KEY POINTS
- SAFCEI warns that Eskom’s Koeberg Unit 2 licence extension relies on outdated and incomplete safety data.
- The key containment safety test for Unit 2 has been delayed until 2026, a decade after the last one.
- Environmental groups say the National Nuclear Regulator is being asked to approve the extension without verified structural data.
The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, SAFCEI, has intensified its criticism of Eskom’s plan to extend the operating life of Unit 2 at the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, warning that the proposal relies on incomplete and outdated safety data.
The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) is expected to approve the 20-year extension, but environmental groups and experts say doing so would breach South Africa’s own nuclear safety standards.
At the centre of the row is Eskom’s Time-Limited Ageing Analysis (TLAA), a key engineering report that projects the reactor’s condition over the next two decades. The document, however, is based not on Unit 2’s own performance data, but on figures derived from its twin reactor, Unit 1. SAFCEI argues that this approach undermines the scientific basis for any safety assurance.
“Eskom is asking South Africans to trust safety data that doesn’t exist,” said SAFCEI’s Executive Director, Francesca de Gasparis. “They’ve extrapolated data from a completely different reactor, in a separate building. That’s not science; it’s dangerous wishful thinking that could put lives at risk.”
Experts Question Safety Assumptions
According to de Gasparis, the TLAA makes several unproven assumptions, including that the critical post-tensioning tendons which reinforce the reactor’s containment structure will not corrode in the next 20 years. This is despite a corrosion prevention system—the Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP)—still being uninstalled after repeated delays.
A 2015 expert panel had already found “advanced corrosion damage” in Unit 2’s containment structure and warned that deterioration could accelerate exponentially without immediate repairs. Despite these warnings, Eskom’s TLAA maintains that the tendons remain unaffected.
“The TLAA assumes perfect conditions while relying on data gaps,” de Gasparis said. “Its own methodology requires validation through an Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) and continuous monitoring, neither of which have been carried out on Unit 2.”
The last ILRT was conducted in 2015, and the next has been postponed until 2026. Eskom recently stated that a leak test had been completed, but SAFCEI clarified that it referred to Unit 1, not Unit 2.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s 2024 review mission in South Africa stressed that a fully functional containment monitoring system is essential for extending reactor life. Yet, Unit 2’s system has been largely non-functional for years. SAFCEI argues that approving the extension now would violate both international safety norms and South Africa’s own Long-Term Operation (LTO) regulations.
“The regulator is being asked to make a decision without knowing the current structural condition of the unit,” said SAFCEI’s programme coordinator, Ntombizodidi Mapapu. “This is deeply irresponsible. You can’t extend the life of a nuclear plant based on assumptions.”
The TLAA itself admits that data from Unit 2’s containment dome is “sparse, with numerous gaps and outliers,” and that several monitoring sensors are no longer working. Eskom has pledged to restore the system by 2028 or 2029, a timeline critics say is far too slow given that key safety decisions are being made now.
SAFCEI has urged the NNR to postpone any decision on Koeberg’s Unit 2 until Eskom completes both the ICCP installation and a new ILRT. “There’s no urgency that justifies cutting corners on nuclear safety,” Mapapu said. “Since Unit 2 is offline for maintenance, the responsible step is to wait for real data before making any long-term commitments.”
