Fukushima nuclear plant operator TEPCO admitted on May 15 that nuclear fuel at reactor 1 started melting soon after the on March 11 earthquake. “Because there is similar damage to the fuel rods at the No. 2 and 3 reactors, the bottoms of their pressure vessels could also have been damaged,” as the TEPCO senior official Junichiro Matsumoto said.

3,000 tons of radioactively contaminated water has been discovered at Fukushima nuclear power plant. The contaminated water could reach the sea through the holes that the melted rods burnt through the vessel. The engineers are now saying that they can no longer flood the reactors in order to cool them, so what will be the next plan to cool down the melting material within the reactors? As Greenpeace is strongly saying these days, “the fact that TEPCO has used more than two months to confirm the complete meltdown, shows the apparent inability of the nuclear industry to face such disasters.”

Source: www.greenpeace.org

Radiation readings at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi station rose to the highest since an earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems, impeding efforts to contain the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.

Two robots sent into the reactor No. 1 building at the plant yesterday took readings as high as 1,120 millisierverts of radiation per hour, Junichi Matsumoto, a general manager at Tokyo Electric Power Co., said today.

That’s more than four times the annual dose permitted to nuclear workers at the stricken plant.

[Note: these are measurements of the penetrating gamma radiation only; they do not include the less-penetrating beta and alpha radiation. (GE)]

Radiation from the station, where four of six reactors have been damaged by explosions, has forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of people and contaminated farmland and drinking water.

A plan to flood the containment vessel of reactor No. 1 with more water to speed up emergency cooling efforts announced yesterday by the utility known as Tepco may not be possible now.

“Tepco must figure out the source of high radiation,” said Hironobu Unesaki, a nuclear engineering professor at Kyoto University. “If it’s from contaminated water leaking from inside the reactor, Tepco’s so-called ‘water tomb’ may be jeopardized because flooding the containment vessel will result in more radiation in the building.”

[Note: This is not clearly stated.  If the containment vessel is flooded while it is leaking, there will be more radioactive material "flushed out" from the damaged core, leading to an increase in penetrating gamma radiation  levels outside the vessel but still inside the containment building. (GE)]

Decontaminating Robots

Tepco plans to decontaminate the two iRobot Corp. Packbot robots before sending them into a building tomorrow or later to further investigate the damage, spokesman Takeo Iwamoto said. High radiation in the reactor buildings prevents engineers from working inside them, Iwamoto said.

The cores in reactors 1, 2 and 3 and the spent fuels rods in reactor 4 have been damaged. Tepco has been using fire trucks, concrete pumps and other emergency measures for nearly seven weeks to pour millions of liters of water to cool the units after the accident.

Tepco started moving the radioactive water, which leaked to the basements and trenches, to a waste storage facility on April 19. Tepco transferred 1.89 million liters of the water from the trenches near reactor No. 2 as of 7 a.m. today, Iwamoto said. The utility plans to install a second pump after transferring 2.5 million liters.

Tepco shares fell 3.3 percent to 412 yen today in Tokyo. The shares are down about 80 percent since the quake and tsunami struck on March 11, leaving almost 26,000 people dead or missing.

Less Damage

Reactors 1 and 2 are less damaged than estimated, Tepco said in a statement today.

As much as 55 percent of the No. 1 reactor core at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station was damaged, compared with its earlier estimate of 70 percent.

“We revised the core damage data because some readings on the containment vessel monitors were wrong,” Matsumoto said. “There was also a recording mistake. We are investigating why this happened.”

The assessment for the No. 2 reactor was cut to 25 percent from 35 percent, while that for the No. 3 unit was raised to 30 percent from 25 percent.

“It seems a reasonable estimate that three reactor cores may be damaged to a similar extent,” said Unesaki. The new estimate “doesn’t indicate lower or higher risks at the plant.”

Radiation in Tokyo’s water supply fell to undetectable levels for the first time since March 18, the capital’s public health institute said today.

The level of iodine-131 in tap water fell to zero yesterday, and cesium-134 and cesium-137 also weren’t detected, the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health said today.

[Iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137 are man-made radioactive poisons that can only come from irradiated nuclear fuel.  Iodine-131 has a  half-life of about 8 days, so it will be completely gone from the environment in a few months.  Cesium-134 has a half-life of about 2 years, so it will be completely  gone from the environment after a few decades.  Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years, so it will not be completely gone from the environment until several centuries have elapsed. (GE)]

Tokyo residents were told on March 23 that the city’s water was unsafe for  infants after iodine and cesium levels exceeded guidelines.

To contact the reporters on this story:

Tsuyoshi Inajima in Tokyo at
tinajima@bloomberg.net;

Michio Nakayama in Tokyo at
mnakayama4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:

Amit Prakash at
aprakash1@bloomberg.net

Excuse us while we go nuclear on this, but Alberta should not be a dumping ground for radioactive garbage from Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. They can keep it.

The Municipal District of Big Lakes, northwest of Edmonton, is investigating whether the community could become home to a nuclear-waste facility worth up to $24 billion. Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization is currently looking for a community that can safely handle the country’s nuclear waste.

The agency notes on its website that spent nuclear fuel has been safely transported internationally for 40 years. “At present, limited amounts of used nuclear fuel are transported in Canada. However, in other countries, in particular France, the United Kingdom and Sweden, shipments of used nuclear fuel take place routinely on a large scale,” it says.

Alberta has a minute supply of radioactive fuel at a SLOWPOKE research reactor at the University of Alberta. There are similar research reactors in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. These are low-power reactors with built-in safety mechanisms that allow them to be licensed to operate unattended overnight.

There are two million highlevel radioactive fuel bundles sitting at temporary storage sites in Canada, mostly at the large plants in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Jurisdictions that are the biggest producers of spent fuel should be the ones dealing with the waste. Alberta should not be taking other province’s nuclear garbage.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

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.

by Max Matavire

A provincial anti-nuclear energy organisation has intensified its opposition to the proposed construction of a reactor at Thyspunt, Oyster Bay, on fears of repercussions of a nuclear accident.

Japan’nuclear disaster has bolstered the opposition to the use of this type of energy. ­Reactors at Fukushima plant in Japan have been leaking harmful radioactive materials into the environment following an earthquake and a tsunami there on March 11.

South Africa is faced with an energy crunch and identified increased use of nuclear power as one of the possible solutions. Power utulity Eskom has earmarked Thyspunt as a site for the construction of a nuclear reactor.

Activists and residents are vehemently opposed to the plan. Mike Kantey, the chairperson of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (Cane), said his organisation wanted to change the country’s energy policy away from nuclear power plants.

Kantey vowed to oppose the development of a nuclear plant all the way, promising to take the fight to the Constitutional Court.

Cane is now calling on all residents of the province – and the Garden Route – to rally behind the call to stop the construction of the nuclear reactor.

Kantey said the nuclear emissions and waste along the N2 national road posed serious health risks and could irrevocably damage tourism in the region. The government has said it hoped to break ground in 2013, but the plant has to first receive environmental approval and undergo a public participation process before any construction work can begin.

Kantey said he was busy preparing for “battle” against the up-coming environmental approval of the nuclear facility.

Numerous organisations of nuclear activists, environmentalists, dairy farmers, chokka fishermen and ordinary residents have been mobilised to fight against the construction of the nuclear facility.

Some of the organisations involved are the Thyspunt Alliance, the Supertubes Foundation in Jeffreys Bay, Gamtoos community, dairy farmers, residents and the fishing community. The concerns raised include the risk of winds carrying radioactive emissions from Thyspunt to neighbouring areas and the effect on the agriculture and dairy industries.

The opponents of the plant further wanted detailed information on the safety measures and disaster management plans that were in place for the towns along the N2 highway in case of an accident.

Kantey called for substantial support. “I am calling on residents of Knysna and Plettenberg Bay to put their money and support behind the Thyspunt Alliance so that we can take this matter to the Constitutional Court.”

http://www.thenewage.co.za/15163-1016-53-Opposition_to_nuclear_reactor_mounts

Watch this interview on the comparison between Fukushima and the Chernobyl Plant and what experts are saying:

This report “Radiation up 400 times in Miyagi, new blast feared at Fukushima” can be watched at:             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE_Au0J-gqw

Statement re the Nuclear and Earthquake Disaster Unfolding in Japan

The Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) is deeply concerned for the health and safety of the people affected by the earthquakes and tsunamis that have struck Japan over the last two days. We are particularly concerned for the people in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, including workers who are trying to minimize the scope of the disaster.

Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is in a state of meltdown. A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan said wouldn’t happen is in progress. It is occurring as a result of an earthquake that they said would not happen.

This could and should have been predicted. It was predicted by scientists and NGOs such as CNIC. We warned that Japan’s nuclear power plants could be subjected to much stronger earthquakes and much bigger tsunamis than they were designed to withstand.

Besides the question about how this accident will unfold, the big question now is, will the government and the nuclear industry acknowledge its mistakes and change track?

Last December the Japanese government began a review of its nuclear energy policy. The review was commenced in the spirit of essentially confirming the existing policy. That approach is no longer viable. The direction of the policy review must be completely reversed. It must be redirected towards developing a policy of phasing out nuclear energy as smoothly and swiftly as possible.

Philip White

International Liaison Officer

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center

Phone: 81-3-3357-3800 (office)

Phone: 81-3-3708-2898 (home)

Web (will be updated on Monday):

http://cnic.jp/english/

READ ABOUT:

TEPCO’s Damage Cover-up and Data Falsification Fukushima I Fukushima II

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit92/nit92articles/nit92coverupdata.html

READ ABOUT:

Japan’s nuclear legacy, Earthquakes and Nuclear Energy, and the never-ending problems and cover-ups of Japan’s nuclear industry.

http://cnic.jp/english/

BREAKING NEWS.

FACT SHEET ON FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

UPDATE 2:30 pm, Sunday, March 13, 2011 from NIRS:

Tokyo Electric Power is reporting that some six feet of the core of Unit-3 remains uncovered and has been for some time despite efforts to pump water into the core. Tepco speculates there may be leaking pipes and water is not remaining in the core. A translation of part of the statement from our Japanese colleagues:

“The fuel’s integrity has been considerably compromised. We are assessing a considerably serious situation.”

Full Fact Sheet available @:

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/Fukushimafactsheet.pdf

Core is uncovered at Unit 3; Tokyo Electric Power calls it “a considerably serious situation.”

There are currently 23 General Electric Mark I reactors in the U.S.–the design that exploded at Fukushima. A top Atomic Energy Commission official first proposed banning this design nearly 40 years ago. List/fact sheet.

Link to video of press conference in Japan by Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (in Japanese with English translation), March 13, 2011.

Statement of Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, March 12, 2011

Green Action blog on Japan nuclear crisis, includes updates, video links.

TMI Alert piece on similarities/differences between Fukushima and Three Mile Island events.

2002 report from Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center on cover-ups of safety problems by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

Nuclear Disaster in Japan – workers and citizens at high risk

The massive explosion following a cooling problem at one Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, Daiichi,  has not only released radiation and other toxic compounds, but has created an untenable situation for workers at Fukushima’s other nuclear reactors nearby, called Daini, especially given that a state of emergency has been declared for five reactors at the two plants. Latest news is that a hydrogen explosion is now possible at the No. 3 reactor at Fukushima 1.

“Workers are being exposed to the ‘allowable’ annual dose of radiation every hour that they remain on site. Our hearts go out to them,” said Muna Lakhani, co-ordinator of Earthlife Africa’s Unplug Nuclear 1 campaign. The danger is not over. There are fears of another explosion as the cooling system at a second reactor has also failed, as of Sunday morning. “The measuring of Caesium at the plant indicates that a meltdown has indeed taken place, which raises the levels of radiation released to catastrophic proportions” suggested Lakhani. Latest news on Sunday confirms fears of a multiple meltdown.

The reactors have all been shut down.  The reactor core remains hot for days after shutdown, however, so workers have been busy ensuring that the fuel rods do not melt down.  For this the cooling systems need to be operational requiring a power source.  The quake has disrupted the backup supplies of power including diesel generators.  The IAEA supplied batteries and coolant in the interim. They are now flushing the highly radioactive core with seawater which will cause massive seawater contamination whilst preventing a full scale Chernobyl type meltdown. This is an act of desperation and unprecedented.

Platitudes by the Japanese government and nuclear industry suggesting that the radiation threat is minimal must be treated with great caution, as reports confirm that not only has the containment been breached, and that ‘venting’ is taking place, but also that radiation levels at about 1000 higher than normal have been measured. The 24 hr monitoring that is supposed to happen as a matter of course, has been shutdown (www/nu/pamp/index-j.html) – Japanese activists suggest that this is so that the public and the world at large will not be told how much radiation has and is being released” said Gray Maguire, ELA branch secretary.

