Buried in Earthskin - An Investigative journey into the impact of nuclear power on the environment and peoples of South Africa

Buried in Earthskin has been selected for the Encounters Documentary Film Festival.

It will be screening at the NuMetro Cinema at the Waterfront:  (THE BIG SCREEN)  on Sunday the 16th at 8:15 and Sunday the 22nd of August at 8 pm.

Sunday the 16tth’s screening will have a question and answer section at the end with myself, Helena Kingwill and Muna Lakhani of Earth Life Africa as a guest speaker.

What it’s about:

An Investigative journey into the impact of nuclear power on the environment and peoples of South Africa, and a glimpse into potential alternative solutions.

This film aims to look at the nuclear issue as holistically as possible, and sheds light on the severity of the predicament facing decision makers: energy generation versus the environment.   Alternative solutions are blowing in the wind, but can we access them?  Who pays the ultimate price for our convenient electricity?   Who holds the power and can a critical mass shift the paradigm?

Buried in Earthskin subtly demonstrates how energy and political power go hand in hand, and gives a voice to marginalized indigenous peoples who have paid the ultimate price for decisions made (about where we get our electric power) for the sake of political and financial power.

Reviews:  ”Powerful”-  Director of the Oakland International Film Festival- San Francisco.

“I loved it! It is powerful and very thought provoking. ”  Marie Holms Independent Consultant and Project Advisory, Bath, England.

TO ORDER copies of this documentary, please click here. (R120 per copy plus postage within South Africa)

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group Co., the nation’s second-biggest builder of atomic plants, received state approval to construct two reactors in the southern province of Guangxi to boost supply of clean energy.

…but you don’t have to look too hard to see how far the infection has spread. When even the US’s Environmental Protection Agency refers to nuclear power as ‘clean’ you can see how deeply the idea is entrenched.

How has this happened and why? Are the journalists writing these pieces pro-nuclear and so smuggling their viewpoint (whether subconsciously or not) into their copy? Or are the words ‘clean energy’ being copied and pasted from nuclear industry PR(opaganda)? We’d genuinely like to know.

Full article

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/south_africas_dirty_bomb_myste_1.html

South Africa’s ‘dirty bomb’ mystery

If dirty bombs are such an overblown threat, and radioactive material so easily available, why are people still trying to steal it?

South African police are investigating what the five mokes busted with a Cesium-137 device at a Pretoria gas station last week were up to.
All of them are South African citizens, but not much else is known about them, police said.

Indeed, much about the July 9 incident is a mystery.

Authorities said the “industrial nuclear device” found with the men contained a small amount of radioactive material. The men intended to sell the device to parties unknown for 45 million Rand, the equivalent of$6 million to $7 million. Police said the men were also planning to sell a larger nuclear device, which police are searching for, according to South African reports.

“We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were, and we need to find the device quickly,” police said, according to Canada’s online Digital Journal.

Likewise, South African authorities told SpyTalk over the weekend that “the origin of the device is still not known.”

South African reporter Graeme Hosken says the substance was of a type of Cesium used in South Africa’s mining industry. Cesium is also used in nuclear medicine and is manufactured in significant quantities at the Pelindaba nuclear plant near Pretoria.

Pelindaba was involved in another mysterious incident in 2007, when its highly guarded operations center was broken into by two armed gangs. One official was shot during the attack, which some believe was aimed at stealing highly enriched uranium. The case remains unsolved.

In last week’s incident, “there are no known linkages of the suspects with any groupings or persons from foreign countries,” according to a South African investigative file made available to SpyTalk. “None of them ever traveled across the SA borders.”

One of the suspects, Andre Le-Sar, 37,“ previously worked at the YSCOR arms factory in Van Der Bijl Park [an industrial zone south of Johannesburg],” according to one of the South African investigators, “but was unemployed at a stage and is now a self-employed plumber.”

No details could be learned about the four others being held, beyond their ages and residences of record.

But that’s just part of a larger mystery.

