- South Africa’s Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dr Dion George, has upheld the 2017 decision to grant Eskom Environmental Authorisation to construct and operate a new nuclear power station in Duynefontein, Western Cape.
- The decision was upheld after appeals were made by various environmental organisations.
“In considering these appeals, I have carefully reviewed the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAr), as well as the independent peer review conducted in respect of the project.
“In the end, my decision was made in respect of the principles of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), and with full appreciation of the environmental, social and economic considerations involved,” the Minister said on Friday.
The original decision to grant the Environmental Authorisation was made in October 2017.
Various appellants challenged the decision, submitting appeals that ranged from comprehensive and detailed submissions to shorter, individual objections.
This week, the Minister has decided, in terms of section 43(6) of NEMA, to dismiss the appeals, and confirm the decision to grant the Environmental Authorisation to Eskom.
The Minister’s decision to uphold the Environmental Authorisation does not automatically grant Eskom permission to begin with the construction or operation of the nuclear power station.
The entity is still required to obtain several additional statutory authorisations before proceeding in accordance with section 24(7) of NEMA.
The authorisations include:
- A Nuclear Installation Licence from the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR);
- Approval from the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA);
- Water use licences from the Department of Water and Sanitation, and
- Any other relevant approvals, including those from the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.
“As per section 24(7) of NEMA, the granting of an Environmental Authorisation does not exempt an applicant from complying with any other applicable legal requirements or obtaining permits from other competent authorities,” George said.
The Minister has emphasised that the protection and preservation of South Africa’s environment is a non-negotiable.
“The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment supports South Africa’s transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future where inclusive growth, job creation and poverty reduction are central,” he said
Civil society comments on recent nuclear approval
Following the announcement, South Africa’s 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize winners are voicing strong objections. Makoma Lekalakala and Liziwe McDaid cite concerns over soaring upfront costs, the history of construction delays and budget overruns, the absence of a plan for long-lived radioactive waste disposal, and the increasing viability of cheaper, faster-to-deploy renewable energy alternatives.
“Earthlife Africa is considering the Minister’s decision and our next steps. Our concerns include the length of time taken to conduct the environmental impact assessment and to make the appeal decision. We are also deeply concerned about the affordability of nuclear power, particularly the high upfront capital costs, the risk of construction delays, and the cost overruns that have been experienced worldwide. In addition, there has been no assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of a major beyond-design-basis nuclear incident, nor of the generation of long-lived high-level radioactive waste for which no final disposal solution yet exists.”
According to The Green Connection’s Liziwe McDaid, who has long opposed nuclear energy in South Africa, “In recent months, we’ve seen a strange fascination with nuclear power, particularly with unproven and non-commercially viable technologies like SMRs. We are in the middle of a climate crisis, and we should be using our abundant natural resources – such as solar and wind – which can be built quickly and deliver affordable power to homes. Nuclear is expensive, and, like other large projects, is plagued by long delays.
Nuclear also carries significant risks. It requires costly additional regulation, and there is always the possibility of an accident. Even after 40 years of operation, South Africa still has no proper plan for managing toxic nuclear waste – a huge problem that is often ignored in discussions about this dangerous technology.
We need a proper national energy dialogue, such as we hoped for with the Integrated Energy Plan process, where all South Africans can participate in shaping our country’s energy (and economic) future. Right now, in the absence of an inclusive, people-centred energy plan, it appears that vested interests are driving individual projects without public consensus.”
Author: Bryan Groenendaal
