Projects like the Medupi and Kusile (above) power stations, which experienced extended timelines and higher-than-planned costs, highlight the complexities involved in large-scale infrastructure delivery within parts of South Africa’s public sector
The plan by Eskom to get three units at its Kusile coal-fired power station in Mpumalanga back into operation will lead to unabated and increased sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, with “destructive and deadly” health and well-being costs for local residents.
This is according to a legal submission at the end of April on Eskom’s application for postponement of compliance with minimum emissions standards (MES) for SO2 for Kusile. It was made by the Life After Coal campaign, which is a joint campaign by Earthlife Africa, groundWork and the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER).
In March, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Barbara Creecy announced that Kusile had been granted an exemption, subject to certain strict conditions, from the “lengthy process” required to amend its atmospheric emission licence, to reduce load-shedding.
Eskom’s request, she said, pertained to a temporary solution to restore lost generation capacity at Kusile power station while a damaged stack undergoes repairs, which are due for completion in December 2024.
In the interim, Eskom plans to construct temporary stacks by November 2023, which it anticipates will allow the resumption of generation capacity of 2 100 megawatts, which will reduce the country’s exposure to load-shedding by two levels.
The temporary solution proposed for Kusile envisages that Eskom will operate the temporary stacks without the use of the flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) mechanism for 13 months. FGD is the process of removing sulphur compounds from the exhaust emissions of fossil-fuel powered stations.
“We acknowledge the current shortage of electricity supply, and the urgent need for additional generation capacity to provide electricity to the grid,” wrote CER attorney Ntombi Maphosa and Brandon Abdinor, the CER’s acting programme head for pollution and climate change, in the submission.
“However, this context — caused by poor planning, inadequate maintenance and fiscal constraints exacerbated by large-scale corruption — cannot permit administrative action that unjustifiably limits constitutional rights, or that inappropriately circumvents the risk and impact assessment tools and decision-making processes required by law.”
Lives at risk
This is particularly so when lives are at risk, they argued. “In this case, the postponement of Kusile’s adherence to new plant minimum emissions standards in terms of SO2 emissions will limit the rights of communities and individuals proximate to Kusile to an environment not harmful to health and well-being as set out in section 24 of the Constitution … We need to be clear that we would be imposing on affected parties a sacrifice of life, health and well-being and this must be acknowledged in its fullness.”
This limitation of rights is “particularly egregious” in light of the judgment and declaratory order made in the Deadly Air case in March 2022. The judgment confirmed that failure to adequately control air pollution in the Highveld Priority Area was an infringement of the constitutional right to an environment not harmful to health or well-being.
It is concerning that Eskom continues to spend money on its ailing coal-fired power stations while cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives are available, they said.
The effect of the exemption granted by Creecy was that Eskom was required to conduct a public participation process over a reduced period of 14 days but the submission noted that this process had been characterised by a lack of transparency and limited access to information. This made it “incredibly difficult to participate and engage meaningfully as interested and affected parties”.
Six-fold rise in SO2 emissions
The CER commissioned the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air to do a report on the potential health impacts of bypassing SO2 controls at Kusile. Its report found that the FGD bypass would result in an estimated six-fold increase in SO2 emissions from the plant, based on the reported emissions at Kusile, and the reported average sulphur content of the coal.
The total excess SO2 emissions resulting from the exemption, compared with normal operation at the same use, would be a projected 280 000 tonnes, while excess mercury emissions would amount to 7 200kg. The excess SO2 emissions correspond to almost 20 years’ worth of emissions from the normal operation of the plant.
The health impacts would include a projected 930 air pollution-related deaths, whereas operating normally with the FGD operational, the plant would be responsible for an estimated 250 deaths. The deaths are attributed to increased risk of stroke, ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lower respiratory infections.
Other excess health impacts in the FGD bypass scenario would include a projected 3 000 asthma emergency room visits, 1 400 pre-term births, 720 000 days of work absence and 900 years lived with disability due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and strokes. The report further projects that the societal costs associated with the health impacts would be an estimated R16.8 billion.
