Eskom does not yet have a site wish-list for the planned 2013 launch of its new generation nuclear reactor series – but Coega and Oyster Bay are both possibilities.

Eskom spokesman Karen de Villiers said last week that Thuyspunt in the Oyster Bay-St Francis area was still a proposed nuclear site, owned by the utility, together with a number of others, including Gansbaai east of Hermanus and two on the west coast.

Criteria for a possible future pebble-bed modular reactor site wish-list included what land was available for purchase, the proximity of the power network into which the PBMR power could be fed, the density of the community in the area, and what sort of infrastructure was available to aid construction of the reactor, De Villiers explained.

There is a transmission network in the St Francis area and also one accessible to Coega, because of its proximity to Port Elizabeth.

Eskom has commissioned an independent PBMR company to construct a demonstration reactor at Koeberg where the utility’s existing reactor is sited. The company is hoping to acquire its licence from the National Nuclear Regulator and have its environmental impact assessments (EIAs) approved by the end of this year, and to begin construction next year. If it achieves this timeframe, it aims to activate the reactor in 2010 and hand it over to Eskom in 2013, having approved its safety and efficiency.

It took a significant step forward this week in its preparations to start building, with the signing of an agreement with Spanish nuclear parts manufacturer Equipos Nucleares. Equipos will supply the PBMR’s “exoskeleton”, a 2 000-ton steel pressure envelope called the pressure boundary.

The utility stated last year that it could be looking at as many as 23 new-generation PBMRs if the demonstration model was approved and shown to be successful.

Anti-nuclear activist group Earthlife Africa has been monitoring the process each step of the way. In Johannesburg last week it filed an appeal against the court decision last year which rejected its application to view Eskom board minutes relating to the PBMR.

In Pretoria, on its behalf, senior University of Greenwich research fellow Steve Thomas led a debate on the economic risks of the PBMR.

Commenting on the issue, Wildlife and Environment Society PE branch spokesman Morgan Griffiths said the organisation was not opposed to nuclear energy “but before more reactors are built an adequate waste disposal strategy must be worked out”.

He added: “Until then we should not proceed. At the moment Eskom simply stores its high-level nuclear waste on site at Koeberg and this is not good enough.”

While this strategy was being developed, he said, Eskom should at the same time invest in clear energy alternatives including a programme to promote more efficient and sparing use of electricity.

Noting the importance of an independent EIA process, Griffiths said the statement last week by the public enterprises department that it is “committed to developing the PBMR” was of some concern.

“When and if a commercialisation phase is reached and a site is chosen, then site-specific EIAs will have to be undertaken. With Coega, we will be looking particularly at the distance and community safety aspect.”

Asked about the safety aspects of the PBMR, De Villiers said they were very different from those pertaining to the existing Koeberg reactor.

“The protection action zone for Koegberg is 16km and the zone for the proposed PBMR is 400 metres.

“There are different areas within these zones relating to density of people and other issues, but most of them will not even apply with the PBMR because our perimeter fence will be outside the 400m zone.”

She said she “agrees wholeheartedly” with the society in its call for the establishment of a comprehensive strategy for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

She said this was also currently under investigation with close monitoring of how other countries dealt with the disposal