of Japan’s nuclear troubles and Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Germany called for a review of the safety of their nuclear reactors. Germany has since shut down seven of its old reactors.

Governments will continue to ignore their citizens until they remember that it is these same citizens who put them into power. The South African government may be confident of its support but this will not go on for as long as people are ignored. In Germany, the power of the voters has demonstrated that no government will be safe in power if they continue to endorse nuclear power. On the 28th of March 2011, Germany’s anti-nuclear Green Party won the Baden-Wuerttemberg state election and managed to beat Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which had been in power for almost 60 years.

Merkel’s duplicitous position on nuclear power was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the CDU. In 2010, Merkel’s government passed a law extending the life-span of nuclear plants by an average 12 years – a decision that toppled the previous German administration’s pledge of a gradual phase-out of nuclear energy. Then in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Chancellor made an abrupt turnaround and ordered a temporary shutdown of seven of the country’s older reactors. This quick change raised doubts about her credibility and was viewed as a mere election ploy.

The nuclear energy debate may not have grown enough yet to sway voters in South Africa’s upcoming local government elections. Government has not listened to its citizens’ objections to nuclear power and may well get away with it for now. However, the tide is turning and government will have to listen to the needs of the South African people. The objections to nuclear energy are growing, with not only environmental organisations raising their voices, but also the labour movement with both the National Union of Mineworkers and Congress of South African Trade Unions raising concerns about nuclear energy in South Africa. However, the big challenge for civil society is the cloud of secrecy surrounding nuclear energy. There are numerous and complex problems of nuclear energy that are often hidden, including radioactive waste, untested new designs [PBMR comes to mind], phenomenal cost overruns, government loan guarantees, possible tax subsidies for the industry, and the general downplaying of potential hazards.

For decades South Africa has developed its nuclear industry, but what do we really know about it? It is time to ask the questions of the people we have put into power and demand honest answers. How is radioactive waste being dealt with in uranium mine dumps – Pelindaba and Koeberg? Where would South Africa source the fuel for its six new nuclear stations? Government‘s commitment to the future of nuclear energy is very strong, but where would it obtain funds for six nuclear stations?

Since the South African government is going to take decisions with pseudo-consultative processes, it is up to civil society to start asking the right questions. And if we don’t get answers to our questions, these decisions must be challenged to the full extent of the law so as to put a stop to nuclear energy in South Africa.

Our future is in our hands, and it is up to us to hold the government accountable.

- Makoma Lekalakala is a programme officer at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg.

Source:

http://www.ngopulse.org/article/nuclear-energy-sa-government-sticks-its-head-sand



Acid Mine Drainage -the Eastern basin is currently experiencing an ingress of 120-million litres of water and only has the capacity to treat about 80-million litres of water

If relevant to your concerns and environmental issues,  kindly raise your concerns regarding Mine Waste Solutions’ (MWS) Water Use License authorisation and positive environmental authorization for its Centralised Tailings Storage Facility (super dump) within the KOSH goldfields, one kilometer from the highly compromised Vaal Barrage River system. MWS is of the intention to reprocess 15 uraniferous tailings dams, to reprocess 1.9 million tons per month of uraniferous tailings (producing 922,000 lb/yr U₃O₈ in yellowcake) and to establish a new centralized tailings storage facility of about 1 400 ha, one kilometer from the Vaal River.  The properties adjacent to the proposed super dump are game farms and conservancies.

Your concerns and objections (please see subjoined “gaps in information”) should be submitted to:

Mr. Scot Sobey (scot@firsturanium.com)

Mr. Tshepo Moremi (Tshepo@nwpg.gov.za)

Ms. Deborah Mochotlhi (mochotlhi@dwaf.gov.za)

Mr. Willem Grobler (groblerw@dwaf.gov.za )

Mr. Piet Theron (PietT@nda.agric.za)

Mr. David Klein (DavidKl@nda.agic.za )

In terms of Mine Waste Solutions’ Environmental Management Report, it was submitted that the following gaps in the environmental impact assessment exist:

