2nd Draft EIA has finally been released by Arcus Gibb, consultants to ESKOM

The much awaited 2nd Draft EIA has finally been released by Arcus Gibb, consultants to ESKOM on the NPS project. It is, as before, a lengthy document and requires time to study in detail. As before, Thyspunt has been identified as the preferred site. Following are comments based on studying the Executive summary of this report, as well as a cursory glance of the full version:

ESKOM and their consultants, Arcus Gibb, have to a large extent ignored comments made by a number of interested and affected parties, including the Thyspunt Alliance, and experts canvassed by the Alliance:

1) With respect to Geo-Hydrology, the new Draft EIA totally ignores input from Prof Fred Ellery, an expert in this field. (The report simply states that “there is no evidence of debris flows at the site or that conditions exist for debris flow”).

2) The report ignores a study and comments made by Dr Johan Binneman, a leading archaeologist. The report does not deal with the subject of archaeology of the site in spite of the matter being repeatedly raised in comments on the first Draft EIA. The site happens to be of major archaeological importance, covering time spans of millennia.

3) The site is of major importance in terms of the cultural heritage of the Khoisan people. The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) has refused to approve the relevant Heritage Impact Scoping Report. Last year the minister of Arts and Culture stated that the NPS would not be built at Thyspunt for this very reason. The consultants to ESKOM deal with this matter by stating that an application has been made to SAHRA for a permit to perform test excavations.

4) The report states simply that the squid industry will only minimally be affected. This is in spite of the fact that various experts appointed by the South African Squid Management Association (SASMIA) have stated the contrary. Pumping 6, 3 million cubic meters of sand into South Africa’s prime squid breeding ground will have a huge effect and will in all likelihood spell the end of the St Francis squid industry.

5) The report concedes that the surf break at Cape St Francis may be adversely affected by the above spoil pumped into the sea at the building site. If this is accepted, then it must also be accepted that the ocean floor will be covered by un-natural (ex-land based) sand…….which MUST affect the squid!

6) The report does not deal with the fact that the R330 (Humansdorp – Cape St Francis road) will be used as the main transport road to the site during the 8 odd years of construction. During peak traffic times a heavy vehicle will pass any given point every 24 seconds. There will also be times when extra heavy vehicles will stop all normal traffic on this road for many hours. We may add that ESKOM has already bought land to the West of Sea Vista to build the extension of the road through to the NPS site

7) The report incorrectly states that agriculture will be positively affected by the NPS project! (Cows produce more milk when near an NPS or transmission lines?)

8) Little, if any attention is paid to the fact that the project will employ some 8000 people during construction, and the effects of this influx. Also little attention is paid to what happens to the workforce after completion of the project.

9) Arcus Gibb state that they have found a route for their heavy vehicles to by-pass Humansdorp during the construction phase. The “new” route uses Saffery Road, which runs through a residential area and is already used extensively by traffic avoiding the Humansdorp main road, en route to SFB and CSF.

10) Reading the main report, it is clear that the technology to be used has not been finalised. Certain conclusions drawn in the report are therefore premature.

11) The main report states that the predominant wind is “West-Northwest to Northwest”. This is INCORRECT and makes a huge difference to disaster management planning. The correct predominant wind direction is South West, which places Cape St Francis and St Francis Bay right in the path of any possible nuclear contamination in case of a disaster. (Arcus Gibb’s/Eskom’s above claimed wind direction has the opposite effect. They have stuck to this incorrect wind direction in spite of the Thyspunt Alliance repeatedly pointing out the mistake.)

The above are some of the salient points…….the list could go on much longer. We plan to do our best to stop this project at this, the EIA stage. However, we need to face up to the fact that the only way in which ESKOM can be stopped may be in Court. For this we have started to put together a War Chest. We need to have at least R500,000 at our disposal for the 1st phase of a Court battle and to cover interim legal expenses. Thanks to some large donations our War Chest has R140,000 in it, so there is a long way to go. And we have to go all the way if need be!

PLEASE DONATE! We have established a bank account under the auspices of the St Francis Bay Residents’ Association. This will be administered and audited by the said Association. Account details are:

Bank: Standard Bank
Name: Residents’ Association Nuclear Fund
Branch Code 05001500
Acc Number 186554788
When making an electronic payment, please send your details to Cindy Evans, cindy@countryfeeling.co.za .
(Postal details P.O.Box 1300, Jeffrey’s Bay 6300).

In the event of the war chest not being used, we undertake to re-imburse our donors or, with their permission to donate the money to registered charities of our donors’ choice.