Tag Archives: Liabilities

Pelindaba Nuclear Disaster Management: Response Received From NECSA After Two Weeks

This diagram shows how long it will take for radiation to reach the areas around Pelindaba - a similar diagram applies to Koeberg. Evacuating this area will be impossible in case of an accident. The evacuation plans (of Eskom and the Department of Energy, through the National Nuclear Regulator) call for at least a ten kolometre zone to be evacuated. Yet hardly anyone near either site (Koeberg or Pelindaba) has even heard of this and no full scale evacuation plan has ever been tested. We believe that it is impossible to evacuate people at risk in the time available - less than two hours. How will people be informed? How will people who speak different languages be informed? Where will they go? How will they get there? How many buses will it take? Are these available? Of course, none of the above answers are forthcoming. Diagram: Courtesy of "What you need to know about South Africa's nuclear programme!"-Earthlife Africa which is downloadable in PDF from the "Important Info" page on the CANE website.

Monday 11 April 2011

By Cynthia Dreyer

If the disaster management control at Pelindaba is as tardy as the response to the concern of our readers and ourselves, Gawd help us. MadibengPulse first sent an email on 14 March asking for answers to what disaster measures were in place should an emergency at Pelindaba arise, and how they would communicate with the public to take protective measures. This was done when there was worldwide concern about the hazards of nuclear power and when a sophisticated nuclear country such as Japan were caught unawares (despite years of warnings – comment).

Our email asked for “an urgent response”

In a reply received only on 31 March, a communications spokesperson for NECSA Ms Chantal Janneker says they received our questions on Wednesday 16 March, whereas we sent the first request on Monday 14 March to Ms Shaun Chetty. That it took two days to get to the relevant person is not our concern. The only communication we received was on 17 March and was a general statement issued regarding the Fukushima disaster released by the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa. What is of extreme concern is that it took two weeks to get a reply out of Necsa regarding local disaster management. Necsa spokesperson Ms Chantal Janneker says we did not indicate that we needed an immediate reply, but quotes our email which states: “An urgent response is required. Thank you”! More than 24 hours would have elapsed before publication of the 17 March edition, but no attempt was made to reply or to acknowledge our request in what should have been merely a “cut and paste” ready response for all media, immediately available.

According to our distribution records, our article on 17 March was read by various staff members at Necsa, including Mr Eliott Mulane who forwarded us the reply quoted below, but only on 31 March! The follow up article on 21 March was read by more members of Necsa including Ms Shaun Chetty, but still no answer was forthcoming. If this is how Necsa views its responsibilities as custodians of the most dangerous substances on earth, we can all sit with our heads between our knees and kiss…. goodbye!

After two weeks, the following is the reply received form NECSA:

“Necsa has a comprehensive Emergency Plan for on site emergencies and a combined on site plan which involves the Madibeng and Tshwane disaster Management Organizations. These plans are approved by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). “The emergency plan requires a demonstrated ability by Necsa to alert residents living in the 5 kilometer formal emergency planning zone. (At Fukushima all residents were evacuated in a 20 kilometre radius zone – Editor) Necsa carries out routine exercises to ensure this and will utilise an auto dial system, ground shout and radio stations to alert the public of an emergency. Initial public alert must be achieved within time frames from 5 minutes to 1 hour depending on the emergency scenario. “Pamphlets and calendars distributed by Necsa on an annual basis are used to inform the public to go indoors and tune in to a local radio station. (We live in full view of Necsa but have in the 30 years of living here, never received any “pamphlet or calendar” from Necsa, nor would we know which local radio station to tune in to – CD.) Both Jacaranda FM and Motsweding FM have agreed to assist Necsa with emergency announcements. “The radio stations will broadcast emergency messages provided by Necsa on the emergency situation and request residents to perform required appropriate protective actions. “The Emergency Plan is not generally available to the public since it is a comprehensive and technical operating plan that is constantly being updated and tested in regular emergency drills that involve the Madibeng and Tshwane Disaster Management Organizations and which are closely supervised by the National Nuclear Regulator and the Department of Energy. “This plan is however regularly communicated and discussed in the quarterly Public Safety Information Forums to which the general public in the 5 km Necsa exclusion zone is always invited including your own newspaper and concerned organisations such as that headed by Ms Dominique Gilbert .These meetings are monitored and attended by the NNR and the Department of Energy. “In the spirit of fairness, transparency and the right to hold a different opinion, we would appreciate it if you would publish our comment and concern in an equitable manner.”

