There has been an important development in the proposed 5 200 MW nuclear power project at Thyspunt.
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) has accepted Eskom’s Final Scoping Report, which means that the application can now move into the full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) phase.
That sounds significant, and it is, however, it is equally important to understand what it does not mean.
Following questions raised about the acceptance, DFFE has specifically clarified that it does not constitute “approval of the proposed project or predetermine the outcome.” A decision on whether Environmental Authorisation should ultimately be granted will only be made after the Environmental Impact Assessment Report and supporting information have been submitted and considered.
In simple terms: the project has been allowed to move to the next stage. It has not been approved.
What does this mean for St Francis Bay?
It is worth reminding ourselves just how local this issue is.
St Francis Bay lies within a 12 km radius of the proposed Thyspunt site. This is not a development happening somewhere far removed from our community. The EIA will need to consider not only the proposed nuclear power station itself, but also the infrastructure and activities that would be required to construct and operate a project of this scale.
These include roads and transport, transmission infrastructure, construction facilities, worker accommodation, cooling systems, desalination and water infrastructure, wastewater treatment, marine intake and outfall structures, spoil disposal and spent fuel storage. DFFE has specifically required Eskom to assess the reasonable and feasible alternatives for this associated infrastructure as part of the EIA.
The potential effects therefore extend well beyond the footprint of the power station itself.
Bantamsklip is still in the picture
Although Eskom has identified Thyspunt as its preferred site, Bantamsklip in the Western Cape has not disappeared from the process.
DFFE has said that the EIA must demonstrate that excluding Bantamsklip is environmentally defensible. It has called for a transparent, evidence-based comparison between Thyspunt and Bantamsklip covering environmental, heritage, social, economic and cumulative impacts.
In practical terms, this means that the choice of Thyspunt still has to be properly justified during the detailed EIA phase.
Why has the scoping report been accepted?
It is also important to understand why the process has been allowed to move forward.
DFFE says that the revised specialist scoping reports have substantially addressed its earlier comments. The Department notes improvements in the scope of the studies, the methodologies proposed and the identification of the important issues that now need to be investigated in detail.
That is why the Scoping Report has been accepted and the process is able to move forward.
However, acceptance of the Scoping Report does not mean that all the environmental questions have been answered. In fact, DFFE makes it very clear that a number of important issues still require considerably more investigation before it will be in a position to make a decision on Environmental Authorisation.
What still needs to be done?
The list is extensive, but it can broadly be grouped into several key areas.
The natural environment: More detailed work is required on wetlands, groundwater, dunes and terrestrial biodiversity. Thyspunt contains sensitive groundwater-dependent wetlands and dune systems, and DFFE wants greater certainty about issues including dewatering, groundwater movement, habitat fragmentation and whether these ecological systems can continue to function during construction, operation and eventual decommissioning.
The marine environment and coastline: Further assessment and modelling are required for dredging, spoil disposal, sediment movement, desalination and brine discharge, cooling-water systems and their potential effects on marine habitats and fisheries, including the chokka squid fishery. Shoreline change and the cumulative effects of the different marine activities must also be considered.
Water and climate: Eskom currently proposes seawater desalination as the long-term water source. DFFE requires much more detailed information on the desalination plant, intake and discharge infrastructure and brine disposal. The EIA must also consider drought, water security, sea-level rise, storm surge, coastal erosion and other climate-related risks.
Heritage, people and sense of place: The EIA must examine the cultural and heritage significance of the Thyspunt landscape, as well as potential effects on communities, tourism, fisheries-dependent livelihoods, housing, worker accommodation and vulnerable groups. Visual impacts, including night-time lighting, the character of the coastline and effects on tourism and recreation, also require more detailed assessment.
The Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) and associated infrastructure: This is particularly important. Eskom is using a PPE approach because the final reactor technology has not yet been selected. DFFE requires the EIA to assess the different reactor configurations being considered — including large pressurised water reactors, small modular reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors — and to explain how their environmental impacts may differ.
The same principle applies to the infrastructure needed to support the plant. DFFE wants the EIA to provide enough detail about the roads, transmission lines, water systems, marine structures, construction areas, accommodation and other associated infrastructure to understand their environmental consequences. Significant environmental decisions should not simply be postponed until after an authorisation has been granted.
Your voice has made a difference
Perhaps one of the most important messages to come from the DFFE response is that public participation matters.
Many of the issues raised by residents, environmental organisations and other interested parties during the public participation process are specifically reflected in the work DFFE now requires during the EIA.
DFFE refers directly to stakeholder concerns about the PPE and associated infrastructure. It requires further attention to public concerns around desalination, water security and possible competition with municipal water users. It also requires the EIA to show how issues raised through public participation have informed the assessment of impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures.
Not every additional study can be attributed solely to public objections — specialist assessments and DFFE’s own review have also identified areas requiring further work — but the documents make it clear that the community’s concerns have been heard and have become part of the formal environmental assessment process.
That is important, because the opportunity for public involvement is not over.
What happens next?
Eskom and its environmental team must now undertake the detailed work required for the EIA and prepare the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
Under Regulation 23(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, Eskom must submit its Environmental Impact Assessment Report within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report. Before it is submitted, the report and supporting specialist studies must be released for public comment for at least 30 days, and the comments received must be incorporated into the final report.
Counting 106 days from 14 August 2026 gives 28 November 2026. The Regulations do allow for a longer timeframe in specified circumstances, including a 156-day route where significant changes or new information require a further public participation process, and DFFE may also grant an extension in terms of Regulation 3(7). Given the volume of further work required, the timetable may therefore move beyond late November. No release date for the draft report has yet been confirmed.
There will also be further public participation. Registered Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) must have an opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report for at least 30 days, and DFFE requires those comments to accompany the final EIAR together with a comments-and-response record showing the issues raised and how they have been dealt with.
Only after the detailed EIA and supporting specialist work have been completed and considered will DFFE make a decision on Environmental Authorisation.
Please stay involved
The process has moved forward, but the environmental decision has not been made.
The next stage is the one in which many of the questions that matter most to our community must be investigated in detail.
The experience so far also shows why public participation matters. The concerns raised by communities and organisations are now recorded within the formal process, and DFFE has specifically required that many of them be investigated and addressed.
There are several practical ways you can stay involved:
Register as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP), if you have not already done so. Email WSP’s Public Participation Office at Nuclear-PP-EIA@wsp.com with your name and contact details, quoting reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/2806. Registered I&APs will be notified when the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report is released for comment.
If you have specialist knowledge in any of the areas under consideration, please let Kromme Enviro-Trust know. We will need appropriate expertise to help review the specialist reports when they become available.
Help raise awareness in your community. There are still people who do not realise how close the proposed Thyspunt site is to St Francis Bay, or how widely the associated infrastructure and environmental effects could reach. This is an issue that could affect our broader community.
Kromme Enviro-Trust will continue to follow the EIA process closely, keep the community updated on progress and call for help where particular knowledge, input or participation is needed.
This is our environment and our community. Staying informed and participating in the process gives the people who live here a voice in the decisions that affect it.