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

Acid Mine Drainage -the Eastern basin is currently experiencing an ingress of 120-million litres of water and only has the capacity to treat about 80-million litres of water

If relevant to your concerns and environmental issues,  kindly raise your concerns regarding Mine Waste Solutions’ (MWS) Water Use License authorisation and positive environmental authorization for its Centralised Tailings Storage Facility (super dump) within the KOSH goldfields, one kilometer from the highly compromised Vaal Barrage River system. MWS is of the intention to reprocess 15 uraniferous tailings dams, to reprocess 1.9 million tons per month of uraniferous tailings (producing 922,000 lb/yr U₃O₈ in yellowcake) and to establish a new centralized tailings storage facility of about 1 400 ha, one kilometer from the Vaal River.  The properties adjacent to the proposed super dump are game farms and conservancies.

Your concerns and objections (please see subjoined “gaps in information”) should be submitted to:

Mr. Scot Sobey (scot@firsturanium.com)

Mr. Tshepo Moremi (Tshepo@nwpg.gov.za)

Ms. Deborah Mochotlhi (mochotlhi@dwaf.gov.za)

Mr. Willem Grobler (groblerw@dwaf.gov.za )

Mr. Piet Theron (PietT@nda.agric.za)

Mr. David Klein (DavidKl@nda.agic.za )

In terms of Mine Waste Solutions’ Environmental Management Report, it was submitted that the following gaps in the environmental impact assessment exist:

1. The existing groundwater monitoring network at MWS, Buffelsfontein and Hartebeestfontein does not meet all the requirements of [an effective ] monitoring network. (The purpose of groundwater monitoring network is to provide an early warning of possible adverse effects of the activities in the vicinity of the tailings complex, on both yield and quality of the shallow groundwater system.) No dedicated monitoring boreholes are available for the existing MWS plant site and the proposed extension site. The leachate from the proposed TSF will lead to long-term groundwater pollution.
2. A detailed geochemical assessment was not incorporated; only static laboratory test work was included on available tailings samples for the purpose of the geochemical assessment because of the limited time frame.
3. A  geophysical assessment must be done to confirm the structural geology to the east of the proposed site.
4. Certain areas were excluded re aquifer related flow parameters.
5. The status of groundwater users and uses was not confirmed.
6. The proposed reclamation sites (existing TSFs) are mostly located on dolomite/chert formations.  Ground water characteristics for these sites are unknown and NO site specific aquifer data exist.  MWS solutions will take responsibility for existing contamination plumes BUT these are not clearly  identified.  Future positive impacts of the proposed reclamation activities can therefore not be demonstrated.
7. After closure, the mine workings will flood and the dolomite aquifers will largely recover to pre-mining levels.  There are currently no management options in place to cope with contaminated decant water.
8. The flora assessment was incomplete since most of the investigations were conducted during the winter period, and no investigations were conducted during or after the high rainfall seasons.
9. The wetland assessment was incomplete since the investigation was undertaken at the end of the dry season which made plant species identification very difficult.

In view of the aforesaid gaps it perplexes how a water use licence and a positive environmental authorisation could have been issued by the Department of Water Affairs and the North West Department of Agriculture and Rural Development respectively.

The impacts of mining on the environment is current and the long term impacts from Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and heavy metal accumulation, including Uranium,  in the vicinity of the CTSF, Tailings Storage Facilities and reprocessed footprints within the KOSH goldfields have been acknowledged.  (Please see the DMR’s Regional Mine Closure Strategy for the KOSH goldfields and the Environmental Management Report of Mine Waste Solutions, March, 2009.)

In terms of MWS’s  Environmental Management Report “Mine Waste Solutions will be responsible for the existing pollution plume and zone of influence.  The anticipated zone of influence (SO₄ plume) falls within The Koekemoerspruit# and Vaal River Catchment* areas.”

