By Babalo Ndenze
Metro Writer
Eskom’s proposed nuclear power station to be built next to Koeberg could pose a serious threat to residents as the power utility had failed to address a number of concerns such as health risks and an emergency evacuation plan.
This was said at a meeting yesterday of the city council’s planning and environment portfolio committee (Pepco), which raised a number of concerns about the proposed nuclear station during a discussion on the draft environmental impact report by Eskom.
The committee said the report had failed to address issues such as an emergency plan, health risks, nuclear waste, security and economic growth.
Pepco’s concerns were highlighted on the same day that the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) told Parliament that public objections to building a nuclear power plant must be based on proven threats to either health or the environment.
Briefing members of Parliament’s economic development select committee, NNR strategy executive Joe Mwase said these were the only factors considered by the regulator when deciding on a nuclear power plant application.
The city’s strategy and planning director, Keith Wiseman, told Pepco: “The decision on the site will be made without consideration on the impact on health. A key implication in Cape Town is around the emergency plan. The possible impact on the city has not been assessed and that’s a problem for us as a city.”
Between 5 000 and 10 000 people would work on the construction of the site and this would take at least 10 years.
“So housing is also a challenge that’s not assessed. This will also have a significant impact on tourism and will also push up rent prices,” he said.
Councillor Gisela Jespersen (DA) said she found it “extremely irritating” that Eskom had not taken the issue of land availability into account.
“When Koeberg was built it was supposed to be far away. And we have discussed (the existing) evacuation plan, but no one has ever tried it,” said Jespersen.
Eskom’s five proposed sites for the nuclear station had been narrowed down to three: Thyspunt (Eastern Cape), Bantamsklip and Duynefontein next to Koeberg.
Frank Raymond of the DA failed to understand how the Northern Cape had been removed as an option.
The report says that as a result of the difficulty to integrate with the electricity transmission system, the Northern Cape sites had been removed from further consideration.
“How can Northern Cape be discarded, it makes more sense. The EIA at this stage is seriously flawed. In 2004 Greenpeace landed on the dome (of Koeberg) so clearly there’s no security. They can’t look after a key point. The area is already densely populated and they now want to have a second (nuclear plant). This is a real danger and a real threat,” said Raymond.
Vincent Bergh of the ACDP said all the nuclear waste lying in Koeberg was already a “real threat”.
“People living in the area (near Koeberg) are not covered by normal insurance. If anything happens all the properties will be evacuated and won’t be used for the next 100 years,” said Bergh.
He said although Eskom had two other sites, “Eskom is moving ahead because in any event they intend to build in the future on that site”.
babalo.ndenze@inl.co.za
This article was originally published on page 3 of The Cape Times on June 02, 2010
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100602044028533C468333
Pelindaba Working Group says:
ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO THE ILLUSTRIOUS EIA CONSULTANTS FOUND THE FOLLOWING. NOT ONLY DID THEY APPROVE THE NOW SCRAPPED PBMR PROJECT BUT APPROVED KOEBERG AS A SITE. ISN’T IT TIME TO SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE EXPERTISE AND BIAS OF THESE CONSULTANTS? HERE IS THE STORY:
Green light for Koeberg reactor project
By Mercury Correspondent
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) has found that there are no environmental reasons why the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor cannot be built at the site of the Koeberg nuclear power station.
The EIA has been submitted to the Department of Water and Environment Affairs, which will make a decision on whether to approve the project on the basis of the report.
The building of the pebble bed reactor would still require a licence from the National Nuclear Regulator.
In letter to interested parties yesterday, the EIA consultants said studies by specialists had been done as part of the EIA, and the public had been widely consulted.
The potential benefits and problems had been assessed and the conclusion was that there were no environmental reasons to prevent the project from going ahead at Koeberg, provided the recommendations to lessen negative impacts were implemented.
This marks the final stage in the EIA process which began in August 2005.
The first EIA was ruled invalid by the high court on application by Earthlife Africa.
The final EIA report appears on the Internet at http://www.pbmr-eia.co.za. – Mercury Correspondent
• This article was originally published on page 4 of The Mercury on December 23, 2009
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091223071634227C980700
17th August 2010 at 2:09 pm
Anon says:
The NNR itself should be investigated, they’ve ignored ALL public comment on serious issues and now they are trying once again to survive on bogus science spewed out by the Nuclear Industry. There are ENOUGH “PROVEN” Threats to the environment and health, how much more proof do these stupid fools need ??? The evidence is all there, they just like to make out like all the documented evidence does not exist. The NNR must stop feeding the public lies and half truths, they must also stop wasting tax payers’ money on brainwashing the public into believing their lies. The NNR’s job is there to protect the public but they do NOTHIN in this regard, they just have their hands in the pockets of lucrative nuclear deals.
17th August 2010 at 1:07 pm