Thank you for supporting our previous efforts to build a nuclear-free future for our kids. More than ever, the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy needs your help to make that future a reality.

The disaster in Japan continues to unfold – with authorities now admitting three meltdowns and some reports putting Japan’s nuclear disaster on a par with Chernobyl.

The terrifying reality is the same thing could happen in South Africa. Government has nailed its colours to the mast by promising SIX REACTORS as part of its “nuclear fleet”. In addition, Rob Adam of NECSA has promised us “localization” with uranium enrichment, fuel assembly and spent fuel reprocessing. All this despite the opposition from the Civil Society Energy Caucus, faith- labour- and community-based Organisations.

We must urgently work to prevent that. To that end, leading campaigners & activists from NGOs and civil society organisations associated with C.A.N.E., academics and professionals plan to hold a “summit” on 27 and 28 July to tackle the problem. And our budget is virtually non-existent.  It is called a “summit”, because – this is designed expressly for leadership to discuss ways and means of defending our country against the threat of a “nuclear fleet”, which (according to IPAP2 by the Department of Trade & Industries) will cost us R1.3 trillion.

We aim to discuss strategy and tactics over the next two years, as well as budgets for fund-raising purposes.  We will also seek fresh elections for the National Executive to take us forward with a renewed mandate from the Summit.

We seek to ensure that the lessons learned from the nuclear meltdown in Japan are incorporated into S.A. regulations, and ensure our government will impose a moratorium on new licenses for dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power plants, and no more secrecy over our nuclear legacy.

Please act now and urge your local politicians and media to support this stand so we can build a safer future for generations of South Africans.

Thanks for taking action. And please also consider making a donation to C.A.N.E. today. It is the only group in South Africa that focuses solely on preventing a nuclear future! Your support will help us build a grassroots movement to close dangerous nuclear plants and create a safe energy future for our children. Your donation will also make it possible for a team to dedicate their time and effort to increase pressure on government and the media, and keep you informed and our website going.

Thank you for working with us for a nuclear-free world.

A nuclear forum is being held in South Africa on the 19th of May 2011 at Emperor’s Palace, Johannesburg, aimed at once again promoting nuclear energy in South Africa. As always these “forums” are not for free and are designed that way in order to keep out NGO’s and community driven organisations who simply do not have the funds to attend them. To give you an idea the cost of attending is R2850.00 per person which most NGO’s will not be able to afford, simple as that.

What happens with all these events is that 99% of the attendees are already pro nuclear so one wonders what’s the fricking point??

If the nuclear industry really wants to enter into debate with the South African public WHICH THEY DO NOT, they would make attendance for NGO’s and community driven organisations FREE but they DO NOT want to debate anything. They have an agenda and they will stick with it no matter what. In 5 years we have never been able to get anyone inside the highly secretive South African Nuclear Industry to debate anything, they cannot even answer the simplest of questions posed to them.

What is most annoying is an email promoting this event which was circulated by the company managing the event, namely Siyenza Managament (Pty) Ltd. In this email the author one Mabel Modipa spits out the biggest bunch of bogus unscientific garbage we’ve seen yet.

The email reads as follows:

Africa Needs Nuclear Power

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident, resulting from the recent massive Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and following the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the former Soviet Union, there has been much public debate internationally concerning nuclear power.

Much of the information projected to the public is misguided and inaccurate which leads to a public fear which in turn affects the formulation of government policy internationally. This in turn affects the costs of construction of nuclear power stations because, at times, unrealistic requirements are put in place, which then tend to drive costs up.  The mystique surrounding the subject of nuclear power tends to confuse matters further, in the public mind.  A confused public cannot make informed energy decisions relating to nuclear power.

In Fukushima province the first person to die as a result of the Fukushima nuclear incident has just been reported.  He was a 64 year old farmer from Sukagama, 65km from the reactor.  He hanged himself because the authorities would not let him sell his produce.  To receive any meaningful radiation dose from his spinage a person would have to eat many tons of it, which would be impossible.  It is sad that misguided policy caused his death.

