Earthlife Africa is hosting (with partners) a series of meeting around
South Africa on the EIA for Nuclear -1, the legal issues, and a possible
legal challenge if the EIA is granted. The Legal Resource Centre will be
making a presentation at each of the meetings, and the idea is that
other organisations share their thoughts on the EIA. Please mark your
diaries for the following dates, formal invitation letters to follow
with venue details.

1) Johannesburg, 18th of July 2011
2) Durban, 22nd of July 2011
3) Cape Town, 26th of July 2011

Towards a nuclear-free future,

Tristen

–
Tristen Taylor
Project Co-ordinator
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: 011 339-3662
Cell: 084 250-2434
Website: www.earthlife.org.za

As a registered stakeholder, the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) (GIBB) wishes to advise you of the availability of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for review and comment from 09 May 2011 to 23 June 2011 (i.e. 45 days).

Enclosed are (a) a summary of the Revised Draft EIR, (b) a Comment Sheet, (c) a letter announcing the availability of the Revised Draft EIR, and (d) e-mail cover in Afrikaans and Xhosa. The full version of the Revised Draft EIR (hard copy and/or CD) will be available at public venues, grouped per province, as detailed on Page 3 of the attached letter, as well as on the following websites:

NOTE: Readers of environment.co.za the documents mentioned above are available here:
Nuclear-1 EIA  Revised Draft EIR Letter to Registered IAPs _English
Nuclear-1 EIA Revised Draft EIR Executive Summary_2011
Nuclear-1 EIA Revised Draft EIR Letter to Registered IAPs_Afrikaans
Nuclear-1 EIA Revised Draft EIR Letter to Registered IAPs_Xhosa

-     Eskom’s website: www.eskom.co.za/eia under the “Nuclear 1-Generation” link
-     Arcus GIBB website: http://projects.gibb.co.za/ under the “Nuclear 1 EIA” link

Please note that comments can be submitted in writing in one of the following ways BEFORE close of business on 23 June 2011 (please note change in details):

-       By mail: GIBB Public Participation Office, Nuclear-1 EIA, P.O. Box 3965, Cape Town, 8000
-       By phone: 021 469 9180 (Office hours: Mon to Fri – 09:00 to 13:00 excl. public holidays)
-       By fax: 021 424 5571
-       By e-mail: nuclear1@gibb.co.za / nuclear-1@gibb.co.za

I&APs are invited and encouraged to attend the public meetings where the findings on the Revised Draft EIR will be presented and discussed.

Thank you to everyone who has participated in the EIA process to date and those who will take further time to review the Revised Draft EIR, submit comments and attend meetings.

Yours sincerely

The GIBB Nuclear-1 Public Participation Officer

FULL LIST OF DOCUMENTS (and links) ON THIS PROJECT ARE COPIED BELOW

by SISEKO NJOBENI

8 October 2010

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday, while the contribution of renewable energy technologies is poised for a significant increase.

The proposals, which are part of the department’s draft integrated electricity resource plan, show the government’s preferred energy mix for the next 20 years.

They provide prospective investors with an indication of the shape of SA’s future energy industry. The integrated resource plan is a 20-year electricity capacity plan that gives an outcome of projected future electricity demand, how the demand would be met and at what cost.

The interministerial committee on energy, set up to consider energy policy issues, has approved the integrated resource plan.

The committee’s approval paves the way for a second round of a public consultation process. The department held the first round of consultations in June.

In the draft integrated resource plan, the department is proposing that coal contribute 48% to the energy mix by 2030, followed by renewable energy (16%), nuclear (14%), peaking open cycle gas turbine (9%), peaking pump storage (6%), mid-merit gas (5%) and baseload import hydro (2%). These point to a window of investment opportunity mainly in renewable energy and nuclear technologies. The draft plan envisages 52248MW of new capacity in the next 20 years.

While coal will still be the biggest contributor to electricity generation, the department’s proposals represent a significant reduction in its contribution.

Coal currently accounts for over 90% of electricity generation. Eskom’s two nuclear reactors at the Koeberg power station supply 1800MW or 6% of SA’s electricity needs. The renewable energy industry is yet to take off in SA.

