How does government plan to transport high-level radioactive waste down a 100km corrugated gravel road to a disposal facility in the Northern Cape?
That's one of several concerns raised by community stakeholders about the life extension of Koeberg nuclear power station, 30km north of Cape Town on the Atlantic coast, which could entail another 20 years of radioactive waste being trucked into the remote Vaalputs Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in Namaqualand.
Existing high-level radioactive waste is stored on-site at Koeberg, not trucked to Vaalputs. But a planned centralised storage facility at Vaalputs may well in future accommodate high-level waste in addition to low and intermediate waste.
“I travelled that road, and it took me four hours,” said Lydia Petersen, Koeberg Alert Alliance spokesperson and one of several stakeholders who attended a heated public engagement in Hondeklipbaai on the west coast last month.
Namaqualand residents are concerned about the impact of waste on the natural environment, with possible groundwater contamination a particular worry. Residents also voiced frustration at a perceived lack of clarity about nuclear waste, a concern shared by the country's anti-nuclear lobby.
Petersen, who spoke at the Hondeklipbaai meeting, believes government stakeholders have downplayed safety concerns, including at last month's meeting where the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) falsely claimed there had never been any radioactive leaks at Vaalputs.
“I nearly jumped out of my chair,” said Petersen, who promptly informed the meeting there had in fact been a well-publicised radioactive waste leak from drums in 1997, reported by the media. “There were almost 200 people in that hall from all over the Northern Cape and they wanted answers. If this happened in 1997, then why did they not speak about it?”
Petersen is particularly concerned about the Vaalputs access road, the R355, which she believes should not be entrusted with truckloads of nuclear waste.
The government says electricity generated by Koeberg is an integral part of the country's future diversified power supply plan as a cleaner option to coal-fired power stations. However, a surge in the uptake of renewable energy options has prompted critics to question South Africa's nuclear ambitions.
Eskom this week insisted the Vaalputs road was largely adequate. Even when inadequate, such as after heavy rainfall, alternative routes were possible.
“It is our opinion that high-level waste could safely be transported on the current roads. Given the roads are provincial roads, Eskom will engage the province, as we do for low- and intermediate-level waste transport, to ensure adequate maintenance of the roads. A roads assessment is performed prior to each waste shipment, and depending on the road conditions, alternative routes though longer, are available and considered.
— Eskom
In the worst-case situation, if the road condition is considered unsuitable, mainly due to rainfall events, Eskom will delay shipments until the road conditions improve
“In the worst-case situation, if the road condition is considered unsuitable, mainly due to rainfall events, Eskom will delay shipments until the road conditions improve,” the power utility told TimesLIVE Premium.
Other nuclear commentators have raised broader concerns about the paucity of available information around Koeberg's environmental impact, and the cost of the life extension.
“There is no ring-fenced fund to cover waste disposal, as is best international practice. Currently it is just another long-term liability on Eskom's balance sheet, in addition to R400bn plus of debt, said former National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) board member Peter Becker.
He also voiced concern about the power utility's response to the International Atomic Energy Agency with regard to the safety of the containment structures at Koeberg.
Eskom this week confirmed that an environmental impact assessment was not required for the life extension. “An EIA was not required since LTO (long term operation) did not expand Koeberg’s nuclear power capacity or footprint. As such, no NEMA [National Environmental Management Act] listed activities were triggered.”
Eskom added that the Vaalputs facility was big enough to accommodate all future waste.
“As part of the [LTO application] process, confirmation was obtained that Vaalputs can receive the additional operational radioactive waste. To date less than 1% of the Vaalputs land has been used for radioactive waste storage. Radioactive waste attributes associated with LTO was included in the submission to the NNR in the LTO safety case for input into the NNR LTO licensing decision.”
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.