THE RADIOACTIVE MERRY-GO-ROUND

THE RADIOACTIVE MERRY-GO-ROUND

There is no such thing as nuclear waste disposal. Instead, nations around the world having been putting nuclear waste on a constant radioactive merry-go-round - transporting it from country to country to be met with outrage from their people at the suffering, death and environmental havoc the waste has wrought. And now the merry-go-round has come to Cape Town, South Africa as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) host a nuclear waste "workshop" in Cape Town over a cup of coffee.

It is interesting to take a look at the representatives who have been invited to attend this "Common Framework for the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal" from 2-6 July. They include: Didier Louvat of the IAEA, Peter Lietava (Czech republic), Wolfgang Goldammer (Germany), Zhiwen Fan (China), Oleg Bonderenko and Volodmyr Tokarevski (Ukraine), P.A. Brown, D.E. Metcalfe and D.M McCauley (Canada), Marko Giacomelli (Slovenia), Ms. Alena Zavazanova (Slovak Republic), Sergie Dmitriev (Russia), Tariq Tahir (Pakistan), Djarot Wisnurbroto (Indonesia), Azucena Sanhueza-Mir (Chile), Karoli Berci (Hungary), Francois Besnus (France), Yongsoo Hwang (Korea), Vilmos Zsombori (Romania), Shang (China) and Luc Beakaland (Belgium).

This starts to look like an ID parade for the "Usual Suspects". What do you suppose they would have to say on the topic of "disposing" of nuclear waste? In which country shall we put it all this year? But then hopefully the NNR has seen fit to accomodate, not only all these foreign representatives, but also plenty of local press to inform South Africans as to how their taxes will be spent on Eskom's planned R400 billion nuclear programme? But check on that price tag, because it seems to go up every month.

Talking about the "disposal" of nuclear waste - here is another unlikely fairytale. Once upon a time there was a happy village in West Siberia. Then the Russian Atomic Ministry, Minatom, decided to build a nuclear reactor nearby - and so the Mayak nightmare began. Radioactive waste from the Mayak nuclear complex was pumped into the Techa River - the source of drinking water for many villages. Nuclear waste was also dumped into the lakes of West Siberia. Then in 1957 one of the cooling systems of the Mayak-plant exploded and at least 272 000 people were affected. No this was not Chernobyl - it just looked a lot like Chernobyl. And served to activate Russian environmental group Ecodefense to deliver a mass petition demanding the end to nuclear waste imports into Russia. The petition was signed by 5 000 Russians - tired of living with nuclear waste from other nations in Europe. While it seems that The Netherlands, Germany and Hungary for example would like to market pristine postcard little villages gleaming with cleanliness, it was okay for their Russian brothers and sisters to glow in the dark.

The Russian government had planned to import 20 000 tonnes of nuclear waste in exchange for over 20 billion US dollars. Potential exporting countries included: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Switzerland, Germany and Spain. The deputy head of the Mayak plant told a government commission that they could not guarantee the safety of the people in the area. How unusual? But since the Russians are fed up with it, is South Africa planning to be the next new importer of Grade A nuclear waste?

The Americans say: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". They also use the term "trying to pull a fast one" and the nuclear industry can certainly pride itself on trying to pull down the blinds on as many ignorant and uninformed nations in the world as possible, especially third world or developing nations, where people may not all even be literate and able to read warning signs like - "Don't pick the radioactive berries", or "No hunting for mutated animals in this forest".

Environmental groups around the world have been calling for an international convention on the dumping of radioactive waste. But the nuclear industry has very cleverly got away with this one by branding all environmentalists as "tree huggers" and "hippies". Who would possibly take them seriously?

Perhaps the victims of the Mayak nuclear complex, including: Wafir Gusmanov, a tractor driver who was forced by policemen to help clear up the contaminated banks of the Techa River, Ramzis Fayzullin who was born disabled and has yet to receive a reply from the Russian government, Kostia who has Down's Syndrome and had to have his fingers separated at birth and Luba, a kindergarten teacher where due to illness there is never full attendance and her own daughter, Regina, in urgent need of a heart operation.

