Alarm bells over safety concerns at Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant

The Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (SAFCEI) is sounding the alarm over Eskom's controversial plans regarding the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant, as discussions heat up around a potential 20-year licence extension for Unit 2. Experts, including SAFCEI's Executive Director Francesca de Gasparis, argue that the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) is poised to approve the extension based on absent, outdated, and incomplete safety data- a decision that they claim violates both the spirit and letter of South Africa's nuclear safety regulations.

At the heart of this mounting controversy lies Eskom's Time-Limited Ageing Analysis (TLAA), a new engineering report that seeks to assess the condition of Unit 2 by extrapolating data from the completely different Unit 1 reactor. De Gasparis likens this approach to a car buyer test-driving one vehicle but assuming it reflects the performance of an entirely different model. "This is not science; it is dangerous wishful thinking that could put lives at risk," she asserts.

The TLAA rests on three key assumptions, one of which suggests that critical post-tensioning tendons within the Unit 2 containment building will remain free from corrosion over the next 20 years. Alarmingly, the Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) system, intended to prevent such corrosion, has experienced multiple delays and remains uninstalled. As outlined in a 2015 expert panel's findings, Unit 2 had already started to exhibit significant corrosion damages, with warnings that deterioration could accelerate exponentially without immediate repairs.

Despite these serious concerns, the TLAA assumes the tendons' integrity will remain intact, while Eskom contends that the delayed ICCP installation "does not influence the TLAA" Yet, the TLAA's methodology indicates that its assumptions rely heavily on the results of a comprehensive Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT), which has not been conducted for Unit 2 since 2015. The next ILRT is not scheduled until 2026, a full decade after the last assessment.

Moreover, claims made by Eskom regarding an ILRT recently completed are misleading, as the test in question was performed on Unit 1, not the critically assessed Unit 2. As it stands, the true condition and safety issues surrounding Unit 2 remain largely unknown. In light of international regulations-including those upheld by the NNR-the ongoing failure to conduct an ILRT raises significant red flags.

Unit 2's Third Periodic Safety Review (PSR) compounds the issue, as it is a legal requirement reflecting the actual status of the facility. With the containment monitoring system largely non-functional for years, the NNR seems poised to grant a license extension based on speculative assumptions rather than concrete evidence. This practice has been labelled "dangerous and deeply irresponsible" by SAFCEI's Ntombizodidi Mapapu, who insists it undermines the regulator's scientific integrity.

The TLAA itself concedes that monitoring data for the dome is "sparse, with numerous gaps and outliers," with many strain gauges out of order. While Eskom has pledged to restore this monitoring system, critics view the projected timeline of 2028-2029 as "reckless" when critical safety evaluations are required now.

In conclusion, SAFCEI urges the NNR to take responsibility and delay any licensing decision for Koeberg Unit 2 until Eskom can complete both the ICCP installation and a new ILRT, thereby ensuring that the containment's actual condition is confirmed with trustworthy data. Mapapu asserts, "There is no urgency that justifies cutting corners on nuclear safety," further advocating for a responsible approach as the plant undergoes maintenance.