It took local activists many hours to get the exclusion zone expanded from the initial 10km to 20 km, which, while not completely safe, helps limit harm to local residents.

“We call upon the nuclear industry, and the South African government, to take this disaster seriously, and abandon all nuclear plans for our country. Given that proposed sites are all along the coast, we believe that this gamble is unacceptable. Not only are sustainable and safe alternatives cheaper than nuclear power, but they are also better solutions to the creation of decent work and energy security, as well as the best solutions to limit climate change,” Lakhani states. The public should note that our existing nuclear power plant Koeberg is on a geological fault on the Cape Fold Belt with the last destructive large earthquake occurring in 1809. Interesting also is that if we were to apply the 20km exclusion/ evacuation zone (which has been applied to Fukushima) to Koeberg this would mean evacuating most of Cape Town.

There has been a history of safety problems and cover-ups by TEPCO at the Fukushima reactor complex. (http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit92/nit92articles/nit92coverupdata.html).

South Africa is considering a ‘fleet’ of nuclear reactors, at Thyspunt, Bantamklip and additional reactors at Koeberg, at a potential cost of hundreds of billions of Rands. Yje National Nuclear Regulator has also come under fire, for not mobilising a “hazmat” team, with local activists questioning their ability to respond to a disaster at Koeberg.

ENDS/—–

Issued by:

Earthlife Africa Cape Town

Unplug Nuclear 1 Campaign

Contact:

Muna Lakhani

083-471-7276

muna@iafrica.com

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

Oct 4, 2010

By Dan Kemp

Dan Kemp writes: We’ve all heard about the acid mine water problem and the danger it poses to drinking water in the Gauteng area. I had the opportunity to see some of the damage first hand.

Photograph by: Ashley Kemp

My Dad heard an expert on the matter, Mariette Lieffering, talking on radio. He contacted her and she invited us on a tour she was giving to some journalists.

The tour was to various accessible sites on the Western Gold Reef of some of the most visible examples of the damage caused. Mariette is a well known and clearly passionate activist concerned with acid mine drainage.

The scepticism I had of “clearly passionate activists” was dispelled as Mariette cited official report after report written by government bodies (Dept of Water Affairs, Dept of Minerals and Energy, Dept Environmental Affairs and Tourism, CSIR, National Nuclear Regulator) and academic institutions.

It was clearly not speculation.

First stop was the basin that is Luiperdsvlei. No major surprises, it is after all a giant slimes dam catchment surrounded by mine dumps.

Apart from the lack of security fencing, the first thing that shocks you is the ground between the road and the edge of the basin. If you break the surface of the earth with your shoe, you find a bright sulphur-yellow sediment, concentrated in a 2cm thick layer, just below the crust.

Its caused by the runoff from the mine dump itself, which flows directly into the vlei. The second shocking fact is, Luiperdsvlei is a source of the Vaal. In fact, the stream flowing out of Luiperdsvlie, contributes 35% of the salt content but only 3% of the water volume to the Vaal.

Warning Signs at Robinson Dam - Photo: Environment.co.za

These salts have high levels of Cobalt, Cadmium, Aluminium, Arsenic, Lead, Nickel and Uranium. Uranium and Cadmium are particularly bad health risks.

Rand Water supplies most of Gauteng’s water from the Vaal.

All water on the south of the intercontinental water divide, which includes Luiperdsvlei, flows into the Vaal/Orange River system and into the Atlantic Ocean.

We then went north, over the divide, into Randfontein. All water this side of the divide flows into the Crocodile River system and into the Indian Ocean. Next to Randfontein Golf Course is Robinson Lake, a former recreational lake filled with water pumped from Robinson Deep mine.

This has a pH of 2.6. Water has a natural Uranium concentration of 0.0004mg/l. The DWAF considers a concentration of 0.07mg/l safe to drink. Robinson Lake has a Uranium concentration of 16mg/l, more than 220 times safe levels. This has resulted in the NNR declaring Robinson Lake a radioactive area.

Source:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/iLIVE/article688413.ece/Acid-mine-water–The-damage-done

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.