Nuclear 1 Response to PWG L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our Ref: J27035 14 October 2009 Attention: Dominique Gilbert – Coordinator, Pelindaba Working Group ESKOM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944) FOR A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA Your correspondence to Ms. Bongi Shinga of ACER (Africa) entitled “RE: COMMENT ON REVISED PLAN OF SCOPING STUDY FOR NUCLEAR-1, NUCLEAR-2- AND NUCLEAR-3 – FORMERLY KNOWN AS ESKOM PWR NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE” refers. Arcus GIBB acknowledges receipt of the above-mentioned letter. We thank you for your valuable comments and your participation in the Eskom Nuclear Power Station (NPS) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process to date. Your questions and comments concerning the Nuclear-1 EIA process have been noted. Responses to your comments / questions are as follows: Your comment (1) PLEASE NOTE: We specifically request that all documentation submitted herewith be included documentation submitted to the relevant authorities in full, both in hard copy as well as electronically. We also specifically request that documents listed below & submitted to the consultants on the PBMR Draft EIR in November 2008 be considered part of this submission as well as the extensive list of “Resources” below. New annexures herewith submitted include: NEW DOCUMENTATION HEREWITH PROVIDED INCLUDE: 1. Toxic link – The WHO and the IAEA, Oliver Tickell 2-1. HEPA Filters Dossier_PWG 2-2. ANNEXURE A_Fulk Declaration (1) 2-3. ANNEXURE B_Fulk Declaration (2) 2-4. ANNEXURE K_Survey of Mixed-waste Hepa filters in the DOE complex 2002 2-5. Recent discourse with ICRP, 2009 3. Routine radioactive releases from nuke reactors, NIRS 5. Epitaph for the Atom:The Catastrophic Economics of Nuclear Power 6. The High Cost of Nuclear Power – WISPIRG 2009 7. Nuclear’s hidden subsidies – David Lowry May 2007 8. 16 Dirty secrets about nuclear power – Russell D. Hoffman 2007 9. Physicians Letter_May 2009 10. AREVA exposed – Linda Gunter AlterNet_March 2009 11. Millions of dollars spent lobbying for nuclear power – Mike Stuckey 12. The Hoax of Eco-Friendly Nuclear Energy – Karl Grossman 2008 DOCUMENTS – PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED 1. Enviro PC_NUCLEAR ENERGY HEARINGS_ PMG minutes_June07 2. Low level ioninsing radiation effects on human life_Dr Alice Stewart 3. Mariette Liefferink_SUBMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BILL_NCOP_2008 4. New nukes to cost at top end of $4-bil to $10-bil range_analyst_Platts 2008 5. Nuclear Emissions_Helen Caldicott 6. Nuclear Fact Sheet - reachingcriticalwill 7. PWG_submission Enviro PC nuclear energy hearings_June 2007 8. UK Nuclear clean-up costs 70 billion pounds - SA none! June 2007 9. Uranium - Known Facts & Hidden Dangers 10. Uranium - the deadliest metal_Dr Gordon Edwards 11. Uranium mining in SA - the Dominion case 2008 12. Wind power could produce 12 percent of the world 13. World Uranium Hearings_SA workers' testimony Response (1) Your request has been noted. The documentation listed above will be appended to this response in the Draft EIR. Your comment (2) Herewith please accept our comments on the Revised Plan of Scoping Study: Call for rejection or suspension of this EIA process We expect the consultants and applicants to justify continuation on this EIA process in light of there being no indication whatsoever of what type of nuclear power station is to be built or presented for consideration. Thus no known parameters can be assessed and it is therefore ludicrous to base parameters on the aging Koeberg station now 25 years in production with spurious public information on the historic environmental and human risks and hazards which have yet to be independently verified or assessed. Response (2) As stated in Chapter 8 of the Final Scoping Report (FSR), two power plant type alternatives belonging to the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) technology family are under consideration by Eskom for the proposed NPS. PWR are the most commonly used nuclear reactors both locally and globally. The existing NPS, Koeberg, uses PWR technology and it is therefore a proven, reliable and tested form of power generation. Eskom is therefore familiar with the technology from health and safety as well as operational perspectives based on its experience with Koeberg. There are a number of current designs for PWRs available in the market today, and Eskom has identified two potential designs to meet their need for the new NPS, being the Franco-German designed EPR and the US designed AP1000. These two designs represent the two principle approaches used in modern PWRs. The comparison of the EPR and the AP1000 will be undertaken during the detailed assessment of the EIA phase as these are regarded, by Eskom, as two viable and