Introduction:

When one thinks of nuclear power there is an illusion of a cleaner and brighter future.
This research essay will focus on the disposal of nuclear waste and the impact such
disposal has on the environment and society and whether nuclear power station are in
fact feasible and sustainable in context of the harm they cause our environment.

The argument put forward is that the use of nuclear power stations to produce
electricity is a step forward in ending the crisis of global warming. In a sense this is
true, there are no CO2 emissions released during the production of electricity in a
nuclear power plant, the irony however, is the amount of emissions released during
the construction of such a plant, the mining, processing, refining and transportation of
the uranium needed to produce this form of energy.1

Nuclear waste is divided into three categories; low, medium and high level waste.
Each is assessed by the level of radioactivity as well as the form in which they arise.
Low level waste is generally equipment worn by workers suck as gloves and
protective gear, medium waste refers to larger particles and pieces of metal, steel and
other debris in the plants. High level waste refers to the spent nuclear fuel.2

While international standards allow for the burial of low to medium waste in trenches
once stored in containers 3no plan to date has been implemented to dispose of high
level it is common practice is to store the fuel in reactor pools in the power plant.4

The first form of nuclear waste occurs during the mining and refining process of
uranium, the uranium is crushed to extract the ore, during this process dust particles
break off and are known as uranium tailings.5 During this process radon 220 which is a
gas is released, inhalation of this substance causes lung cancer, radium 226 which is

1
Dr Helen coldicott “nuclear power isn’t clean, it’s dangerous” 2001 at
http://healthandenergy.com/nuclear_dangers.htm.
2
www.melkbos.com
3
S.K Gold “Death threats, secrets and lies” at http://biophile.co.za/energy/death-threats-secrets-and-lies .
4
www.eskom.co.za
5
www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1856.
a dust is absorbed into the soil, water, human skin and is responsible for bone marrow
cancers, polonium 210 is famously known for being the poison used in the
assassination of Alexandra litvinenko and is one of the most deadly substances known
to man as it eats away at the internal organs within days.6

Once the uranium is processed it is packed into storage rods and used during the
creation of nuclear energy. When the atoms are split radioactive particle, liquids and
gases are released. These are odorless, tasteless and colorless.7 Strontium 90 is a
liquid released during this process and is responsible for blood and lymphatic cancer,
cesium 137 is released in a gaseous form and embeds its self within the organic
tissue causing tissue cancers.8

International standards for disposal of nuclear waste: The regulations for disposal
of nuclear waste are governed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as the
International Treaty produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which
was signed in 1997.9 The regulations are that each country is responsible for the
management and disposal of their own nuclear products while following the
regulations set out in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, such provision provide for
the signatories to create a body who is wholly responsible for the nuclear activity in
that country and to regulate the nuclear activities within its boundaries.10 The IAEA
further created a code of good practice for countries using nuclear energy.11 The code
of good practice states that countries must ensure that the utmost care and
precautions are taken when handling nuclear material.
The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of
Radioactive Waste Management further sets out provisions in which the safety of
citizens and the environment is of utmost importance.12 Article 19 states that a

6
ibid
7
Ref 3
8
Ref 3
9
http://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/other/inf386.shtml.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
The joint convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management
at http://www.nuclearfiles.org .
regulatory body must be instituted to govern the disposal of nuclear waste, further,
Article 24 of this convention expressly states that no person shall be exposed to any
radiation levels which are above the international levels, when concerned with low to
medium waste the maximum level is 0.1 Bq per gram of radioactivity, when testing
water the maximum reading is 25 millisieverts.13

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR DISASTERS:

Chornobyl: The world’s worst nuclear disaster occurred on the 26th April 1986 when a
nuclear power station in the Ukraine failed to cool down the reactor and in turn a
nuclear melt down began causing a graphite fire.14 It took twelve days and 10, 000
tonnes of sand, clay and baron to finally extinguish the blaze at the chornobyl plant
which released 150 million curies of radioactivity into the air, unfortunately every pilot
responsible for flying over and dumping the extinguishing material died due to the
exposure of the radioactivity as well as many vehicles and equipment were
abandoned because of their contamination.15 The area around chornobyl measuring
1000 square miles known as the “zone” was deserted by 135,000 people.16

