The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s acceptance of Eskom’s Final Scoping Report: a summary
In short
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has accepted Eskom’s Final Scoping Report for the proposed 5 200 MW nuclear power station at Thyspunt. The acceptance letter is dated 14 August 2026 and was issued under Regulation 22(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
Acceptance is a procedural step, not a decision on the power station. The Department has confirmed in writing that it does not amount to “approval of the proposed project or predetermine the outcome”. It allows the application to move into the full Environmental Impact Assessment.
Almost all of the 14-page acceptance letter sets out work that Eskom and its consultants, WSP, have not yet done. For St Francis Bay, the most important of these concerns the coastline.
The implications for St Francis Bay
The Department’s own instructions to Eskom single out this stretch of coast. The letter calls for further investigation of shoreline erosion and altered sediment transport, “especially at Thyspunt”, and records that the site “may be more sensitive to shoreline and sediment transport impacts than Bantamsklip”, the alternative site in the Western Cape.
Eskom must also carry out modelling of sea-level rise, storm surge and coastal erosion over the full operating life of the plant, and assess how dredging and spoil disposal would change the movement of sediment along the shore.
St Francis Bay lies on the same stretch of coast, a short distance from the Thyspunt site, and the town’s property owners already fund an ongoing coastal protection scheme. How sediment moves along this coast is not a distant question here.
The connection to St Francis Bay is our own; the Department’s letter does not mention the town. Its concern about Thyspunt’s coastal sensitivity is on the record.
Acceptance is not approval
The application now moves from the scoping stage into the Environmental Impact Assessment phase. No construction may begin unless and until an environmental authorisation is granted.
In its letter of 21 September 2026 to the Thyspunt Alliance’s attorneys, Cullinan and Associates, the Department states that acceptance “does not constitute an environmental authorisation” and does not amount to “approval of the proposed project or predetermine the outcome”. The merits will be considered once the Environmental Impact Assessment Report is submitted.
For balance, the Department also made findings in Eskom’s favour:
• It is satisfied that the report meets the minimum requirements of the regulations.
• It found that Eskom’s revised specialist studies had “substantially addressed” its earlier comments.
• It considered that the scoping-phase public participation “appears to comply” with the regulations.
These are the Department’s starting positions, not its final decision.
Further work required from Eskom
The acceptance letter sets out what the Department requires Eskom to address in its Environmental Impact Assessment Report. A synopsis of those requirements follows.
The choice of site
Eskom must show that scoping out Bantamsklip is “environmentally defensible” and must provide a “transparent and evidence-based comparative assessment” of the two sites. Impacts must be “equitably and comparatively assessed across both sites to ensure there is no bias”. The Department’s own letter records that its dune specialist prefers Bantamsklip and that the radiological study prefers neither site.
Coast and climate
Beyond the shoreline and sediment work described above, the letter requires shoreline response modelling, disposal site alternatives and “quantitative modelling of sea-level rise, storm surge, coastal erosion” over the design life of the plant.
Water
Desalination is identified as “the only feasible long-term water supply option”. Eskom must show that groundwater will not become a long-term source, and must address drought, water security and competition with municipal water users.
Heritage
The Thyspunt site is “provisionally protected under Section 29 of the National Heritage Resources Act”, and the South African Heritage Resources Agency is investigating its “possible declaration as a Grade I National Heritage Site”. Eskom must assess “whether heritage impacts can realistically be mitigated”.
Fisheries
The letter flags the chokka squid fishery at Thyspunt and requires proper fisheries impact assessments.
Evacuation
The traffic study must assess emergency access and evacuation “in alignment with the National Nuclear Regulator’s emergency planning framework”.
Nuclear waste
Eskom must set out a long-term management strategy for spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste, addressing “societal, institutional, financial, and long-term stewardship considerations”.
Public comment
The Department repeats that a response such as “Noted” “will not be regarded as an adequate response”, and requires Eskom to show how the concerns raised by the public “have influenced the project design”.
The next stage of the process
Under Regulation 23(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, Eskom must submit its Environmental Impact Assessment Report within 106 days of acceptance, and that report must first be released for public comment for at least 30 days.
Counting 106 days from 14 August 2026 points to about the end of November 2026 at the earliest. The regulations allow the Department to extend the timeframe, and given the volume of further work required, an extension would not be unusual. No date has been confirmed.
The association will let members know as soon as the draft report is released for comment.
Public participation and registration
Anyone may register as an Interested and Affected Party and comment when the draft report is published. To register, email WSP’s Public Participation Office at Nuclear-PP-EIA@wsp.com, giving your name and contact details and quoting reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/2806. Registered parties are notified when the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report is released for comment.
Recent Comments