THYSPUNT UP-DATE AUGUST, 2008

As is now well-known, Eskom wishes to double its power generation capacity over the next 25 years, with 50% (20000Mw) being provided by nuclear energy. The main reason for the decision to expand nuclear capacity is to reduce South Africa’s dependence on fossil fuels, in the light of concerns over global warming, and the perceived inadequacy of current alternative energy technology to provide for base-load electricity requirements. (Base-load refers to the 75% or so of peak requirements, which has to be supplied 24 hours a day to maintain industries, mines, transport systems, urban areas, etc).

Thyspunt, near Oyster Bay, is one of five sites selected during the nineteen- eighties for a future nuclear power station (NPS). There are strong political and economic pressures to place an NPS at Thyspunt, to serve the needs of the Eastern Cape, and especially of the Coega Industrial Development Zone.

Eskom would like ultimately to develop all five sites, but is currently engaged in selecting the first of these, and an EIA process has been continuing for the past year. The process is complex and technical. A Scoping exercise has now been completed, with a Final Scoping Report published this month. The Scoping Report identifies numerous issues which require to be addressed in the next stage of the EIA, which will lead to an Environmental Impact Report, which in turn will be passed on to the Department of the Environment for a Record of Decision. Community bodies and individuals from the area have been deeply involved in the process, and have made submissions at the appropriate stages.

An NPS at Thyspunt would have huge implications for St Francis Bay. This could lead to a change in the total environment here, comparable to the effect of Mosgas on Mossel Bay.

Three recent documents have been added to this website. These are a joint submission by the Residents’ Assocn. and St Francis Kromme Trust, following publication of the Draft Scoping Report in March, 2008; the response by consultants Acer Africa; and a summary of preliminary specialist reports which appear in the Final Scoping Report. These give a clear indication of issues which need to be addressed before any responsible decision can be made.

Individuals who would like to become more fully acquainted with the detailed process can contact consultants, Bongi Shinga or June Mottram at Acer Africa, (Tel.0860104958; nuclear1@acerafrica.co.za) or go to the Eskom website, www.eskom.co.za/eia.

A second EIA has now been launched in connection with transmission lines which would be required as part of the development. Anyone wishing to register as an Interested and Affected Party (I.& A.P.) should contact Nicolene Venter or Themba Skonje at SIVEST, Tel 011 7980600; Fax 011 8037272 or email:nicolene@sivest.co.za.

Eskom Nuclear Power Station and Associated Infrastructure

St Francis Bay Residents’ Association and St Francis Kromme Trust Response to Draft Scoping Report

General Comment
This is a combined response, since it reflects the views of both bodies, which have been working together on this issue.

At public meetings held at the outset of the Scoping exercise, the clear impression was gained that the current EIA is a preliminary one, whose sole purpose was to identify the first of five proposed nuclear sites, and that this would be followed by a full EIA process following selection of the first site. From the Draft Scoping Report, it would appear that this may not be the case, and that the present exercise will lead straight into a detailed assessment phase of what may prove to be the only EIA for the first site. The problem with this would potentially be that issues which would have been raised in the full EIA may have been withheld by I & APs pending the initial decision on the choice of site. Clarity is needed on this point

It is made clear in the DSR that the current specialist reports are only preliminary, based primarily on desktop investigations and limited field work, and that the issues raised in the DSR will only be investigated in detail during the full EIA, which will follow selection of the first site (Vol 1, item 3.8.2). We trust, therefore, that all issues raised by I & APs, and deferred at this stage, will, in fact, be addressed in the site specific EIA in due course.

This is the first step in a process which willhave a major influence on the affected regions. It deals with a technology which has evoked opposition world-wide, and which raises serious issues of human safety and environmental impact. In such a context, the highest possible standards of independence, professional expertise, accuracy, integrity and quality control are to be expected. Unfortunately, the Draft Scoping Report does not entirely meet these expectations in terms of clerical shortcomings, limitations of the EIA mandate and factual errors which are listed below.

The most serious clerical error of which we are aware was the omission altogether from the DSR of the submission made by the St Francis Bay Residents’ Association, whilst that of the St Francis Kromme Trust was lost under a series of names of individuals, and did not appear under the Kromme Trust’s name. The impression was gained that no submission had been made by either of these bodies, which ar
e two of the most active and well-supported community bodies in St Francis Bay, and both of which had
researched the subject in depth. Apologies have been accepted, but we would like to emphasise that the error must be rectified in the full EIA which will follow.

We recognise the scale and complexity of this exercise, but the manner in which information has been presented throughout the three volumes leaves much to be desired. There is a complete mixture of material relating to all five sites, making it difficult to determine which area is being discussed, and resulting in bulky files, much of which does not apply to a specific site, and lengthy searches to return to specific points . Werequest that in future each site has its own separate file, with a comprehensive index at the front. This is a matter of arrangement, but would make it much easier to follow.