well recognised options to meet Eskom’s objectives. For further information, please refer to Chapter 8 of the Final Scoping Report. The Final Scoping Report is available on the following website: http://projects.gibb.co.za/. Your comment (3) Precautionary principle & zero waste policy South African environmental laws embodies in the NEMA, the Constitution among others and not excluding nuclear-related law, embodies the both the “precautionary principle” and “polluter-pays-principle”. These principles have wide countrywide and global support especially among social and environmental justice movements. Moreover, the ANC’s most recent Polokwane policies adopted a “zero waste policy”. These principles must therefore be examined in terms of all specialist studies in this EIA. Response (3) Your comment is noted and will be relayed to the various Specialists. Your comment (4) The DEAT’s agreement with the NNR & therefore other government departments also DEAT & NNR : The DEAT made clear that in terms of a recent agreement between the DEAT and National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) it is the NNR that will deal with nuclear licensing issues (nuclear safety, radiation and radiology matters) in the EIA – an issue of grave concern because the NNR has not demonstrated to the public that it has acted impartially in terms of radiotoxic contamination (Wonderfonteinspruit issue) & continues to act in denial that radioactivity presents any real risk to the public. The NNR continues to act as a co-opted (not impartial) wing of the nuclear industry failing to address environmental issues and public concern; and moreover it has an acknowledged lack of skill to do so. And we fear the NNR will fudge the truth on environmental issues as it does not objectively assess the hazards of nuclear energy but works within the faulty and much challenged parameters set by the nuclear industry itself. The implication of this arrangement as outlined in your documentation is that radiological impacts - the most serious of all - will be left to the NNR licensing process. All documentation offered by the NNR in nuclear- related EIAs in which your company is involved, have been less than forthcoming on complete and convincing information from the NNR. Response (4) Your comment is noted. However, Arcus GIBB cannot comment on the perceived capability of the NNR to perform its function. It is encouraged that such concerns be taken up during the NNR licensing process. See Response (4-2) below regarding nuclear-licensing. You comment (5) It is therefore incumbent upon the consultants to ensure that the NNR is asked to wade through ALL the submissions on this EIA to date from I&APs and respond to all questions related to radiological impact in a manner that is understandable and thorough, and takes into account internationally documented information that is not necessarily favourable to the nuclear industry. (Suggestions in this regard have already been forwarded to your company in earlier submissions for this EIA). Response (5) Your comment is noted. However, Arcus GIBB cannot comment on the NNRs legislated/ mandated role in the EIA process. Issues pertaining to nuclear safety, radiology and radiation fall within the ambit of the National Nuclear Regulator, Act, 1999 (Act No. 47 of 1999) (NNRA) and will therefore be assessed and considered by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). However, according to a notification of statement issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism regarding the “ consideration of matters pertaining to nuclear safety in environmental impact assessment processes on nuclear installations ”, dated 10 February 2009, “ one of the most significant changes made to the South African legislation by the NNRA was the introduction of the provision of public representation and public hearings in the licensing process for nuclear installations. In terms of Section 21 (4) and (5) quoted below, the NNR licensing process is open to public participation and this is considered administratively just. S21(4)(a) “ Any person who may be directly affected by the granting of a nuclear installation to an application in terms of subsection 20(1) of the NNRA may make representations to the board, relating to health, safety and environmental issues connected with the application, within 30 days of the date of publication in the Gazette contemplated in subsection 3(b) of the NNRA. (b) if the board is of the opinion that further public debate is necessary, it may arrange for such hearings on health, safety and environmental issues as it determines. S21(5) Subject to the board’s approval, the chief executive officer may (a) refuse an application for a nuclear installation or vessel license and must provide the applicant in writing with the reasons for the refusal; or (b) grant an application for