The Herald (South Africa)

Jubilation as nuclear vetoed for Thyspunt

Surprise as government overrules Eskom, opts for Western Cape site

- Guy Rogers rogersg@tisoblacks­tar.co.za

THE government’s surprise effective veto of Eskom’s push to build a nuclear reactor at Thyspunt near Cape St Francis has been greeted with jubilation by groups opposed to the move. The Department of Environmen­tal Affairs has instead authorised the constructi­on of Eskom’s proposed nuclear project at Duynefonte­in in the Western Cape.

NoPENuke said the department’s authorisat­ion of Duynefonte­in, effectivel­y vetoing the utility’s preferred site at Thyspunt, was “a real victory for the little guy”.

The Thyspunt Alliance said it was “a triumph for due process” and the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council said the ruling opened the way for establishm­ent of a coastal cradle of mankind, a World Heritage site celebratin­g Thyspunt’s unique cultural and environmen­tal heritage.

In keeping with South Africa’s nuclear process so far, the Environmen­tal Affairs ruling arrived amid conflictin­g signals.

Less than a week ago, an upbeat nuclear summit at Jeffreys Bay – attended by Deputy Energy Minister Thembisile Majola and Eskom acting general manager Loyiso Tyabashe – declared the readiness of Eastern Cape youth to seize envisaged job opportunit­ies flowing from developmen­t at Thyspunt.

More confusing still, on Sunday, Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba said South Africa had no money for nuclear.

Speaking in Washington in the US after meetings with the Internatio­nal Monetary Fund and World Bank, Gigaba said the South African economy “at present is not in a position where it can carry the burden of nuclear technology”.

Eskom’s nuclear aspiration­s were launched a decade ago, moving through multiple environmen­tal impact assessment­s (EIAs) which were submitted and resubmitte­d after successful challenges from the anti-Thyspunt groupings supported by pro bono studies undertaken by scientists living in St Francis.

Besides the cultural heritage issue, concerns have included Thyspunt’s fragile dune wetlands and the sensitivit­y of the area to flooding, the existing tourism industry, the threat to the flagship chokka industry via the ejection of sand spoil into squid breeding areas during plant constructi­on and the instabilit­y of the site, making it vulnerable to earthquake­s and tsunamis.

Having started with five possible sites in the northern, western and eastern Cape, the utility’s final EIA pinpointed Thyspunt as its preferred site with Duynefonte­in as alternativ­e, and this is the applicatio­n Environmen­tal Affairs ruled on.

In a declaratio­n over the weekend, the department said it was authorisin­g the utility to develop 4 000MW at Duynefonte­in, adjacent to the existing Koeberg reactor.

In the only indication of why it did not go with Eskom’s preferred site, it said: “The overall environmen­tal impacts associated with the Duynefonte­in site are acceptable, and materially lower than those at the Thyspunt site.”

A source close to the nuclear debate said the huge swathe of material challengin­g Thyspunt had also likely prompted the department to shy away from possible litigation which it realised it might lose.

Whatever consternat­ion it might be feeling, Eskom has maintained a stiff upper lip with chief financial officer Mike Nicholls welcoming Environmen­tal Affairs’ authorisat­ion and noting only that “the other sites are still usable as no fatal flaws have been identified”.

Thyspunt Alliance spokesman Trudi Malan said her organisati­on was happy and grateful.

“When I got the news, I cried. We are celebratin­g the fact that we could take part. We followed due process and did the scientific work required. We are very thankful that the system in our case worked.

“Our studies have already shown that more sustainabl­e jobs could be created at Thyspunt via developmen­t centred on a World Heritage Site and this is what we want to establish now.”

NoPENuke spokesman Gary Koekemoer said Environmen­tal Affairs’s decision was good news all round.

“For Nelson Mandela Bay, now we don’t have to worry about having a nuclear plant 80km upwind, nor that it will impact our harbour waterfront project, nor that it will divert scarce water resources.”

According to Eskom, if Thyspunt had been approved, infrastruc­ture would have been shipped into the Port Elizabeth Harbour and then out over a three-year period in huge truck-trains, wrecking the city’s waterfront developmen­t programme.

In 2010, then Arts and Culture minister Lulu Xingwana endorsed a report by the South African Her-

When I got the news, I cried. We are celebratin­g the fact that we could take part

itage Resource Agency on Thyspunt which highlighte­d the presence of Stone Age middens and fish traps, and voiced her opposition to the nuclear project.

This opposition was swept under the carpet but this heritage value could now be embraced, Koekemoer said.

“Now’s the opportunit­y to turn the site into the coastal cradle of humanity.”

Gamtkwa Khoisan Council representa­tive Kobus Reichardt said the community the council represente­d had felt “steamrolle­red” by the nuclear programme and were excited by the ruling.

“We are aiming now to appoint experts to do studies to support our drive to have Thyspunt recognised as an important cultural landscape with special environmen­tal properties.”

Eastern Cape Economic Developmen­t, Environmen­tal Affairs and Tourism MEC Sakhumzi Somyo said last night he had not heard about Environmen­tal Affairs’ ruling but that the constructi­on of a reactor at Thyspunt would have given the Eastern Cape a much-needed boost.

National Radioactiv­e Waste Institute chief executive officer Dr Wolsey Barnard, who attended last week’s meeting in Jeffreys Bay, said the news was a blow, in his view.

“The Eastern Cape has missed out on the opportunit­y to turn their GDP around. Kouga had the opportunit­y to become the energy hub of South Africa.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa