Africa-Press – South-Africa. A recent decision to allow Eskom to bypass pollution controls at Kusile temporarily is likely to be appealed.
Over the weekend, Eskom issued a statement indicating that the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment’s (DFFE) National Air Quality Officer had granted the power utility a postponement to meet minimum emissions standards for sulphur dioxide at its Kusile plant. The postponement applies from 5 June 2023 to 31 March 2025.
Eskom had applied for the postponement following the collapse of a chimney or flue gas duct at Unit 1 of Kusile in October 2022. It subsequently impacted the operability of Kusile Units 2 and 3, and Eskom lost about 2 100 MW of generation capacity.
The application meant that Eskom would operate Kusile without the Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) technology – required to limit sulphur dioxide emissions. This is so that the power utility could bring the generation capacity online more quickly in a bid to reduce load shedding as the country battles an energy crisis.
Eskom expects the repairs to the permanent stack or chimney to be completed by December 2024. Meanwhile, it is constructing temporary stacks for all three units, which will be completed by December 2023 – allowing it to operate these units without the FGD and reduce load shedding by two stages.
Eskom is the world’s worst sulphur dioxide polluter, according to a 2021 analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).
The same organisation also found that if Eskom is allowed to bypass the requirement to operate Kusile with FGD, over one year, it would emit 280 000 extra tonnes of sulphur dioxide, mercury emissions would also increase and hundreds of people would die, Bloomberg reported.
Sulphur dioxide exposure is associated with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis.
The DFFE, in a separate statement, said that the National Air Quality Officer, as well as the Nkangala District Municipality, where Kusile is based, had considered the potential impacts on health and the environment as well as negative impacts on electricity supply in making the decision.
The department emphasised that the exemption or postponement is subject to “strict conditions”, such as Eskom taking steps to “mitigate harm” that is caused by the exposure to sulphur dioxide to its employees and surrounding communities.
This includes having independent health screenings and referring people to “appropriate” public health facilities for treatment. Eskom must submit a detailed plan of its mitigation measures in less than 21 days. The National Air Quality Officer and the Nkangala District Municipality must approve it. Eskom must also submit quarterly progress reports on how it intends to re-implement the use of FGD.
But the Life After Coal campaign – which had made submissions during the public consultation process for the decision – has said that the mitigation measures Eskom must follow are “weak”:
Life After Coal is a joint campaign by groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) that discourages the development of new coal-fired power stations and mines and encourages a coal phase out to reduce emissions that cause climate change.
Brandon Abdinor, acting programme head of pollution and climate change at the CER, which is also representing the Life After Coal campaign legally, said that it is likely they would file an appeal. The CER is waiting for a mandate from its clients to proceed.
“The public participation process has not been great. The health impact assessment released by Eskom is highly inadequate,” said Abdinor. Prior to the government issuing a decision, Eskom was also granted an opportunity to fast-track its application process. It was allowed a curtailed public participation process – that was 14 days. The Life After Coal campaign had raised issue with this shortened consultation process in its initial submissions.
The DFFE said that Eskom had complied with the requirements of a curtailed public consultation process.
Abdinor also described the mitigation efforts required by the department as “very vague and general”.
More meaningful mitigation measures would include setting up mobile clinics that can diagnose and dispense treatment for people, said Abdinor. It should also be accompanied by a community outreach programme that educates and explains to people what it is about, he added.
The Department of Health in particular, would need to be more actively involved, Abdinor said. Given that chronic illnesses can emerge, healthcare needs to be able to dispense the required treatment.
He suggested filtration systems be put in schools and public buildings – as is the case elsewhere in the world. There also needs to be an improvement in air quality monitoring, and the data should be publicly available and easily accessible. This should be coupled with early warning systems so that people can then take preventative measures.
Abdinor also proposed some form of compensation for people affected by the pollution.
“We know that the load shedding crisis needs to be alleviated, but this is a situation where we are really asking communities around Kusile to sacrifice everything for the sake of this electricity,” said Abdinor. “At the end of the day, we’re asking people to sacrifice themselves,” he said.
Others are also concerned about the mitigation measures not being adequate.
Robyn Hugo, director of climate change engagement at non-profit shareholder activism organisation, Just Share, also raised concerns about the mitigation measures required by government. “The decision does not specify the consequences of a failure to ensure that such measures are constitutionally-adequate,” said Hugo.
“It comes as no surprise that the department has once again decided that the health and well-being of people in the Highveld Priority area is of little concern to the government. This despite the 2022 Deadly Air court decision against the state that held that chronic air pollution in the Highveld Priority Area violates constitutional rights,” said Hugo.
In March last year, a high court ruled that poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area – which overlaps with parts of Mpumalanga and Gauteng and is home to 12 of Eskom’s power stations and Sasol’s coal-to-liquids refinery and other coal mining operations – violated the constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to health and wellbeing.
Francesca de Gasparis, executive director at the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, said the organisation is also hugely disappointed in the decision, given that the air quality from power plants is deadly for the people in Mpumalanga.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
