|
|
| |
| |
| EIA process |
| |
| The construction phase of the PBMR project was subject to obtaining a
positive Record of Decision (RoD) on the environmental impact assessment
(EIA) study. To this end, Eskom (as the client for the demonstration
reactor project at Koeberg) and Necsa (as the client for the pilot fuel
plant at Pelindaba), conducted comprehensive EIAs which started as far
back as 1999 with the appointment of a consortium of independent
consultants. |
| |
| The subsequent EIA processes included extensive public participation,
numerous interactions and public meetings and extended periods for
comment. This culminated in the submission of the Final Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs) to the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT) in October 2002. The evaluation of the final EIRs by the
DEAT and an International Review Panel appointed by DEAT was undertaken,
leading to the issuing of positive RoDs on the PBMR demonstration module
and pilot fuel plant by the Director General (DG) of DEAT in June 2003. |
| |
| The DG found both the power plant and fuel projects were, with some
conditions, acceptable from an environmental impact perspective. He said
the process of getting departmental approval for the proposed
manufacture of the reactor and the associated fuel plant at Pelindaba
had involved an elaborate investigation over three years. "Thorough
environmental impact assessments were undertaken and the outcome of
these studies indicated that the environmental impact of the development
was acceptable," he said. |
| |
| He also expressed his satisfaction about the public participation
process. "As part of this process, adequate provision has been made for
the public to participate and to raise issues of concern. These have
been thoroughly documented and addressed." |
| |
| During 2004, the anti-nuclear activist group Earthlife Africa filed an
application to have the RoD for the demonstration reactor project
overturned. In January 2005, the Cape High Court ruled in favour of
Earthlife Africa and set aside the demonstration reactor RoD. The Judge
ruled the DG had to allow Earthlife Africa and other stakeholders to
make written submissions which he has to consider before making a new
decision. The Judge said it was clear from the evidence on record that
the DG's decision was preceded by a protracted process involving public
participation on a wide scale and that, by and large, the "process was
conducted in a manner that was thorough and fair". |
| |
| The court ruling and design changes to the PBMR reactor which allowed
for an increase in the nominal thermal output of the demonstration
reactor from 302 to 400 MW prompted Eskom to enter into a new EIA
process for the demonstration reactor project. To this end, a revised
final scoping report was made available to the public in January 2007. |
| |
| Although the content of the scoping document is relevant to PBMR
technology, it represented an activity taking place outside of PBMR. |
| |
| In January 2007, the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
upheld the positive RoD for the pilot fuel plant EIA. This would have enabled
PBMR and Necsa to go full steam ahead with the establishment of the
pilot fuel plant. This would, subject to certain conditions, permit the
construction of a pilot fuel plant on receipt of a nuclear authorization
from the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). The Minister's decision
covered the establishment of a fuel manufacturing plant at Pelindaba,
the storage, handling and process facilities for the raw materials and
fuels, the transport of raw material from Durban to Pelindaba and the
transport of manufactured fuel from Pelindaba to Koeberg in the Western
Cape. |
|
|
|
| |
|