Devastating effect on health
The health impacts of the excess SO2 that will result from the proposed bypass stacks are devastating, according to the legal submission. “…This process is taking place against a backdrop of long delays and a history of MES non-compliance from Eskom. The conundrum that Kusile finds itself in is of its own making and communities should not have to pay the price for that … Eskom should also see this as an opportunity to focus on energy alternatives.”
Load-shedding, power station malfunction and failures, and other energy matters, are not the fault of residents and it is “unconscionable to put them in this situation of a trade-off between electricity and their health”.
The CER and its clients said they understand the complexity of the situation as well as the impact that load-shedding has on the economy and the perpetuation of cycles of poverty.
“However, bad air quality has a direct effect on human rights and human lives — the deaths of vulnerable people including children and the elderly is simply too high a price to pay for electricity — particularly when feasible, affordable alternatives are available.”
Maphosa and Abdinor proposed that the state use the funds it would have spent on building the bypass stacks to invest in initiatives such as a large rooftop solar PV programme, both residential and industrial, in Mpumalanga.
“Such a programme would not only take such demand off the grid, and therefore reduce load-shedding and would not require major investment in grid expansion, but would also reduce energy poverty and outdoor and indoor air pollution, thereby saving lives and health costs.”
‘Sacrifice zones’
If the requested postponement and variation are finally granted, Eskom and the applicable decision-makers are “burdening local and all affected communities with the destructive and deadly health and well-being costs” of bypassing FGD in the temporary stacks.
“These communities have effectively been sacrifice-zones for decades, bearing the brunt of the impacts of a dirty electricity generation system. The resulting suffering goes beyond what can be captured in statistics and models and these affected parties should at least be provided with a best effort at mitigation of the impacts, albeit that even this would fall short of meaningful justice and redress.”
Should Eskom be successful in its postponement application, it must work to mitigate these harmful effects. This should include, among others, a meaningful cost benefit analysis, including approximate costs of both the temporary and permanent repairs, as compared with less harmful alternatives for providing equivalent electricity generation capacity.
“In the event that a further public participation meeting will be held in place of the postponed meeting of 12 April 2023, a suitable and accessible venue must be arranged. Furthermore, the application document [of Eskom] must be disseminated more widely in central areas of the affected communities.”
The national health department and academic research institutions must be part of the process of evaluating the health impacts of the proposed bypass on an ongoing basis, while Eskom must distribute 150 copies of its application document at Phola, Middelburg and eMalahleni as soon as possible.
“Eskom must implement the mitigation measures suggested, or equivalent or better alternatives, to at least partially ameliorate the harsh costs that communities will bear in terms of health and well-being.”
This must include a comprehensive and holistic health mitigation programme; enhanced air quality monitoring as well as the installation of appropriate filtration systems in all community and public buildings in the target areas.
Eskom’s response
Eskom told the Mail & Guardian that on 23 October 2022, Kusile experienced a failure on the West stack, which limited the power station’s ability to operate three generating units – units 1,2 and 3.
“These units can each provide approximately 700 MW, in total 2 100 MW, to the national grid and potentially reduce load-shedding by multiple levels.”
The government has established a National Energy Crisis Committee (NECOM) to address the energy crisis.
“NECOM is looking at a range of alternative initiatives to reduce load-shedding, including the further development of renewables, gas, battery storage and demand side management. Critical to NECOM’s plan is fixing Eskom, and notwithstanding the other initiatives, the rapid return of the Kusile units is a crucial project.”
As a temporary solution, while the west stack is repaired – estimated at 13 months – Eskom is constructing three temporary stacks before the existing Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) plants.
“Since the temporary stacks are before the FGD, Eskom is applying for postponement for the minimum emission standards for SO2 only. Operation of the Kusile temporary stacks without FGD will increase the emission load in respect of SO2 in the Highveld Priority area for a limited time, estimated at 13 months. This will cause limited exceedances of the SO2 ambient air quality standards in a limited area around that station.”
Eskom has commissioned its own health impact study, which will be made available during May to assist further in decision making. “Eskom is also investigating possible additional monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the proposal.
“In deciding on this application, it will be necessary to consider the health impacts associated with the increased emissions levels for a limited period in the area and the economic, environmental and health impact of extended load-shedding periods for the people of the area and the country as a whole,” it said.