In 2002, U.S. intelligence sources, backed by Bush administration officials, reported in 2002 that al Qaeda had designs for a “dirty bomb.” Fears mushroomed that Washington and other Western capitals were unprepared to cope with such an attack, which involves salting conventional explosives with radioactive materials.

But the threat was hyped, many believe. The government eventually dropped its dirty-bomb conspiracy charges against American Jose Padilla, the Bush administration’s poster boy for the threat.

“Dirty bombs are very overblown,” says Richard Barlow, who once tracked black-market nuclear materials for the CIA and Defense Department. “There are vast quantities of available material out there if someone wanted to make one.”

The Washington Post’s Joby Warrick reported in 2002 that “U.S. businesses and medical facilities have lost track of nearly 1,500 pieces of equipment with radioactive parts since 1996. …”

Security of the materials has been tightened since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but experts say determined thieves wouldn’t have a hard time obtaining them.

Outside of a couple of Chechen plots against Moscow, and notwithstanding last week’s bust in Pretoria, the question remains: Why hasn’t a credible dirty bomb plot surfaced in the West since 9/11?

Graham Allison, a former assistant secretary of defense, said it may just be a matter of theatrics: al-Qaeda likes things that go boom — big, big boom. “Well, if you look at 9/11, and you look at al-Qaeda and their m.o., and you look at what they said, you know that they like big, spectacular events that kill large numbers of people,” Allison said on the PBS program “Nova” back in 2003.

A cesium plume lofted by dynamite, in other words, is peanuts compared with the real deal — a nuclear bomb.

“The press spokesman for Mr. bin Laden put out a rather chilling statement, which said that they’re required to kill four million Americans, including women and children, in order to balance the scale of the atrocities that we and the Israelis have visited upon the Arab population,” Allison said. “If you are trying to kill a lot of people at one time, you’re at the high end of violence, which is nuclear. There is something almost like the moth to the flame with respect to the nuclear threat.”

Not really comforting.

That leaves the last week’s mystery in Pretoria. With such hot goods virtually falling off trucks, how could even scam artists hope to fence cesium for upwards of $6 million, as the South African police believe?

Maybe the answer lies with P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” But who were those suckers in Pretoria?

Update: MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow picks up the story with a shout-out to SpyTalk.

Opposition party member Ali Riza Ozturk shows the 170,000 anti-nuclear signatures in Turkey’s Parliament (© Greenpeace)

As is usual with nuclear deals, the details of the agreement reveal just how ludicrous it is. The reactors will be built, owned and operated by the Russian nuclear industry with Turkish partners. So much for nuclear power providing energy security. Turkey is making itself reliant on Russian expertise and nuclear fuel for its energy needs.

Not only that but, as you would expect, the economics of the deal are pitiful. Tetas, the Turkish grid company, is committed to a 15-year deal to buy electricity from the reactors at a price of US$124 per megawatt hour. That, unbelievably, is more than double the market prices for electricity across the EU right now. So much for nuclear power being affordable and competitive.

Of course, when it comes to projects of this kind -  especially in Turkey where previous attempts to join the nuclear club have been a comedy of legal challenges, rigged bidding processes and record-breaking costs – it isn’t worth raising one’s expectations. There still are many obstacles in the way of four nuclear reactors being built in Turkey on time and on budget, if at all.

Here at Greenpeace we’ll be continuing the fight to make sure it never happens.
read full article

Unable to admit defeat – and in the face of legal challenges, rigged bidding processes, and ludicrous, record-breaking costs – the country’s government have resurrected the plan once again and have drawn up an agreement with Russia to build a nuclear reactor in the south of Turkey. The parliament will vote on the agreement this Friday.

This week 60 activists took a petition with 170,000 signatures to the parliament building to demonstrate the widespread opposition to the nuclear plan. Will the politicians listen to these voices? The evidence, history and the people are all against a nuclear reactor being built in Turkey.

source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/170000-say-no-to-turkeys-dirty-nuclear-deal/blog/12903

Like so many times before,
I recently fished Hartbeespoort Dam with my long-time friend, Mike Elliot. But this would be the last time as Mike was terminally ill with cancer. The dam was filthy and we caught nothing, so, filled with sadness, we left. Mike said, “Harties is just as sick as I am.” He died a few days later. Harties still functions, but if it deteriorates further, the fish, and Harties, will die.