1. The existing groundwater monitoring network at MWS, Buffelsfontein and Hartebeestfontein does not meet all the requirements of [an effective ] monitoring network. (The purpose of groundwater monitoring network is to provide an early warning of possible adverse effects of the activities in the vicinity of the tailings complex, on both yield and quality of the shallow groundwater system.) No dedicated monitoring boreholes are available for the existing MWS plant site and the proposed extension site. The leachate from the proposed TSF will lead to long-term groundwater pollution.
2. A detailed geochemical assessment was not incorporated; only static laboratory test work was included on available tailings samples for the purpose of the geochemical assessment because of the limited time frame.
3. A  geophysical assessment must be done to confirm the structural geology to the east of the proposed site.
4. Certain areas were excluded re aquifer related flow parameters.
5. The status of groundwater users and uses was not confirmed.
6. The proposed reclamation sites (existing TSFs) are mostly located on dolomite/chert formations.  Ground water characteristics for these sites are unknown and NO site specific aquifer data exist.  MWS solutions will take responsibility for existing contamination plumes BUT these are not clearly  identified.  Future positive impacts of the proposed reclamation activities can therefore not be demonstrated.
7. After closure, the mine workings will flood and the dolomite aquifers will largely recover to pre-mining levels.  There are currently no management options in place to cope with contaminated decant water.
8. The flora assessment was incomplete since most of the investigations were conducted during the winter period, and no investigations were conducted during or after the high rainfall seasons.
9. The wetland assessment was incomplete since the investigation was undertaken at the end of the dry season which made plant species identification very difficult.

In view of the aforesaid gaps it perplexes how a water use licence and a positive environmental authorisation could have been issued by the Department of Water Affairs and the North West Department of Agriculture and Rural Development respectively.

The impacts of mining on the environment is current and the long term impacts from Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and heavy metal accumulation, including Uranium,  in the vicinity of the CTSF, Tailings Storage Facilities and reprocessed footprints within the KOSH goldfields have been acknowledged.  (Please see the DMR’s Regional Mine Closure Strategy for the KOSH goldfields and the Environmental Management Report of Mine Waste Solutions, March, 2009.)

In terms of MWS’s  Environmental Management Report “Mine Waste Solutions will be responsible for the existing pollution plume and zone of influence.  The anticipated zone of influence (SO₄ plume) falls within The Koekemoerspruit# and Vaal River Catchment* areas.”

#(The Koekemoerspruit, is a tributary of the Vaal River.  The Koekemoerspruit catchment is already compromised.  The transport of dissolved uranium from slimes dams is a major pathway for environmental contamination of the Koekemoerspruit. Reference:  “Gold tailings as a source of waterborne uranium contamination of streams –  The Koekemoerspruit (Klerksdorp goldfield, South Africa) as a case study.  Part I of III: Uranium migration along the aqueous pathway”. Frank Winde, Peter Wade and Izak Jacobus van der Walt)

*( In terms of the Water Research Commission Report No. 1397/1/07, entitled “Monitoring Environmental Water for the Presence of Toxic Agents:  A Pilot Study in the Vaal Barrage Catchment” it was found that “mining operations, even after they have been discontinued, are still having a major impact on the water quality in the Vaal Barrage catchment to the extent that it can no longer be compared with other natural water systems…only 21% of the sites showed no evidence of cytotoxicity at any time.  This suggests a failure on the part of those agencies responsible for the enforcement of existing  regulations and is an unacceptable situation, bearing in mind that source water from this survey area impacts directly upon the Vaal Barrage, a national water resource….Substantial deposits of immobilized toxicants could have accumulated in the southern Gauteng river silts over a prolonged periods.  Experience elsewhere suggest that such deposits pose long-term health and environmental risks”.)

With gratitude,

Mariette Liefferink.
CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

On 1 September the Federation for a Sustainable Environment submitted the following request for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act:

Dear Mr. Sobey,

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 32 (1) of the Bill of Rights “everyone has the right of access to any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights”.

In the context of Mine Waste Solutions’ establishment of a Tailings Disposal Facility, 1 (one) kilometer from the Vaal River, the rights that interested and affected parties wish to exercise and protect are:

1. Everyone has the right to life (Section 11);
2. Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and wellbeing; and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development (Section 24);
3. Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water (Section 27).

I am of the intention, in the public interest and on behalf of members of affected communities, and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, to submit my request for access to public documents such as the Water Use Licence, the Social and Labour Plan, the amended Environmental Management Programme and Environmental Impact Assessment Report, etc. to Mine Waste Solutions, in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No 2 of 2000 (PAIA).  Please advise me what Mine Waste Solutions’ prescribed format is.