Issues of nuclear construction costs and public perceptions of nuclear power will be discussed at the forthcoming nuclear power conference; Nuclear Forum 3, on 19 May 2011 at Emperor’s Palace, Johannesburg.

The conference will be opened by the Minister of Energy, The Hon Dipuo Peters.

A lot of debate around the use of nuclear as an alternate energy source has been debated this week at the Africa World Economic Forum in Cape Town.  South Africa will be taking the lead in Africa, with the proposed implementation of nuclear as a reliable source of power for the country.  This will no doubt raise the nuclear debate in the rest of the African continent.

ENDS
5 May 2011
Issued by: Siyenza Management
+27 11 463 9184

Mike Kantey, the chairperson of the National Coalition Against Nuclear Energy duly responded to Miss Modipa with the following response.

Dear Mabel

As the National Chairperson of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (see www.cane.org.za) and on behalf of the African Uranium Alliance, I take the strongest objection to the unscientific and emotional language employed in your press release appended below.

If this is the quality of business “intelligence” that is sold at high expense to political, investment, and business leaders in Africa, may Heaven help us over the next century.

Not only does the recently Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010) for South Africa make it abundantly clear at Table 18 on page 43 that a non-nuclear future is perfectly and affordably obtainable, but the respected International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) declared the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident at its highest level of INES-7, equivalent to the worst accident ever at Chernobyl.

To trivialise and minimise this horrendous accident as your misguided “press release” appears to do makes a mockery of those Japanese citizens within a 20-km radius who have been forced to evacuate their lands and their homes, probably forever, and the risk to all those who are forced to consume foodstuffs and liquids with traces of Strontium-90 and Cesium-137. Unlike your ill-informed and disgraceful mockery of an old man’s death by suicide (an understandable response in Japanese society), as well as your simple ignorance of the basic rules of English spelling (“spinach” not “spinage”, which is what you appear to be practising), the smallest, micro-quantity of Cesium-137 or Strontium-90 will be sufficient to trigger a cancer or genetic defect, once it has been inhaled or swallowed.

I trust that your conference will not be another exercise in pulling radioactive wool over your monied classes, but an honest assessment of what really is in the best interests of the African masses.

Sincerely

Mike Kantey
National Chairperson
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy
www.cane.org.za

Source: http://www.environment.co.za

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.

The Pelindaba Working Group today slammed the clandestine manner in which the government and its nuclear industry are pushing a radioactive agenda on the South African public and in particular a workforce for whom a job could be tantamount to suicide.

The Department of Energy sent out a media invitation to attend a “public participation event on understanding Nuclear Energy” and tout for workers in the very same black township outside Pretoria where scores of former workers of the nuclear industry have died from occupational disease.

Residents who live in Atteridgeville and Sausville where the Energy Minister and others will today try to persuade residents to take up a career in the nuclear industry, were totally unaware of the planned event which was only announced late yesterday afternoon.

“We suspect this is a carefully staged event for propaganda purposes,” said Alfred Sepepe, representative of many Atteridgeville-based ex-nuclear workers for whom there has been no compensation for occupational diseases. “Whoever arrives here will have been pre-organised by them themselves as a way of pretending that people from Atteridgeville support them. We don’t. Too many of us have died from sicknesses caused by working at Pelindaba.”

Mr. Sepepe has spent the past 2 years trying to obtain a meeting with the Energy Minister who has repeatedly failed to pitch for pre-arranged meetings. He and his team have also approached President Jacob Zuma’s office, which sent him back to the Energy Minister. Late last year the Energy Minister finally sent Mr Sepepe a letter saying he should take up his issues with the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) and regurgitated stock answers issued by NECSA over the issue of ill workers over several years.