Sewage pollution only the start

To find what made Harties so ill, we must look to the past. In 1970 Mike and I founded the Pretoria Spinfishing Society, the oldest national lure-fishing association. Four years later I left Pretoria, but over the next 20 years I infrequently returned to fish Harties with Mike and the boys. The dam was our headquarters and between us, we spent thousands of happy hours on it, unaware of the deadly danger in its water. Every time I returned, I saw how it was deteriorating. First water hyacinth choked the surface. Then blue-green Microcystis algae turned the dam into a massive bowl of pea-soup. Finally, great shoals of large blue kurper died en masse and washed up on the shore.

The hyacinth and algae were caused by a massive inflow of sewage, which came down the Jukskei River from Johannesburg – the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry granted exemption to the Northern Sewage Works, allowing them to “legally” violate stipulations of the Water Act. This has continued unabated ever since. Currently, two million litres of sewage – some of it raw – flows into Harties daily.

Read full article:

JOIN THE URGENT CALL FOR  BROAD CIVIL SOCIETY TO UNITE NOW

to stop bad energy planning

The comment period for the “consultation process” government’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) to determine our electricity plans – including nuclear power – for the next twenty years has been extended to 11 June.

However, described as “ill-considered, rushed and presumptuous” even before it began,  broad based South African civil society is questioning whether it even makes sense to participate in government’s energy planning.

Those concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity are very disturbed by comments made by the Director-General of the DoE at a nuclear forum that were reported in Engineering News (21 May). She told the nuclear forum that the IRP2 process was a “sausage machine”. (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nuclear-will-make-up-a-significant-part-of-sa-power-mix—doe-2010-05-21)  This implies bad faith. Also, it is clear from her words that the nuclear project has already been decided.

Government appears to be fast-tracking the process to enable it to order nuclear units later this year – as already planned without bothering to take into account its much vaunted “consultation” process with the South African public which has not yet begun!

Moreover, it has failed to first undertake Energy Planning (IEP) upon which IRP2 electricity planning decisions are meant to be taken and thus IRP2 incorrectly suggests that IRP2 follow the IEP.

The broad South African Energy Caucus –the largest forums of civil society in South Africa – is vehemently opposed to nuclear power. It recently appointed a 3-person representative team which includes CANE’s Rod Gurzynski after resolving to participate as a stakeholder in the IRP2 despite the obvious flaws in the process, but this week asked for government clarity. The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) also lobbied the Department of Energy over concerns. Please see their well reasoned letter at the end of this article.  Here is the Energy Caucus letter which awaits response.

27 May 2010

To: Minister Dipuo Peters

Department of Energy
CC       Nelisiswe Magubane
Director-General
Dept of Energy

CC Ompi Aphane

Dear Minister Dipuo Peters

We write to you as representatives of the South African Civil Society Energy Caucus. The Energy Caucus is a coalition of civil society bodies, community-based organizations, labour unions and social movements that engage on energy issues.

We agreed at the recent Civil Society Energy Caucus session to engage in the IRP2 process as a stakeholder. We were assured by Mr Ompi Aphane on 14th of May at the session that the public participation process was in good faith and that all energy planning decisions remained open for the duration of the process. It is on that basis that we agreed to take part.

The Energy Caucus endorses the issues raised by SAFCEI in a letter send through on the 24^th May 2010. (subjoined below-Ed)

It is with great concern therefore that we note your comments to a nuclear forum as reported by Engineering News (21.05.2010) that the IRP2 process can be compared to a “sausage machine”. This makes it appear that the process is not in good faith as far as the DoE is concerned. Please let us know if this is an accurate description of what you said and what you mean by this?

We are also concerned by the report in Engineering News that you encouraged the nuclear industry to “state the case of nuclear”. It would better if you appeared to be neutral at least during the period of the IRP stakeholder process, otherwise it would appear that the process is merely as you say, a “sausage machine”.

