Is Thyspunt a fait accompli?
At Tuesday’s DA AGM at St Francis Bay Golf Club Kouga Executive Mayor made a statement that will not have gone down well with the anti-Thyspunt or the anti-nuclear lobbyists. Addressing a rather small audience of ardent DA supporters her statement that Thyspunt is a ‘fait accompli’ will have had some choking on their gin and tonics or cold lagers and others maybe rejoicing at the news so split is the community pn the subject of Thyspunt.
The press, including St Francis Today, have recently published several articles that building a nuclear power station on a site that may be at risk of surge storms and tsunamis seems maybe not to be such a good idea. At one of the presentations at St Francis Links by consultants Gibbs when presenting their EIA report last year, one recalls their assertion that one of the primary reasons for selecting Thyspunt as an ideal environment for the nuclear power station was that there is little or no possibility of seismic activity in the area.
The question must then be asked, did Gibbs do their homework with the EIA or if they did, did they simply and expediently cover it up to suit their paymaster. At the self-same presentation when asked about the dangers of contamination from the plant that the prevailing westerly winds may cause they categorically stated that the prevailing winds were North Westerly. Now anyone who has lived in the area for a year or more knows the westerly is our prevailing wind and St Francis is thus directly in the path of the winds blowing from the proposed site. Possibly there is little or no chance of the wind spreading the contamination but the question is, how reliable are their findings on other matters of importance if they couldn’t ascertain the simple wind direction and what other pertinent facts have been incorrectly reported or simply painted over?
It certainly does appear that the ANC government and Eskom are hell-bent on building Thyspunt whether SA can afford it or not, but one can only wonder at how many houses and schools and improvements to infrastructure could be built for the poor with the money that will be spent on legal fees by the anti-lobby and government alone for this matter is very likely to be dragged through the courts for years to come.
And when the development starts, who is going to pay for the infrastructure upgrades that will be required? Apparently Eskom will be paying only for the building of the plant, nothing more, so who is going to pay for the roads, the housing for workers and, and ……..
Thyspunt may not be another Fukushima anytime in the near future but who knows 50 or more years in the future? With the recent spate of earthquakes and tsunami warnings on the Pacisic Rim can anyone really ascertain whather this may also possibly cause changes to the fault lines on other continents. Can our grand and great grandchildren be guaranteed or should we not worry about them and their future?
The real issue with Thyspunt stems not from the actual Power station and the associated infrastructure and social concerns. The real question is what will they do with the spent fuel? Koeberg has had thirty years and still no satisfactory solution has been identified. Can we really afford to have another unmanageable stockpile of radioactive material?
Eskom’s entire case for Thyspunt is built on the assumption that they will use “Generation 111 technology”, which has advanced safety features, and that this will justify reducing emergency planning zones to 3 kilometres. Prior to this it was clear that the Thyspunt site, in terms of internationally recognized 5, 16 & 50 kilometre EPZs, was not a viable site for a nuclear power station. The downwind position of the St Francis area, the single escape route along the R330, and the widely fluctuating population numbers during the year made it non-viable. In a real emergency, evacuation would be impossible in the available time.
Gen.111 is a laudable concept spawned by a group of European nuclear vendors shortly after Chernobyl. They produced a document known as the “EURs” (European Utility Requirements – not European Union Regulations). One of the declared objectives was improved safety. Twenty-five years later, there is not a single Gen 111 Pressurised Water Reactor operating commercially in the world. Numerous attempts are being made to build them, mainly by BRICS countries. Two French plants, one in France, and one in Finland, are years behind schedule and several times over budget.French component manufacturer, Areva, has gone bankrupt in the process amid scandals regarding component quality. Gen 111 has no proven commercial or safety record. Until this is the case, any discussion of reducing EPZs is premature, and nobody really knows the true cost. This will only be confirmed when Eskom applies for a specific nuclear technology. The concern is that this will be a bargain basement plant, well below the required standard for a nuclear power station.
The “fait accompli” claim by Elza van Lingen depends on the outcome of the EIA, which has still not been concluded, and of the process by the National Nuclear Regulator, which has not yet begun. Eskom has proceeded at risk, on the assumption that it could steamroller approval, and has spent huge amounts of public money on an uncertain site. The recent seismic revelation from NMMU suggests that the seismic specialist report may have been done as poorly as several of the other reports.
At a recent conference held by the National Nuclear Regulator, to which international experts were invited, it became very clear that some of the world’s top regulators would be very reluctant to approve a site which did not have multiple escape routes,
and 3km emergency planning zones.
All is not lost yet, and we must continue to demand that due process is followed.
Hilton Thorpe (Member of the Thyspunt Alliance, writing in his personal capacity)