International standards state that every nation has a duty and obligation to engage in
safe nuclear practices because a nuclear melt down not only affects that country but
every other country around it.17 The chornobyl disaster not only affected the Ukraine
but Belarus and the SW Russia contaminating humans, animals, fertile land and water
sources.18
Moscow refused to release the death static’s of the disaster, scientist have estimated
that 10, 000 – 125, 000 people are ill or died.19 The unfortunate realization is that the
disaster was caused by human negligence and disregard for safety procedures, the
disaster has led to many improvements and modifications in the construction of

13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
(Note 8).
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
(Note 8).
19
Ibid.
nuclear power plants but this has not led to a decrease in the number of nuclear
accidents which occur.

Maxey flats leakage: In 1963 a piece of land known as the “Maxey Flats” in the
United States of America (USA) was allocated to receive low to medium level nuclear
waste for disposal.20 Much like our nuclear waste disposal plan in South Africa, this
site stores nuclear waste in drums which are then buried in trenches under ground.
International regulations recommend that such trenches be covered with a concrete
slab or steel sheet, this procedure however was not complied with at maxey flats and
instead the trenches were covered with a layer of soil this in turn allowed rain water to
infiltrate the trenches and seep into the ground contaminating the under ground
aquifers.21 In 1977 the maxey flats project was shut down when it was discovered that
the wells and water in the surrounding community was testing above international
levels for radio activity and chemical such as strontium 90.22

French disposal sites: The Centre de Stockage de la Manche (CSM) is one of the
worlds largest disposal sites for nuclear waste being able to accommodate 520, 000
m3 of waste.23 The site was opened in 1967 and was shut down in 1994 tests
conducted on the areas around CSM the agriculture land sites were recorded of
having a radio active level of 100Bq/l, more alarming though was the level recorded in
the under ground water which read 9000 Bq/l.24 on investigation of the CSM it was
discovered that the drums in which radioactive waste had been stored had leaked out
and infiltrated the ground, the CSM was built on a large aquifer which supplies the
surrounding farmers with their irrigation and drinking water, this leak contaminated not
only fertile agricultural land, livestock but also the surrounding citizens who rely on the
land for their lively hood.

20
www.eqc.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F8E6D774-F53C-4B1F-96E6-B24B2171AOAD/O/maxeyflats.pdf.
21
Ibid.
22
(Note 16).
23
http://www/greenpeace.org.
24
Ibid.
On the decommissioning of CSM, all the waste was relocated to a “state of the art”
disposal ground known as the Centre de Stockage de l’Aube (CSA). The CSA
dumping ground was concrete and once the site had been filled the trench would be
covered with a cement slab to prevent the errors which had occurred at both Maxey
Flats and the CSM.25 By the year 2002 the CSA had already received and stored
109,000m3 of nuclear waste, however, due to fissures in the concrete cells the stored
drums once more leaked into the ground and began infiltrating the ground water of the
well known province, champagne.26

Japan: Japan’s disposal programme ensures that all low to medium level waste is
transported to rokkasha-mura where it is stored in a similar fashion to the above
countries, the high level waste is vitrified which is the process of hardening the
waste.27 The spent fuel is stored in the reactor pools; this is the same method being
used in South Africa.28

In 1999 a mechanical fault led to three times the amount of uranium needed, being
released into a reaction chamber, because of the malfunction a simple reaction
continued for 20 hours exposing employees and citizens to levels of radiation
measuring up to 17 sv which caused radiation sickness.29 The first employee exposed
to the radiation died in 1999 and the second in 2000 while an estimated 68 other
employees suffered from radiation sickness, the number of people affected by the
radiation was estimated at 678 although actual numbers were never made public.30

South African legislation regulating nuclear waste:

The supreme law of the land is that contained in the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa31, the relevant provision with regards to environmental issues and

