Tag Archives: Democratic Rights

Government’s plan doubles nukes

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday.

by SISEKO NJOBENI

8 October 2010

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday, while the contribution of renewable energy technologies is poised for a significant increase.

The proposals, which are part of the department’s draft integrated electricity resource plan, show the government’s preferred energy mix for the next 20 years.

They provide prospective investors with an indication of the shape of SA’s future energy industry. The integrated resource plan is a 20-year electricity capacity plan that gives an outcome of projected future electricity demand, how the demand would be met and at what cost.

The interministerial committee on energy, set up to consider energy policy issues, has approved the integrated resource plan.

The committee’s approval paves the way for a second round of a public consultation process. The department held the first round of consultations in June.

In the draft integrated resource plan, the department is proposing that coal contribute 48% to the energy mix by 2030, followed by renewable energy (16%), nuclear (14%), peaking open cycle gas turbine (9%), peaking pump storage (6%), mid-merit gas (5%) and baseload import hydro (2%). These point to a window of investment opportunity mainly in renewable energy and nuclear technologies. The draft plan envisages 52248MW of new capacity in the next 20 years.

While coal will still be the biggest contributor to electricity generation, the department’s proposals represent a significant reduction in its contribution.

Coal currently accounts for over 90% of electricity generation. Eskom’s two nuclear reactors at the Koeberg power station supply 1800MW or 6% of SA’s electricity needs. The renewable energy industry is yet to take off in SA.

The department said in drawing up the draft integrated resource plan the inter- ministerial committee considered various scenarios. These included cancelling the Kusile power station, or delaying the building of Medupi and Kusile power stations.

Eskom MD for systems operations and planning Kannan Lakmeeharan yesterday repeated the utility’s commitment to completing Kusile.

‘These are just scenarios. In fact, the final proposal includes both Kusile and Medupi.

‘The department also says we should not delay the two projects because they are important for security of supply,’ Mr Lakmeeharan said.

The department has also warned of looming power supply constraints. In a report on the medium-term risk mitigation plan for electricity in the period between this year and 2016, the department said latest forecasts indicate a worsening of electricity supply constraints from next year until 2016.

‘This situation poses a real risk of rolling blackouts, similar to those experienced in 2008, and a serious threat to government’s objectives for growth and job creation,’ the department said.

Mr Lakmeeharan said Eskom had in the past alluded to the looming supply constraints ‘because the rate of capacity addition will be less than the (electricity) demand reduction. The report says we must do something. Options include energy efficiency, independent power producers (contribution) and the energy conservation scheme’ .

Frost & Sullivan energy programme manager Cornelis van der Waal yesterday applauded the department ‘for coming up with something that portrays the real scenario as we see it. Urgent action is needed.’ The required action includes commissioning power from independent
suppliers, Mr van der Waal said.

The committee had asked the team drawing up the plan to do more work on the possibility of incorporating carbon capture and storage capability on all future coal-fired power stations.

njobenis@bdfm.co.za
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=123180

29 total views, no views today

Rate this post

NO INSURANCE FOR COASTAL – or any – PROPERTY NEAR NUCLEAR REACTORS

by Ingela Richardson

According to national planning commission member, Bobby Godsell, half of SA’s electricity could come from nuclear energy.

This is a highly expensive and non-sustainable energy source, since it depends on uranium enrichment and most of Africa’s uranium is being imported by China already. Energy Minister Dupuo Peters said that by the time a nuclear plant was constructed in SA, this country would not be able to afford enriched uranium.

She also raised the valid point that coastal homes would be affected, since nuclear power plants would be built on the coast.

All South Africans with property investments at the coast should take a look at their insurance policies.

A typical household policy by Alexander Forbes for example states the following:

“The General Exclusion relating to Nuclear losses is restated as follows: Except as regards Personal Accident section, this policy does NOT cover any legal liability, loss, damage, cost or expense whatsoever or any consequential loss directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from:
i) ionising, radiations or contamination by radio-activity from any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste from the combustion or use of nuclear fuel;
ii) nuclear material, nuclear fission or fusion, nuclear radiation
iii) nuclear explosives or any nuclear weapon
iv) nuclear waste in whatever form; regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss.
For the purpose of this exclusion only, combustion shall include any self-sustaining process of nuclear fission.”