About 208 ex-Necsa workers were diagnosed by medical expert Dr Murray Coombs as having the basis for claims for occupational compensation. NECSA was approached to assist them with additional medical examinations under independent supervision but refused and instead produced their own white-washed medical report refuting the workers claims.

“The irony of these workers failing to get a single meeting with the Minister and now having to attend a “participation” meeting on understanding “nuclear energy” at a time when the world over people are turning their backs on this heinous energy source is beyond conscience,” said Dominique Gilbert, coordinator of the Pelindaba Working Group.

Mr. Sepepe and members of his committee will be attending the meeting uninvited as it may be the closest the manage to get to see the Minister.

We call on the government to immediately put an end to its nuclear policy.

South Africa’s nuclear policy is undemocratic and Gazetted without so much as a Parliamentary debate.

Before South Africa turns to more nukes, there must be full disclose of the legacy of the full fuel cycle of the industry from uranium mining to radioactive waste “management”/spills/leaks/environmental hazard and a full assessment of how innocent workers and communities have been affected from the various radioactive sites in this country.

ISSUED BY:
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
Pelindaba Working  Group
Tel: 083-740 4676
www.cane.org.za

27 Aug 2010

Question No.: 2309

Mr M A Nhanha (Congress of the People) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:

Whether the government has decided what to do with all the facilities, materials, goods and equipment procured for the Pebble-Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor (PBMR), including the tank that is being shipped from Spain, in order to recoup part of its massive investment in the project; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

In proposing that PBMR company moves to a care and maintenance mode, consideration was given to ensure protection of valuable intellectual property and assets held by PBMR and the retention of nuclear skills developed by PBMR for the South African nuclear industry.

In terms of the assets, the following has been proposed and approved by Cabinet:

The activities on the fuel development laboratory (FDL) have been suspended. This triggers a decommissioning of the facility in terms of the law. In terms of the back to back agreement with Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa(NECSA) on the decommissioning liability NECSA will call on the provision that PBMR has made for the dismantling and decommissioning of the facility.

PBMR has suspended all operation at the Helium Test Facility (HTF), also on the NECSA premises. This will be mothballed to allow for activities to be restarted in the future.

The HTTF facility at North West University will only be mothballed should that University not wish to continue to utilise the facility.

The Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) was one of the components of the demonstration power plant. The RPV was designed specifically for PBMR needs. The RPV is being imported to South Africa from Spain. NECSA has indicated that they will be willing to store the RPV for PBMR at no charge until it is known if this RPV can be used in future for another purpose.

Source: Department of Public Enterprises

Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises
27 Aug 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

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.

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.



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

[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

Residents near Pelindaba last Thursday, 5 August 2010, reported that they twice heard sirens around 8am from near NECSA’s Gate 3 to the Nuclear Complex. Both NECSA and the NNR deny that sirens went off at NECSA, passing it off as a possible hoax or “someone else’s siren”. A local block watch in the area was contacted but said they knew of none other than Necsa with sirens in the area.

Go to Important Info page for map

Initially not a single person at the communications division of NECSA could be reached around 8.30am Thursday – even on cell numbers – and finally NECSA’s Elliot Mulane answered his mobile. He was not at work but did phone back with his findings.

Both NECSA and the National Nuclear Regulator subsequently denied that sirens went off at Pelindaba that morning, but Mr Mulane said the routine siren tests had taken place on Monday the 2^nd August.

However:

1. Residents in the area were not notified about
2. Residents in the area say they did not hear Monday’s sirens (but NECSA said it happened)
3. The NNR admitted it had not been informed of the Monday tests. A spokesman said they should have been notified.

This is all very worrying for people who live in the region as they may never know when there is a real emergency at Pelindaba. Last year, after the sirens repeatedly went off over a period of month, we alerted the media and it turned out an emergency situation had triggered the sirens and confined all staff indoors. The siren was triggered by an abnormal release of “noble gas” during a regular production of isotopes.