25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0413.shtml.
28
Ibid.
29
“Criticality accident at tokai nuclear fuel plant” http://www.wise-uranium.org/eftokc.html.
30
Ibid.
31
The constitution of the republic of South Africa act 208 of 1996.
especially nuclear waste is found in s2432 which protects the rights of citizens in
respect to their right to an environment which is not harmful to their health or well
being as well as an environment which is protected for the present and future
generations.33

The Nuclear Energy Act34 was introduced in line with the provision set out in the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which requires a governmental body to be assembled
and to control the research and processing of any nuclear materials.35 The National
Nuclear Regulation Act36 was further implemented to specifically focus on the nuclear
plants, where the NEA creates a juristic person to oversee any nuclear activity in the
republic, the NNRA is responsible for overseeing the safety issues which arise when
construction, running and decommissioning of nuclear plants occurs.37 The hazardous
substances act38 regulates the use, production and sale of hazardous substances
such as nuclear material, the act further regulates the granting of licenses to deal with
such hazardous substances such as nuclear waste.39

In chapter 3 of the national environmental management act40 the regulatory board and
government department responsible for the administration of nuclear materials are
made accountable to the department with regards to any environmental plans sought
to be introduced, for example the designation of 10 000 hectares of land in the
northern cape for disposal of nuclear waste, further more S 2541 ensures that any
environmental plans must adhere to the international standards.

32
Ibid.
33
S 24 (Note 27).
34
The Nuclear Energy Act 46 of 1999, herein “NEA”.
35
S 13 ibid.
36
The National Nuclear Regulation Act 47 of 1999, herein “NNRA”.
37
S 3 ibid.
38
The Hazardous Substances Act 15 of 1973.
39
S 4 ibid.
40
The National Environmental Management Act 36 of 1998, herein “NEMA”.
41
Ibid.
South African disposal of nuclear waste:
Environmental studies were conducted in 1978 under the supervision of the South
African nuclear energy corporation (Necsa). The land found for a suitable dumping
ground was situated 100km from springbok and 600km from Cape Town in the
Northern Province.42 Necsa applied to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) in 1986
for a license to begin disposing of nuclear waste from the koeberg nuclear power
station.43The government bought out three farms in the area creating 10 000 hectares
of land in which to dump low to medium level waste.44 The land was chosen due to the
fact that this area receives very little rainfall and has a low population density.45

The Necsa in charge of the Vaalputs dumping site is regulated by the laws of our land
and international treaties such as the standards set out by the international atomic
energy association (IAEA). The drums containing the nuclear waste are lowered into a
dug out trench, the barrels are stacked on their sides and on top of one another, once
that specific trench is filled it is covered by a layer of clay.46

DUMPING AT VISSERHOEK: In 2002 koeberg turned to the visserhoek hazardous

waste disposal site to dispose of 3 tonnes of low level waste. Visserhoek denied
koeberg access to their disposal facilities as the waste koeberg sought to destroy was
according to the environmental plans set out by Necsa and approved by NEMA
supposed to be sent to Vaalputs.47

The waste was sludge produced by the washing of equipment wore at the plant by the
employees which is regarded as low level waste, the disposal at visserhoek was
cleared by the National Nuclear Regulator and by the Department of environmental
affairs and water affairs even though the waste was tested and was well above the

42
“Vaalputs” at http://www.radwaste.co.za/vaalputs.htm .
43
www.radwaste.co.za
44
(Note 38).
45
(Note 39).
46
Ibid.
47
M. Gosling “An old story but where do you think this went?” 2002 at
http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1935 .
international level of 0.1Bq a gram, when the waste “deemed” low level was tested it
was found to be 1.5Bq a gram, well above the international standards.48

Not only was the clearance of this waste by the various departments a threat to
society it was further a violation of many legal provisions. The NNR requires all sites
disposing of waste to have a license; visserhoek in this instance was not licensed to
dispose of this nuclear waste.49 On the rejection by visserhoek, koeberg dried out the
nuclear waste which was in the form of sludge and currently has it stored in plastic
bags on the premises which is a further violation of safety protocols set out in the
NNR, NEA and international treaties.50

