Energy Minister’s nukes clandestine meeting slammed as workers die

April 11, 2011 9:56 am ⋅ Leave a Comment ⋅ admin

MEDIA STATEMENT
24 March 2011

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

50 total views, 2 views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: atteridgeville, corporation, energy, industry, meeting, necsa, nuclear, nukes, pelindaba, policy, reactors, south africa, spin doctors

Nuclear waste will last longer than civilisation

October 5, 2010 9:00 am ⋅ 1 Comment ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

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

25 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: areva, bantamsklip, chernobyl, Eskom, health, liabilities, medical, National Nuclear Regulator, necsa, nuclear, pelindaba, protest, Radiation, radioactive, south africa, Thyspunt, Uranium

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

October 3, 2010 8:26 pm ⋅ 2 Comments ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

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.

49 total views, 2 views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: democratic rights, Godsell, health, insurance, liabilities, National Nuclear Regulator, necsa, nuclear, pelindaba, radioactive, reactors, south africa

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

September 8, 2010 6:20 pm ⋅ 1 Comment ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

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.

150 total views, 2 views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: flawed, health, India, liabilities, National Nuclear Regulator, necsa, nuclear, nuclear liabilities, pelindaba, radioactive, south africa

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

August 10, 2010 7:44 pm ⋅ Leave a Comment ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

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

145 total views, 5 views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Waste ⋅ Tagged: democratic rights, EIA, Erwin, National Nuclear Regulator, necsa, nuclear, pelindaba, radioactive, regulator, taxpayer funds

1 2 Next »

Tag Archives: Pelindaba

Post Navigation

Sponsored Links

Menu

Archives

Join CANE

Quote

Categories

Blogroll

Latest News from Environment.co.za

Spam Blocked

Tag Archives: Pelindaba

Energy Minister’s nukes clandestine meeting slammed as workers die

Nuclear waste will last longer than civilisation

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

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

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

Post Navigation

Sponsored Links

Menu

Archives

Join CANE

Quote

Categories

Tags

Blogroll

Latest News from Environment.co.za

Spam Blocked