I shall appreciate your response before  the 5^th of September, 2010 since your response will ripen my judgment.

Sincerely,

Mariette Liefferink.

CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia and its former Soviet neighbours were left to deal with the legacy of the Soviet nuclear programme.

From warheads and decaying submarines to radioactive lakes, a complete map of the area’s radiation hazards has not yet been drawn.

The world’s worst nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 is a nightmare that will haunt scientists and engineers for years to come.

The structure – which covers nearly 200 tonnes of highly radioactive fuel, dust and debris – is leaking and unstable, prompting fears of another nuclear disaster.

But as power sources in Ukraine are scarce, the remaining reactors of the plant are still used to produce electricity. The US Vice President, Al Gore, renewed calls for the closure of the plant by the year 2000 on his recent visit to Ukraine.

More Chernobyls?

Chernobyl was not the first accident of the Soviet nuclear programme. The secret Mayak bomb-making plant near Chelyabinsk in the Ural mountains was responsible for a whole series.

According to some reports, radioactive waste equivalent to roughly 20 Chernobyls was pumped from Mayak into a lake that even today is capable of delivering a fatal dose of radiation within an hour.

Mayak was also the scene of an explosion in a nuclear waste storage tank in 1957, when an estimated 70 to 80 tonnes of radioactive materials blasted to the air.

A similar explosion happened at Tomsk in Siberia in April 1993.

Several tonnes of uranium and plutonium salts were scattered over the surrounding countryside. Tomsk is described as the worst post-Chernobyl disaster.

Russia’s main nuclear reprocessing plant is in Krasnoyarsk, some 600km to the east of Tomsk.

The two plants are responsible for the radioactive contamination of two of Siberia’s great rivers, the Ob and the Yenisei, which flow north into the Kara Sea.

Nuclear hotspots are still being discovered, sometimes in unexpected places.

One source of contamination was located in 1997 in a military base outside the Georgian capital Tbilisi, after soldiers mysteriously began to fall ill.

Unmotivated staff

The Russian nuclear facilities have faced serious economic problems which have had direct effects on their safety.

There have been drastic cuts in the defence budget.

And heavy industry and other electricity consumers do not or cannot always pay for the electricity the nuclear power stations deliver.

This means that the operators at the stations can go months without being paid, and general maintenance becomes neglected.

Recently, workers at several Russian nuclear centres have been striking in protest against huge wage backlogs.

In Soviet times, Russia’s nuclear specialists were among the privileged who had access to special shops and luxury items, but now their families are going hungry.

Scrap sub problem

Neither has there been enough funds to dismantle the rusting submarine fleet in the north of the country.

The environmental threat was highlighted in 1996 by the Norwegian environmental group, Bellona.

Their report says the Kola peninsula, which borders on Norway and Finland, has a mountain of nuclear waste, comprising 29,040 fuel elements, nine reactor cores and 21,067 cubic meters of solid-fuel nuclear waste.

In May this year, a Russian official report voiced alarm at the situation in the Adreyev Bay area used as a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

Some 95 submarines have been decommissioned and dumped at the site and demand constant and costly work to keep them from deteriorating dangerously, or even sinking, the report says.

Smuggling fears

Environmental groups say the Russian nuclear industry has not managed to address the question of nuclear waste disposal in general.

The Bellona group says the storage facilities for radioactive waste and used fuel elements are filled to capacity and in very bad condition at all the 11 nuclear power stations in Russia.

Used fuel elements are stored temporarily in ponds at the stations, awaiting transport to the reprocessing facility, the group says. There is no central storage for such nuclear fuel.

Russia has also been embarrassed this year by a series of reports in US newspapers that it has been supplying sophisticated nuclear and missile technology to India and Iran.

The West is worried about leakage of technology and expertise. There are allegations that private companies are selling technology without the government’s consent.

President Boris Yeltsin’s administration maintains that Russia is creating special supervisory bodies at all companies dealing with nuclear technologies to prevent illegal export.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/197295.stm

_________________________________________

Russia‘s nuclear dangers

Russian nuclear power station: – safety ‘ a low priority’

By Russian affairs analyst Steven Eke

The sinking of the Kursk submarine and the fire at Moscow’s Ostankino television tower are indicative of the poor state of much of Russia’s infrastructure.