The department said in drawing up the draft integrated resource plan the inter- ministerial committee considered various scenarios. These included cancelling the Kusile power station, or delaying the building of Medupi and Kusile power stations.

Eskom MD for systems operations and planning Kannan Lakmeeharan yesterday repeated the utility’s commitment to completing Kusile.

‘These are just scenarios. In fact, the final proposal includes both Kusile and Medupi.

‘The department also says we should not delay the two projects because they are important for security of supply,’ Mr Lakmeeharan said.

The department has also warned of looming power supply constraints. In a report on the medium-term risk mitigation plan for electricity in the period between this year and 2016, the department said latest forecasts indicate a worsening of electricity supply constraints from next year until 2016.

‘This situation poses a real risk of rolling blackouts, similar to those experienced in 2008, and a serious threat to government’s objectives for growth and job creation,’ the department said.

Mr Lakmeeharan said Eskom had in the past alluded to the looming supply constraints ‘because the rate of capacity addition will be less than the (electricity) demand reduction. The report says we must do something. Options include energy efficiency, independent power producers (contribution) and the energy conservation scheme’ .

Frost & Sullivan energy programme manager Cornelis van der Waal yesterday applauded the department ‘for coming up with something that portrays the real scenario as we see it. Urgent action is needed.’ The required action includes commissioning power from independent
suppliers, Mr van der Waal said.

The committee had asked the team drawing up the plan to do more work on the possibility of incorporating carbon capture and storage capability on all future coal-fired power stations.

njobenis@bdfm.co.za
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=123180

by Judith Taylor

Amid the rather futile discussion about South Africa’s nuclear power generation policy and programme the most important aspect of all seems lately to have dropped off the list of factors to be considered. I refer to the radioactive longevity of nuclear fuel residue. For its radioactivity to decay to just half its initial intensity takes about 25 times longer than the entire recorded history of man.

It is no solution to encase the stuff in concrete then drop it down a mine shaft or push it inside a mountain tunnel. A quarter of a million years is ample time for unpredictable chemical and geological processes to re-expose this deadly material. Nuclear power generation on a global scale would produce enough radioactive leftovers to occupy a great deal of no-go land and require costly guarding virtually for ever, a period that would see the end of our civilisation and the rise and fall of several more.

Theoretically, nuclear waste could be recklessly shot off into space or by some yet-to-be-invented marvel of nuclear physics changed into something less lethal. In the meantime it would be more realistic to persevere with developing wind and solar power networks to succeed Eskom’s present coal-fired generation programme. However, in the interests of time and expense the government should facilitate this development work being carried out by private industry.

Meanwhile Eskom should incentivise the government to pursue diplomatically the agreement to bring hydropower from the Congo River, a sensible idea but discarded because of political and military instability on the route. This threat could be overcome if the need is pressing enough.

True costs of nuclear power are ignored

The problem with nuclear power is the total lack of transparency. People such as Dr Kemm can never give cradle to grave costs of the projects. Let’s look at what is involved if nuclear power goes ahead:

• Nuclear power is not only a substantial threat to our water resources, but also to the biodiversity of the Cape.

• At Thyspunt, 5 000 jobs and a R500 million industry will be replaced with a polluting reactor and 750 jobs.

• Uranium mining, the birthplace of the fuel, is highly polluting of miners themselves, water and surrounding land.

• Nuclear waste is also highly polluting. Nuclear power’s real carbon footprint has never been acknowledged nor has the full cost of nuclear been computed.

The citizens of Niger have recently instituted action in the US against Areva, which is mining for uranium in that country, for damage undergone by the state as well as the inhabitants of the area where Areva works. This suit is claiming several million euros in compensation.

Currently, there is not one proven, operating nuclear plant of the “new generation”. In addition, the safety issues have been omitted from the environmental impact assessments.

However, do we wish to see our water supplies, our land and our people so polluted by uranium, caesium, lead and so on that there is no quality of life and we all die a slow and painful death? Is it a logical path to follow, given the experiences of native Indians in the US who mined uranium and have died of radiation sickness?

Renewables can come on line right now and provide more than 10 times the number of jobs that nuclear or coal can. South Africa’s ingenuity in pioneering new technology can grasp the renewables revolution and bring us true wealth and health.

The cost of Chernobyl was 985 000 lives. In the UK the Sellafield plant’s decommissioning has failed, leaving a radioactive waste land for generations to come. Koeberg’s decommissioning could do the same.

Source:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5672085

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

THE World Bank has started an investigation into its $3,75bn loan to Eskom after a complaint by two local environmental groups on behalf of the Lephalale community, where the Medupi power station is to be built.

Although the investigation is not expected to affect the granting of the loan, it could influence the way some of the money is spent.

Roberto Lenton, chairman of the World Bank’s inspection panel — the body leading the probe — yesterday said the investigation related to allegations of violations of the bank’s operational policies and procedures.

The inspection panel is an independent body that monitors the bank’s accountability and compliance with its social and environmental policies. It is a forum for parties aggrieved by bank policies and procedures.

Tristen Taylor, Earthlife Africa energy policy officer, yesterday said the Lephalale community was concerned about carbon and sulphur emissions from the 4800MW Medupi power station which the loan will fund.

Mr Lenton recently led a team on an “eligibility” visit to SA to investigate the Lephalale community’s concerns. In a statement to the bank’s board, Mr Lenton said he was “struck” by the level of concern about the project.

The panel decided on an investigation because the complaint by Earthlife Africa and Groundwork “raises issues of compliance and harm that can be addressed in the context of an investigation”.

Mr Lenton said his panel did not have the mandate to question board decisions, indicating that the loan would not be affected.

He said the panel would also not investigate SA and Eskom as the borrower. The panel could, however, make recommendations to the World Bank board “about project implementation, including the disbursement of funds for the project”.

In a statement yesterday, the World Bank office in Pretoria said that previous findings of the inspection panel had been taken into account in improving the design and implementation of projects.

However, the bank’s local officials declined to comment on the investigation. “The inspection panel is beginning its investigation and World Bank staff cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing investigations,” it said.

Read the full article

Source: http://www.businessday.co.za/

Document written by: Katja Vinding Petersen, Michelle Wcisel, Brenda Walters, Oliver Jewell, Alison Towner, in cooperation with the Trustees from Dyer Island Conservation Trust.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This document outlines the concerns of The Dyer Island Conservation Trust (DICT) with regards to the proposed establishment of a nuclear power station (NPS) at Bantamsklip. It also provides an overview of the research which the DICT deems necessary to be carried out prior to the establishment of an NPS as well as suggested monitoring programs during construction and operational phases.

Insufficient Baseline Data

DICT finds the current baseline data concerning this area and the ecosystem insufficient. In order to protect this area’s unique marine biodiversity, DICT calls for further research prior to the establishment of a NPS. Should the NPS project at Bantamsklip proceed, DICT would like to see more monitoring programs during the construction and operations phases.

Current Lack of Knowledge

The DICT is highly concerned that rare and endangered marine species will experience devastating impacts in relation to the NPS. Since there have been no studies carried out prior to the NPS concerning the marine animals i.e. sharks, fur seals, cetaceans, birds and fish species in the area, it is unknown to which degree the proposed site is of significance to these animals. Also, due of this lack of knowledge, DICT find the conclusions made in the EIA and in the Marine- and the Oceanographic Specialist studies highly questionable.

Consequential Damage to Ecosystem

It is not difficult to find examples from the past where developments have unintentionally destroyed factions of an ecosystem when information about that system was unknown until the damage was done. Any visitor to the Cape Agulhas region can describe a bio-diverse habitat that is as incredible as it is delicate.

That is why the DICT is calling for more research to be conducted in this region before further development occurs. Enabling us to better understand the intricate cycle of life in this region and further assess how future development may impact the area.

