CC janneker thesis - 14 may 2012 final

DETERMINING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE
ROLE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY IN SOUTH AFRICA
RESEARCH REPORT
Presented to the
Graduate School of Business Leadership
University of South Africa
In partial fulfilment of the
Requirements for the
MASTERS DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
By
CHANTAL CHARLENE JANNEKER
14 May 2012

DECLARATION OF CANDIDATE
I, Chantal Charlene Janneker being a registered student at UNISA and bearing the student
number 71649484, declare that this research report is my own work. All information
obtained directly or indirectly from other sources have been fully acknowledged and
referenced in the text.
14 May 2012
Signed: ____________________________ Date: _______________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge with much gratitude, the very thorough research conducted by
Jaré Struwig and Ben Roberts of the HSRC, both of who displayed great sensitivity and
clear and constructive thinking in their interaction with me regarding the questions asked
in the survey, the areas surveyed and the overall benchmarking of the results.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge and most sincerely thank my colleagues at
Necsa, so many of whom not only took interest in this project, but readily and willingly
provided me with constructive comment and voluntary assistance in generally editing this
document.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... 10
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... 12
1. CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM .......................................... 32
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 32
1.2 The problem review ................................................................................... 35
1.3 The research objectives ............................................................................. 36
1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................... 38
1.5 The significance of the study..................................................................... 39
1.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 40
2. CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM ANALYSIS.................................................................... 42
2.1 An overview of the global nuclear industry............................................. 42
2.1.1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor (TMI-2).......................................... 45
2.1.2 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Reactor-4..................................................... 45
2.1.3 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP).................................... 46
2.2 Analysing the global nuclear challenges .................................................. 47
2.3 An overview of the South African nuclear industry............................... 50
2.4 The South African nuclear challenges ..................................................... 53
2.5 The South African nuclear legislative and policy framework ............... 56
2.5.1 The White Paper on Energy Policy (1998)............................................ 56
2.5.2 The Nuclear Energy Act, 1999 (Act No. 46 of 1999)............................ 56
2.5.3 The National Nuclear Regulatory Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999)....... 57
2.5.4 The Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy (2005) ........ 57
2.5.5 The Nuclear Energy Policy (2008) ........................................................ 57
2.5.6 The National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute Act, 2008 (Act No. 53
of 2008)................................................................................................... 57
2.5.7 The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010), 2010-2030 (2011) ............... 58
2.5.8 The Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP, 2010) ................................... 58
2.5.9 The Nuclear Energy Resource Development and Innovation Strategy
(NERDIS) ............................................................................................... 58
2.6 The Nuclear Industry Players................................................................... 59
2.6.1 The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa)...................... 59
2.6.2 The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR)................................................ 59
2.6.3 Eskom .................................................................................................... 60

2.6.4 The Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (NIASA, 2012)...... 60
2.6.5 The National Nuclear Energy Executive Co-ordination Committee
(NNEECC, 2011).................................................................................... 60
2.7 The business case for an integrated public awareness programme ...... 61
2.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 62
3. CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 63
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 63
3.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1: To determine the South African public’s
knowledge of nuclear energy and technology.......................................... 63
3.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 63
3.2.2 The construction of the Koeberg NPP .................................................... 64
3.2.3 The selection of future nuclear sites ....................................................... 64
3.2.4 The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)............................................ 64
3.2.5 Global events influencing public perception .......................................... 65
3.2.6 South African events influencing public perceptions ............................. 65
3.2.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 66
3.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 2: To establish the South African public’s
support for different applications of nuclear technology....................... 66
3.3.1 The nuclear debate in South Africa ........................................................ 66
3.3.2 The early history of strategic decision-making....................................... 67
3.3.3 The later history of nuclear strategic decision-making........................... 68
3.3.4 The era of commercial decision-making, transparency and open dialogue70
3.3.5 Challenges deterring public support for nuclear technology applications72
3.3.6 Solutions that may promote public support for nuclear technology
applications ............................................................................................. 73
3.3.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 74
perceived benefits and concerns associated with nuclear energy and
technology ................................................................................................... 75
3.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 75
3.4.2 Nuclear secured a position in South Africa’s energy mix ...................... 75
3.4.3 The nuclear debate concerning the benefits and concerns...................... 76
3.4.4 Benefits and concerns of nuclear as perceived by proponent and opponent
77
3.4.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 79

3.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 4: To ascertain the South African public’s
perceptions of nuclear energy................................................................... 80
3.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 80
3.5.2 Nuclear likened to anti-abortion campaigns. .......................................... 81
3.5.2 The role of the media in forming public perceptions of nuclear............. 81
3.5.3 Media sensationalism of the Fukushima accident .................................. 82
3.5.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 84
3.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 5: To clarify the South African public’s
perceptions of nuclear safety..................................................................... 85
3.6.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 85
3.6.2 Nuclear technology: A viable solution to the Kyoto commitments........ 86
3.6.3 South Africa’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol ................................ 86
3.6.4 Events that influence public perceptions of nuclear safety..................... 87
3.6.5 Psychological developments that influence public perceptions of nuclear
safety....................................................................................................... 87
3.6.6 Increased transparency in reporting nuclear safety incidents ................. 88
3.6.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 88
3.7. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 6: To comprehend the South African
public’s views on nuclear energy in a global context.............................. 89
3.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 89
3.7.2 Globally the NPT continues to be nuclear weapons deterrent................ 89
3.7.3 NPT significantly boosts multilateralism................................................ 89
3.7.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 90
3.8 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 7: To establish who the South African
public trust for information on nuclear energy ...................................... 90
3.8.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 90
3.8.2 South Africa’s legacy of social disparities still breeds distrust .............. 91
3.8.3 South Africa’s apartheid-era nuclear weapons history ........................... 91
3.8.4 Why public acceptance is synonymous with trust? ................................ 92
3.8.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 93
3.9 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 08: To evaluate the South African public’s
final assessment of nuclear energy and technology ................................ 93
3.9.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 93
3.9.2 In 1944 the South African nuclear programme was borne ..................... 94

3.9.3 In 1948 the South African Atomic Energy Board was established ........ 94
3.9.4 In 1970 the “Building 5000” complex was constructed ......................... 94
3.9.5 During the 1970s and 1980 South Africa resisted IAEA inspections..... 95
3.9.6 In 1987 under severe pressure South Africa indicates it will sign the NPT95
3.9.7 In 1989 President F.W. de Klerk redefines South Africa’s nuclear
aspirations ............................................................................................... 96
3.10 GANTT Chart Time-line........................................................................... 96
3.11 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 96
4. CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY........................... 98
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 98
4.2 Research inception meeting ...................................................................... 98
4.3 Research design.......................................................................................... 99
4.3.1 Research philosophy:.............................................................................. 99
4.3.2 Research approach: ............................................................................... 100
4.3.3 Research strategy / methodology.......................................................... 101
4.3.4 Time horizons: (cross sectional) .......................................................... 102
4.3.5 Data collection methods: Reliability and validity................................. 103
5. CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................... 113
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 113
5.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1: To determine the South African public’s
knowledge of nuclear energy and technology........................................ 114
5.2.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 114
5.2.2 Self rated knowledge in terms of determining the public’s knowledge of
Nuclear Energy and Technology .......................................................... 114
5.2.3 Nuclear knowledge quiz for determining the public’s knowledge of Nuclear
Energy and Technology ........................................................................ 117
5.2.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 119
support for different applications of nuclear technology..................... 120
5.3.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 120
5.3.2 Support for different applications of Nuclear Technology................... 121
5.3.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 125
perceived benefits and concerns associated with nuclear technology. 125
5.4.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 125

5.4.2 What survey respondents were asked in terms of perceived benefits and
concerns of Nuclear Technology .......................................................... 125
5.4.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 130
perceptions of nuclear energy................................................................. 131
5.5.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 131
5.5.2 General view of Nuclear Energy........................................................... 131
5.5.3 Benefits and disadvantages of nuclear energy...................................... 134
5.5.4 Future energy preferences..................................................................... 138
5.6. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 5: To clarify the South African public’s
perceptions of nuclear safety................................................................... 146
5.6.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 146
5.6.2 Portrayal of nuclear risks in media and the public................................ 147
5.6.3 Assessment of level of nuclear risk ...................................................... 151
5.6.4 Perceived likelihood of a nuclear accident ........................................... 156
5.6.5 Attitudes towards the storage of nuclear waste..................................... 159
5.6.6 Evaluation of government’s and nuclear authority’s efforts in ensuring
nuclear safety ........................................................................................ 161
5.7. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 6: To understand the South African
public’s views on nuclear energy in a global context............................ 164
5.7.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 164
5.8. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 7: To establish who the South African
public trust for information on nuclear................................................. 167
5.8.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 167
5.9. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 8: To evaluate the South African public’s
final assessment of nuclear energy and technology .............................. 173
5.9.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 173
5.9.2 A composite profile of support and opposition to nuclear energy and
technology............................................................................................. 176
5.9.3 Multivariate Analysis (MVA)............................................................... 178
5.9.4 Self-Reported Knowledge of Nuclear Technology and Energy Issues. 179
5.9.5 Overall Evaluation of Nuclear Energy.................................................. 181
5.9.6 Recent exposure to nuclear energy or technology advertising ............. 187
5.9.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 190
6. CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................... 191