Comment (Madibeng Pulse):

Having had a home in Hartbeespoort for thirty years this month, this is the first we have heard of Necsa’s plans for an emergency, The already existing Hartbeespoort Community Policing Forums and neighbourhood watches may be good forums for a start where affected communities can have their concerns aired and questions answered. Communication networks via radio and sms already exist to various members and could be used for instant messages. The Disaster Management from Madibeng, though invited to every meeting of the Community Policing Forum, have never attended. This is another avenue of communication with the public which could be explored by Necsa – Cynthia Dreyer.

Source: http://www.madibengpulse.co.za/?Task=system&CategoryID=32103&HeadingText=Environment+110411+disaster+plan

Comment (Pelindaba Working Group):

Necsa and the NNR have shown complete disregard for public and environmental safety for years and, at best, merely adhere to the bare minimum as laid down by Acts that control them. Common sense and experience tells us the 5km zone is mere tokenism and that radiation will not be contained within the barbed wire fencing around Pelindaba’s nuclear farm. Truth of the matter, as was evidenced at a PSIF meeting over this issue, is that they do not want to extend the evacuation zone as it may mean residents from neighbouring Atteridgeville township would also be included and potentially elected to chair their white-wash forums. It was actually stated at one such meeting (at the time the plight of nuked ex-Necsa workers from Atteridgeville were making headlines during their failed quest for medical compensation) that “we don’t want busloads from Atteridgeville”. Moreover, the more people become aware of the need for an evacuation plan in the general area, the more people may actually begin to take notice and want Necsa out of the area. That we occasionally attend these PSIF meetings is often used by Necsa for its own propaganda purposes but should NOT be construed as our condoning or accepting what they claim.

It is high time questions are raised over the legitimacy of the nuclear complex in the area – an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was NEVER conducted before they began to nuke the place – and subsequent EIAs have largely traded on the fact that there already exists a radioactive footprint, so let’s add to it… All scientific evidence points to this situation becoming more and more dangerous as radiation and chemical footprints accumulate on site.

Pelindaba is NOT prepared for a disaster and nor are residents.

Hardly anyone has ever heard of an evacuation plan let alone take part in such. At least one radio station mentioned above was also unaware that it had a role to play!

We used to hear alarms go off frequently at Pelindaba only to discover they were experiencing emergency situations which they later denied would impact anyone outside their fences. Lists of questions over these incidents have remained unanswered but international experts have replied and warned us we should not rest assured. When people started becoming concerned, the alarms went silent (except for the ones they said “must have come from elsewhere”).

The third party insurance and nuclear liabilities  from the nuclear industry in this country are also virtually non-existent. Most insurance policies also emphatically exclude nuclear liability. Repeated attempts over many years – including a Promotion of  Information Act (PAIA) application to elicit information and to raise concern over this issue has been completely ignored.

219 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Nuclear waste will last longer than civilisation

October 4, 2010

by Judith Taylor

Amid the rather futile discussion about South Africa’s nuclear power generation policy and programme the most important aspect of all seems lately to have dropped off the list of factors to be considered. I refer to the radioactive longevity of nuclear fuel residue. For its radioactivity to decay to just half its initial intensity takes about 25 times longer than the entire recorded history of man.

It is no solution to encase the stuff in concrete then drop it down a mine shaft or push it inside a mountain tunnel. A quarter of a million years is ample time for unpredictable chemical and geological processes to re-expose this deadly material. Nuclear power generation on a global scale would produce enough radioactive leftovers to occupy a great deal of no-go land and require costly guarding virtually for ever, a period that would see the end of our civilisation and the rise and fall of several more.

Theoretically, nuclear waste could be recklessly shot off into space or by some yet-to-be-invented marvel of nuclear physics changed into something less lethal. In the meantime it would be more realistic to persevere with developing wind and solar power networks to succeed Eskom’s present coal-fired generation programme. However, in the interests of time and expense the government should facilitate this development work being carried out by private industry.