So it is very clear that general insurance will not cover coastal property owners from losses related to nuclear plants.

And emergency services or evacuations? Once again, South Africans who have tried to call for government ambulances in times of emergency will know the answer to that one.

44 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Super dump: Mine waste solutions request for assistance

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 5th of September, 2010 since your response will ripen my judgment.

Sincerely,

Mariette Liefferink.

CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

176 total views, no views today

Rate this post

National Nuclear Regulator repeatedly fails to protect & engage the public but squanders taxpayer funds on image building

MEDIA STATEMENT

10 August 2010

Having put the public at risk by failing for decades to address the radioactive Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) seeping into our drinking water, the Pelindaba Working Group is astounded that the National Nuclear Regulator has recently employed the services of a branding agent to “create a positive public image” and now also pleads poverty over funding a single meeting with key civic stakeholders.

The NNR has come under attack for failing abysmally as a regulator and unsuccessfully trying to put a lid on the growing problems of radioactive acid water threat to rivers, farming and drinking water[i]. It also dismisses growing public concern over the stock-piling of radioactive waste and radiotoxic releases into the Crocodile River at Pelindaba and the Atlantic Ocean at Koeberg among other sites.

The performance of the NNR should be judged on their fulfilment of their fiduciary function, namely to protect the public, property and the environment from nuclear damage. To protect their image is an inappropriate triviality which is of very little importance in comparison to the more serious alleged failures of the NNR.

NNR regulates the entire fuel cycle and is beholden to the nuclear industry

The NNR currently regulates the entire nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mine exploration to decommissioning and radioactive waste.

The public have a right to know what is being spent on at least the one branding agent – Zanusi Brand Solutions – whose employees falsely identified their company as “Zanusi Grand Solutions” to solicit an interview from nuclear monitor groups and then failed to phone back.  Zanusi lists DEAT and the SABC among their other illustrious clients.

In 2008, erstwhile Minister Alec Erwin squandered over R4m taxpayer funds by employing FreedThinkers to give nukes a “make-over” and to “turn anti-nuke activists into pro-nuke ambassadors” in his desperate bid to save the discredited PBMR nuclear white elephant. It seems the nuclear industry will stop at nothing to promote this industry against all odds. And, pro-nuclear propaganda in South Africa is set to intensify and be funded by taxpayers starting at schools.

NNR has addition marketing study running

To make matters worse, a second NNR-sponsored “tracking study” is being simultaneously conducted by JGR Marketing Resources which has for years been paid to report on “levels of satisfaction amongst its key stakeholders”. None of these reports were ever made public.

Neither company knew about the other. Neither company followed through on their planned interviews and showed more interest in views over the NNR’s logo, for example, than views over NNR’s handling of radiological issues.

Yet in February this year the NNR asked about 50 civil society groups for “an engagement meeting” and for discussion items, and indeed the NNR budget reflects substantial funding – almost R13 million or 10% of its budget – requested for “stakeholder management”.

To date the NNR has failed to respond to a growing list of questions and concerns that directly impact on public safety in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria from past and existing nuclear activities – past and present – from public groups and this week finally turned down a request for a mere scaled-down R6, 000 after months of negotiation to bring civil society stakeholders together for the meeting.

Why is critical information on failures of the NNR Act being withheld?

Stakeholders had also asked the NNR to provide details of a thought provoking talk by NNR senior lawyer Rodney Elk on the NNR’s legal challenges and difficulties with reference to the implementation of the National Nuclear Regulator Act.

The cotton-wool approach

This initiative is now in jeopardy as the NNR pleads poverty and suggests it meets with stakeholders individually which appears to have begun despite talks about national talks. This is nothing less than anti participatory ploy or cotton-wool approach similar to that used by the consultants on nuclear Environmental Studies to whitewash public sentiment.