If that is really the case, we would have to re-consider our options.

Yours faithfully

Rod Gurzynski
Makoma Lekalakala
Phineas Malapela
for South African Civil Society Energy Caucus

Incidentally, last year’s letter from the Energy Caucus letter to the Speaker of Parliament asking for an urgent Parliamentary debate over South Africa’s future energy planning and mix was this week returned “deleted without being read”!

THE CALL TO SOUTH AFRICANS

Meantime, an urgent call has been sent for feedback by South African Civil Society concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity.

Objective: The call for feedback is a quick process to identify issues (areas of interest) and the related positions (or views) of organisations so as to (a) develop,  or (b) support the development of a joint civil society input into formal processes on these issues.

Method: This is an experimental process which is may be shaped by participants willing to contribute and make inputs. It is hoped the method will support (a) the development of joint positions.

Inputs sought: See below for more details. Inputs are sought on issue areas, comments, critiques.

Issue areas are suggested below. These are general descriptions of issues that may lack nuance but are based on clear values that would allow organisations to indicate support for them (recognising that there may be differences at a greater level of detail, which may warrant that organisation making a more detailed substantive input separately).

Mandates: Refer to representation issues.

It would suffice for an organisation to indicate that the entity supports the position. Should an organisation be a network, or representing a community or have a mandating process that would contribute to the gravitas of the statement, they are encouraged (but not obliged) to indicate this.

NOTE: This process is NOT intended to get 100% agreement, but rather to begin to work on the areas we do indeed have in common… the rest can follow…
Please cut and paste your responses to the numbered items below and email to muna @ iafrica.com

Indicate  “agree” , “disagree” or “not sure”

Organisational contact details:
Mandate:

1. no more nukes
2. no more coal
3. just transition for workers
4. disconnect as many parts of the economy from massive energy use as possible
5. halt fossil subsidies, and move to SA driven and people-centred solutions
6. price energy correctly, no discounts for volume users
7. 200kWhr free basic electricity for all
8. rapid fossil import replacement programme, not including food for fuel and the like
9. rapid implementation programme for distributed generation and distribution of energy / electricity
10. the future energy path must be people-driven and justice driven, not determined mainly by the interests of conspicuous consumption or business interests
11. Clarity is needed on the role of civil society in the decision making process
12. Energy process (IRP2) needs a transparent, empowered and participatory process with broader civil society
13. technical / social / environmental / economic capacity building needed (by the org responding)
14. waste to energy is a polluting, destructive, harmful and jobs-, materials- and energy-losing process
15. unscrubbed landfill gas to energy releases over 1000 toxics into the air – any landfill gas to energy process must fully scrub the gas prior to use.

It is requested that all organisations respond on or before the 31 May 2010.

Thank you – hopefully, this process will contribute to a more positive energy future for South Africa.

————————————————

SOUTHERN AFRICAN FAITH COMMUNITIES’

ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE (SAFCEI)

SAFCEI is a registered Section 21 Company no 2006/014388/08 053-498-NPO PBO 930024255

“Faith communities committed to cherishing living earth.”

www.safcei.org.za

Executive Director: Bishop Geoff Davies                                                       P O Box 106

Office Tel: (+27) 21 7018145 Fax: (+27) 86 6969666                                  Kalk Bay,

Home Tel: (+27)21 788 6591                                                                         7990

Email: geoff.davies @ safcei.org.za South Africa

__________________________________________________________________________________

24^th May 2010

Attention:

Mr Ompie Aphane

Department of Energy

Email: ompi.aphane@energy.gov.za

Dear Mr Aphane,

Consultative Process for IRP2

SAFCEI has been aware that an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) that will determine our electricity plans for the next twenty years is currently underway.

From our interactions with government officials, particularly at the energy caucus on the 14^th May 2010, it is disappointing to hear that while government professes to value and be committed to public participation in the IRP process, its actions undermine such statements.

