Safety of transporting nuclear material questioned
Over the last few years, insurance companies have been quietly amending their
insurance policies to reflect what is actually a major future threat to homes
and people. If householders look over their amendments to their policies within
the last 3 to 5 years, they will notice that they are no longer insured against
nuclear radiation accidents or incidents. (exclusion quoted in full below)
"This comes as no surprise," says Earthlife Africa eThekwini
volunteer Vanessa Black. "It is clear the world over that nuclear accidents
are of such a magnitude, that they are rightly considered uninsurable risks.
Since the South African nuclear weapons programme was dismantled most members of
the public believe nuclear radiation is of no concern. However, an astute
insurance industry will have realised that if Eskom's planned Pebble Bed Modular
nuclear energy reactor programme goes ahead ordinary South Africans could be
exposed to greater radiation risk both at the nuclear facilities and along
transport routes between Kwa Zulu-Natal and Gauteng and Gauteng and the Western
Cape."
Eskom's plans to build approximately 216 Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactors
(PBMR's) including 24 for local energy generation. This programme would entail:
· the importation of enriched uranium for fuel manufacture via a port in KZN -
Durban is their preferred port;
· transport of the uranium to Pelindaba for manufacture of the fuel 'pebbles';
and
· transport of these fuel 'pebbles' to local reactors or back through KZN for
export.
At the height of production, this could mean that as many as 9 trucks would
drive through Durban every week carrying enriched uranium to Pelindaba, near
Tshwane / Pretoria and another 31 trucks would return carrying fuel pebbles for
export. Even if only the first demo PBMR is built 1000 kg of enriched uranium
will be transported annually.
"Enriched uranium is very dangerous when it is breathed in or swallowed.
Eskom claims it will be transported in specially constructed canisters, but the
information provided by Eskom as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment
process says that the canisters are only designed to withstand a drop of 9
metres. So if a truck had an accident on a bridge and the canisters fell, they
could easily be split open and expel the dangerous enriched uranium dust over a
very wide area. According to most recent studies, people who ingest particles
are likely to suffer extreme toxic effects in the lungs, digestive system and
lymph glands as well as lung cancers. " said Black. This could also be
replicated by the canister being hit by a fast vehicle.
Based on recent statements by emergency personnel and the response to
transport accidents, such as the recent asbestos spill in Durban, Earthlife
Africa is concerned that emergency services would provide an inadequate response
in the event of a nuclear transport accident. Furthermore it would be difficult
to evacuate a wide area in an emergency. This is reason enough for residents in
the city to be alarmed.
"We also bear the risk that other countries will demand that the spent
fuel, which is highly radioactive, must be returned to the country of origin.
Graphite, the casing of the fuel pebbles, burns readily in air if exposed to
temperatures of 800 degrees - what we can expect from a fire resulting from an
accident. And water will not put it out," she said.
To put to bed once and for all claims about "safe" nuclear
transport, here are a few recorded transport incidents in the U.S.A. ....
(one source: http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/nukes.html)
Bearing in mind that there is no safe dose of radiation, whether these transport
incidents resulted in "harmful escapes of radioactivity" probably
depends on whether you are the worker involved in the incident or a nuclear
industry boss / investor.
· The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.)
tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979,
including 17 involving radioactive contamination.
· 21 September 1980 - Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell
off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to
Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.
· 1986 - A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a
farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its
cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.
· 31 March 1994 - Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New
York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor
operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were
released into the immediate environment.
It must be remembered that if only 20 of the proposed PBMR's were built, the
enriched uranium needs alone would require 140 trucks for the first load, and
almost one per week thereafter (total 1740 vehicles) for 40 years.
Surely, the money of South African taxpayers should be used to ensure safe,
clean and reliable energy delivery to the South African public. If we are
investing in new technology, shouldn't we invest in those that are at the
cutting edge of sustainable energy provision, technologies that are proven, that
decentralise power generation (our problems have been in getting the power from
Mpumalanga to the Cape and rural areas) and that optimise job creation (greater
numbers without being skills heavy). These goals can be met with far less cost
and risk to lives through well proven and commercially viable renewable energies
such as wind, wave, tidal and bulk solar thermal technologies. The international
markets for these technologies is growing at up to 40% per year, with the
nuclear market growing (at best) a few percent a year.
For example for the same cost as one PBMR unit delivering 110 MW of energy we
could deliver:1700 MW of wind power = 850 full-time jobs (which is 10x greater
than with nuclear) without the radiation danger. Also wind is a tried and tested
technology that one can set up really quickly with relatively unskilled labour
and it will be easy to build turbines locally. There are numerous sites across
the country where the wind resources are sufficient for wind energy generation
and these are located exactly where we currently have problems distributing
power to.
For the same cost as one PBMR we could also provide 1.2 million households
with solar water heating, hot water pipes and ceilings. This would save 795 MW
of electricity = 7 PBMRs and radically improve the lives of millions of our
people.
The public are invited to come and build sand sculptures highlighting the
transport issues, enjoy a fun activity ("stamping" out nukes! - see on
the day!) and learn about energy issues. - Earthlife Africa eThekwini
*This opinion article is issued by Earthlife Africa eThekwini. Feedback is
welcomed.
More information:
This article issued by
Muna Lakhani - 0834-71-72-76 - muna@iafrica.com
Vanessa Black - 082-472-8844 - black@ispace.co.za
Earthlife Africa eThekwini - PO Box 18722 - Dalbridge - 4014
Tel: 27-31-2011119 - Fax: 088-031-201119
Related articles:
South Africa's nuclear programme
|