DICT calls for a document outlining actual research projects which will be carried out prior to and during the construction phase as well as during the operational phase. This document should also state the aim, the methods, duration of the projects, the expected results and how it is linked to other projects carried out in conjunction with the NPS. Eskom’s degree of commitment to the different research projects should also be stated.

Full document 67 pages available here.

Nuclear Protest at Thyspunt - Jeffrey's Bay

By Melanie Gosling
Environment Writer
Source

Just over 2 000 people marched through Jeffreys Bay on Sunday in protest against the multi-billion rand nuclear power station Eskom plans to build at the nearby Thyspunt.

While marchers converged on the local municipal offices where organisers handed over a memorandum, 14 chokka (squid) fishing boats dropped anchor just behind contestants in the Billabong international surfing championships and switched on their lights in support of the marchers.

The protest was organised by the Thyspunt Alliance, an umbrella body of several local resident, ratepayers, environmental, surfer and other organisations, who were joined by the chokka fishermen and a range of local people.

Allliance spokesperson Trudi Malan said on Sunday: “We thought we would not get many people because we were competing with the surfing and the rugby, but some of the surfers phoned and said please can we wait till the Kelly Slater heat had finished. We did and they all came rushing over. And some rugby fans told us they could always watch rugby again, but they may not have the opportunity to show their support again against a nuclear power station that would affect all their lives.”

Malan said the Alliance had purposely not entered the debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power, but were all opposed to siting a nuclear power station at Thyspunt. The Alliance was heavily critical of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) Eskom had commissioned, saying it had failed to address many biophysical issues of building the power plant at that spot.

Eskom had selected the site in the apartheid era with no input from the public. One of the criteria was that a site for a nuclear power station had to be at least 100km from any of the former “homeland” areas for security reasons.

“The EIA is an atrocious document. The biggest flaw is that it did not consider the chokka industry and there was no public participation in the site selection. During construction they will dump 6.3-million cubic metres of sand into the sea, which will kill the chokka industry. We do not want to jeopardise the development of our country, but we do not believe development should come at the expense of the environment,” Malan said.

Read full article

Say no to Eskom's Proposed Nuclear Reactors

ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944)

FOR A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD

As previously announced, an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) commenced on 06 March 2010 with a revised closing date of 31 May 2010.

Please be advised that the comment period has been further extended by an additional 30 days and the closing date for comment is now 30 June 2010 (117 days). You are, therefore, afforded the opportunity to use the extended period to further review the report and submit any additional comments.

Once the comments have been received a Revised Draft EIR, including its specialist studies, will be produced and placed at public venues for a further comment period of 45 days.

On behalf of the EIA Project Team, I should like to thank all those who have attended public meetings and Key Stakeholder Feedback Meetings held during the period 23 March – 25 May 2010, those who have already submitted comments on the Draft EIA Report and those who will take further time to review the reports and submit comments.

For additional information, please contact: Bongi Shinga or Dalene Murie at:

E-mail: nuclear1 @ acerafrica.co.za l  P O Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867 l Tel: 086 010 4958  l  Fax: 035 340 2232

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Ms Bongi Shinga

Public Participation Team

Say no to Eskom's Proposed Nuclear Reactors

ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944) FOR

A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD

As previously announced, an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report commenced on 06 March 2010 with a closing date of 10 May 2010 (a 66-day comment period). During the meetings held as part of the public review, various Interested and Affected Parties requested an extension of the review period.

After due consideration of the requests and legal requirements, it has been decided that the comment period will be extended by an additional 21 days. The closing date for comment is now 31 May 2010. You are, therefore, afforded the opportunity to use the extended period to further review the report and submit any additional comments.

On behalf of the EIA Project Team, I should like to thank all those who have attended public meetings and Key Stakeholder Feedback Meetings held during the period 23 March – 21 April 2010, those who have already submitted comments on the Draft EIA Report and those who will take further time to review the reports and submit comments.

For additional information, please contact: Bongi Shinga or Dalene Murie at:

E-mail: nuclear1@acerafrica.co.za l  PO Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867 l Tel: 086 010 4958  l  Fax: 035 340 2232

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Ms Bongi Shinga

Public Participation Team