6.1 Summary of findings................................................................................ 191
6.2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1: To determine the South African public’s
knowledge of nuclear energy and technology........................................ 191
support for different applications of nuclear technology..................... 192
perceived benefits and concerns associated with nuclear technology. 192
6.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 4: To ascertain the South African public’s
perceptions of nuclear energy................................................................. 193
perceptions of nuclear safety................................................................... 194
6.7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 6: To comprehend the South African
public’s views on nuclear energy in a global context............................ 195
6.8 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 7: To establish who the South African
public trust for information on nuclear................................................. 196
6.9 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 8: To evaluate the South African public’s
final assessment of nuclear energy and technology .............................. 196
7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 198

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The nuclear bomb code name "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima (wikipedia,
2010)....................................................................................................................................42
Figure 2: Little Boy was a uranium gun-type nuclear fission weapon (perilousmemories,
2008)....................................................................................................................................43
Figure 3: The "Fat Man" bomb was dropped over Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945 by
the B-29 "Bockscar" at an altitude of about 1,800 feet over the city (awesomestories, 2007)
.............................................................................................................................................43
Figure 4: The "Fat Man" bomb had an explosive force (yield) of about 20,000 tons of TNT
and was an implosion type, weapon using plutonium, which resulted in a supercritical
condition and a nuclear explosion (blippitt, 2011)..............................................................44
Figure 5: The centre of gravity of civil nuclear power is shifting towards East. China has
laid out plans to increase nuclear power capability 11 fold, up to 95,620 MWe (Insight,
2008)....................................................................................................................................48
Figure 6: The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant before the devastating natural
disaster struck (dailymail, 2012). ........................................................................................49
Figure 7: The crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, northern Japan
and nine days after the March disaster struck (dailymail, 2012).........................................50
Figure 8: Location of Necsa at Pelindaba (maplandia, 2012) .............................................51
Figure 9: The Research Onion, (Saunders et al., 2000:84)..................................................99
Figure 10: Self reported knowledge and actual knowledge of nuclear scores by socio-
demographic attributes ......................................................................................................119
Figure 11: South African attitude of the various applications of nuclear energy and
technology) ........................................................................................................................121
Figure 12: Views on the different applications on nuclear technology by socio-
demographic and other attributes ......................................................................................122
Figure 13: Concerns and Benefits of nuclear technology mentioned by socio-demographic
attributes ............................................................................................................................129
Figure 14: Koeberg Nuclear Power Station......................................................................131
Figure 15: General views of nuclear energy in South Africa and Britain mentioned by
socio-demographic attribute (percentage) .........................................................................132
Figure 16: People that favour or disfavour nuclear energy (percent)...............................132
Figure 17: Responses in favour of nuclear energy by socio-demographic attributes
(percent).............................................................................................................................133
Figure 18: Disadvantages and benefits of nuclear energy by socio demographic and other
characteristics ....................................................................................................................137
Figure 19: South Africans least in favour of the building of new nuclear reactors...........139
Figure 20: Perceptions of the levels of energy by select socio-demographic characteristics
...........................................................................................................................................144
Figure 21: Perceived nuclear incidents sometimes raise major concerns in the media and
the public. In your opinion, compared to other safety risks, would you say that nuclear
risks are?............................................................................................................................147

Figure 22: Ratio of the share of citizens reporting exaggerated nuclear risk to the share
perceiving underestimated risk in South Africa and Europe (ratio)..................................151
Figure 23: Perceived level of risk of nuclear power plants to you and your family in South
Africa and Europe..............................................................................................................152
Figure 24: Perceived level of risk of nuclear power plants to you and your family, by
levels of self-reported knowledge and support for nuclear technology and energy..........155
Figure 25: Belief in the possibility of a nuclear accident in South Africa .......................156
Figure 26: Vaalputs Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility ...............................................159
Figure 27: Level of concern about the storage of nuclear waste from South African
reactors...............................................................................................................................160
Figure 28: Level of concern about the storage of nuclear waste from South African
reactors, by socio-demographic attributes.........................................................................161
Figure 29: Assessment of efforts by government and nuclear authority in ensuring nuclear
safety in South Africa........................................................................................................162
Figure 30: Distribution of views about nuclear weapons programmes (percent)..............166
Figure 31: People most likely to have seen or hear Necsa advertising in the various
categories...........................................................................................................................168
Figure 32: Nuclear industry in SA should do more to promote the benefits of nuclear
technology, by socio-demographic attributes....................................................................171
Figure 33: Nuclear industry in SA should do more to promote the benefits of nuclear
technology, by levels of self-reported knowledge and support for nuclear technology and
energy ................................................................................................................................172
Figure 34: Overall assessment of benefits versus risks of nuclear technology and energy in
South Africa and Europe ...................................................................................................173
Figure 35: Overall assessment of benefits versus risks of nuclear technology and energy,
by levels of self-reported knowledge and evaluation of nuclear energy. ..........................175
Figure 36: Profiling supporters and opponents of nuclear energy and technology..........177
Figure 37: Attitudinal Categories by Demographic variables..........................................178

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Current generation capacity, new electricity generation capacity and envisaged total by
2030 (DoE, 2011)
............................................................................................................................
55

Table 2: Differences of Deductive and Inductive Research (Saunders, et al., 2004)
...................
101

Table
3:
Number
of
Enumerator
Areas
selected
by
Province
and
Race
........................................
104

Table
4:
Sample
(Unweighted
and
Weighted)
...............................................................................
111

Table
6:
Knowledge
about
nuclear
energy
and
nuclear
technology
(row
percentage
and
mean

score)
.............................................................................................................................................
116

Table
7:
Nuclear
Knowledge
..........................................................................................................
117

Table
8:
Views
on
the
use
of
nuclear
technology
in
the
various
sectors
.......................................
121

Table
9:
A
profile
of
"Don't
know"
responses,
by
socio-‐demographic
characteristics
..................
124

Table
10:
Benefits
of
nuclear
technology
(Multiple
response
percentage)
...................................
126

Table
11:
Benefits
of
nuclear
technology
by
province
(Multiple
response
percentage)
...............
127

Table
12:
Concerns
associated
with
nuclear
technology
(Multiple
response
percentage)
...........
128

Table
13:
Portrayal
of
support
for
nuclear
technology
by
self-‐reported
knowledge
and
perceptions

of
risks
and
benefits
(row
percent)
................................................................................................
134

Table
14:
Benefits
of
nuclear
energy
as
a
source
of
electricity
......................................................
135

Table
15:
Disadvantages
of
nuclear
as
a
source
of
electricity
.......................................................
136

Table
16:
Agreement
with
future
energy
preference
statements
.................................................
138

Table
17:
Future
energy
preferences,
by
characteristics
(percent
that
strongly

agree
or
agree)
...............................................................................................................................
141

Table
18:
Future
energy
preferences
by
self-‐reported
knowledge,
support
for
nuclear
energy
and

perceptions
of
risk
(percent)
..........................................................................................................
142

Table
19:
Perceptions
of
the
levels
of
nuclear
energy
by
characteristics
......
143

Table
20:
Support
for
levels
of
nuclear
as
a
source
of
energy
by
self-‐reported
knowledge,
support

for
nuclear
energy
and
perceived
risks
..........................................................................................
145

Table
21:
Portrayal
of
risk
in
the
media
and
public,
by
characteristics
..........
148

Table
22:
Portrayal
of
risk
in
the
media
and
public,
by
levels
of
self-‐reported
knowledge
and

support
for
nuclear
technology
and
energy
..................................................................................
149

Table
23:
Perceived
level
of
risk
of
nuclear
power
plants
to
you
and
your
family,
by
socio-‐
demographic
characteristics
..........................................................................................................
154

Table
24:
Perceived
risk
of
a
nuclear
accident
occurring
in
South
Africa,
by

characteristics
................................................................................................................................
158

Table
25:
The
public's
perception
of
nuclear
safety
......................................................................
163

Table
26:
To
what
extent
do
you
agree
with
the
following
statements?
......................................
165

Table
27:
Trust
in
sources
of
information
......................................................................................
167

Table
28:
Have
you
recently
heard
or
seen
any
advertising
from
the
SA
Nuclear
Energy

Corporation
Ltd?
............................................................................................................................
169

Table
29:
Overall
assessment
of
benefits
versus
risks
of
nuclear
technology
and
energy,
by
socio-‐
demographic
characteristics
..........................................................................................................
173

Table
30:
Ordered
logistical
regression
on
self-‐reported
nuclear
knowledge
...............................
181

Table
31:
Ordered
logit
regression
models
on
overall
perception
of
nuclear
energy
...................
184

Table
32:
Logistic
regression
models
of
'do
not
know'
responses
to
overall
perception
of
nuclear

energy
question
.............................................................................................................................
186

Table
33:
Logistic
regression
models
of
recent
exposure
to
nuclear
energy
or
technology

advertising
.....................................................................................................................................
189

LIST OF PIE CHARTS
Pie Chart 1: South African opinion on whether Nuclear Power Plants present a “risk”
Pie Chart 2: South African sentiments of nuclear energy
Pie Chart 3: The most trusted to provide accurate information on Nuclear Energy
Pie Chart 4: Six categories of South African opinion on Nuclear Issues

LIST OF APPENDICES
§ Appendix A: Module of Questions
§ Appendix B: Supplementary tables and figures
§ Appendix C: The example of an Enumerator Area map issued to assist the field
teams to navigate to the correct areas
§ Appendix D: Official letter describing the project and its duration to authorities
§ Appendix E: Kish Grid in the Questionnaire
§ Appendix F: Farmers Letter
§ Appendix G: Consent Forms
§ Appendix H: Letter of Introduction
§ Appendix I: Necsa Confidentiality Letter
§ Appendix J: 2011 Gantt Chart, Research Phase I
§ Appendix K: 2011/2012 Gantt Chart, Dissertation Phase II

ACRONYMS
AEB Atomic Energy Board
AEC Atomic Energy Corporation
AgriSA Agri South Africa
ANC African National Congress
ARMSCOR Armaments Corporation of South Africa
ARV Antiretroviral
CAN Canadian Nuclear Association
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
CNA Canadian Nuclear Association
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DFA Department of Foreign Affairs
DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
DME Department of Minerals and Energy
DST Department of Science and Technology
DoE Department of Energy
EA Enumerator Area
EC Eastern Cape
EIA Environmental Impact Assessments
EPR European Pressurized Reactor
EU European Union
FS Free State
GDP Growth Domestic Product
GHG Green House Gas (CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, etc)
GP Gauteng Province
GW Gigawatts
HSRC Human Sciences Research Council
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IDC Industrial Development Corporation
IPAP Industrial Policy Action Plan
IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety
IRP Integrated Resource Plan

JV Joint Venture
KZN KwaZulu-Natal
LP Limpopo
LSM Living Standard Measurement
MBq Megabecquerels
MP Mpumalanga
mSv Millisieverts
MVA Multivariate Analysis
NAC New Agenda Coalition
Necsa South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
NC Northern Cape
NEI Nuclear Energy Institute
NEP Nuclear Energy Policy
NERDIS Nuclear Energy Resource Development and Innovation Strategy
NETC Nuclear Energy Technical Committee
NIASA Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa
NNEECC National Nuclear Energy Executive Coordination Committee
NNR National Nuclear Regulator
NPP Nuclear Power Plant
NPT Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons
NUM National Union of Mineworkers
NVC Necsa Visitor Centre
NW North West
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OCGT Open Cycle Gas Turbine
CCGT Closed Cycle Gas Turbine
PAIA Public Access to Information Act
PBMR Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
PWR Pressurized Water Reactor
SASAS South African Social Attitudes Survey
SOE State Owned Enterprise
TWh Terawatt hours
UCOR Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa

USA United States of America
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WB World Bank
WC Western Cape
WHO World Health Organisation
WNA World Nuclear Association
WWF World Wide Fund
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
USA United States of America
USSR Former Soviet Union

GLOSSARY
Atom: An atom is a basic component of the chemical elements that form matter. It
consists of a nucleus composed of positively charged protons and neutral particles
(neutrons), orbited by negatively charged particles (electrons).
Becquerel (Bq): A Becquerel is a unit to measure nuclear activity (1 Bq = 1 atomic
nucleus disintegration per second). The Becquerel is a very small unit. Nuclear activity
was previously measured in curies (1 curie – 37 billion Bq)
Containment Area: During the construction of a facility designed to house radioactive
materials, a series of containment barriers is put up between the material inside and the
environment outside the facility during construction. This creates separate areas called
“containment areas”.
Contamination: Contamination is the presence of an undesirable level of radioactive
substances (dust or liquid) at the surface of or inside any medium. Contamination in
humans can be external (on the skin) or internal (via the respiratory or digestive tracts).
Criticality: Criticality is reached when a medium containing a fissile nuclear material
becomes critical when neutrons are produced (by fission of this material) at the same rate
as they disappear (through absorption and leakage to the outside).
Decommissioning: Decommissioning is a term covering all the steps following the
shutdown of a nuclear or mining facility at the end of its operating life, from closure to the
removal of radioactivity of the site and including physical dismantling and clean-up of all
non-reusable facilities and equipment.
Decontamination: Decontamination is a physical, chemical or mechanical operation
designed to eliminate or reduce the presence of radioactive or chemical materials deposited
on or in a facility, open space, equipment, or personnel.
Dose: Dose is a measurement characterizing the exposure of individuals subjected to
radiation. The term dose is often mistakenly used instead of dose equivalent.

• Absorbed dose: This is a quantity of energy absorbed by matter (living or inert)
exposed to radiation. It is expressed in grays (Gy).
• Dose equivalent: In living organisms, an absorbed dose has different effects
depending on the type of radiation (X-ray, alpha, beta and gamma). To take these
differences into account, a dose-multiplying factor is used (known as the “quality
factor”) to compute a “dose equivalent”.
• Effective dose: This is the sum of weighted dose equivalents deposited on the
various tissues and organs by internal and external irradiation. The unit of
measurement for effective dose is the sievert (Sv).
• Lethal dose: This is a fatal dose of nuclear or chemical origin.
• Maximum permissible dose: This is a dose that must not be exceeded for a given
period of time.
• Gray (Gy): This is a unit of measurement for the absorbed dose. The absorbed
dose was formerly measured in rads (1 gray = 100 rads).
• Sievert (Sv): This is a unit of measurement for the dose equivalent, i.e. the fraction
of energy contributed by ionizing radiation and received per kilogram of living
matter. On the basis of the measured energy dose received (measured in grays), the
dose equivalent is calculated by applying various factors according to the type of
radiation received and the organ concerned.
• Commonly used sub-multiples are:
o The millisieverts, or mSv, equal to 0.001 Sv (a thousandth of a Sv),
o The microsievert, or µSv, equal to 0.000 001 Sv (a millionth of a Sv).
For example, the mean annual dose from exposure to natural background
radiation (soil, cosmos, etc.) of the population in France is 2.4 mSv/person,
with the same being applicable to South Africa.

Enriched uranium and depleted uranium: Before uranium is used to manufacture “fuel
elements”, natural uranium is enriched with 235
U (the proportion of 235
U is then 3% to 5%).
Uranium enriched in 235
U is obtained from natural uranium using an isotope separation
process. The physical or chemical processes used to produce enriched uranium also
produce at the same time uranium that has a lower proportion of 235
U than natural uranium:
this is known as depleted uranium.
Enrichment: This is a process used to increase the abundance of fissile isotopes in an
element. Naturally-occurring uranium is composed of 0.7% 235
U (fissile) and 99.3% 238
U
(non-fissile). To make it suitable for use in a pressurised water reactor, the proportion of
235
U is increased to about 3% to 4%.
Enumerator Areas: The smallest geographical area that formed the blocks of the
geographical frame for South African 2001 Census
Exposure: Exposure of an organism to a source of radiation characterized by the dose
received.
• External exposure: This is exposure from a radiation source located outside the
organism.
• Internal exposure: This is exposure from a radiation source located inside the
organism.
Fission: Splitting of a heavy nucleus, generally upon impact with a neutron, into two
smaller nuclei (fission products), accompanied by the emission of neutrons and radiation,
and the release of a considerable amount of heat. The energy thus released as heat is the
underlying principle of nuclear energy.
Fuel Cycle: All the industrial operations undergone by nuclear fuel. These operations
include: extraction, processing uranium ore, conversion, uranium enrichment, fuel
manufacturing, reprocessing spent fuels and waste management. The fuel cycle is “closed”
if it includes the reprocessing of spent fuel and recycling of fissile materials resulting from
reprocessing. The term “once through” cycle means that the fuel is disposed of in a
permanent storage site after its use in the reactor.

Fuel Element: A fuel element or assembly of rods is joined together and filled with
uranium or MOX27
pellets. Depending on the type of nuclear plant, the reactor core
contains from 100 to 200 fuel assemblies.
Fuel Rod: Metal tube (about 4 m in length and 1 cm in diameter) filled with pellets (about
300) of nuclear fuel.
Generation IV: Code name of nuclear reactors to put in operation beyond 2030.
Irradiation: This is the exposure to radiation and, by extension, its effects.
Isotopes: Elements whose atoms have the same number of electrons and protons but a
different number of neutrons. For example: Uranium has three isotopes.
• 234
U (92 protons, 92 electrons, 142 neutrons);
• 235
• 238
A given chemical element can therefore have several isotopes with a differing number of
neutrons. All the isotopes of a given element have the same chemical properties, but
different physical properties (mass in particular).
Living Standard Measurement (LSM): A wealth indicator using assets or basic services
to determine a living standard measurement is classified from LSM 1 to LSM 10.
Measurement of Size (MOS): The Measurement of Size used for sampling households in
this survey was a function of the number of households in the enumerator areas.
MOX: ‘Mixed Oxides” is a mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides used to make
certain nuclear fuels.
Natural Uranium: This is a naturally occurring radioactive element in the form of a hard,
gray metal, found in several ores, pitchblende in particular. Natural uranium comes as a
mixture composed of 99.27% non-fissile 238
U, 0.72% fissile 235
U and 0.01% 234
U.

Nuclear Fuel: This is a nuclide that releases energy when it is consumed by fission inside
a reactor. By extension, any product containing fissile materials that yield energy in a
reactor core by sustaining the chain reaction. A 1,300 MW PWR contains about 100 tons
of fuel, periodically renewed in sections.
Nuclear Safety: In the nuclear industry, nuclear safety covers all the measures taken at
every stage of the design, construction, operation and final shutdown of a facility to ensure
operational safety and the prevention of incidents to limit their impact.
Plutonium: This is a chemical element with the atomic number 94 and conventional
symbol Pu. Plutonium-239, a fissile isotope is produced in nuclear reactors from uranium-
238.
Primary Sampling Unit: In sample surveys, primary sampling unit (commonly
abbreviated as PSU) arises in samples in which population elements are grouped into
aggregates and the aggregates become units in sample selection. The aggregates are, due to
their intended usage, called "sampling units". Primary sampling unit refers to sampling
units that are selected in the first (primary) stage of a multi-stage sample ultimately aimed
at selecting individual elements.
Radioactive Half-Life: This refers to the time required for half the atoms contained in a
sample of radioactive substance to decay naturally. The radioactivity of the substance has
therefore been halved. The half-life varies with the characteristics of each radionuclide:
• 110 minutes for argon-41;
• 8 days for iodine-131;
• 4.5 billion years for uranium-238. No external physical action is capable of
modifying the half-life of a radionuclide.
Radioactive Waste: This refers to non-reusable by-products of the nuclear industry.
Divided into four categories according to the intensity of their radioactivity:
• Very low-level waste (VLLW);
• Low-level waste (LLW); such as gloves, overboots and production masks all
coming from industrial production and maintenance operations (90% of waste
stored in specialized centres);

• Intermediate-level waste (ILW), such as certain parts coming from dismantled
production equipment, measuring instruments, etc., (8%);
• High-level waste (HLW), mainly fission products separated during reprocessing /
recycling operations (2%).
Radioactivity: This refers an emission by a chemical element of electromagnetic waves
and/or particles caused by a change in its nucleus. Emission can be spontaneous (natural
radioactivity) and has several forms. (See Dose and Becquerel).
Nuclear Reactor: This is a device in which controlled nuclear reactions are carried out.
The heat released by these reactions is harnessed to form water vapour to operate a turbine
driving an electric generator. Models vary according to the type of fuel, the moderator
used to control the reaction and the coolant used to remove the heat to be recovered. The
model currently used by Eskom in South Africa is two Pressurised Water Reactors
(PWR’s). Therefore the Koeberg nuclear reactor is moderated and cooled by light water
maintained in a liquid state in the core through appropriate pressurization under normal
operating conditions.
Uranium: This is a chemical element with the atomic number 92 and conventional
symbol U, with three natural isotopes: 234
U, 235
U and 238
U. 235
U is the only naturally
occurring fissile nuclide, which is why it is used as a source of energy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main objective of this research problem explores, “Determining public perceptions and
understanding of the role of nuclear technology in South Africa,” in the context of public
acceptance. Understanding public perception is an important element in gaining the
support of stakeholders (the international community, national political and governmental
policy-makers, private-sector investors, the media, local communities, media opinion and
trend setters and our future leaders in universities and educational institutions such as
schools). The results of this study are envisaged to demystify public understanding of as
well as enable research and development of nuclear energy and technology to support the
planned South African nuclear new build programme.
The findings of a representative sample survey of 3004 adults distributed across South
Africa reveal that few claim to be “very knowledgeable” (3%) or “somewhat
knowledgeable” (15%) about nuclear energy and nuclear technology issues; most are “not
very knowledgeable” (18%); or “not at all knowledgeable” (34%) or they “don’t know”
(30%).
Not surprisingly, the highest perceived levels of knowledge occur amongst people with a
tertiary education (39%); and amongst residents of the Western Cape (37%); where about
4% of South Africa’s electric energy is generated at Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. Also,
there are generally higher than average levels of knowledge amongst Indian (33%) and
White South Africans (31%); people in the high living standard measurement (LSM)
category (29%); residents of urban formal areas (26%) and males (22%).
Differences between age groups are not statistically significant. The lowest perceived
levels of knowledge about nuclear energy and nuclear technology occur amongst people
without schooling (2%); the low LSM group (5%); residents of the Eastern Cape (5%); or
of rural formal areas (7%); females (15%) and Black South Africans (16%).
Responses to three factual questions (research Objective 1: Knowledge of Nuclear Energy
and Technology, Self-rated knowledge and the Knowledge quiz) about nuclear energy in
South Africa yielded the highest mean scores amongst people with tertiary education;
Indians and Whites; those living in formal urban environments and those in the high LSM

grouping. The two provinces with the highest mean scores were KwaZulu-Natal and the
Free State.
Half of the adult population “don’t know” of any benefits of nuclear technology on the
multiple-choice list presented to them. Otherwise, the benefit most frequently identified
was that nuclear technology provides power/electricity/energy (20%). Others said it
creates jobs, helps the economy (16%); contributes to medical diagnostics and research
(14%); contributes to energy production efficiency (14%); or is less harmful to the
environment than are other energy sources (12%).
Regarding the benefits of nuclear energy as a source of electricity, 50% “don’t know”;
23% said that ‘it ensures a reliable supply of electricity’; and 16% said that ‘it helps to
combat climate change’.
The most frequently mentioned concerns regarding nuclear energy most frequently were
the safety of nuclear power plants (21%); the disposal of nuclear waste (17%); the effects
of radiation exposure or of a nuclear accident on workers and the community (16%); a lack
of knowledge of the implications (15%); the cost of nuclear-generated electricity (13%);
terrorist access to nuclear weapons (11%) and the environmental effects of producing
nuclear electricity (11%).
The main specific disadvantages of nuclear energy as a source of electricity were perceived
to be the risk of accidents (34%); the long-term disposal of nuclear waste (20%); the risk of
radiation or contamination (19%) and the general impact on the environment (17%);
although 49% “don’t know” of any disadvantages.
Almost half (48%) of those surveyed, “don’t know” whether nuclear plants represent a
risk? This proportion is much higher than the mere 5% across Europe that “doesn’t know”.
One-eighth (12%) of South Africans see nuclear plants as “a significant risk”; 23% as
“some risk”; 12% as “not much of a risk” and 4% as “no risk at all”.

Pie Chart 1: South African opinion on whether Nuclear Power Plants present a “risk”
More than a quarter (27%) perceives that there is a possibility of a nuclear accident
happening in South Africa and almost a quarter (24%) is of the view that in comparison to
other safety risks, nuclear risks are exaggerated. Almost a fifth (19%), on the other hand,
think that these risks are underestimated; 6% think that nuclear risks are wrongly perceived
and 52% “don’t know”.
Only 14% of South Africans have recently seen or heard advertising from Necsa; this is
highest amongst people with tertiary education (28%); Indians (24%); Whites (20%); high
LSM people (21%); the people of the Northern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal (both 21%) and
the Western Cape (20%). Almost half (47%) say the nuclear industry in the country should
do more to promote the benefits of nuclear technology.
The overall sentiment of nuclear energy in South Africa emerges as 41% “don’t know”;
23% neutral; 23% in favour and 13% against. Those most in favour of nuclear energy are
people living in the Western Cape (41%); those with tertiary education (37%); Indians
(35%); Whites (34%) and people in the high LSM group (32%). One-fifth (20%) said that
they see nuclear energy and nuclear technology more as a benefit; 18% see it more as a
risk; 18% are indifferent and 43% “don’t know”.
49%

12%

23%

12%

4%

South African opinions on whether Nuclear Power Plants
present a "risk"
"Do
not
know"
"Signiﬁcant
risk"
"Some
risk"
"Not
much
risk"
"No
risk
at
all"

Pie Chart 2: South African sentiments of nuclear energy
Two-fifths (40%) of South Africans “agree” or “strongly agree” that the nuclear reactors at
Koeberg should continue to operate, 44% “don’t know” and 38% think that new nuclear
reactors to generate more electricity should be built.
More than a third (36%) say that renewable energy sources such as solar or wind energy
can take the place of nuclear power and 27% is of the view that coal and gas are worse for
the environment than is nuclear power. Almost half (49%) “don’t know” whether the
current level of nuclear energy as a proportion of all energy sources should be reduced,
maintained the same or increased; 12% think it should be reduced; 25% that it should be
maintained at the same level and 15% that it should be increased.
One third (33%) are concerned about the storage of nuclear waste, the proportions being
significantly higher in the Western Cape (55%), Northern Cape (38%), both close to
Koeberg, where more are “very concerned” and KwaZulu-Natal (48%). More than half
(51%) of South Africans “don’t know” how much the government and the nuclear safety
authorities are doing to ensure the safety of South African nuclear reactors. Only 23%
think they are doing enough, while 26% are of the view that they are doing too little.
Almost half (47%) are against nuclear weapons programmes; 43% “don’t know” or were
neutral on the issue and 10% were in favour of such programmes.
41%

23%

23%

13%

South
African
sen0ments
of
nuclear
energy

"Do
not
know"
"Neutral"
"In
favour"
"Against"

The most trusted to provide accurate information regarding nuclear energy, is the South
African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) (18%); followed by the South African
government (14%); scientists (8%) and energy companies that operate nuclear power
plants (7%), unlike in Europe, where 46% would trust scientists the most and 30% would
trust the national nuclear safety authorities.
Asked about whether nuclear technology should be utilised for specific purposes, almost
half of those surveyed said that they “don’t” know. Conversely, 42% said that nuclear
technology “should be used” to generate electricity; 35% agreed that it “should be used in
hospitals and clinics”; 31% were “in favour” of it being used in the treatment of cancer;
26% agreed that it “should be used in industry and big business” and a surprising 21% that
it “should be used for military purposes.”
18%

14%

8%

7%

Who is most trusted to provide accurate information on
Nuclear Energy?
Necsa
SA
Government
Sciendsts
NPP
Operators

Pie Chart 3: Who is most trusted to provide accurate information on Nuclear Energy?
Therefore, overall six categories of South Africans are identifiable in relation to nuclear
issues. More than half (52%) were “Uninformed with No Opinion” on the risk verses
benefit dichotomy. Ten percent were “Informed, with No opinion”. Eleven percent sees
nuclear energy and technology “more as a benefit”, although they lack knowledge
“Uninformed Supporters” and 9% have a similar view, but backed up with some
knowledge “Informed Supporters”. There are two other categories that see nuclear energy
and technology “more as a risk,” the “Uninformed Opponents” (13%) and the “Informed
Opponents” (5%).
38%

30%

17%

15%

Who is most trusted to provide accurate information on Nuclear
Energy?
Necsa
SA
Government
Sciendsts
NPP
Operators

Pie Chart 4: Six categories of South African opinion on Nuclear Issues
Conclusion
In terms of determining the public perceptions and understanding of nuclear technology in
South Africa, the most compelling finding is the 52% who rated themselves as
“Uninformed and with No Opinion” on the risk verse benefit dichotomy. While at a first
glance, this poses an initial negative sentiment, on reflection, it also presents a huge
challenge and opportunity for the nuclear industry to strive to gain the support of this
critical sector of the South African population.
52%

10%

11%

9%

13%

5%

Six categories of South African opinions on Nuclear Issues
Uninformed
with
"No
Opinion"
Informed
with
"No
Opinion"

"Uninformed"
Supporters"
"Informed
Supporters"

"Uninformed
Opponents"
"Informed
Opponents"

SOUTH AFRICAN PUBLIC’S PERCEPTIONS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY 32
1. CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM
1.1 Introduction
According to a Solidarity Institute Report by (Calldo, 2008), “Warnings of a dark
future were clear and accurate. A White Paper of 1998 (DME, 1998) said that the
country would run out of electricity by 2007. The report was signed by the then
Minister Penual Maduna. Despite this dire prediction, it was never acted upon.
Eskom’s requests for budget to build new power stations were also denied in 1998
when the government instructed Eskom to stop building new power stations due to its
attempted privatisation of Eskom in the late 1990s.”
Calldo reported that, “Even President Thabo Mbeki said, “When Eskom said to the
government, ‘we think we must invest more in terms of electricity generation,’ we
said not now, later we were wrong. Eskom was right. We were wrong.” Even in
2003, former Energy Minister Phumizile Nlambo-Ngcuka said there is no looming
power crisis. She said the then Eskom CEO, Thulani Gcabashe assured her South
Africa will never run out of power. This entire situation is very controversial given
the fact that Eskom warned the government in 1998 of a looming power crisis.
All South Africans share similar experiences of living in the dark and newspaper
headlines revealing doom and gloom of widespread rolling blackouts in the latter
months of 2007. This marked the onset of South Africa’s electricity supply demand
exceeding Eskom’s electricity capacity, where the reserve margin was eroded,
threatening to destabilise the national grid. During this crisis, demand side
management was introduced, which focussed on encouraging consumers to conserve
power during peak periods to reduce the incidence of load shedding.
Reports said government claimed that the shortage caught them by surprise since the
South African economy grew faster than expected. However, their target growth rate
of 6% per annum was not achieved from 1996 to 2004, with the average gross
domestic product (GDP) growth rate during this period being 3.1%.

The entire situation was shrouded by controversy. Decision-makers and leaders both
in Eskom and government claim the solution was the construction of additional power
stations. However, investigative television programme, Carte Blanche, (wikipedia,
2010) reported that part of the problem related to the supply of coal to coal-fired
power plants. Several others suggested causes such as skills shortages and the
increasing demand for electricity around the country.
In spite of every effort being made, a possible energy crisis still looms in 2012. South
Africa urgently needs a viable solution to meet the need for an increase in electricity
supply to meet the growing demand. Government adopted the White Paper on Energy
Policy (DME, 1998), which calls for the achievement of energy security through the
diversification of primary energy sources. Subsequently, the Integrated Resource
Plan for Electricity Generation (IRP2010) was also adopted on 16 March 2011. The
IRP2010 provides a blueprint for the electricity generation mix for the next 20 years,
and requires that 42% renewables, 23% nuclear, 15% gas, 15% coal and 6%
hydroelectric generation capacity is added to the grid.
According to Thomas, et al. (1980), in their research report titled, “A comparative
study of public beliefs about five energy systems,” public acceptance is becoming an
increasingly important constraint to be taken into account by those responsible for
technological policies. Acceptance by the public will depend on their relevant
attitudes towards a given technology, and these attitudes will be a function of beliefs
about the attributes and probable consequences of the technology in question.”
Thomas’s study explores belief systems with respect to five energy sources: nuclear,
coal, oil, hydro and solar.
Across the world, debate rages about the risks and the benefits of harnessing nuclear
power to meet the energy demands of the twenty-first century. A recent Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report, (Kovacs, 2010) reveals
that in countries that have nuclear power sources, the proportion of the population that
see the benefits thereof outweighing the risks are far higher than is the case in
countries that don’t have nuclear power.

Furthermore, the study indicates that about two-thirds of Europeans are of the view
that nuclear power contributes to making their countries less dependent on the
importation of energy and half agree that it ensures more stability in the price of
energy. Similarly, residents of countries with nuclear power are much more likely to
think that these can be operated safely and that the disposal of nuclear waste can be
done safely, than are people living in countries that do not have nuclear power.
Nevertheless, more than half of the Europeans surveyed think that the risks of nuclear
power outweigh the benefits, especially if their country does not have nuclear energy
and therefore their experience of nuclear energy is minimal.
In a review of several earlier attitudinal studies, Eiser et al. (1988a) opined that
although a sizeable proportion of the population studies were opposed in principle to
the use of nuclear power, either for military or civil purposes, both opposition and
support tends to be stronger in the case of potential local nuclear energy developments
Woo & Castore (1980); Hughey et al., (1985) and Eiser et al. (1988a) found males,
employed people and those in social classes I and II were more favourably disposed
towards the potential establishment of a nuclear power station near their villages in
the south-west of England. The study also found that residents felt far more positive
about a potential oil well development in the same area than about the prospect of a
nuclear power station.
Major nuclear incidents occurred at Three Mile Island in the United States on 28
March 1979; Chernobyl (now in Ukraine, then in the former Soviet Union) on 26
April 1986 and Fukushima, Japan on 11 March 2011. De Boer and Catsburg (1988)
reported on the dramatic increase in opposition to nuclear power plants that emerged
in surveys conducted after the explosion of the nuclear power station at Chernobyl.
After the Chernobyl incident, the proportion of people in the United Kingdom (UK)
who thought that nuclear power stations were not very safe increased from 25% in
January 1986 to 41% in May 1986. Similarly, in Greece in May 1981, 56% were of
the view that nuclear power plants are dangerous and should not be built; however,
this climbed dramatically to 73% in May 1986 after Chernobyl. Comparable margins
of growth in opposition were recorded in surveys in Canada and the United States
(US) before and after the Chernobyl accident.

By contrast, South Africa makes minimal use of nuclear power (4% of the country’s
electricity is nuclear-generated) and has been spared any exposure to nuclear fallout
as has occurred in the northern hemisphere.
This research study provides an analysis, “Public perceptions and understanding of
the role of nuclear technology in South Africa,” collected in a national survey during
2011. The significance of this research lies in the fact that a comprehensive gap of
knowledge is addressed, given that a national project of this extent has not been
attempted in South Africa before.
Notably, countries with large nuclear programmes, such as France and the US have
established national benchmarks through research studies undertaken over a number
of years. Therefore, to begin to address the South African publics’ perceptions and
understanding of the role nuclear technology, we first needed to acquire a benchmark
from which to work. This entailed demystifying the nuclear myths and elaborating on
the facts to address the publics’ concerns.
1.2 The problem review
The main research problem of this study explores, “Determining publics’ perceptions
and understanding of the role of nuclear technology in South Africa,” in the context of
public acceptance being an important element in gaining the various stakeholders
support to ensure the advancement of nuclear research and development. A number
of emerging themes are identified in the problem review that follows.
a. Internationally nuclear energy has been utilized as a dual use technology, which has a
legacy of destruction and devastation due to global events such as Three Mile Island
(28 March 1979), Chernobyl (26 April 1986) and Fukushima (11 March 2011). There
are however also hugely beneficial nuclear technology applications such as nuclear
power, nuclear medicine, nuclear industrial and commercial applications.
b. Closer to home, the South African nuclear industry has a history going back to the
mid 1940s. Despite this, the South African public is still largely unaware of the basic
myths and facts associated with nuclear energy.

c. As mentioned, public consultation and public perceptions of nuclear energy and
technology, in the context of public acceptance is important in gaining stakeholders
support to proceed with the South African nuclear new build.
d. Nuclear power generated at Koeberg in Cape Town, is a type of nuclear technology
involving the controlled use of nuclear fission to release energy for work including
heat propulsion and the generation of electricity. Nuclear energy is produced by a
controlled nuclear chain reaction which creates heat that is used to boil water and
produce steam to drive a steam turbine. The turbine is connected to a generator which
is then used to generate electricity.
e. In comparison to ‘renewable’ power sources, nuclear power plants have a small
footprint (m2
/kW produced) and release very small quantities of greenhouse gases
making them environmentally acceptable.
f. As South Africa is on the brink of launching its largest long-term infrastructure
development plan, determining the level of public perceptions and understanding the
role of nuclear technology is critical. This is especially vital in light of 23% (added
nuclear) of the countries foreseeable electricity generation capacity being attributed to
nuclear power.
g. The proposed nuclear new build is aimed at ensuring a sustainable electricity sector
that meets the country’s projected growth in demand at a minimal cost and
environmental impact.
1.3 The research objectives
As established, the problem statement seeks to, “Determine the South African
publics’ perceptions and understanding of the role of nuclear technology,” to gain
support for research and development of nuclear technology essential to support and
advance the nuclear new build.

While this research project highlights past controversial decision-making issues of a
national magnitude, it remains relevant to the prosperity and quality of life of every
South African. Given this will be the largest long-term infrastructure development
plan ever undertaken in South Africa, it will have far-reaching political, economical,
social/cultural, technological, legal and environmental (PESTLE) consequences.
The public therefore has a vested interest in supporting a sustainable nuclear energy
solution which is efficient, economical and environmentally negligible in terms of
carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, public acceptance of nuclear technology is a
serious challenge which requires a smart solution. In light of the research problem
and objectives this research study was designed to determine the following:
Main research objective:
The main objective of this research is to, “Determine the South African publics’
perceptions and understanding of the role of nuclear technology.”
Research sub-objectives
1. To determine the South African public’s knowledge of nuclear energy and
technology;
2. To establish the South African public’s support for different applications of
nuclear technology;
3. To establish the South African public’s perceived benefits and concerns associated
with nuclear technology;
4. To ascertain the South African public’s perceptions of nuclear energy;
5. To clarify the South African publics’ perceptions of nuclear safety;
6. To comprehend the South African public’s views on nuclear energy in a global
context;
7. To establish who the South African public trust for information on nuclear energy;
and
8. To evaluate the South African public’s final assessment of nuclear energy and
technology.

1.4 Methodology
Empiricism is a theory (wikipedia, 2010) of gaining knowledge by means of direct or
indirect observation or experience. It asserts that knowledge comes primarily from
tangible sensory experience in a world of people, objects and events which are
factually based. The descriptive approach of this study is aimed at gathering
knowledge and opinions about the desirability of the present state of nuclear
perceptions in South Africa.
One of the views of epistemology is the study of human knowledge, along with
rationalism, idealism and historicism. Epistemology (roebuckclasses, 2012) is a
branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. Empiricism
however, emphasizes the role of experience and evidence of especially sensory
perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions. It is
a fundamental part of the scientific method that all theories must be tested against
observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on reasoning, intuition or
revelation.
This research used data generated in the 2011 Human Sciences Research Council
(HSRC) South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) for a tabulation entitled
“Public Perceptions of Nuclear Science in South Africa.” The questionnaire used in
the HSRC Household Survey which was drafted following thorough consultations
with Necsa and by drawing upon similar surveys conducted abroad and made
available by the World Nuclear Association (WNA). The HSRC is world renowned
for their scientific survey methodology, and have been able to apply a rigorous
standard of statistical validity through correct sample sizing and demographic
diversity to the current work.
The sampling frame was developed using 2011 census mid-year population estimates
and consists of 1000 census enumerating areas (EA’s). The EA’s chosen from the
census sample frame were stratified by the socio-demographic domains of province,
geographic sub-type and the four main population groups (Blacks, Coloureds, Indians
and Whites). The master sample was developed in order to allow the HSRC to
conduct longitudinal social surveys. More specifically, it was designed with the

sampling demands of large, periodically repeated social surveys in mind to provide
critical information for policy and decision-making purposes.
The scope of the study focused on a representative sample of the South African
population, which covers the countries nine provinces, urban, rural, informal
settlements, traditional geographical areas, formal urban, farmlands and socio-
economic population groups. These variables were used as explicit stratification
variables.
The prime target population consisted of individuals aged 16+ who reside in South
Africa. The target population consisted of those people living in household structures,
and hostels with the exclusion of those living in special institutions, hospitals and
prisons. These geo-demographic categories reflect the diversity of the South African
population based on their rural/urban, income, education, ethnicity and geographic
characteristics. Such stratification has also ensured that the metropolitan, semi-urban
and rural population of South Africa have been thoroughly covered in the sample.
Three re-visits to the selected household were allowed if a randomly selected
individual was not at home at the time of the first contact.
This quantitative research results draws conclusions through statistical inferences.
This data is generally accepted as strong and objective data because it tells you both,
what and how much, as compared to qualitative data which only identifies the what.
1.5 The significance of the study
The results of this research and the analysis of outcomes, will be extremely useful
both to government and to the nuclear industry, given that the infrastructure build
mandated by the IRP2010 is the largest and most expensive in South Africa’s history.
This programme can be slowed down and even derailed unless difficulties in the area
of public acceptance of nuclear energy are identified early and addressed. Research
on this project began in December 2010 with the implementation of the first
comprehensive public awareness advertising campaign on nuclear energy.

First and foremost, the intent of this research study is to assist Necsa to fulfil one of
its mandates outlined in the Nuclear Energy Policy, namely Principle 14, Section 7,
which recognises the “need to stimulate public awareness and to inform the public
about nuclear energy”. Too successfully deliver on this mandate entailed undertaking
this research study to analytically, “Determine the South African publics’ perceptions
and understanding of the role of nuclear technology.” This is the first comprehensive
national study of this nature, both in terms of scope and depth, ever undertaken on
public perceptions of nuclear energy in South Africa.
In addition to Necsa, this research study will also benefit key decision-makers such as
the National Nuclear Energy Executive Co-ordinating Council (NNEECC) as well as
the broader South African nuclear industry. The results of this research is intended to
guide the nuclear industry to develop targeted messaging to address the varying public
concerns and ultimately assist in the advancement of nuclear research and
development, along with the nuclear new build programme.
The formulation of this research commenced with various benchmarks and market
segmentation having been undertaken. For example, how do we differentiate our
approach to national environmental groups with links to foreign organizations as
compared with local residents associations? Comparisons were made with similar
surveys conducted in other countries, specifically France and the United States. The
purpose of these benchmarks being to search for common principles and also
differences that will enable South Africa to adopt successful strategies that are
relevant, and to avoid those ones that don’t apply in our country’s context.
1.8 Conclusion
In addition to South Africa’s uranium rich resources, it has exciting nuclear energy
ambitions which entail ensuring a sustainable, efficient security of electricity supply
for its ever growing population needs. Apart from this, nuclear technology dominates
another exciting global niche in South Africa, producing high quality specialised
radiation-based products and services, for life sciences, healthcare and industrial
markets. Through NTP Radioisotopes, a subsidiary of Necsa, South Africa exports
life-saving medical isotopes to nearly 60 countries on five continents.

NTP is a world leader in the production and supply of radio-chemicals, in particular
iridium -131 (131
Ir) and molybdenum-99 (99
Mo), the latter being the most important
radioisotope used in the practice of diagnostic nuclear medicine. This product is used
amongst others, for the treatment of more than ten million cancer patients globally,
and earns the country foreign income which equates to a turnover of approximately
R800 m/annum.

2. CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM ANALYSIS
2.1 An overview of the global nuclear industry
During the Second World War, on the morning of 6 August 1945, the United States
Army Air Force B-29 Bomber, Enola Gay, dropped a nuclear fission weapon, code
named “Little Boy”, (Figure 1) on the city of Hiroshima (Figure 2). Three days later a
B-29 Bomber, Bockscar, dropped a plutonium implosion-type nuclear weapon, code
named “Fat Man”, (Figure 3) on the city of Nagasaki, Japan (Figure 4). The
estimated combined death toll ranged from 100,000 to 220,000 with some estimates
considerably higher when delayed deaths from radiation exposure are included. Most
of the casualties were civilians.
Figure 1: The nuclear bomb code name "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima (wikipedia,
2010).

Figure 2: Little Boy was a uranium gun-type nuclear fission weapon (perilousmemories,
2008).

Figure 3: The "Fat Man" bomb was dropped over Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945 by
the B-29 "Bockscar" at an altitude of about 1,800 feet over the city (awesomestories, 2007)

Figure 4: The "Fat Man" bomb had an explosive force (yield) of about 20,000 tons of TNT
and was an implosion type, weapon using plutonium, which resulted in a supercritical
condition and a nuclear explosion (blippitt, 2011)
The consequences of these bombings were devastating, not only to those who were
directly affected by the weapons, but the image of ‘nuclear’ was forever scarred after
World War II (Wikipedia, 2010). However, nuclear energy is a dual purpose
technology and is also used for peaceful purposes, such as the provision of specialised
radiation-based products and services, for life sciences, nuclear medicine, industrial
markets and for the generation of electricity.
Even though the technology and reliability of modern nuclear power plants have
improved over the years, nuclear energy is still perceived as a threat by the public.
Despite the historical legacy, nuclear power generation has proved to be an essential
and environmentally friendly part of the global sustainable energy supply. As with
any industry incident, bad publicity from nuclear incidents has resulted in an inherent
fear of the technology. Apart from the bombings, the only three major nuclear

incidents that have occurred since World War II has left an even deeper scar, fear and
doubt about the safety of nuclear energy. These incidents are:
2.1.1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor (TMI-2)
Cause: On 28 March 1979, near Harrisburg in the United States of America
(USA), failure involving the water pumps in the TMI-2 reactor allowed
pressure to build up in the reactor causing a partial core melt-down. A relief
valve automatically opened in response but failed to close again, allowing
cooling water to escape from the reactor. Operators at the plant didn’t get the
signal that the valve was still open and radiation was released.
Effect: The nuclear fuel rods inside the reactor experienced a partial
meltdown, i.e. some fuel rods overheated and melted. Fortunately, the
radioactive material at no stage escaped from the containment vessel.
Exposure to radiation and radioactive matter: Experts say the resulting
radiation exposure was never enough to cause a detectable health effect in the
general population.
2.1.2 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Reactor-4
Cause: On 26 April 1986, about 80 miles north of Kiev, Ukraine the Reactor
Operators were performing a test to see how the reactor would respond in the
event of an electrical failure, essentially thereby bypassing, ignoring and
overriding built in safety controls and inadvertently causing a dramatic power
surge and total core melt-down.
Effect: The core had not been shut down prior to the test and the power surge
triggered a series of events that sent the nuclear reaction out of control,
causing two explosions. The reactor was not surrounded by a containment
structure, so the explosions and the subsequent fire sent a giant plume of
radioactive material into the atmosphere which was dispersed by the winds.
Exposure to radiation and radioactive matter: At least 5% of the
radioactive reactor core was released mostly westward towards Poland and

other neighbouring countries in the atmosphere. Two Chernobyl plant
workers died on the night of the accident and 28 more people died within a
few weeks from radiation poisoning. In the long-term, several thousand more
people were at risk of developing cancer.
2.1.3 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP)
The 11 March 2012 marks the devastating natural disaster which severely
impacted the Fukushima Daiichi NPP (Figure. 5) in Japan. This event had the
potential to result in the worst nuclear disaster in history after a number of
reactors were damaged by a magnitude nine earthquake, followed by a
tsunami (Figure. 6).
Cause: The Emergency Cooling Systems at the plant started to fail after
being flooded by the tsunami that followed the massive earthquake which also
knocked out the conventional electricity supply to the facility. Workers at the
Fukushima Daiichi NPP experienced numerous problems in maintaining water
levels in the three reactors that were in operation when the earthquake struck.
These were boiling water type reactors where water is essential to keep the
nuclear fuel rods inside the core from overheating. Officials suspected that the
fuel rods had melted in the reactors due to the cooling systems having failed
and the fuel rods not being submerged in water as normally required.
Effect: After the tsunami four of the six nuclear reactors in the Fukushima
Daiichi NPP were in trouble. Explosions occurred in Unit 1 and 3 from a
build-up of hydrogen gas and were thus not attributable to any nuclear
reaction. Experts suspected that the nuclear rods inside these two reactors had
started to melt but had not breached the containment vessel, which was
designed to keep radioactive material from escaping. At the time, Unit 2
posed a bigger threat with the explosion possibly having caused a breach in
the containment vessel, which could have allowed radioactive steam or water
to escape.

Exposure to radiation and radioactive matter: It should be noted that the
earthquake and tsunami killed tens of thousands, whereas the release of
radioactive material has to the date of this report killed nobody.
2.1.4 Conclusion
The major contributing factors in all three major nuclear incidents experienced
globally since World War II were mainly due to human factors, such as poor
management, poor design of the facilities, poor training of Nuclear Reactor
Operators, poor operating instructions and most importantly, the lack of a
nuclear safety culture. All three incidents could easily have been avoided had
the prescribed safety design and management measures been adhered to (pub-
iaea, 2011).
2.2 Analysing the global nuclear challenges
Despite the military applications and nuclear accidents, developing countries have an
insatiable appetite for electricity and are proceeding with the construction of new
nuclear power reactors barely a year after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster disrupted
the growth of nuclear power around the world.
According to the U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, headlined: Nuclear Pushes
on despite Fukushima, “Sixty nuclear reactors are currently (2012) under construction
globally, with 163 more on order or planned, according to the WNA. Little has
changed from the results posted by the trade group who conducted a February 2011
survey, a month before Fukushima, 62 reactors were under construction and 156 on
order or planned.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that these numbers contradict the perception that the
nuclear power industry was stopped in its tracks after the meltdown at the Fukushima
NPP following the earthquake and tsunami. This incident has been rated by some as
the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. While Japan and some European
nations prepare to shut down or mothball their nuclear plants, the march to build
reactors in developing countries continues.

“We didn’t lose a single order after the Japanese Fukushima incident,” said Sergei
Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, a state owned company created to promote
Russian nuclear exports (The Wall Street Journal, 2012). The company said its
backlog of international orders rose to 21 plants at the end of 2011, up from 11 a year
earlier. The orders for new reactors are largely based on crash industrialization
programs in such emerging markets as China and Vietnam, built around electricity
intensive industries like aluminium and glass. Such new capacity also is raising
living standards in more advanced, but still accelerating economies, like South Korea,
where electricity increasingly powers everything from automated bathroom faucets to
tablet computers (WSJ, 2012).
The centre of gravity for electricity consumption is clearly shifting eastward. The
IAEA forecasts global electricity demand to grow by 2.4% a year over the next two
decades, rising by more than 80% by 2035. Power demand during that period is
forecast to grow at an annual rate of 5.4% in China, compared with just 0.9% in the
European Union (EU) and 1% in the USA (Insight, 2008).
Figure 5: The centre of gravity of civil nuclear power is shifting towards East. China has
laid out plans to increase nuclear power capability 11 fold, up to 95,620 MWe (Insight, 2008).

Some 53% of power plants of all types, not just nuclear, to be built through 2020 are
in the Asian-Pacific region, according to IHS Cera, (HIS, 2012) an energy consulting
firm. China alone accounts for 38% of that total. “Each year, China adds new
capacity equivalent to the total generation in the U.K.”, said Ivan Lee, an Asia energy
research analyst for Nomura Securities (WSJ, 2012).
Many governments have concluded that nuclear energy must remain part of their
overall energy mix. Nuclear energy is less subject to the price spikes of fossil fuels
and the weather issues that can complicate alternative energy production like wind
power. It has allowed Beijing to grow its overall power generating capacity, while
cutting reliance on fossil fuels that have polluted its air and waterways and have
increasingly become a point of social tension for local governments. “People are
doing the calculations and realizing that you cannot reduce the impact on the
environment without nuclear,” said Li Ning, an expert on China’s nuclear industry at
Xiamen University (WSJ, 2012).

Figure 6: The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant before the devastating natural
disaster struck (dailymail, 2012).

Figure 7: The crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, northern Japan
and nine days after the March disaster struck (dailymail, 2012).
2.3 An overview of the South African nuclear industry
The South African nuclear industry has its origins in the mid-1940s, with the
establishment of the Atomic Energy Board (AEB) in 1948 through an Act of
Parliament. The AEB was tasked foremost with regulating the uranium industry in
the country, with a supporting role in research on radioactivity that was being
conducted by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) at the time.
The research included monitoring of radioactivity and radon gas in gold mines, the
importation of radioisotopes and the application of radioisotopes in research and
medical practice (Necsa Annual Report, 2010/11).
During the 1950s, the potential for the peaceful application of nuclear energy was
becoming apparent and in 1959, the state authorised the development of a domestic
nuclear research and development programme, which would be undertaken by the
AEB and planning began on the building of a research rector. The Pelindaba site,
which is located 30km to the west of Pretoria near Hartbeespoort Dam (Figure 8), was
established in 1961 and continues to be the base for South Africa’s nuclear research
and development programmes.

Figure 8: Location of Necsa at Pelindaba (maplandia, 2012)
The South African Fundamental Atomic Research Installation (SAFARI-1) reactor
went into operation in 1965, while in 1970 the Uranium Enrichment Corporation
(UCOR) was established to develop an enrichment programme. By the late 1970s,
the country ranked among the few nations possessing the capacity to enrich uranium
and plans were finalised for the construction of the first nuclear power plant.
Construction of a nuclear energy power station commenced at Koeberg, 30 km north
of Cape Town near Melkbosstrand in 1976, after a contract with Framatome
(currently Areva) of France was signed. The plant was constructed to be the sole
provider of power in the Western Cape since fossil fuelled power stations were
deemed too small and too expensive to be viable. Coal would have been too
expensive to transport by rail from the then Transvaal province (some 1500+
kilometres).
Koeberg has two uranium fuelled PWR’s, with Unit 1 being synchronised to the grid
in April 1984. Unit 2 followed in July 1985. Operated by South Africa’s only
national electricity supplier, Eskom, the Koeberg nuclear power station continues to
be the only nuclear power station in the country and the entire African continent.

In 1986, the AEB and UCOR were merged to form the Atomic Energy Corporation
(AEC), while during the same year the Vaalputs Waste Disposal Site for low and
intermediate-level waste, situated in Namaqualand in the Northern Cape, became
operational. Following the transition to democracy in South Africa in 1994, the AEC
became the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) in 1999 following the
passing of the Nuclear Energy Act, No. 46 of 1999.
In terms of waste management requirements, low and intermediate-level nuclear
waste is stored at Vaalputs. With respect to the disposal of high-level waste,
Koeberg’s high level waste, which is largely in the form of spent reactor fuel, is
currently in storage ponds on location. High level waste from SAFARI-1 is placed in
dry storage within the Pelindaba facility.
Owing to perceived and real threats to the apartheid government, a clandestine
programme to manufacture nuclear weapons was implemented during the 1970s. Six
and a half nuclear weapons were built with the intention that they serve as a deterrent.
However, in response to dramatic changes in the international geopolitical landscape
and the resultant CODESA negotiations to replace the vestiges of the apartheid
system with a fully representative government, the government at that time decided to
end the production of nuclear weapons and to dismantle the nuclear weapons
programme.
South Africa was the first country to voluntarily accede to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation (NPT) of Nuclear Weapons in 1991, which seeks to prevent the spread
of Nuclear Weapons to other than the five Nuclear Weapon States that existed at that
time (USA, UK, France, China, and Russia) and to facilitate peaceful nuclear co-
operation between Treaty members and provide a foundation for universal nuclear
disarmament (NPT, 1991).
South Africa also entered into a safeguards agreement, including the Additional
Protocol with the IAEA in 2002 (IAEA, 2002). In 1993, then President F W de Klerk
publicly revealed the previous existence of the programme, its dismantlement and the
country’s accession to the NPT. Since 1998, South Africa has actively participated in

NPT meetings, and advocated nuclear disarmament, as a member of the New Agenda
Coalition (NAC) (Nuclearfiles, 2000).
2.4 The South African nuclear challenges
Despite its historical legacy, nuclear power is experiencing a renaissance the world
over. Drivers of this nuclear renaissance include an increasing energy demand,
concerns over security of supply, concerns over climate change, economics, insurance
against future price volatility and the dependence on high emission fossil fuels, all of
which are combining to make the case for the increased use of nuclear power (IPCS,
2010).
“South Africa promotes the right of all states to develop nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes. It promotes nuclear energy as part of combating GHG emissions
and to ensure security of energy supply. The pursuance of energy security is not only
a right of all states but also a global responsibility. The energy crisis facing
developing countries is likely to worsen as states reach capacity constraints in the
power sector, so it is crucial to South Africa’s interests to expand its nuclear-power
capacity. Through the IRP, the government has given its support and commitment to
nuclear as a viable option for low-carbon base-load electricity generation,” Dipuo
Peters, Minister of Energy (Mail & Guardian, 2011).
Much like many countries throughout the world, South Africa is presently grappling
with the twin policy challenges of addressing climate change and ensuring that the
future energy needs of the country are adequately met. It is increasingly apparent that
the mounting concern with respect to climate change and energy security has
influenced the direction and nature of energy policy in South Africa in recent years,
with nuclear power also being reclassified as a low-carbon technology. From an
international perspective, South Africa has unacceptably high levels of GHG
emissions, a situation that is informed by the country’s energy-intensive economy,
which is overwhelmingly dependent on the country’s extensive low quality coal
reserves (Winkler & Marquand, 2009).

Fossil fuels therefore dominate the energy sector, with coal providing 75% of the
fossil fuel demand and accounting for more than 90% of SA’s electricity generation
capacity (DEAT, 2009: 3). In response, the government has committed to reducing its
GHG emissions by 34% by 2020 and 43% by 2025, a decision that has significant
implications for the energy sector.
The IAEA has defined energy security as ‘the uninterrupted physical availability of
energy at a price which is affordable, while respecting environmental concerns’
(IAEA, 2001). Bearing this in mind, the over-reliance on low quality coal, coupled
with environmental considerations and a need for a developmental approach in
securing the energy requirements for all South Africans, has resulted in a strong
energy policy emphasis on diversifying the country’s primary energy sources in
coming decades.
In response, the 1998 White Paper on Energy Policy (DME, 1998) listed the securing
of energy supply through diversity as one of five core policy objectives. A decade
later, this priority is again reflected in the 2008 National Energy Act, which also aims,
inter alia, to ‘ensure uninterrupted supply of energy’ and ‘promote diversity of supply
of energy and its sources’ (DoE, 2008). This approach is echoed in the Department of
Energy’s Integrated Electricity Resource Plan (IRP) for 2010-2030 (DoE, 2011),
which was promulgated by Cabinet in March 2011 and which outlines a preferred
scenario in relation to medium to long-term options for increasing the electricity
supply and managing demand over a 20-year period between 2010 and 2030.
Premised on estimates, it is expected that electricity consumption over this period will
increase by three-quarters from 260 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2010 to 454 TWh by
2030. Similarly, peak electricity demand is predicted to increase from 39 gigawatts
(GW) to 68GW over the two decades. The Policy-Adjusted IRP 2010 scenario
proposes a reduction in the overall share of coal in the country’s electricity generation
and a corresponding increase in the overall share represented by low-carbon
technologies.
At present, nuclear energy accounts for an estimated 3% of primary energy sources in
general and 4% of sources used for electricity generation. Through the IRP, the

CC janneker thesis - 14 may 2012 final

CC janneker thesis - 14 may 2012 final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to CC janneker thesis - 14 may 2012 final

Similar to CC janneker thesis - 14 may 2012 final (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CC janneker thesis - 14 may 2012 final