Safety concerns, rising costs, inadequate socioeconomic studies mar Koeberg life extension plans

Eskom’s recent presentation to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Electricity and Energy revealed gaping holes in the plan to extend the life of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station by 20 years.

Issues ranged from the absence of containment data, the crack in the containment buildings, the lack of socioeconomic impact studies, the increasing costs of the long-term operation (LTO) project, and several problematic evacuation drills.

Despite these concerns, Eskom is moving forward with plans to extend Koeberg’s operational life by a further 20 years. The LTO for Koeberg’s Unit 1 is complete and Eskom is preparing to apply for Unit 2’s extension, with the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) set to make its decision by 9 November 2025 when Unit 2’s current licence expires.

International Atomic Energy Agency experts recently completed a review of long-term operational safety at Koeberg, acknowledging that the plant had made improvements since its last recommendations. 

However, the team noted that work needs to continue to ensure the plant programmes supporting the LTO are fully implemented and that the faulty containment monitoring system is fully refurbished.

Despite concerns raised in the portfolio committee meeting, Eskom maintained that Koeberg was safe to operate for an additional 20 years. 

Eskom’s chief nuclear officer, Keith Featherstone, said: “It’s a national asset that can still safely operate for longer.”

However, Featherstone faced a stream of questions in the portfolio committee briefing about persisting concerns.

Read more: Civil society and Eskom at odds over proposal to extend Koeberg’s life by 20 years

These related to what socioeconomic impact studies had been done, the total cost to date of the LTO project, the absence of containment dome data for Unit 2 (which contains any potential release of radioactive materials), and the current status of those containment domes since there had been concerns about concrete failures on those structures.

Problematic evacuation drills

DA MP Kevin Mileham said: “The past several evacuation drills have been problematic. In some cases, Koeberg has not passed those evacuation drills.”

About the problematic evacuation emergency drills, Featherstone said that in every emergency exercise test done with the NNR they identified areas that could be improved. 

“That’s the important part that one needs to remember. Although the report from the regulator highlights very clearly the areas where they were not happy and where we could improve, overall every single exercise from the regulator has been concluded that the objectives of the exercise were fully met,” he said.

Featherstone stated that the objectives of the exercises were to continuously improve their emergency drills to ensure they could be implemented as smoothly and effectively as possible.

Lack of socioeconomic studies 

As to what socioeconomic studies were performed, Featherstone said that in terms of the feasibility for Koeberg, they did not go back and do detailed socioeconomic studies. 

What they had to do as part of the safety assessment was to understand what social activities were happening in the area, and do the assessments of those from an emergency planning point of view, he said. 

But based on the business case that demonstrated the advantages of extending the life of Koeberg and the fact that Koeberg was an established facility, “we didn’t go into detailed assessments of the economic impact”.

In the past Eskom has done studies on the economic impact on the local and national economies, and the utility said it was demonstrated through those studies by independent assessments that there was a significant benefit as a result of that impact.

So, with that as background, the studies as per the regulations and the process that Eskom had to conduct, Featherstone said they focused on the technical aspects of Koeberg.

R25-billion to date for Koeberg’s LTO

Regarding the actual costs of the LTO to date, Featherstone said: “The costs of those started off roughly just under R20-billion and throughout the extension [and] all that has happened in that period, that has changed and we are now sitting roughly at a maximum estimate of just around R25-billion.”

There’s been a lot of speculation that the costs have escalated, but Featherstone confirmed the biggest cost escalation was due to the severe delay in the steam generator replacement. 

“That is the biggest driver in terms of any cost escalations from the original estimates Eskom had,” he said.

Importantly, Featherstone said that the financing of the LTO did not include the dedicated Ankerlig-Koeberg transmission line. 

He said that this was done as a transmission modification to free up some of the lines between the Koeberg substation and the substations closer to Cape Town for better power flow along the transmission network.

Koeberg’s licence situation and Unit 2’s extension

The LTO for Unit 1 is already considered complete after the NNR extended Unit 1’s licence to 21 July 2044.

For Unit 2, Featherstone said the LTO would be considered complete when the steam generator installation was finished and the licence obtained from the regulatory authority.

The NNR board resolved to defer the decision on Unit 2 to before November 2025, because at the time of the announcement of Unit 1, the NNR LTO application review related to Unit 2 was still ongoing. 

Read more: Koeberg Unit 1 can operate until 2044 despite concerns, says nuclear regulator

Featherstone said the NNR committed to communicating to Eskom the issues of importance relating to Unit 2 as part of the normal licensing process for LTO.

The current licence authorises the operation of Unit 2 until 9 November 2025, by which time the NNR resolved to finalise its decision and the prerequisite work including the steam generator replacement will be complete, according to Featherstone. 

The steam generator replacement was almost complete, but the welding rework had resulted in delays, he said. 

Questions continue

The NNR communicated concerns regarding the containment domes that contain any potential release of radioactive materials, and Featherstone said there was a question mark around the containment data for Unit 2.

This was after the NNR said there was an absence of containment dome data for Unit 2 and it was therefore relying on the data from Unit 1 to make assumptions about Unit 2. Accordingly, he indicated that this would impact on their ability to licence Unit 2 for a further 20 years.

“This is an engineering issue. We get data from numerous sources and we are just having to make sure that we can explain to the regulator the sources of the data that we have, what we are using to interpret the data for Unit 2, and to demonstrate that we have enough data to consciously demonstrate the safety of the unit,” Featherstone said.

The data is received through strain gauges in the containment buildings, and some of these were installed 40 years ago. Featherstone said these did not last forever so one has to determine different ways as the plant ages to get the information needed for continued confidence that the containment is in good condition.

“What we do as a regulatory requirement on a periodic frequency is a very excessive test on the containment buildings where we pressurise them to the maximum pressure that the containment buildings will ever see during their design life in a worst-case potential accident that we postulate could happen… During those tests, the building actually does stretch slightly and we take measurements during that which gives us extra data that allows us to confirm that the containment structures are in good condition,” Featherstone said.

This was being packaged in more detail for the NNR in the hope that it would be comfortable with Eskom’s assessment of the containment buildings.

Regarding the crack in the containment buildings at Unit 2, Featherstone said that when they do periodic assessments of these, they monitor the crack and have always been able to verify that there’s no growth, “which demonstrates that the crack is in a non-stress maintaining part of the containment building”.

“It is called a concrete settling crack, in an area that doesn’t take any stress of the containment building.”

Staunch opposition to Koeberg’s LTO

The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) has vowed to appeal the current licence and any future licences, noting the increasing expensive cost of the Koeberg LTO project, and the full cost not being shared with the public, nor the full implications of creating a safe functioning nuclear plant.

SAFCEI executive director Francesca de Gasparis said: “The true costs of running Koeberg – the cost of maintenance, repairs and managing the disposal of the different levels of waste – are not being shared with the public, nor are the full implications of creating a safe functioning nuclear plant.” 

SAFCEI believes these are important factors that citizens should be aware of.

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg’s Makoma Lekalakala said: “Rather than think of extending LTO they can start to decommission the plant. Based on the questionable safety concerns regarding Koeberg, it seems that extending the lifespan is to put South Africa in a risky and dangerous situation.”

Lekalakala added that extending the lifespan of the nuclear plant was contrary to decarbonising and transitioning to low-carbon development. DM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeWvTRUpMk