 |
|
|
|
|
CAMPAIGN BRIEFING PAPER SAFETY ISSUES IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY: Koeberg and the PBMR Prepared by Earthlife Africa (Cape Town) CONTENTS: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 3. BACKGROUND 4. KOEBERG NUCLEAR POWER STATION 4.1 OUR LEGACY ?– STARTING OFF ON THE WRONG FOOT? 4.2 OPERATIONAL RISK AND ISSUES 4.2.1 Overview 4.2.2 Risky business ?– profiling and incident management 4.2.3 Bringing Koeberg up to speed! 4.2.4 Providing independent oversight? 4.2.5 Counting the costs?….. 4.2.6 ?…?…and the errors 4.3 NUCLEAR ENERGY - THE HEALTHY OPTION? 4.3.1 International evidence 4.3.2 Counting costs locally 4.3.3 Waste not, want not! 5. THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR 5.1 WHY NOT USE IT? 5.1.1 Why the PBMR? 5.1.2 Technology too good to be true? 5.1.3 International experience and warnings 5.1.4 The IAEA, infallibility and the PBMR 5.2 PBMR AND WASTE 6. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS 7. STUDY ANNEXURE 1 : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Earthlife Africa has conducted research into the technical safety aspects of both the current Pressurised Water Reactors at Koeberg as well as the proposed Pebble bed Modular Reactor to be built on the current site. This research report has been motivated by the numerous reports over the years that suggest there is cause for concern regarding safety issues in both cases, i.e. the operation of the current reactors at Koeberg, as well as the proposed PBMR. These concerns have been investigated and reviewed against the background of a range of international opinion and experience regarding health and safety issues pertaining to nuclear installations, as well as issues related to the PBMR. Our findings suggest that a even though Eskom has been praised for its safety record at Koeberg by institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the FRAOG (Framatome Owners Group (www.fraog.org, there are still deep concerns regarding operational issues such as the manner in which the re-racking of spent fuel pools at Koeberg has taken place, the use of faulty thermo-couple seals manufactured in France, the conditions under which plant operators function (stress, long working hours, etc), and the manner in which operational issues are reported and actioned, or not, as may be the case at Koeberg. Aging infrastructure and components are also a cause for concern. Despite ongoing criticism of the operations record of the Koeberg plant by the NNR, and in the face of open violations of operating procedure, no penalties or shut down of Koeberg has ever been ordered based on these concerns. Despite praise for the safety and health record at Koeberg, recent revelations regarding secrecy, non-disclosure and wilful manipulation of health and safety records at Koeberg are cause for grave concern. This highlights concerns raised locally and internationally that Koeberg NPP needs to be open to a full independent review of its health and safety record, and that concerns around the deaths and health issues of ex-workers from the plant need to be subject to a full judicial commission of enquiry into the operation of Koeberg nuclear power plant. The PBMR proposed for Koeberg is argued to be one the safest modern reactor designs currently under development. The design is not yet finalised but the PBMR is still billed by its proponents as inherently safe. Yet the operational record of the PBMR?’s predecessors tell a different story and a critical review by Lyman (2001) shows that there is deep concern over the nature of the plant design as well as the fuel element design which cannot guarantee the levels of safety espoused by the PBMR designers. Based on the concerns and issues raised, our report argues that a deeper investigation into the concerns around the potential problems regarding the development and construction of the PBMR must be more fully investigated. In particular the report raises concerns around issues such as the suitability of graphite as a coating for the fuel pebbles, as well as whether helium is a suitable coolant for the reactor in itself. In the context of rising concern around the conditions of reactors worldwide, alongside the continued application for license extensions for these aging reactors, a full review of the Koeberg plant must be undertaken in order to establish the risks involved in Eskom?’s mooted reactor life extension and refurbishment programme. In addition, given the conditions under which Koeberg is operating, ongoing revelations of mal-administration and cover-ups, as well as concerns regarding the operational soundness of Koeberg, it is fitting to call for a full independent review of the plants status and safety. ?? |
|
|
||||||||||||||||