Stakeholder groups are situated at each of the five coastal regions earmarked for nuclear reactors, as well as Hartbeespoort, Koeberg and the Namaqualand, site of South Africa’s nuclear waste dump.  In addition, Gauteng and North West host NECSA and most of the uranium mines.

Pelindaba Working Group is aware that the NNR holds lavish pro-nuclear related conferences at upmarket venues that exclude civil stakeholders and spares no cost on the travel expenses of its executives – over R5,5m in 2008/9 and forecast at R7,640,080 in the 2011/12 financial year.

The NNR derives its income by issuing nuclear authorisations.  This compromises its ability to be an independent regulator, as opposing the granting of licences will impact directly on its ability to continue.  A body set up, with an independent funding model similar to the Water Research Council, would be more appropriate.

NNR lacks skills & is has missing funds

Its own annual reports reflect a dire shortage of skills and know-how at the NNR, while media reports and labour disputes indicate that significant funds have gone missing from its coffers.

The NNR has blatantly ignored requests by affected communities for critical information, including details on abnormal discharges of radioactive gases from Pelindaba emergencies, nuclear liability insurances, as well as the issuing of authorisations to hazardous nuclear vessels in our coastal waters and ports without at least requesting that our Mother City and her residents and businesses is insured against a potential nuclear disaster.

Last week residents around Pelindaba again reported hearing loud sirens but these were dismissed by the NNR and the Nuclear Energy Corporation as a “possible hoax” or someone else’s siren.

What of the legacy of nuclear waste stockpiles in South Africa?

The nuclear/radiotoxic legacy of this country is long standing.  Its most toxic impact is through radioactive acid water from mines throughout Gauteng, North West, Limpopo and Mpumalanga.  However, the impact of stockpiles of nuclear waste over the coming centuries is part of that legacy and cannot be assessed.  World-wide studies are pointing strongly to the danger presented by such waste to future generations, who may not understand the labelling because of the shifts in language alone.

It is imperative for this country to have a strong nuclear regulator, particularly in the face of new legislation which recently exonerated the Department of Environmental Affairs from dealing with environmental radioactivity – even in Environmental Impact Assessments. Instead law now places this duty solely at the door of the NNR, where such studies cannot be funded and would be retrospective to the granting of the Record of Decision.  Additionally, the NNR lacks capacity to do anything more than to acquiesce to all nuclear developments. This is clearly untenable as it puts communities at risk and, by default, forces the NNR to grant the licence.

Informed of the failures and inadequacies of the NNR, the EIA consultants Arcus Gibb reply that it is not their responsibility to assess the competence of the NNR.

South Africans need to awaken to the potentially dire consequences for generations to come of a weak[ii], corrupt[iii], incapable and inept[iv] regulator if nuclear expansion in South Africa is to be pursued, and indeed even if it does not.

Issued by:

>Dominique Gilbert

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP

083 740 4676

>Christine Garbett

CANE – Gauteng / Northwest Province

>Judith Taylor

Earthlife Africa Joburg

082 389 3481


[i] Refer to recent expose by Carte Blanche “Acid Water”, 1 Aug 2010, http://beta.mnet.co.za/carteblanche/Article.aspx?Id=4057&ShowId=1 . See also www.fse.org.za

[ii] See supporting document http://www.cane.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Articles-on-National-Nuclear-Regulator-in-support-of-media-statement-published-on-CANE-10-Aug-2010.pdf

[iii] See separate document http://www.cane.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Articles-on-National-Nuclear-Regulator-in-support-of-media-statement-published-on-CANE-10-Aug-2010.pdf

[iv] See separate document http://www.cane.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Articles-on-National-Nuclear-Regulator-in-support-of-media-statement-published-on-CANE-10-Aug-2010.pdf

126 total views, no views today

Rate this post

The Soviet nuclear legacy

By BBC News Online’s Johanna Numminen

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.

There have been several cases of smuggling of stolen radioactive material”

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

“ Russia needs extensive international assistance to deal with its nuclear legacy”

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

62 total views, no views today

Rate this post
lazy-submarginal