Meanwhile Eskom should incentivise the government to pursue diplomatically the agreement to bring hydropower from the Congo River, a sensible idea but discarded because of political and military instability on the route. This threat could be overcome if the need is pressing enough.

True costs of nuclear power are ignored

The problem with nuclear power is the total lack of transparency. People such as Dr Kemm can never give cradle to grave costs of the projects. Let’s look at what is involved if nuclear power goes ahead:

  • Nuclear power is not only a substantial threat to our water resources, but also to the biodiversity of the Cape.
  • At Thyspunt, 5 000 jobs and a R500 million industry will be replaced with a polluting reactor and 750 jobs.
  • Uranium mining, the birthplace of the fuel, is highly polluting of miners themselves, water and surrounding land.
  • Nuclear waste is also highly polluting. Nuclear power’s real carbon footprint has never been acknowledged nor has the full cost of nuclear been computed.

The citizens of Niger have recently instituted action in the US against Areva, which is mining for uranium in that country, for damage undergone by the state as well as the inhabitants of the area where Areva works. This suit is claiming several million euros in compensation.

Currently, there is not one proven, operating nuclear plant of the “new generation”. In addition, the safety issues have been omitted from the environmental impact assessments.

However, do we wish to see our water supplies, our land and our people so polluted by uranium, caesium, lead and so on that there is no quality of life and we all die a slow and painful death? Is it a logical path to follow, given the experiences of native Indians in the US who mined uranium and have died of radiation sickness?

Renewables can come on line right now and provide more than 10 times the number of jobs that nuclear or coal can. South Africa’s ingenuity in pioneering new technology can grasp the renewables revolution and bring us true wealth and health.

The cost of Chernobyl was 985 000 lives. In the UK the Sellafield plant’s decommissioning has failed, leaving a radioactive waste land for generations to come. Koeberg’s decommissioning could do the same.

Source:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5672085

19 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

New liability law “could end civil nuclear growth in India” – little wonder South African nuclear industry refuses to discuss the issue

Indian Lawmakers Approve Atomic Liability Bill

Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2010

India’s Parliament last week passed the divisive nuclear liability bill, paving the way for implementation of the landmark 2008 U.S.-Indian civilian atomic trade agreement, Reuters reported (see GSN, Aug. 25).

The Aug. 30 passage by Parliament’s upper house occurred ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama’s planned November visit to the South Asian state.

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill received the support of India’s leading opposition party, Bharatiya Janata, when the government acceded to stronger terms against nuclear suppliers and power plant operators that business groups said might limit development of India’s burgeoning atomic energy industry.

Under the measure, plant operator liability in the event of an atomic incident was increased to about $320 million and the suppliers of nuclear materials and technology could also be sued (Prusty/Kuncheria, Reuters, Aug. 30).

Some experts believe the harsh measures could lead to weaker implementation of the atomic agreement that permits U.S. nuclear firms to export atomic technologies and materials to the nuclear-armed nation in exchange for India agreeing to open up its civilian atomic sites to international monitors, the New York Times reported.

A key foreign affairs initiative of the Bush administration, the 2008 deal ended New Delhi’s decades-long status as a nuclear pariah. A number of other nations have also now established their own atomic trade deals with India.

International rules presently limit liability to the operators of nuclear power plants. By including language that leaves open the potential for suppliers to be held responsible for a mishap, the Indian legislation goes against worldwide norms.

“This makes the fruits of the Indo-U.S. deal go to waste,” New Delhi-based security analyst G. Balachandran said. “It may well be the end of civil nuclear growth in India.”

Leading Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker Arun Jaitley defended the legislation, saying it permits a nuclear plant operator to file suit against suppliers only under specific conditions (Jim Yardley, New York Times, Aug. 30).

Sudhinder Thakur, executive director of the state-owned Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., said in released comments that “no manufacturer, Indian or foreign, would be able to serve the nuclear power industry” in his nation due to the legislation, the Washington Times reported Sunday.

The liability bill will be “a significant deterrent not only to U.S. business but, equally importantly, to Indian and other international private business as well,” said Ashley Tellis, who took part in the U.S.-Indian atomic deal negotiations.

“It’s going to be interesting to see whether the Indians, now that they have passed this law, are going to stick to their guns or cave under possible U.S. pressure to reverse course,” Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Executive Director Henry Sokolski said (Ashish Kumar Sen, Washington Times, Sept. 5).