SAFCEI is deeply disappointed in the proposed current government consultation plan for IRP2. The schedule pays lip service to public participation, the deadlines put forward for the consideration of government documents do not enable any meaningful participation and we would submit that this process appears to be not only inadequate but unlawful.

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) provides for reasonable time- periods for public input with a minimum of 30 days, depending on the complexity of the information. . The novelty and complexity of electricity planning clearly warrants a longer period for adequate consultation, particularly in view of the fact that most citizens (educated and uneducated, rich and poor alike) have been excluded from these decision-making processes until now.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) suggests that in order for stakeholders to participate meaningfully, they need access to sufficient information to enable them to understand and critique the information put out by Eskom and Government.

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that applies to all environmental decisions by state bodies states that public participation must be promoted so that all interested parties can participate in a meaningful manner.

It is clear that sending out via email a set of documents, in excess of 30 documents, with a response time of initially 7, extended now to the minimum 30  days is not reasonable.

At the Energy Caucus meeting, held in Gauteng on 14^th May 2010, you indicated that DoE would welcome suggestions and ideas for a process of consultation.

SAFCEI therefore submits the following as a constructive input towards strengthening the democratic decision-making process around electricity planning for the next twenty years.

Firstly, SAFCEI believes that electricity planning is a subset of energy planning which in turn should be informed by our national response to climate change, the nature of our commitment to renewable energy, and future economic plans. We therefore believe that the review of the Renewable Energy White Paper, the finalization of our response to climate change and our Integrated Energy Plan should be informants into the IRP2 process.  Any IRP2 should therefore remain in draft form until the other planning processes have been completed.

In order to avert “energy crises”, SAFCEI submits that IRP1 can be amended (as has already happened) in order to accommodate any increased commitments to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency that may arise over the next year or two. No reason advanced by DoE for its inability to extend the final deadline for completing IRP2 has been found to be compelling and SAFCEI believes that the IRP2 process is of extreme importance and cannot be rushed through.  SAFCEI would also like to point out that despite commitment from government that the public participation process for IRP2 would start in January 2010, the public process has been delayed 5 months and it seems unreasonable to expect that the public consultation must suffer because of government ineffectiveness.

We would also like to point out that at the energy caucus meeting, a number of issues were raised. As a representative of DoE, you promised to provide responses in writing by Wednesday 19^th May 2010.  It is now 25^th May and no responses have been forthcoming.  No explanation for the delay has been communicated and we must express extreme disappointment with this failure to adhere to timeframes on government’s part.

It is also of concern to read in the recent media that senior government officials are quoted as categorically committing South Africa to building future nuclear energy power plants.  The implication of such statements is that the IRP2 consultation process is a farce, a public relations exercise and that the decisions have already been made.  Such undermining of PAJA and other related laws makes a mockery of our democracy and we seek assurance that this is not the case.

The public consultation process put forward by DoE has a number of serious limitations. It presumes that all stakeholders have access to the internet, and are fluent in English.  It also assumes that one or two adverts placed in mostly business press or Gauteng newspapers are sufficient to inform the nation and alert any potential interested and affected parties.  SAFCEI does not feel that this is in any way adequate, and that in order to ensure that quality inputs are solicited from the communities of South Africa, an awareness campaign to alert the public about IRP2 should be conducted.

The views of interested and affected parties who may not be able to prepare written submissions will also need to be accommodated. (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000, Regulations on Fair Administrative Procedures, 2002, Chapter 1 section 5. See also section 3 of the Act)

We understand the budgetary constraints faced by Government but government has a duty to consult and in the case of energy and electricity planning, this is something that underpins and impacts on all livelihoods, could affect the quality of life for all citizens and cannot be reduced to a plan for supplying bulk electricity to industry.

We believe that a radio advertisement campaign, much less costly than TV, and conducted over a number of weeks at specific times in the consultative process would be useful, as would posters placed in local government offices, libraries and community spaces.

Given the accuracy of the saying “garbage in equals garbage out”, it seems that careful attention needs to be paid to the first phase of stakeholder consultation, discussion around the assumptions and parameters that inform the modeling.  In a confusing array of emails, distributed by Eskom, on behalf of DoE, the first stage comment period has now been extended to the legal 30 days.  While, we welcome DoE’s commitment to the letter of the law, we do not believe that this is sufficient.