Another merry addition to the coffee workshop hails from the Ukraine. Who would not want to spend a blissful holiday - basking in the waters of the sunny Ukraine? Well, it used to be beautiful. But the nuclear industry seems to have ground this nation underfoot, together with a number of others. Under the headline "Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova Choking on Toxic Waste, writers from Agence France-Presse (AFP) described the "toxic waste, water pollution and the legacy of Chernobyl" that had plunged these countries into "environmental crisis". According to a report released by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) this year, the Ukraine has "2,5 million tonnes of Soviet-era ammunition that requires disposal, including four burial grounds for radioactive waste". There are also 11 000 tonnes of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and 2 000 tonnes of DDT, both posing "a long term danger for the environment and health." Most of Ukraine's 6 000 storage sites were "inadequately built, poorly guarded facilities in a deteriorating state of repair", usually without any documentation. Water quality was also a problem as 39 per cent of waste water was estimated to be polluted and 25 per cent goes into the environment without any kind of treatment.

How about sunny Moldova? Well this nation clocks in at only "8 000 tonnes of toxic residues often stored illegally and in a disorganised fashion contributing to land and water contamination" according to the OSCE. Stricter EU environmental standards in Slovakia and Hungary resulted in attempts to export environmental problems across borders. Tsk, tsk. Naughty, naughty! Moldova's military legacy included 20 000 tonnes of arms and munitions that were hard to get rid of. "The simultaneous explosion of such quantities of ammunition may trigger an environmental and humanitarian disaster," the report warned. And they are not kidding. In Moldova, up to half of ground water is contaminated "beyond all acceptable levels". It's even worse for surface water, affected by a wide variety of pollutants including ammonia, nitrites, phenols and oil products, the OSCE said. So one would gather that the locals do not drink the water?

In Belarus, "the most serious environmental problem concerns the liquidation of armaments and munitions inherited from the Soviet Union, including toxic and radioactive material", the OSCE said. During the Soviet era, military sites covered 300 000 hectares. These had been abandonded, leaving local authorities to clean up. In Belarus, 778 million tonnes of mining waste in the Soligorsk region were exposed to wind and water erosion and experts found 8 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides in Belarus. Only!

But all of this lovely waste was not enough for Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko who was planning to bury nuclear waste from other countries in the Chernobyl zone. The Ukrainian leader said a second storage area for Chernobyl’s nuclear waste would be put into operation in 2010. Yes, this is the Chernobyl where 30 people were killed instantly and most workers who went inside the reactor after the accident had no protective equipment - a fatal economy. Large areas of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of 200 000 people.

After decades of research, environmental groups were slowly coming to realise that the IAEA promotes nuclear power. Last year, they protested by placing radioactive soil in the lobby of the IAEA. A 250kg concrete container containing two 1kg radioactive samples was placed in the lobby of the UN agency building in Vienna. The radioactive soil was taken from areas where people were still trying to harvest wood, mushrooms and berries. The samples were 10-25 times more radioactive than the radioactive limits set by the European Commission.

Finally, even the WHO had to admit - figures used by the IAEA concerning Chernobyl may have been somewhat selective. Zhanat Carr, a radiation scientist with WHO in Geneva said that the IAEA report was a "political communication tool". She also said that WHO did not include cancers outside Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Whereas an independent report by 52 scientists showed that 270 000 cancers and 93 000 fatal cancer cases were caused by Chernobyl. The report also concluded that during the last 15 years, 60 000 people had died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach 140 000.

So the R400 billion question is whether South Africans think it is the role of a United Nations agency, funded by taxes, to advance the profits of the nuclear industry? Do we not have the right to expect the IAEA to focus only on the values and principles of the UN - peace, security, and human rights - and not on private industry's profits?