But nothing raises as much concern as Russia’s nuclear facilities.

Russia has not officially responded to a European Commission warning on Wednesday that Russia’s only nuclear reprocessing facility – Mayak – was at risk of a serious accident.

The Mayak plant was built in 1949, and it sits on a spot described as ‘the most polluted place on earth’.

It has seen a series of serious accidents, many involving the release of radioactivity.

But Mayak is just one of Russia’s nuclear facilities. The country has almost 100, situated in 10 ‘nuclear cities’.

These were – and mostly remain – closed cities. But today they are also the location for some of Russia’s most dangerous rotting infrastructure.

‘Disregard’ for safety

As life has become harder, the cities can no longer attract the best specialists from Moscow and St Petersburg. The central authorities have little money for investment and maintenance is a low priority.

The difficult economic conditions have damaged the working culture at Russia’s nuclear facilities. During the Soviet era production took priority over safety. There is still a very low level of safety awareness.

This disregard for safety has led to nuclear plants dumping radioactive waste into rivers and lakes. The Russian military poured liquid and solid radioactive waste from submarines and icebreakers into the Arctic seas. But it was only in 1993, that Moscow confirmed that 18 nuclear-powered submarines had been dumped.

Incredibly – even today – Moscow refuses to sign international agreements prohibiting the dumping of nuclear waste at sea. Russia just does not have the resources to construct suitable storage facilities.

Smuggling

The nuclear safety worries are not limited to the military sphere. There is also grave concern over the civilian use of nuclear technology.

Poor controls over radiation sources used in hospitals and research institutes mean that there have been several cases of smuggling of stolen radioactive material. And almost 60 Soviet-designed nuclear power stations remain operative in the former USSR and Eastern Europe.

Their flawed design means that radioactive contamination would be unavoidable, should an accident occur. Unlike Western reactors, the Soviet-designed models don’t have containment devices.

But the international community does not have the will – let alone the funds – to close and replace them with safer alternatives. And turning them off is not a viable option in countries with an unreliable electricity supply.

Russia needs extensive international assistance to deal with its nuclear legacy. International involvement is already fairly extensive, with the United States leading the way in clear-up programmes.

But the responsibility for creating an effective regulatory framework – and for the desperately needed shift in attitude – is ultimately Russia’s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/936461.stm

All charges against the three activists from the APF and Earthlife who were assaulted, arrested and subsequently charged with public violence and resisting arrest at yesterday’s NERSA hearings, have been unconditionally dropped by the state prosecutor. The dropping of the charges came after the activists were kept locked up in police custody for over eight hours.

None of this comes as a surprise to either the APF or Earthlife since there was no ‘case’ against the activists in the first place. Indeed, the only case to answer is that emanating from the completely outrageous conduct of the SA Police Services, which has unfortunately become a hallmark of many police actions at events and protests involving community organisations. The APF and Earthlife – alongside other community organisations and social movements – will continue to vigorously oppose ESKOM’s application for multiple electricity tariff increases. We will not be silenced!

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197

This morning, the NERSA public hearing into ESKOM’s application for tariff increases got underway at Gallagher Estate in Midrand. Both Earthlife and the APF were present, having made written submissions and requests for presentations in opposition to ESKOM’s application. Not long after proceedings began, a small group of Earthlife activists silently placed several posters on the walls inside the venue. Almost immediately, Gallagher Estate’s private security personnel arrived and tore down all the posters, whilst forcibly escorting those activists identified as the ‘perpetrators’, outside the venue. They then locked the doors and when a larger group of APF activists arrived, refused them (alongside the Earthlife activists already outside) entry.

Despite repeated attempts by these activists to point out the public nature of the hearing, and thus their right to attend, the private security personnel continued to lock them out. When the gathered activists then started toyi-toying, the SA Police Services were called. Three of the APF/Earthlife activists tried to reason with the police and to inform them of their democratic right to participate in the public hearing going on inside the building. The police then assaulted, arrested and hauled them off to the Midrand police station where they were charged with public violence and resisting arrest. The names of the three activists are Makoma Lekalakala, Mashao Chauke and Nomaliza Xhoma. At present they are being held at the Midrand police station while a lawyer engaged by Earthlife and the APF continues attempts to get the charges dropped.

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197