New National Nuclear Power Reactors and sites: Nuclear Regulator briefing

NCOP Economic and Business Development

31 May 2010
Chairperson: Mr F Adams (ANC, Western Cape)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) briefed the Committee on its mandate, noting that it had a dual responsibility to establish safety standards, issue nuclear licenses and Certificates of Authorisations, and to monitor through conducting compliance assurance inspections and taking necessary enforcement action where necessary. Both were geared to protecting persons, property and the environment against nuclear damage. The NNR currently regulated the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including waste management and decommissioning of facilities. It also regulated and licensed mines, because of the uranium by-product generated through gold mining, as well as scrap metal dealers who often handled radio-active materials, and vessels that were either nuclear driven or that carried radio-active cargo. Teams of inspectors would conduct visits and any site showing non-compliance would be shut down. Safety was the responsibility of the licence holder but NNR protected the public by ensuring that there was compliance. The NNR applied standards of the International Atomic and Energy Agency, administered two Conventions to which South Africa was a signatory, and there was close collaboration with other countries. The Radio-Active Waste Management Institute (RAWMI) had been established, but still needed to be brought fully into operation, to look after management of nuclear waste. Standards were set with full transparency and consultation. Simulated nuclear incidents would be done regularly to check standards and reactions. A new regulatory framework would be published later in the year. The licensing process was explained, and it was stressed that it was never possible to take any short cuts. Environmental Impact Assessments required greater integration with other regulatory bodies. The NNR was to establish a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of nuclear experts, including those who were against the use of nuclear energy.

Members questioned whether NNR could comment on whether it was advantageous to pursue nuclear energy, but the NNR noted that it did not develop policy, nor could it comment on the nuclear weapon situation in other countries. Members sought and received assurance that the security risks at Pelindaba no longer existed, questioned the correct situation around waste recycling at Foskor, questioned how regularly site inspections were conducted and enquired the rationale behind establishing a Technical Advisory Committee, and whether there was not expertise on the board or in house. They also asked about collaboration with other countries, how South Africa’s time for inspections compared with other countries, and the processes for licensing of new nuclear developments, since some development was already occurring in Eastern Cape although no licence had yet been issued. Members asked about nuclear waste at Koeberg, whether the NNR would consider the impact of nuclear developments on other industries, its work on public awareness, and the composition of the Board. Members also enquired about the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and future plans for Limpopo, noting that NNR would still be involved in the mothballing process. Revenue generation from Vaalputs, safety of residents of Duynefontein and Melkbos, and the weight that community opinion carried were also questioned.

The Committee adopted its report on the Oversight Visit to Northern Cape and resolved to attend the Democracy Development Programme on 14 and 15 October 2010.

Meeting report

New National Nuclear Power Reactors and sites: National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) briefing
Mr Joe Mwase, Executive: Strategy and Stakeholder Relations, National Nuclear Regulator, apologised that Advocate Mkhize, the Chief Executive Officer, had fallen ill and was unable to be present. Mr Mwase set out the background to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). He noted that the NNR was established by the National Nuclear Regulator Act, No 47 of 1999, with the mandate to provide for the protection of persons, property and the environment against potential nuclear damage. This protection was accomplished partly through establishing safety standards, issuing nuclear licenses and Certificates of Authorisations, but also through monitoring, conducting compliance assurance inspections and taking necessary enforcement action where necessary. The NNR currently regulated the entire nuclear fuel cycle, starting at exploration of nuclear fuels, all the way through to waste management and decommissioning of facilities. The facilities and actions that were regulated by NNR included the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant, the Research Reactors at Pelindaba, the Waste Management Repository at Vaalputs, mines and scrap metals dealers and nuclear vessels. Mr Mwase reported that the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) had notified the NNR of a decision not to proceed with the establishment of the PBMR.

Although the NNR was not the ultimate authority to license all mines, it had to regulate and license them due to the uranium by-product generated through gold mining. Scrap metal dealers often handled radio-active materials, and it was the NNR’s mandate to regulate that industry in this regard. The two types of nuclear vessels were the vessels that were nuclear driven and those that carried radio-active cargo.

Mr Mwase said that the NNR had a team of inspectors who visited nuclear sites, mines and other relevant sites on a daily basis to check compliancy. The NNR would shut down any site where non-compliance reports were issued. He stressed that safety was the license holder’s responsibility, whilst the NNR had a responsibility to the public to ensure that there was compliance at each and every site. Despite being aware of discussions to build a new nuclear power plant, the NNR had not received any applications and would only start regulating once such application was received.