But back to the workshop line-up. Another country represented in Cape Town is China, where unions and labour perhaps do not have the same kind of voice that they do in South Africa. A Gansu uranium mine employee was "detained by public security police" in China in 2005 when he tried to petition officials about severe radiation poisoning." Sun Xiaodi was detained and arrested when he tried to protest that radioactive material from the uranium mine was improperly handled, so that residents near and downstream from the plant suffered cancerous tumors, leukemia, birth defects and miscarriages. After being thrown in and out of prison like a yo-yo - depending on international opinion - Human Rights in China (HRIC) learned this year that Sun Xiaodi had been released from prison so that he could go to Beijing for treatment of a life-threatening tumor. But he and his family were continually harassed and faced financial hardship.

Pakistan is also represented at the Cape Town workshop. Last year, in Pakistan a senator from Punjab accused the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) of dumping nuclear waste in a village near Dera Ghazi Khan without observing international safety standards, causing many deaths. Sardar Jamal Khan Leghari of the Pakistan Muslim League said the PAEC had been mining uranium in the village for 25 years and dumping the nuclear waste in the open. He said the dumping of the nuclear waste was affecting people from Baloch and Leghari tribes living in the area, several of whom had already died.

Mr Leghari said livestock mortality and diseases among people living in the Baghalchur village near D. G. Khan were on the rise due to uranium mining in the area. He said that life expectancy in the village had fallen to 40 years. He said some villagers had taken the matter to the Supreme Court but the court had kept the proceedings secret. After publication of such reports in a section of the press, PAEC authorities had claimed that the waste was being dumped underground in tunnels and there had been no radioactive effects. But residents said that 400 drums of atomic waste and other material were lying in the open. The District and Sessions Judges (D&SJ) had sent the application to the Law, Justice and Human Rights Commission, Islamabad.

Last year when environmentalists staged a protest in front of Germany's embassy in Moscow against shipments of German nuclear waste to Russia, Russian protesters were seized, handcuffed and hauled away by police. This year, German and Russian activists held a demonstration in front of the E.ON headquarters in Düsseldorf, Germany. They protested against uranium enrichment and depleted uranium tails exports to Russia. The Russians had stumbled onto a huge government secret - the nuclear waste was not being "reprocessed" it was just being "stored" and they did not want it "stored" there anymore. The official reason for sending waste to Russia to "recover usable uranium" was no longer valid.

The Russian environmental group Ekozashchita (Ecodefense) asked a German public prosecutor "to investigate the activities of the German branch of Urenco which illegally delivers nuclear waste to Russia," a spokesman for the group, Vladimir Sliviak, told AFP. The group accused the company of transporting 20 000 tonnes of waste depleted uranium to Russia. 90 per cent of the waste uranium has since remained in Russia, the group said. Techsnabexport said it had transported "not nuclear waste, but primary materials" and was supported in this claim by the Russian nuclear authorities. So it seems one man's "waste" is another man's "primary material"?

Sliviak said: "German authorities must not take advantage of the fact that the Russian atomic industry can violate laws and ignore public opinion." According to Ecodefense, 100 000 tonnes of nuclear waste have been imported to Russia over the past decade. Up to 90 per cent is stored by Russian companies, awaiting final disposal. The radioactive material arrives in Saint Petersburg's port where it is carried by train toward the Ural mountains, and western and eastern Siberia. There is no such thing as "final disposal", since the waste will be radioactive for thousands of years - wherever it is "stored".

South Africa is now launching yet another Nuclear Industry Association (Sania), that is apparently supposed to "consider the interests of the South African nuclear industry through a collaborative approach". Of all groups, the infamous money-wasting PBMR industry has stated that this added expense of a yet another branch to their nuclear group is due to the “rapid development” of the South African nuclear sector. Ambitions of the South African nuclear programme include: a new nuclear power plant by Eskom, the PBMR, nuclear-fuel cycle and research and development by the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) and uranium-mining - all highly toxic industries.

The company is moving ahead with studies into a proposed new 4 000 MW conventional nuclear plant. The nuclear industry is South Africa is still harping on its newly found environmental theme of "reducing carbon emissions" seemingly forgetting that the nuclear process includes uranium mining and milling and these equal or exceed C02 emissions by coal plants anyway. And the PBMR project continues to throw good money after bad as it asserts its commercial value - the idea of "cheap" nuclear energy has long since gone out of the window for most South Africans as they have been rudely awakened by Eskom's R400 billion plan and Minister Alec Erwin's double figure electricity bill increases.