Source: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100907_3150.php

In South Africa, the nuclear industry has for years been trying to establish whether changes will be brought about to a virtually non-existent nuclear liabilities law. Repeated enquiries to the Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) and the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) have gone unheeded for years. After a pummeling for a response, they finally replied three years later that the question should be submitted in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. And this is where they’ve left it.

It is understood that the Stellenbosch University was looking into the issue of nuclear liabilities and third party insurances for the nuclear industry, but enquiries into this have also met a with a dead end.

Activists in South Africa maintain that despite strong environmental legislation, the regulation,  monitoring and standards practised by the nuclear industry remain among the most secretive and fatally flawed in the world.



143 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Nuclear lawyers highlight potential pitfalls

Nuclear lawyers highlight potential pitfalls
—————————————————————————
http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/news/thisweek/?show=102291
—————————————————————————
With South Africa apparently committed to increasing its use of nuclear power as an energy source, the rarely thought about but very important issue of nuclear liability (in the event of an accident) is now beginning to come to the fore in this country.

“With regard to financial liability for the nuclear industry, there is an international problem,” reports National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) senior legal adviser Rodney Elk.

Prescription period
“Worldwide, the prescription period – that is, the period in which a claim can be made against a company or institution – for the nuclear sector is 30 years; but the longest period you can get liability insurance (financial security, obtained by insurance or guarantee) is ten years,” he explains.

That is, claims can be lodged for up to 30 years after an accident or incident, but insurance cover to pay such claims only runs for ten years after the event.

This is, however, less serious in reality than it would seem to be at first glance.

“The majority of claims will be made in the first ten years, because damage to property and the environment will manifest itself immediately, and most claims relating to nuclear damage to people will also be made reasonably early – only claims caused by latent cancers will surface after ten years,” he elucidates.

“We are satisfied that the nuclear operators in South Africa will have the means to meet any claims,” assures Elk.

“But this is an issue that has to be raised and discussed, which is currently being done at an international level,” he stresses.

Two options are on the table, internationally: the operator remains responsible for the liability; or the State assumes liability for any amount claimed beyond the ten-year insurance-cover period.

Some, at least, of South Africa’s small cadre of nuclear lawyers believe that this issue would be settled definitively if this country adhered to an international treaty called the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).

The US Senate recently approved US accession to the CSC, and most of the rest of the world is expected to follow suit. The CSC provides for liability cover by the member states – the parties to the convention agree to jointly fund any further damages, according to a formula contained in the convention.

Another issue of concern to local nuclear lawyers is that of legal liability.

The South Africa State Law Adviser has given an opinion which says that the site on which a nuclear installation is located is not part of that nuclear installation.

This has significant legal and bureaucratic consequences.

Nuclear installation
Thus, radioactive material – say a nuclear isotope – which would, outside a nuclear installation, be classified as a Group IV Hazardous Substance, would not be so classified inside a nuclear installation.

Now, South Africa’s Safari-1 nuclear research reactor manufactures radio isotopes for nuclear medicine.

Under the current opinion, these radio isotopes have one legal status inside the building housing Safari-1, and a completely different one immediately they are taken out of that building for transport to the medical facilities that use them.

Indeed, such a radio isotope’s legal status can change twice if it is taken from one building in a nuclear complex, across a square or lawn, to another building in the same complex – it moves from installation to site to installation, all within a few minutes.

This has an impact on the liability regime applicable to the material in the event of an accident.

Radioactive material
Radioactive material in nuclear installations is subject to strict liability – one does not have to prove negligence or incompetence to succeed in a claim against nuclear operators in the event of nuclear damage.

That selfsame radioactive material, once outside nuclear installations, even if still on a nuclear site, is suddenly not subject to strict liability, and, in the event of nuclear damage, negligence has to be proven to succeed in a claim.

Moreover, if a nuclear site is not part of a nuclear installation, who is responsible for regulating and inspecting the site? This is done by the NNR, but if the NNR regulates and inspects the site as well as the installation, surely all radioactive material on both the site and the installation should be under the same regulatory framework? It currently seems that the best exit from this bizarre situation would be to get the courts to make a determination on the issue.

76 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post
lazy-submarginal