#(The Koekemoerspruit, is a tributary of the Vaal River.  The Koekemoerspruit catchment is already compromised.  The transport of dissolved uranium from slimes dams is a major pathway for environmental contamination of the Koekemoerspruit. Reference:  “Gold tailings as a source of waterborne uranium contamination of streams –  The Koekemoerspruit (Klerksdorp goldfield, South Africa) as a case study.  Part I of III: Uranium migration along the aqueous pathway”. Frank Winde, Peter Wade and Izak Jacobus van der Walt)

*( In terms of the Water Research Commission Report No. 1397/1/07, entitled “Monitoring Environmental Water for the Presence of Toxic Agents:  A Pilot Study in the Vaal Barrage Catchment” it was found that “mining operations, even after they have been discontinued, are still having a major impact on the water quality in the Vaal Barrage catchment to the extent that it can no longer be compared with other natural water systems…only 21% of the sites showed no evidence of cytotoxicity at any time.  This suggests a failure on the part of those agencies responsible for the enforcement of existing  regulations and is an unacceptable situation, bearing in mind that source water from this survey area impacts directly upon the Vaal Barrage, a national water resource….Substantial deposits of immobilized toxicants could have accumulated in the southern Gauteng river silts over a prolonged periods.  Experience elsewhere suggest that such deposits pose long-term health and environmental risks”.)

With gratitude,

Mariette Liefferink.
CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

On 1 September the Federation for a Sustainable Environment submitted the following request for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act:

Dear Mr. Sobey,

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 32 (1) of the Bill of Rights “everyone has the right of access to any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights”.

In the context of Mine Waste Solutions’ establishment of a Tailings Disposal Facility, 1 (one) kilometer from the Vaal River, the rights that interested and affected parties wish to exercise and protect are:

1. Everyone has the right to life (Section 11);
2. Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and wellbeing; and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development (Section 24);
3. Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water (Section 27).

I am of the intention, in the public interest and on behalf of members of affected communities, and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, to submit my request for access to public documents such as the Water Use Licence, the Social and Labour Plan, the amended Environmental Management Programme and Environmental Impact Assessment Report, etc. to Mine Waste Solutions, in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No 2 of 2000 (PAIA).  Please advise me what Mine Waste Solutions’ prescribed format is.

I shall appreciate your response before  the 5^th of September, 2010 since your response will ripen my judgment.

Sincerely,

Mariette Liefferink.

CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

Jennifer Nordstrom, co-ordinator of the Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free project has noted “Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight.”

A recent study sponsored by the German government (the KiKK study – Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al.Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726,) examined children who lived near 16 of the country’s commercial nuclear power plants. The results revealed a strongly increased risk of all childhood cancers, particularly leukaemia, the closer the proximity of the children’s residence to the reactor. In particular, the study found that children less than the age five years, living within a 5km radius of the power plant exhaust stacks were more than twice as likely to develop leukaemia compared with those children residing more that 5km away. The KiKK team studied other carcinogenic factors which may be responsible for the cancer clusters but none were found.

Another large study (Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363) – a meta-analysis of the incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in children living near 138 nuclear facilities in Britain, Canada, Spain, Germany, the US and Japan also demonstrated a statistically significant rate of leukaemia in children less than nine years of age.

A further large review (Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190) of children and young adults living near 198 nuclear sites in 10 countries was found to be compatible with the study described above.

It is important to note that the sensitivity to the damaging effects of radiation in early embryonic and fetal life is much higher than in adults, and young children are also particularly vulnerable.

The radioactive elements “routinely” emitted from nuclear power plant stacks into the air can be inhaled, or ingested when they concentrate in the food chain – in vegetables and fruit, -and then further concentrated in various internal organs in humans. Similarly, the millions of gallons of cooling water flushed daily from a nuclear reactor into the always adjoining water source (lake, river or sea) contaminate it with radioactive materials which bio-concentrate hundreds of times in the aquatic food chain. The fish of course, who may ingest these materials in the surrounding water, routinely travel for tens and even hundreds of miles before they are caught by commercial or recreational purposes. And when caught their physical appearance does not provide any clues about such ingestion.