So where does South Africa plan to dispose of all its nuclear waste. And will imported nuclear waste from foreign nations also be included in the "radioactive deposit"? Once again, PBMR are the spokesmen, stating that a "deep geological repository" for high- level waste from nuclear reactors (South African) would be constructed at Vaalputs, south-east of Springbok. Thus far, this waste site has only taken low or medium level nuclear waste. Suddenly we need a "deep geological repository" and interestingly enough, this has been what the United States, nations around Europe and Asia have been looking for as well - a place to dump all their nuclear waste...

And, although Eskom is forging ahead with Environmental Impact Assessments on sites identified for nuclear reactors all along South Africa's hitherto pristine coastline, the "strategy for the disposal of high-level waste" is "still being prepared". Apparently although South Africa has high level nuclear waste, there is as yet "no disposal methodology or facility for dealing with this category of waste from Koeberg, Necsa or the PBMR". So we are still talking about South African waste - right?

What does this repository involve? Just some really deep mining in a "geologically stable rock formation". Sounds very much like the one the United States planned for Yucca Mountain. But protests have prevented this from going ahead since residents in the area don't want it buried there and people who live along the transport route don't want high level waste toted through their towns.

Koeberg's waste is currently "stored underwater in the power station's fuel storage pools" which must be comforting for the people of Cape Town - to know it has been there all this time and as to where the water that is used for cooling this highly radioactive material comes from and where it goes to? This apparently is the beauty of coastal nuclear reactors like Koeberg - they use the sea water, which gives new meaning to the surfing term, "catching a wave".

Strangely though, the one and only South African nuclear reactor currently in existence and the proposed PBMR reactors have the capacity to store high level waste "on site". So who is the deep repository for again? Internationally, the idea of shipping radioactive waste to other nations in the world has been going on and on and around and around - it is just a matter of what some countries are prepared to accept.

There is the interesting Japanese story, where in 2005 a Japanese industry shipped soil contaminated with uranium to the United States for "disposal". Interesting because the US is also trying to "dispose" of its waste. The Japanese corporation had abandoned 16 000 cubic meters of waste soil where it had dug up uranium and residents demanded that the waste soil be removed. The corporation asked local governments to accept the radioactive soil but they refused. But in the United States, a company planned to "dispose" of the soil at a cost of about $6 million. In Washington, the deputy port director said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had determined that the soils did not require a special import license.

However some countries entered into fierce parliamentary debate as to what would be best for their people. In Canada, the parliament debated the "importation of radioactive waste act" . Charlie Penson said: "One of the questions I want to address is one with which I think Canadians are concerned: Will Canada become the garbage bin of the world for nuclear waste? We certainly hope not. I am concerned to learn that there are over 400 commercial nuclear reactors in the world and many more small nuclear reactors in universities, on ships and in submarines. All of these reactors need a place to dispose of their radioactive waste, waste which remains highly toxic for thousands of years... There are groups who might be willing to take a time bomb off the hands of other countries, especially those countries which have the ability to pay and pay handsomely. This thought is deeply disturbing to me. It has been a challenge for us to find suitable locations for our own nuclear waste. We certainly do not need to take on the radioactive waste of other countries, and there is certainly lots of it out there...The United States will be looking to dispose of 50 tonnes of plutonium over the next 25 years. Russia has another 50 tonnes. My colleague from Fraser Valley East tells me that at the Hanford site in the United States there is enough high level waste to fill 86 football fields one metre deep. It will cost $57 billion just to dispose of the waste from that site...Canada is a beautiful, wide open country with lots of forests, lakes and streams. Let us keep it as clean as we can and as waste free as possible. Let us not allow Canada to become the nuclear garbage bin of the world".