Residents were not contacted at all. NECSA claimed the radioactive gases that escaped were contained within their fenced area (on a windy day!!!) We submitted numerous questions to the NNR over this incident – subjoined hereunder – and have still not had appropriate replies. Since this incident, sirens have not been heard again from Pelindaba – not even routine monthly siren tests – until Thursday morning. NECSA are supposed to test their sirens on the first Monday of every month but have stopped notifying residents, whether or not they continue this practice.

It is a mystery and residents have a right to know what’s going on. There are worrying health risks to children and mothers from the harmful effects of ionizing (man-made) radiation. You cannot see it, smell it, taste it yet it needs only the smallest particles to cause leukemia, a variety of cancers, spontaneous abortions and genetic abnormalities in unborn children.

THE QUESTIONS THE NNR HAVE NEVER ANSWERED:

The National Nuclear Regulator

Dear Gino Moonsamy and Thiagan Pather

Further to your media release, I am pleased to know the NNR will continue with its investigation. We trust you will inform us once this is complete, and ask that you indicate how long this investigation is likely to continue?

In terms of your legislated mandate to protect the environment, humans and property, however, I trust you will also provide us with answers to the following questions:

1. Can you confirm the chemical structure of the xenon and krypton that was released?
2. Can you confirm that the xenon and krypton were radioactive? If so, what can you tell us about the nature of that gamma radiation?
3. Can you confirm the suspected amount of the xenon and krypton that was released over legitimate levels? And for how long?
4. Please confirm the legal daily limit of these emissions?
5. Please outline known health and environmental implications of xenon and krypton – especially the particular Xe and Kr that is believed to have been released.
6. Please provide information on the exact building stack that triggered the alarm? Was it the Safari 1 reactor or another building, and if so, please name the building and describe the exact nature of the processes that take place in this building?
7. Since it was established within a short period after the emergency that xenon and krypton were released, could you indicate whether ANY emissions of ANY OTHER substance was released simultaneously, whether considered hazardous or not?
8. Why were no residents informed? Instead residents contacted Necsa to enquire about the alarms.
9. If the emergency warranted all personnel being mustered to safe designated areas behind locked doors, closed windows and switched off ventilators as indicated by NECSA’s Emergency Control Centre, why were the closest residents to Pelindaba not evacuated until the emergency was called off?
10. Mr. Rob Adam indicated to me personally that NECSA has detectors onsite and also off-site. Can you confirm this?
11. The emergency took place on a relatively windy day. What assurances are there that the event was of a localized nature?
12. Who is responsible for the emergency?
13. The NNR has indicated to Parliament last year it has a skills and manpower shortage. Is this likely to affect your investigation?
14. What will be done to prevent a recurrence of abnormal levels of radioactive emissions at Necsa’s Pelindaba site?
15. Can you please indicate how many other events of abnormal levels of radioactive emissions have been recorded at Pelindaba over the past that have warranted an on-site emergency– whether or not these were deemed to have posed a threat to the public and workers at the facilities or not.

Please can you ensure that I am on all your emailing lists? I sent you and other officials at the NNR an email request the night before the emergency at Pelindaba and have still received no reply, let alone a copy of your media release – which I now have via people based in the Cape! I am, as you know, a resident in the Pelindaba region.

It is sincerely hoped you will provide a prompt response to these questions in light of the now scaled-up activity at the Pelindaba Complex which makes it more imperative than ever that the public can rely on the NNR.

Sincerely

Dominique Gilbert

From: Gino Moonsamy [mailto:gmoonsamy@nnr.co.za]
Sent: 18 March 2009 09:49 AM
To: Pelindaba Working Group; Thiagan Pather
Subject: RE: Media Release – National Nuclear Regulator Assures Public of Safety – Pelindaba

Dear Dominic

Your contact details have been added to our mailing list.

Your enquiry is noted and currently being attended to.

best regards

Gino Moonsamy

National Nuclear Regulator

“Safety first, Safety always”