 |
|
|
|
|
6. Conclusion and Findings This report has shown clearly that despite the ongoing reassurances from the nuclear energy industry and Eskom in particular, that there is cause for great concern regarding both the current operations at Koeberg Nuclear Power Station as well as the proposed PBMR. Safety at Koeberg Despite several investigations by the independent media related to concerns around the operations of Koeberg and the development of the PBMR (Special Assignment, 1998) little progress has been made in resolving these incidents in a satisfactory manner. The report highlights the number of incidents that were not reported publicly until pressure was exerted on Eskom. There is no satisfactory explanation from either Eskom or the NNR as to the history of safety breaches and incidents, and why Eskom has not been ordered to cease its operations until compliance is achieved. In stark contrast to this are the glowing accolades presented to Eskom by the IAEA and the Framatome Operators Group regarding their operations safety record. However, these events must be placed into context and seen against the recent revelations regarding the way in which Eskom has dealt with the Lockwood case. Health track record Recent revelations by former Eskom employee Ron Lockwood shed new light on the claims made by numerous ex-Eskom workers that there is cause for concern regarding the exposure of workers to radiation. The cover-up of his health conditions call for a full and independent enquiry into health monitoring at Koeberg. General trends and research highlighting the increasing evidence that a range of ailments (in particular breast cancer, leukaemia, lymphoma, etc) are becoming more pronounced in certain areas especially those close to nuclear installations. Our report shows, that despite Eskoms denial that these studies bear any relevance to the development of the PBMR and its impacts, the opposite is in fact true, especially given the current trends highlighted with regard to the performance of the local and international nuclear industry. The absence of radiological monitoring in South Africa is also a cause for concern highlighted in our report. The PBMR and critical flaws Despite reassurances from Eskom and the Pebble Bed Company that the PBMR design is ?“walk away safe?”, there are concerns at the international level that all is not well. Inability to deal adequately with safety concerns and waste issues and the fact that the PBMR will generate 10 times more waste than current reactor designs, are some examples of the issues highlighted in our findings. Research conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local and overseas experts, show that the safety features touted by Eskom require much deeper examination. Lyman (2001) also highlights the areas of the PBMR safety that are exposed, especially the vulnerability to graphite fires and the floored assumptions regarding the temperature at which the fuel remains stable. Earthlife Africa is calling for a full, independent review of the PBMR safety and design parameters. Our report substantiates our call for a full independent judicial review of the operating, health & medical and safety records of Koeberg, and a full independent review of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. REFERENCES 1. Anonymous 1*, pers. comm., June, 2001. This person is a former employee at Koeberg and wishes to remain anonymous. 2. Anonymous 2*, pers comm., January 2004. This person is technical risk assessment expert and wishes to remain anonymous. 3. Busby,C. 1995. Winds of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health. London. 4. Cancer and Risk Free Radiation. The Ecologist, Vol 28. No2. April 1998. 5. Peter Bester, Deputy Manager, Koeberg Project, National Nuclear Regulator (pers.comm. with M.Kantey) 6. Koeberg: French hit back. Cape Argus 25 Februray, 1985. 7. Nucleas 6/2000. European Nuclear Society. http:// www.euronuclear.org / library / public / nuc600.htm 8. Engineer dismissed by Framatome raises objections on the safety of Nuclear parts. Le Monde. June 2000. 9. Makhijani, A & Saleska, S. 1999. The Nuclear Power Deception. A Report of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. New York. 10. Koeberg plant still powering its way to nowhere. Cape Times 14 August 1998. 11. High Level Risk. New Scientist. 20 June 1998. 12. Meltdown. New Scientist. 13 June 1998. 13. Lyman, E. The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor: Safety Issues. Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, www.nci.org. 14. Will N-age be safe? Cape Argus, 12 November, 1982. 15. MOH slams Koeberg?’s accident plan. Cape Times 3 June 1986. 16. Major flaw in Koeberg exercise. Cape Times 26 September 1987. 17. Workers receive high levels of radiation. NucNet News no.141 14/3/1997; The Argus 13/3/1997; Weekend Argus 3/5/1997. 18. Workers contaminated by excess radiation. Cape Times. 14 August 1998. 19. Nuclear Error Did Cause Cape Blackout. Cape Argus. November 28, 200.1 20. Shortage of qualified staff threatens Koebergs future. Sapa, 4 September, 2002. 21. Nuclear Power Problems in France. AFP. 3 November 2003. 22. Koeberg?’s Secret Medical Files. Noseweek. Issue 53, February 2004. 23. Corpses Contaminated. Don Popplewell (New Scientist August, 1986 quoted in Cape Argus, 23 ?– 8-1986). 24. Cancer on the rise again. The Science of the Total Environment. January 2004 25. Nukes cause more breast cancer. The Guardian.Thursday April 13, 2000. www.guardianlimited.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,181365,00.html. 26. 2 die, 2 hurt in fire at SA reactor. Cape Times. 5 August, 1986. 27. Brazil N-chiefs face disaster charges/ Observer. November, 1987. 28. Eskom official public communication. 2004. www.eskom.co.za 29. Nucleonics Week, 4 August 1983, p.7; Nucleonics Week, 1 September 1983, pp. 9-10. 30. Error at Koeberg: Sunday Times 7 April 1985; Cape Times 25 February 1985; Cape Times 26 November 1985. 31. Radiation Limits Too High? ICEM Global Bulletin. 1-1998. pp 14-15. 32. Stoller, G. 2004. Baby Teeth offer radioactive clues. USA Today. 33. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG/CR-6451, Washington, D.C., August 1997 34. Meshkati, N and Deato, J.,2000. Tokaimura Accidents First Anniversary. The Japan Times. 35. The International Council for Radiological Protection review of International Safety (ICRP). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Papers SECY-00-0034 2000 36. Hoffmann, W. and Korblein, A. Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants. http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V6N1Korblein.html. 37. Lochbaum, D. 2001. Safety of Old and New Reactors. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=191 38. Leaks Develop Within Undian Nuclear Industry. The Ecologist. September 1998. 39. Lenssen, N. and Flavin, C. Meltdown. World Watch. June 1996. 40. London, L. Comments On The Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Demonstration Module of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor at Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (NPS) Site, Western Cape. 3 August 2002. 41. Nuclear Power in South Africa. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/safr_nuke.html 42. Framatome Owners Group. 2004. www.fraog.org. 43. Thomas, S. 1999. Arguments on the Construction of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex. 44. Thomas, S. 1995. Operating Performance of The Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant. Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex. 45. Williams, R. World Energy Assessments ?– Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability. Chapter 8: Advanced Energy supply Technologies. 1999. 46. Wullscleger, N. 1999. Earthquakes ?– proven yet totally unpredictable. ?? |
|
|
||||||||||||||||