To: GIBBS Environmental Consultants in Pta (012 348 5880)
RE : Proposed Nuclear Power Stations for SA – Public Participation Process – CT
PUBLIC SUBMISSION below:
Please place the following concerns on file for submission to Dept of Environment with your EIA report, as required by Law. Confirm to me that this has been done by copying me in on all minutes of Public Meetings as was discussed/agreed at the Kenilworth Meeting last night
We as the Public have a Constitutional Duty to keep Govt and Eskom accountable. The recent public meetings at the Atlantic Golf Club and Kenilworth was my first, most interesting yet also very disturbing regarding lack of information and shortened time frames that will affect our society for generations to come. No wonder an overwhelming vote of NO CONFIDENCE was passed against GIBB Consultants last night with not one opposing vote, only 6 people abstaining (probably ESKOM Buddies)
.
I also believe the EIA process is flawed and incomplete regarding the following aspects that Dept of Environment and GIBBS urgently needs to look at, namely:
1) Proposed exclusion zones of 20 kilometers around Nuclear Stations being reduced and ‘tampered with’ is outside our current law, no one has the right to unilaterally reduce it to 8 kilometers as mentioned by Liz Nortje. European Industrial Standards are not part of our Law and was also rejected by European Govts regarding Nuclear standards, why even bring it up to bamboozle our unsuspecting public ?
2) Considering the proposed gas line to be constructed to pass by Koeberg and its potential impact when something goes wrong, has not being answered by GIBBS as they admitted that they were unaware of these pipe line developments, why ??
3) The complete inadequate CT Disaster Management practical readiness to evacuate thousands during ‘panic stations’ that has never been tested in a large mock exercise, let alone managing a single car accident on the N1 that backs traffic up for many kilometres, remains a huge concern. Why has it never been tested in a large practical run to see how 10 000 people will evacuate the surrounding areas with inadequate infra structure ? All they have is Plans, and more plans that have never been put to the practical test, WHY ??
4) No sign of International studies/findings and best practise and what has been learnt from Chernobyl,Three Mile Island NY or Fukoshima and Govts around the world at the public presentations. Why ? When asked about it their answer that it will form part of their EIA submission without the public knowing the content is most unacceptable ! We demand more info and further investigations especially now that the German Minister of Energy Mr Baake has urged SA to dump nuclear and spend money on renewables. Also that the Govt a while ago decided not to go ahead with nuclear, why all the sudden turn about on this decision ?
5) Govt ignoring Germany’s Energy Minister Baake, recently telling Govt to dump nuclear and build renewables is most concerning. Why are they not listening ?
6) Nuclear is clearly unaffordable and unsustainable, hazardous to both health and environment placing an unsustainable health and financial burden on future generations – do they have a right to do that when the Cnstitution guarentees health, clean water and air etc ?
7) No indication in EIA of sysmic /tectonic plate studies of 1902 / 1967 studies done in the CT area during their presentation. By the admission of GIBBS own mouths, the outdated 2006 studies and prior has been ripped apart and no further reliable and current studies available or part of the EIA report, why ?
8) Insufficient info on run off and storing of haz materials on site and in N/Cape and its effect on people, health, environment and polluting scarse water supplies including ground water. All the GIBB reps mentioned that in their EIA report/mandate, they only cover the life of the proposed plant, namely 60 years. What happens with all that radio active materials thereafter and when the plant has to be dismanteled. ? Where will it go and who will pay for it, a most unsatisfactory situation with a flawed mandate , why ?
9) W/Cape is a water scares area that will increase in future according to weather specialists – no EIA reports on that and its potential impact on W/Cape residents, let alone if our water sources gets polluted, why ?
10) How sustainable is this and how can Eskom/Govt burden future generations financially and health wise, when no responsible entity will be around to pick up the tab in future ? We demand further investigations, public awareness of this process via SABC , inviting schools to these meetings for youth to know what will affect them when we arn’t around any more, as requested last night and that Govt funds be made available to the public (our tax monies) in assisting the public to investigate and make further submissions,research ( like political parties that gets public funding.) Why must those who want this, get and use public funding for EIA Reports and public meetings, but those whom it will affect for a life time and beyond, must oppose and gather info for their own pocket, a most unfair and untenable and unconstitutional situation that needs urgent addressing – why this clear oversight and conflict of interest ?
It seems this whole nuclear plan is completely flawed and unsustainable and ‘born dead’ as Govt and Eskom tries to play GOD with a highly suspected conflict of interest with no Govt Officials at meetings to observe, as at the Kenilworth meeting when asked who and where they were ?
Please submit these questions and concerns as part of your EIA Report to Dept of Environment and ESKOM please and confirm and copy me in on all future events regarding Nuclear plans and proposals. The public present this week had a lot more questions than the few asked by myself above https://koebergalert.org/page/6/
Good points Andre. One correction: The evacuation zone is current 16km, not 20km (as it should be after the Fukushima experience). Ms Nortje was assuming it would be reduced to 0.8km, or 800m.
GIBB have so far earned R35 million in fees for producing this poor quality report!
