Cape Town nuclear build approved by Dept Environment

Before any major development, South African law requires a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment to be submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs before the project may begin.  In 2009, Gibb consulting submitted a scoping report for such a study on behalf of Eskom, with a view to building a large nuclear power plant.

During the public participation process Koeberg Alert, as well as many other organisations, scientists and members of the public submitted extensive and detailed comments on the report, and in particular the poor quality of the specialist reports.  In response to this deluge of criticism, GIBB produced four versions of the report, and finally submitted its final version to the Department in February 2016.  Based on a wide range of factors, the report recommended that Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape was the best site for the plant.  Nearly two years later, Sabelo Malaza, the Chief Director, issued an authorisation which overrode the consultants recommendation, and specified Duynefontein (Koeberg), near Cape Town, was were the plant could be built.

The full text on the authorisation is here: Duynefontein authorisation full text

If you made any submission during any of the four public participation processes, it is crucial that you indicate that you wish to appeal against this finding. To do this, simply send an email to appeals@environment.gov.za and to Herbstdl@eskom.co.za in which you say you intend to appeal the authorisation for a nuclear power station at Duynefontein, reference number 12/12/20/994. The price of a participative democracy is participation – please find a few minutes to do this before the deadline of 21 October 2017. [Correction: 31st October 2017]

Graph showing predicted and actual peak electricity demand in South Africa

There are many flaws in the report, some clearly intended to bias the finding for Eskom, and others perhaps just due to sloppiness or scientific incompetence.  And example of the former is the ludicrously inflated projected demand for electricity, which is used to justify the need for a nuclear plant.  Despite being given far more up to date data, Gibb refused to incorporate this into their report.  This is dealt with in more detail, including graphs, in Eskom and GIBB living in la-la land.

fukushima-nuclear-explosion2An example of sloppy science is the thorny issue of seismic risk.  Since the earthquake near Japan caused the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, there has been more concern worldwide about the risk of a seismic event causing a leak or reactor explosion.

Photograph of crack in road in Ceres caused by earthquake

Damage in Ceres from 1969 quake

In the first version of the seismic study, a specialist found that the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)_ for the Koeberg site was 0.30g.  Any scientific measure is accompanied by a confidence interval, for example 0.30g ±0.01g. The scientists who write this report, Erna Hattingh and Johann Neveling, were apparently unaware of this, and did not give any interval, despite the inherent uncertainty in their methodology.

It also noted that 0.30g was the threshold over which a site is considered unsuitable for a nuclear plant.  Finally, it added that the 0.30g for Koeberg was arrived at using an outdated methodology, and that this will “necessitate additional geological investigations and implementation of an advanced PSHA that will follow internationally accepted practice“, and that “may increase or decrease these values“.   So if a post-Fukushima study is done using up to date methodology, it may increase the risk value, and if it increases by just 0.01g, that would make Koeberg and unsuitable site, based on seismic risk alone.

After consultations with Gibb, this wording was omitted from the second draft report

Cape Town evacuation zones 20km and 50km

Recommended evacuation zones as per Fukushima and Chernobyl

Since the Koeberg site was chosen in the late 1970’s population patterns have changed significantly.  If for any reason it was necessary to evacuate the zones as per other nuclear disasters, the number of people needing to be evacuated would make the job simply impossible.

Radiation from Caesium makes a contaminated area uninhabitable for hundreds of years.  Where will the millions of displaced people live?  However small the risk of an earthquake damaging this nuclear plant, the consequences in term of economic damage and human suffering are too awful to contemplate.

While it will be difficult to draw up a comprehensive appeal in the 30 day period allowed, Koeberg Alert will be doing what it can.  If you can assist with this process, particularly if you have legal or scientific expertise, or if you would like assistance in formulating your own appeal, please contact us on info@koebergalert.org

Advertisements

Nuclear-1 Submission to Dept of Environmental Affairs

Before approval for a nuclear plant can be granted, by law an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be done and submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

The EIA for the so called ‘Nuclear-1’ project has been in progress for over six years, and the fourth and final draft of the resulting report was eventually submitted to the DEA in early 2016.

This report is of a low scientific standard, and should be rejected by the DEA.

We have made submissions on each draft to the EIA consultants, GIBB, which have been largely ignored, and have not resulted in the changes to the EIA report we hoped for.

We have therefore written to the DEA giving reasons why we believe they should reject this report.

To see our submission, including a short summary, click here: KAA Submission to DEA

The Case for Non-nuclear Power Options

by Keith Gottschalk

Intelligent people often hold a range of views on complex issues, especially where more than one criterion is involved, and where some criteria may not be easily quantified.

Newspaper editorials have criticized the Government’s abuse of secrecy – what democracy classifies its future electricity plans as secret? – as it proceeds with its programme to build six to nine extra atomic power reactors totalling 9600 MW of electricity. The reason for secrecy is defensive: these plans cannot stand up to scrutiny for economic rationality.
Continue reading

Eskom finally releases Koeberg ‘Emergency Plan’

The Koeberg Alert Alliance (KAA) first requested a copy of the emergency and evacuation plan for for the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station via a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request in 2010.  This was formally refused on 2 June 2010 by Steve Lennon, the co-ordinating Deputy Information Officer for Eskom Holdings, for convoluted legal reasons.

A second PAIA application was made by the KAA in 2011.  This was initially refused on 22 November 2011 by Eddie Laubscher, the National Deputy Information Officer for Eskom Holdings.  The CEO of the NNR (National Nuclear Regulator), Adv Boyce Mkhize also formally refused access to the plan on 23 November 2011, claiming it was classified as confidential. Continue reading

What actually happened at Fukushima?

During a recent trip to Fukushima, there was the opportunity to see first hand the effects of the nuclear disaster on the surrounding areas, and to speak to people living there whose daily lives have been affected, and will continue to be affected.  With the one anniversary approaching, its an appropriate time to look back over the year and consider what actually happened. Continue reading

Nuclear industry in trouble

The nuclear era can be divided into BF and AF – before and after Fukushima.  The disaster in Japan was a watershed moment, even prompting the normally up beat International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) to issue a statement in September 2011 downgrading their predictions for the growth in the nuclear industry.  The CEO of one of Germany’s power companies said the industry would face ‘extraordinary costs’ due to the resulting market shifts.

Areva’s future uncertain

Continue reading