The DoE has also suggested a process of a “stakeholder workshop”, where a limited elite of stakeholders (who can afford to travel to the venue and are able to produce ppt presentations) are given 15 minutes to make a few points.  SAFCEI believes that this is totally inadequate and fails to provide space for dialogue and meaningful engagement.

We propose that the first stage comment period be extended to at least 60 days.   During this time, DoE officials should make themselves available to attend civil society meetings when invited in order to explain the assumptions/parameters and enable those stakeholders interested in participating further to make informed inputs into this stage of the process.

Such meetings would necessarily take place where stakeholder groups are located.  SAFCEI would therefore request that a government person familiar with the modeling attend a SAFCEI meeting in three provincial workshops.  We would be happy for our constituency to combine with other civil society groupings that would also support such an approach.  Furthermore, given the delay in government releasing the assumptions documents for comment, it seems that an unavoidable delay will take place over the World Cup period when most people’s attention will be focused away from electricity planning!

It is also important that government publicises, via its awareness campaign, the various methods of consultation that it will use to reach those without access to internet and those whose preferred language is not English.

Once the first phase of stakeholder inputs has taken place, there needs to be a transparent manner of responding to all the comments received.  We suggest a comments and responses document is published (as takes place in other government processes) so that all stakeholders can see how their inputs have been considered and addressed.  Such a document could be published within 30 days of the closing date for comments. This would be an important opportunity for government to both educate and empower citizens with deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of electricity planning, enabling them to make more substantial contributions to the decision-making process.

Once the modeling has been complete, the scenarios are then released for public comment. It would appear that a second round of consultative workshops would then be in order, further enhancing stakeholders’ ability to understand the rationale for the scenarios etc. These workshops would need to be attended by those people responsible for, and familiar with the detailed modeling, rather than government officials performing some sort of PR role.

Depending on the density and complexity of the scenarios, the comment period would be minimally 60 days but possibly extended to 90 on request.

The final comments and responses document would then be issued so that stakeholders could check how their inputs had been considered and addressed.

The IRP2 could then be finalized.

Another important point is the need for transparency in the decision-making.  Currently, there appears to be an advisory committee assisting government with decision-making around IRP2.  The process for the selection of such an advisory group is extremely opaque and the lack of transparency leads to the fear that vested interests or a small group of like-minded individuals will have a disproportionate influence over our energy future.  This is clearly inequitable.

SAFCEI therefore requests an explanation of how this group arose, its terms of reference, its constituents, and what steps are to be taken to address the transparency and governance issues that arise due to its existence.

Such a reference or advisory group should ensure that civil society is represented but it should also be made totally transparent.  The meetings of such an advisory group should be open to observers, from broader civil society and from the press.  In the age of high technology, such deliberations could be recorded and publicized through the web-site for those with access.  Minutes of the meetings can be distributed to those without web-access.

Should government embark on a consultative process as outlined above, and assuming that government responses can take place within a 30-60 day period (the modeling and responses to inputs), the IRP2 might be finalized by early 2011 .

Given the importance of such a twenty year electricity plan, the current DoE process appears  to undermine the value of public input, rendering it susceptible to legal challenge.  Such an approach seems short-sighted and likely to result in a poor product.  Committing to a meaningful public participation, as required by law, seems to justify a delay and it does not seem to be unreasonable to finalise the IRP2 in February 2011 instead of September 2010.

SAFCEI offers this input as part of a constructive engagement towards sustainable development, environmental justice and peace.

We look forward to your response,

Bishop Geoff Davies Liz McDaid

Executive Director Climate Change Programme Director

Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute

An official website has been set up by the Dept of Energy for the IRP2 process: http://www.doe-irp.co.za/ and useful information can also be obtained from IDASA’s blog at http://irp2.wordpress.com/

Coordinator

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP

& member of the national

COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY

Email: pelindabanonukes @ gmail.com

www.cane.org.za

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