KOEBERG ALERT ALLIANCE 
To: GIBBS Environmental Consultants in Pta (012 348 5880)
RE : Proposed Nuclear Power Stations for SA – Public Participation Process – CT
PUBLIC SUBMISSION below:
Please place the following concerns on file for submission to Dept of Environment with your EIA report, as required by Law. Confirm to me that this has been done by copying me in on all minutes of Public Meetings as was discussed/agreed at the Kenilworth Meeting last night
We as the Public have a Constitutional Duty to keep Govt and Eskom accountable. The recent public meetings at the Atlantic Golf Club and Kenilworth was my first, most interesting yet also very disturbing regarding lack of information and shortened time frames that will affect our society for generations to come. No wonder an overwhelming vote of NO CONFIDENCE was passed against GIBB Consultants last night with not one opposing vote, only 6 people abstaining (probably ESKOM Buddies)
.
I also believe the EIA process is flawed and incomplete regarding the following aspects that Dept of Environment and GIBBS urgently needs to look at, namely:
1) Proposed exclusion zones of 20 kilometers around Nuclear Stations being reduced and ‘tampered with’ is outside our current law, no one has the right to unilaterally reduce it to 8 kilometers as mentioned by Liz Nortje. European Industrial Standards are not part of our Law and was also rejected by European Govts regarding Nuclear standards, why even bring it up to bamboozle our unsuspecting public ?
2) Considering the proposed gas line to be constructed to pass by Koeberg and its potential impact when something goes wrong, has not being answered by GIBBS as they admitted that they were unaware of these pipe line developments, why ??
3) The complete inadequate CT Disaster Management practical readiness to evacuate thousands during ‘panic stations’ that has never been tested in a large mock exercise, let alone managing a single car accident on the N1 that backs traffic up for many kilometres, remains a huge concern. Why has it never been tested in a large practical run to see how 10 000 people will evacuate the surrounding areas with inadequate infra structure ? All they have is Plans, and more plans that have never been put to the practical test, WHY ??
4) No sign of International studies/findings and best practise and what has been learnt from Chernobyl,Three Mile Island NY or Fukoshima and Govts around the world at the public presentations. Why ? When asked about it their answer that it will form part of their EIA submission without the public knowing the content is most unacceptable ! We demand more info and further investigations especially now that the German Minister of Energy Mr Baake has urged SA to dump nuclear and spend money on renewables. Also that the Govt a while ago decided not to go ahead with nuclear, why all the sudden turn about on this decision ?
5) Govt ignoring Germany’s Energy Minister Baake, recently telling Govt to dump nuclear and build renewables is most concerning. Why are they not listening ?
6) Nuclear is clearly unaffordable and unsustainable, hazardous to both health and environment placing an unsustainable health and financial burden on future generations – do they have a right to do that when the Cnstitution guarentees health, clean water and air etc ?
7) No indication in EIA of sysmic /tectonic plate studies of 1902 / 1967 studies done in the CT area during their presentation. By the admission of GIBBS own mouths, the outdated 2006 studies and prior has been ripped apart and no further reliable and current studies available or part of the EIA report, why ?
8) Insufficient info on run off and storing of haz materials on site and in N/Cape and its effect on people, health, environment and polluting scarse water supplies including ground water. All the GIBB reps mentioned that in their EIA report/mandate, they only cover the life of the proposed plant, namely 60 years. What happens with all that radio active materials thereafter and when the plant has to be dismanteled. ? Where will it go and who will pay for it, a most unsatisfactory situation with a flawed mandate , why ?
9) W/Cape is a water scares area that will increase in future according to weather specialists – no EIA reports on that and its potential impact on W/Cape residents, let alone if our water sources gets polluted, why ?
10) How sustainable is this and how can Eskom/Govt burden future generations financially and health wise, when no responsible entity will be around to pick up the tab in future ? We demand further investigations, public awareness of this process via SABC , inviting schools to these meetings for youth to know what will affect them when we arn’t around any more, as requested last night and that Govt funds be made available to the public (our tax monies) in assisting the public to investigate and make further submissions,research ( like political parties that gets public funding.) Why must those who want this, get and use public funding for EIA Reports and public meetings, but those whom it will affect for a life time and beyond, must oppose and gather info for their own pocket, a most unfair and untenable and unconstitutional situation that needs urgent addressing – why this clear oversight and conflict of interest ?
It seems this whole nuclear plan is completely flawed and unsustainable and ‘born dead’ as Govt and Eskom tries to play GOD with a highly suspected conflict of interest with no Govt Officials at meetings to observe, as at the Kenilworth meeting when asked who and where they were ?
Please submit these questions and concerns as part of your EIA Report to Dept of Environment and ESKOM please and confirm and copy me in on all future events regarding Nuclear plans and proposals. The public present this week had a lot more questions than the few asked by myself above
https://koebergalert.org/page/6/
Good points Andre. One correction: The evacuation zone is current 16km, not 20km (as it should be after the Fukushima experience). Ms Nortje was assuming it would be reduced to 0.8km, or 800m.
GIBB have so far earned R35 million in fees for producing this poor quality report!