South Africans might be singing a similar song. Another Canadian Monique Guay said: "Clearly, Canada is not yet equipped to receive foreign countries' radioactive waste. Since Canada does not know yet what to do with its own waste, how could it deal with, dispose of or store other countries'?.. the Prime Minister of Canada gave his support to a feasibility study to import into Canada plutonium from Russian and American nuclear warheads...that is about one hundred tonnes of plutonium...But once this plutonium is burned, it produces highly radioactive waste. How many bundles will be added to ours, to the 4 million bundles expected by the end of 2033? This roundabout way for foreigners to dispose of their plutonium waste raises some serious questions...Spent fuel is and must be considered extremely toxic".

Good argument. Here's another. Canadian Keith Martin said: "Sustainable development is not bringing somebody else's waste to Canada's shores...We should not be bringing their nuclear waste to Canada. It is not our responsibility to do that. We would be abrogating our responsibility to the health and welfare of Canadians if we brought these highly toxic, carcinogenic and teratogenic, mutagenic substances to our soil... It is also important to dispel the myths put forth...saying that we are against the importation of nuclear materials for technology and medicine...The bill deals with waste, waste, waste. It deals with nuclear waste, not nuclear material effectively used in industry and in the world of medicine...We do not need to bring in literally thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear rods and nuclear materials out there looking for a home. .. I was at a meeting with a number of scientists from Russia who said they had to decommission over 100 nuclear submarines within the next few years... The response of the Russians has been widespread dumping on the Kola Peninsula, widespread dumping in northern Russia.

"We have seen much about Chernobyl. We have heard much of the problems associated with this disaster. However the Chernobyl reactor is just one of many other reactors that exist in Russia today. There are literally dozens and dozens of leaky nuclear reactors in Russia that will produce other Chernobyls in the near future".

Okay - who saw that one coming? More Chernobyls? But then they did want to build that nuclear reactor on an earthquake site in Belene, Bulgaria.

Bob Ringma of Canada said: "Worldwide there are 413 commercial nuclear reactors, an untold number of small research reactors at universities and other reactors on ships or submarines. Together they have generated and will continue to generate enormous amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste, waste that will be deadly for 10 000 years...Canadians in general do not want radioactive waste in their backyard. It took eight years and $20 million for the siting task force struck by the Minister of National Resources to find a place for our low level radioactive waste...this does not cover high level radioactive waste...It should be self-evident to most that the import of radioactive waste should be banned.

"We already have 22 000 tonnes of high level waste in Canada stored on sites of over 22 nuclear reactors. This includes 78 tonnes of plutonium. By the year 2025, we will have 58 000 tonnes...The United States alone has an enormous high level waste problem. Because of that, there is an enormous profit potential in it. The U.S. Hanford site has enough waste to fill 86 football fields one metre deep. It will cost $57 billion to dispose of that. It is estimated that the clean-up cost in the United States alone will total a staggering $230 billion. The problem continues to grow. The U.S. has a total of 77 000 tonnes of waste to bury".

And so the radioactive merry-go-round has come to South Africa. And if South African people are not informed, the nuclear waste of the world will become our problem. South Africa has always prided itself on being a healthy nation - with a beautiful environment, outdoor living people and amazing wildlife. But the government's aggressive nuclear programme can change all of that in an instant and South Africans will be left suffering the agonies experienced by nations around the world and the contamination of such basic necessities of life as water, air and earth.

In South Africa, nuclear agencies from Necsa to PBMR and now the proposed Sania, are multiplying like a plague and will have a deadly effect on health, finance and the stability of the South African economy. There are alternatives - but unfortunately renewable energy sources like solar, wind and biomass have not received the same amount of attention or funding as the nuclear lobby. It is time for nuclear proponents to stop advertising themselves as an energy solution so that government can devote funds to renewable energy groups that are actually "safe, clean and cheap" as opposed to the nuclear option that is life-threatening to vast areas, riddled with poisons and so expensive that without government funding - that is the taxpayers' money - they cannot survive. But taxpayers must realise that if they do not speak up now - they will end up paying for it later - in every way.

Yours sincerely

INGELA RICHARDSON