In 1997 when drums supposed to have been buried according to legislation such as
the NNR, HSA, NEMA and international Treaties, were found to have leaked.51 The
clean up crew for the “spill” was hired through an independent contractor and were not
given any warning about the dangerous waste they were cleaning up, neither were
they given any protective clothing.52

HEALTH RISKS:
The year of 2003 brought controversy when an employee of Necsa working at the
koeberg nuclear power plant as a radioactive worker for 15years was diagnosed with
leukemia, the type of cancer associated with exposure to high levels of radioactivity.53
The controversy arose when it was discovered that all employees at koeberg under
contract had to consult with doctors assigned to that site. Mr. Ron Lockwood
approached his doctor after continuous nose bloods and blood samples were taken,
Mr. Lockwood was cleared for work and continued serving his employers, when he
finally retired due to ill health and approached a specialist he was informed that he

48
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management.
49
S 4 (Note 32).
50
(Note 43).
51
B.Peek in the groundwork newsletter, Vol.5, No.1, March 2003
52
(Note 3).
53
Ibid.
had leukemia and had had it for roughly 10years.54 Leukemia is a form of cancer
which affects the white blood cells and bone marrow, easily ascertained through blood
samples.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lockwood is not the only employee who has suffered the
consequences of ill management at the plant.55 Mr. tilman roux was employed by
Necsa and now suffers from cancer which he alleged was caused by the work he was
employed to do which involved exposure to radio active materials, Mr. roux applied to
a Pretoria high court this year to have his medical records released by Necsa in order
to prove his claim, the court granted the release of his medical records.56

Many employees who preferred to remain anonymous during an interview done by

focus admitted that they were suffering the consequences of working with such deadly
substances but many did not peruse legal action because they could not access their
medical records.57 The promotion of access to information act58 affords a person with
the right to view and regard any information which may be relevant to them, the denial
of these employee’s medical records hindered their access to legal action which is a
violation of one’s fundamental rights.59

Although the public has been guaranteed that the waste is properly stored in concrete
and secure drums there are high risks of leaks of the waste into the under ground
water table.60 Water test conducted in 1998 in the surrounding areas and offender
tested positive for traces of radio active materials, the very same materials which
cause leukemia.61 The international commission on radiological protection has stated

54
Ibid.
55
(Note 3).
56
Pretoria judge orders release of secret nuclear files January 19th, 2009 at
http://www.cane.org.za/2009/01/19/uncategorized/pretoria-judge-orders-release-of-secret-nuclear-files/ .

57
(Note 3)
58
The promotion of access to information act 2 of 2000.
59
(Note 27).
60
H.Kingwell “what to do with those dangerous uranium stones” 2004 at http://www.dlist-
benguela.org/Monthly_Newsletter/Newsletter_4/What_to_do_with_'those_dangerous_uranium_stones'/ .
61
(Note 3).
that any reading above 25 millisieverts of radio active material is unacceptable, the
water in these areas used for human consumption tested at 54 millisieverts over the
international maximum, 56% of the boreholes in this area were tested at this level.62
Although Necsa disputes the readings it is a constitutional right63 for members of the
effected communities to live in an environment in which they feel say and one which is
not harmful to their health or the health of their children. The NNR under the NNRA
has a duty to regulate and investigate these claims and to opening address the
members of this community.

With koeberg only supplying South Africa with 6.5% of its electricity and the many
issues raised with regards to waste spillage and health issues, I strongly feel that it is
not economically, socially or environmentally feasible to continue experimenting with
nuclear power.64 With over 19 electricity stations able to supply South Africa with its
electricity it is just not worth poisoning our country, our people and our future any
longer. Over the last two decades there have been many reported and even more
unreported nuclear related disasters. It seems that the technology used for the
production of electricity in this way is still very unstable much like the atoms being
split. Politicians and scientist claim that the technology is improving and advancing
everyday, however it is only after a nuclear disaster that these problem areas are
discovered and corrected, our futures should not depend on methods which time and
time again have led to poisonous chemicals infecting pour society and our
environment, until nuclear power can be stabilized one should focus on less harmful
methods.

62
Ibid.
63
S 24 (Note 27).
64
(Note 4).