Eskom faces an uprising from Namaqualand farmers who say they are fed up with nuclear waste polluting their land — and don’t want any more of it.
Several small farmers spoke out this week at the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) public hearings linked to Eskom’s application to extend the life of Koeberg Nuclear Power Station by 20 years. Low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste is currently stored at the Vaalputs disposal facility in a remote corner of Namaqualand north of Springbok, while high-level waste is stored at Koeberg.
The government’s Nuclear Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute is investigating the feasibility of a centralised interim storage facility at Vaalputs to accommodate future high-level radioactive waste.
However, many Namaqualand residents, some of whom only recently acquired title to their ancestral land, insist they want a say in whether the Vaalputs storage plan goes ahead. Many have raised concerns about negative environmental impacts, particularly in light of a perceived veil of secrecy around the Vaalputs site which has already experienced a leak years ago.
“Is there no space in the Cape?” fumed Veronica Thomas from Concordia. “It isn’t acceptable for us. We are not stupid,” she told Eskom representatives attending the public hearing.
Several other community speakers at this week’s hearing said they felt they should be better informed about government decisions affecting their lives and their land. “It is now time that national government must start to respect us on our own land,” said an emotional Dina Loxton-Cloete. “We aren’t going to say yes to a thing that will negatively impact us.
“It is time for us to be acknowledged. This ground is our ground. It is not just anybody’s ground. We’ve had enough.”
Concordia community leader Shereen Fortuin said Eskom did not provide sufficient answers at this week’s hearings. “National government just assumes we will say yes (to the waste disposal plan). We can’t say yes if we don’t understand what is going to happen. We didn’t know about leaking in Vaalputs — they didn’t even talk about it. I was the one who asked them what happened about the leak. I didn’t get an answer,” Fortuin said.
Responding to residents’ concerns, Eskom's chief nuclear officer Keith Featherstone said studies done to date on the company’s nuclear waste disposal showed there had been no negative impacts on either the public or the environment.
Vaalputs is a national repository. It has been decided by national structures that it is the place in South Africa most suitable for the disposal of nuclear waste
— Keith Featherstone, Eskom nuclear support manager
“Vaalputs is a national repository. It has been decided by national structures that it is the place in South Africa most suitable for the disposal of nuclear waste,” he said, adding that the geology and rainfall pattern were two factors influencing this decision.
“Everything has been looked at. It’s not an Eskom decision but a national (government) decision,” Featherstone said.
Civil society groups this week flagged their own concerns about the proposed Koeberg life expansion and proposed expansion of waste disposal sites. “There are no feasibility studies provided to support that such expansions are doable, especially when considering the proximity to local communities. If the population has grown, and chances are it has, then their safety must be a serious consideration,” said Earthlife Africa director Makoma Lekalakala in a joint civil society statement in response to the public hearings.
“The conditions of the infrastructure to extend the life of the plant, in addition to the environmental and climate impacts, all affect the people and the planet.”
Gabriel Klassen from environmental group Project 90 flagged safety concerns around transporting nuclear waste from Koeberg to Namaqualand on South Africa’s deteriorating road network.
“Once a week a truck containing low-level nuclear waste travels along the R355, a road which is also used by other motorists and which is not up to international standards for moving nuclear waste,” Klassen said. “Over the years, four trucks have had accidents on this very road and no interventions to either stop this mode of transporting nuclear waste or upgrading the road have been made, despite petitions by nearby communities. If we don’t have a solution for the existing waste, why would we extend Koeberg and add an additional 20 years of waste to the mess for future generations to deal with?”
Responding to queries, Eskom confirmed the public hearings in the Northern Cape had prompted concerns around nuclear waste.
“Most of the comments raised in the hearings that were conducted earlier this week in the Northern Cape revolved around the national nuclear waste facility at Vaalputs,” Eskom said in a statement, adding that the NNR had yet to make a final decision on whether to build the centralised interim storage facility in Vaalputs. “Until this is finalised, Eskom will continue to safely store the high-level waste on site,” Eskom said.
Responding to queries about the storage plan for future waste in the event of a 20-year licence renewal, NNR said it was considering an Eskom licence application to store used nuclear fuel at its Koeberg Transient Interim Storage Facility in dry casks. “The application is currently being considered,” the NNR said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.