Mr Mnonoki Msebenzi, Chief Technical Officer, NNR, added that NNR was a member of the International Atomic and Energy Agency (IAEA). For this reason the NNR had to apply IAEA standards and also help to develop those standards. He stated that the nuclear industry was probably the most highly regulated industry. The common motto that “a nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere” compelled countries to share regulatory information. Once a certain technology had been decided upon, NNR would collaborate closely with the regulator from the country of origin. The Department of Energy (DOE) was the custodian of all nuclear regulations. The Radio-Active Waste Management Institute (RAWMI) had been established but still needed to be brought fully into operation. RWAMI would look after the management aspects of nuclear waste. The setting of standards was a consultative process, and there was full transparency. A nuclear incident would be simulated every two years, to check standards.

Mr Msebenzi said that globally there was increasing interest in nuclear energy. This meant that current regulations were revisited, reviewed and adapted where necessary. A new framework would be published around September 2010. Technological advances in the industry also impacted on the surrounding environment. For example, the safety radius around Eskom might be reduced from the current 16 kilometre radius, which would undoubtedly also impact on the restrictions on any urban developments around the plant.

It was common practice for the license applicant to pay for the cost of the licensing process conducted by NNR. The basic time needed for a licensing process would last about 40 months, although this could be shortened, although this would also increase the costs of resources needed. It was never possible to take any short cuts. When it came to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), there needed to be more integration with other regulatory bodies like the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The NNR Board also had to take a decision on the establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of nuclear experts, including those who were against the use of nuclear energy.

Mr Mwase added that the cooperation with other regulatory bodies was very important. The NNR would never choose to act in isolation, because there were so many experts from across the globe whose input could be sought. He mentioned that the NNR was administering two conventions on behalf of the country. The Convention on Nuclear Safety required the NNR to provide the international community and IAEA members with a report on nuclear safety in South Africa. The Joint Convention on Spent Fuel and Waste Management also required NNR to compile a report. (See attached presentation for full details).

Discussion
The Chairperson reminded members that Mr Tim Hill, Manager, Koeberg Programme, had invited Members to spend a day visiting Koeberg.

Mr D Gamede (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) asked if it was advantageous for South Africa to have nuclear energy as an alternative. If it was indeed advantageous, then he queried why there was so much delay in implementing it and what were the challenges holding back these developments.

Mr Mwase replied that that NNR did not develop policy, nor comment whether a certain technology was advantageous. It only provided advice on nuclear matters. It was up to the Minister and Department of Energy to develop policy.

Mr Gamede enquired about the conditions at Pelindaba, and what the risks were there.

Mr Mwase explained that the security at Pelindaba was good. The security issues referred to by Mr Gamede did not exist any longer. Pelindaba had formerly been associated with the nuclear weapons programme, but this had since been scrapped, in terms of the Proliferation Treaty.

Mr Gamede mentioned that Foskor in Richards Bay was believed to be dumping waste into the sea. He stated that some claimed that the waste could be recycled, only after approval from the NNR. He asked for more information.

Mr Msebenzi said he needed to address the impression that had been created that the NNR was an impediment to the use of Foskor waste for income generation projects. In truth, all that Foskor had to do was to demonstrate to the NNR that there were no risks attached to recycling such waste, with the intention of improving the economy of the region.

Mr Gamede asked what NNR’s position was on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Mr Mwase stated that the NNR could not, and did not hold any position on nuclear development in Iran.

Mr Gamede asked how often inspectors went to visit sites, especially those of scrap metal dealers.

Mr Mwase said that NNR did have an Inspection schedule, which ensured regular site visits to scrap dealers and other sites. After each visit a report would be generated.

Mr Msebenzi added that because of its limited capacity the NNR tended to act in a reactive manner, as opposed to the ideal where inspections would be done more regularly. He said that it was unfortunate that only the very honest players in the scrap industry were submitting applications for licences, and that NNR could not effectively police the dishonest players.

Mr Gamede did not understand the rationale for establishing a Technical Committee. He argued that such technical expertise should already have been on the board.

Mr Mwase responded that the board of NNR did have some members with technical expertise, but the intention was to deepen the level of expertise required.

Mr B Mnguni (ANC, Free State) perceived some conflicting statements in the presentation. At one point the presenters had stated that information was freely available from all over the world, yet at another stage the statement was made that an approach had to be made to access information, and that what was achieved depended on the country.

Mr Mwase explained that South Africa shared information with any country that was a signatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or with members of the IAEA. The NNR followed the government lead in this regard. If government did not have a bilateral agreement with another country, the NNR would typically not engage with such a country.

Mr Mnguni asked if the safety aspects were not compromised if and when the licensing processes were shortened.

Mr Msebenzi emphasised that the safety aspect would never be compromised during this process. NNR would manage to shorten the time for the project where necessary, by increasing the manpower and by performing some of the tasks in less time.

Mr Mnguni asked if it was true that South Africa was taking waste from other countries.

Mr Mnguni was concerned about the long term safety of the waste sites like the Vaalputs Repository in the Northern Cape.

Mr Mwase said NNR could assure the public that Vaalputs would be safe beyond thirty years.

Ms E van Lingen (DA, Eastern Cape) noted that Mr Msebenzi had stated that no application for a licence had been received for new nuclear developments. However, she claimed that there appeared to be some collusion between certain parties. Development had already started on the proposed site in her town, despite the NNR’s claim that it would only act once an application was received. She also wished to know what the community could do influence the development.

Mr Mwase stated that the NNR was independent from Eskom. Eskom would do its EIA in an area, as was its right. However, the NNR would arrange its own separate public participation processes, and if the site was not found to be safe, NNR would never grant a licence. As for Tuispunt, he stated that the NNR would never start any processes without having first gone through the public processes. NNR was therefore not involved in any work at Tuispunt. There was no conspiracy or collusion, and this Committee could call on the parties to explain if things were different.

Ms van Lingen asked if she could get a copy of any draft documents on the proposed new regulatory framework, and enquired if these were available on the website.

Mr Mwase said that all the relevant regulations were available from his office, and that he would make them available to Members. Some of these regulations were also available on the website.

Ms van Lingen enquired about the extent of the high level waste at Eskom, and what was happening to that waste material.

Mr Tim Hill, Manager, Koeberg Project, said he did not have the accurate figures for the amount of waste at the site but would comfortably state that the site’s capacity was adequate and could handle twice the amount that was actually being handled presently.

Ms van Lingen was concerned about the impact any nuclear developments would have on the important industries of squid and milk in the Eastern Cape.

Ms S Chen (ANC, Gauteng) asked what the entry requirements were for the site inspectors and whether the NNR had a dedicated training programme in place to skill them.

Mr Mwase said the inspectors were highly qualified. The NNR employed had radiation specialists, nuclear engineers and people with doctorates. There was no question about the qualifications of their staff, because the nature of industry demanded people with nuclear expertise. New inspectors would be teamed up with an experienced inspector. Throughout the year training was provided from the IAEA, and if the NNR lacked certain competencies it could consult with regulators from other countries. The environment was typical of other scientific environments, with conducting of peer reviews. The NNR was quite proud that its staff was highly qualified.

Mr Hill added that the NNR had a training course for new inspectors and that they were issued with a badge only upon completion of the course.

Ms S Chen asked how the NNR’s 40 month licensing process compared to other countries internationally.

Mr Mwase stated that the 40 month turnaround time compared well. He reminded Members that the task of licensing was an onerous one, and that thorough evaluation would be used to arrive at a decision about public safety. The NNR would also have to consult with global best practices in order to make some decisions.

Ms Chen asked if the NNR had a public awareness programme in place.

Mr Mwase said that public awareness was identified as an area that needed work. This meeting with the Committee was an initiative to address that gap.

Mr K Sinclair (COPE, Northern Cape) wanted more details of the composition and structure of the NNR’s board.

Mr Mwase explained that the board consisted of ten members and was chaired by Dr Tracy Cohen, who was a regulatory expert. The current board took office for three years, and had been appointed in December 2009.

Mr Sinclair was concerned that the technical advisors could simply become another form of consultants that would cost the State a lot of money. He asked if it was not better to rather employ such technical expertise in-house.

Mr Mwase said that the NNR was, from time to time, forced to seek external experts, but he was convinced that the board would apply its mind to the proper composition of the Technical Committee so as to minimise the need for external consultants.

Mr Msebenzi added that not all board members necessarily had nuclear expertise, but were selected to include expertise in other areas such as human resources and finance. The technical expertise sitting at the board level was obviously limited.

Mr Sinclair asked about the NNR’s involvement in the PBMR project.

Mr Mwase explained that the NNR’s involvement with the PBMR extend purely to the regulatory aspects. The PBMR initially submitted an application for a licence but had later informed NNR that it no longer wished to proceed. NNR would still be involved in the mothballing process, however long this took.

Mr Sinclair asked how much revenue was generated by the Vaalputs Waste Plant in the Northern Cape, and who benefited from that revenue stream. He also felt that the vast open spaces in the provinces meant that more sites could be identified to generate more revenue for the province.

Mr Mwase noted that Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA) was the owner of Vaalputs, and it collected the revenue there. At Vaalputs there was also a public forum and communities could engage wit NECSA on income generation projects.

The Chairperson referred to complaints from the residents from Duynefontein and Melkbos about their safety, and asked how safe the residents were in fact.

Mr Hill said that there was a public forum on safety, which would meet quarterly. The forum was poorly attended. Koeberg was monitored by the NNR on a regular basis. Koeberg and the City of Cape Town had an emergency plan in place and this plan was tested regularly.

Mr Mwase bemoaned the fact that some journalists published stories that were incorrect. He added that the emergency exercise referred to by Mr Hill was conducted every 18 months, and that NNR would like to invite the public and journalists to this exercise to see, first hand, the safety measures that were in place.

Mr Mnguni asked what weight community opinion had on a decision to proceed with a project.

Mr Mwase explained that the NNR could not pronounce on a matter where there were not sound issues around environmental aspects. The NNR’s job was to pronounce on public safety. Any other issues should be resolved with the politicians. The responsibility ultimately rested with the land owner. The land owner could decide that, since no environmental or safety issues were being compromised, the land could be used for a nuclear plant.

Mr Mnguni asked about the safety of the PBMR technology, and what country was used as a model for its implementation should the PBMR be commissioned anyway.

Mr Hill said that, except for a few discussions around certain elements of safety, the NNR had not received any safety report from PBMR. He continued that some of the elements in the PBMR were taken from other countries’ models, but that the overall model for the PBMR technology was developed in South Africa as a first of its kind.

Mr Mnguni followed up by asking if the NNR was going to insist that PBMR submit a safety report.

Mr Mwase said that no PBMR plant was going to be built in South Africa because no safety report was submitted. In fact, PBMR would not be required to submit a safety report since the process had been halted.

Mr R Lees (DA, KwaZulu-Natal) needed more information on the high level waste being stored at Vaalputs.

Mr Hill explained that the safety of the waste was an aspect that needed broad consultation, but that the matter of long term waste management would be handled by the new body RWAMI.

Mr Msebenzi added that the United States of America (USA) had already decided to repatriate any spent fuel that originated in that country, as one attempt to help control proliferation.

Mr Lees wished to link with Mr Mnguni’s question and asked whether the NNR would still go ahead and issue a licence in a situation where community approval was the only element missing from the process.

Ms M Dikgale said the team had not mentioned anything about Limpopo and she wished to know if there were any plans for Limpopo.

Mr Msebenzi replied that the lower water requirement of the PBMR would have been an ideal solution to the Limpopo province with its poor water resource.

Ms van Lingen mentioned that Ariva was talking about complying with European Union standards, and asked if the NNR could put it on record that the public would be protected should any decisions backfire. She also asked where she would be able to source and read the IAEA regulations.

Mr Msebenzi said NNR had to acknowledge that there were power blocs in the industry, and that only through constant discussions could alternatives to current dominance be built. A group of African regulators had been formed to try and build a bloc. As the South African regulator, the NNR would only abide by the safety standards of the IAEA.

Ms van Lingen asked if the NNR would also consider other factors like the economy, land and other no-safety issues in their licensing process.

Ms van Lingen asked whether the NNR would intervene and stop a project that might pose a risk to high employment levels, such as the squid industry.

Mr Msebenzi said the only economic consideration would be around the entity’s ability to afford the process and the decommissioning. Any other economic considerations would not be part of the NNR mandate.

Committee’s Draft Report on Oversight Visit to the Northern Cape.
The Chairperson indicated that the draft Oversight Report had already been circulated, and asked Members to comment.

Ms van Lingen pointed out a few spelling errors.

Mr Lees commented on the use of tenses throughout the report.

Mr Gamede felt that Members could have sent their comments on errors to the Committee Secretary prior to the meeting.

The Chairperson said that Members could send minor technical errors through to the Secretary at a later stage. He asked that Members focus on the content of the draft Report.

Mr M Maine (ANC, North West) said that the Members who pointed out grammatical and spelling errors indicated that they were happy with the content.

The Committee resolved to adopt the Report.

Other business
The Chairperson referred to an invitation for the Committee to attend the Democracy Development Programme (DDP) on 14 and 15 October 2010.

Mr Nyambi asked whether the entire Committee was to attend.

The Chairperson felt that there were issues on the programme that warranted attendance by the entire Committee.

Mr Maine supported the idea that the whole Committee should attend.

Ms van Lingen complained that this point had often been raised. Her opinion was that the entire Committee formed a team, and therefore all should attend.

Mr Nyambi responded that sometimes some Members may need to remain in Cape Town, depending on the NCOP programme, as there had to be a quorum when the NCOP was sitting.

It was resolved that the entire Committee should attend.

The Chairperson informed members of the postponement of the Committee’s oversight visit to the Richards Bay communities, due to a dispute around the traditional leadership. The matter was with the High Court and the provincial government.

Ms Dikgale asked about the trip to China.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had received quotations but it seemed that the trip would be too expensive. The matter was referred to the Chief Whip. Members would be advised of the outcome.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: