The final scoping report for Eskom's proposed new nuclear plant, the PBMR, has been completed and is now open to the public for comment. This is an important stage in the Environmental Impact Assessment being undertaken.
Environmental Justice Networking Forum Nuclear summit cancelled is there a French connection? Press release EJNF 17 February 2004 Environmentalists suspect that there is a connection between the cancellation of the nuclear summit and a desperate last attempt to find a foreign investor prepared to put money into the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in the form of the French company Avera. Public debate silenced A parliamentary summit, in which pro and anti-nuclear proponents and experts would put their cases to the combined portfolio committees of environment and tourism and minerals and energy, was cancelled days before it was due to take place (on 16 and 17 February). The question is why. The PBMR Company is desparately trying to attract new investors to replace the US utility Exelon and perhaps the bankrupt UK Company, British Nuclear Field Limited (BNFL). Activists have uncovered that its prime target is Areva, parent of Framatome, the French company that supplied the reactors to Koeberg. A deal behind closed doors Areva Group spokesman, Jacques-Emmanuel Saulnier said a high-level South African delegation; including representatives for the department of Trade & Industry, Eskom and the Nuclear Energy Corporation are going to spend about two days hearing about what Areva has to offer. These talks follow discussions between South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki and his French counterpart, Jacques Chirac, last October during Mbeki's state visit to France. The CEO of Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, sits on a high-level committee of industry leaders which advises Mbeki. Could this be the reason why the nuclear summit was stopped although other parts of parliament had decided to continue their work? The summit was officially postponed because Members of Parliament must engage the constituency with regard to the elections. Silence about health scandal The postponement also coincides with a deafening silence from the nuclear industry about the integrity of its health record. Its flagship in South Africa, the French-built Koeberg, has been accused of falsifying medical records of Ron Lockwood (Noseweek no 53). Lockwood developed leukemia while working at Koeberg, but this was hidden from him. His records were altered, and he was persuaded to apply for early retirement. PBMR will cost taxpayers R12 billion The Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF) argues against the spending of R12 billion of taxpayers money by Eskom on a pilot project of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Like the arms deal, the current cost estimate is unrealistic and South Africans can expect the costs to mushroom. International experience shows that reactors cost five to ten times more to complete than their original estimates. The PBMR is an expensive and very risky experiment. The use of public money for this experiment has not been sanctioned through a public process. While there was an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), it excluded the crucial issues of economic feasibility and waste. On this basis environmental activists have appealed against the first Record of Decision, which is now under review by the minister. The EJNF also does not except that decisions about nuclear energy can be made in the absence of public debate. Postponing the debate avoided some important questions begging for answers: 1.What are the current (updated) actual cost estimates for the PBMR? 2.Will the PBMR drive up the cost of electricity? 3.Why do PBMR proponents assume a growing market for nuclear power while the actual world market is in decline? 4.Why are there no health studies of the public living around nuclear installations even when international studies show definite health effects from ionizing radiation on affected communities? 5.Why are large sums of money invested in a dying technology (nuclear power) when viable alternatives are available? SA is rich in wind, sun and ocean (wave and tidal) resources for clean renewable energy that is sustainable. Why is the public money being invested in nuclear experiments not be diverted to renewable energy alternatives. 6.How can the nuclear industry claim that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly? It produces pollution and long-lived, highly toxic waste. 7.Why are we producing more waste when we dont know what to do with the existing nuclear waste?
