pic: greenpeace
South Africa is planning to build a PBMR – nuclear reactor, as a demonstration model, that has already risen in anticipated costs from “about R1 billion” to over R16 billion, with some sources even saying “nearly R32 billion”, all without a brick being laid to date. The plan is then to sell to Eskom about another 22 of these, so one could easily land up in your backyard! (this is excluding the at least two large Koeberg type reactors also planned, again of a technology that has never been built or run elsewhere – normal for the nuclear industry!)

The very lengthy, technical EIR (2000 pages) was issued with only 50 days to respond (those who attempted to read it have averaged 40 pages a day, including the weekend!) Thanks to Muna Lakhani from Earthlife Africa and Mike Kantey from CANE. Based on their responses, we’ve managed to put ours together for close of day today:

urban sprout would like to voice our concerns over the proposed PBMR demonstration model.

1. We do not believe that the PBMR demonstration plant can be called ‘inherently safe’ (a term generously scattered throughout the rather lengthy 2000 page document) when the... purpose of the demonstration plant is to prove its safety – a fundamental contradiction.

2. We understand that the design of the PBMR is not finished, yet its impacts have already been assessed by an EIA. This makes us think that the EIA is both premature and regarded as nothing less than a procedure, rather than a necessity to ensure the safety of the environment.

3. No full life cycle costs are available, and in particular, decommissioning costs appear to have been left for future generations to worry about. A nuclear plant built for future generations should, at the very least, include the consequences for these generations, and future decommissioning costs should be included in the present business case.

4. It also concerns us that only a few selected safe and renewable technologies have been briefly regarded, rather than a good ‘across the board’ comparative assessment that would indicate that the PBMR is really the best economic alternative. Without an objective and fair analysis by independent researchers of all sources of energy – renewable and non-renewable – an informed decision cannot be made. Many of the external costs have been ignored, such as waste, pollution and health impacts, and the potential for job creation for each energy source also needs to be included.

5. Nuclear waste from the PBMR is twenty times that of the Pressurised Water Reactor (Koeberg). Yet, there are no plans for a permanent repository, which is in complete violation of the Principles for the management of readioactive wate in SA (DME 2005), which states that the financial burden for the management of radioactive wastes should be borne by the generator of that waste.

6. We are very concerned about the impact of radiation on the local population – the study only provides a monitoring plan. Last year, researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston carried out a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukaemia in children under 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14% - 21%, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5% - 24%, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities ((European Journal of Cancer Care, vol 16, p355(). The KiKK studies (German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results were published this year in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p721), found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with nuclear installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60% increase in solid cancers and a 117% increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. For more on the findings [urban sprout]

If you also want to make a stand on the issue, email the following people with a similar response (but in your own words!)by close of day, today.