Unfortunately, radioactive elements are invisible to the human senses – taste, smell, and sight. Also unfortunately, the incubation time for radiation-induced cancer is five to 60 years, a long, silent latent period. No cancer ever denotes its specific cause.

Among these biologically active elements that are routinely released from nuclear power plants are tritium which lasts for more than 100 years (there is no limit to the amount of tritium that escapes); xenon, krypton. and argon which decay to cesium and strontium; carbon 14 which remains radioactive for thousands of years; cesium 137 – radioactive for hundreds of years; and iodine 129, which has a half life of 15.7 million years.

Tritium combines directly in the DNA molecule of the gene and can induce fetal deformities and various cancers in both animals and humans; cesium causes muscle sarcomas and brain cancers; and strontium – a calcium analogue – migrates to bone where it can induce bone cancer or leukaemia. Finally radioactive iodine causes thyroid cancer.

This situation is made worse by the fact that we are all – including populations living within the vicinity of nuclear reactors – routinely exposed to carcinogenic chemicals in our daily lives, many of which enhance the carcinogenic effects of radioactivity. There are now 80,000 chemicals in common use.

Turning from the human health costs to the monetary, another relevant study related to the nuclear power debate examined the economic feasibility of a “nuclear renaissance” at this time. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report published in August 2009 states that the nuclear industry continues to face steadily increasing construction costs and future cost estimates. The AREVA French-designed reactor project in Olkiluoto Finland is three years behind schedule and 55 per cent over budget (US$7 billion). There are now 435 commercial reactors operating globally, nine fewer than 2002. In 2008, nuclear electricity provided only 5.5 per cent of the international commercial primary energy production.

The average age of operating reactors globally is 25 years, while the average age of 123 reactors already closed is 22 years only. In addition to the 52 reactors currently under construction, another 43 reactors would have to be planned, built and started by 2015 – one every six weeks, and another 192 units over the following 10 years – one every 19 days – in order to maintain the same number that are operating today. With extremely long lead times of 10 to 15 years, this will be an impossible task, let alone actually increasing the number of reactors.

None of the new countries wanting nuclear power have the appropriate nuclear regulations, independent regulators, the domestic maintenance capacity and the skilled workforce to run a nuclear reactor. Nor do they have an adequate grid system to absorb the output of a nuclear power plant.

Furthermore some of these countries either have a government hostile to the concept of nuclear power (Norway, Malaysia, Thailand), hostile public opinion (Italy and Turkey), major economic problems (Poland), earthquake or volcanic risks (Indonesia) or some have an absolute lack of all necessary infrastructure (Venezuela).

France with its large nuclear infrastructure is currently threatened with a severe shortage of skilled workers. The Word Nuclear Industry Status Report reveals that currently only 300 nuclear science graduates are available in France for 1,200 to 1,500 open positions, and in the US only one quarter of such graduates plan to work in the nuclear industry. Most of the current operators, baby boomers, are close to retirement.

And there is one other major bottleneck for new reactors – only one corporation in the world, Japan Steel Works, can manufacture large steel forgings for many reactor pressure vessels.

These problems, together with the global financial crisis mean that the prospects of funding for the nuclear industry – most of which is government sourced – looks grim. New reactors are too risky and expensive to attract private investor funding, and the nuclear industry will not proceed with its “new build” unless they can transfer the risk to the tax payers or ratepayers.

In the US, efforts to forge the nuclear industry renaissance has been thwarted in eight states from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii, Illinois, West Virginia, California, Missouri and Wisconsin. When the Yucca Mountain repository for high level waste was vetoed by President Obama, Dave Kraft, Director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago said “Authorising construction of nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal is like authorising the construction of a new Sears tower without the bathrooms. Neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety.”