Safety concerns: Faith communities warn against Koeberg Unit 2 licence extension

With public hearings taking place this week (29 September-4 October) - in Northern Cape, Atlantis and Cape Town - on the proposal to extend the lifespan of Koeberg’s Unit 2, the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) says it has no faith in unsafe, energy pathways like nuclear energy. The environmental justice organisation and the faith communities it works with – across South Africa, including near Koeberg nuclear power station and Vaalputs National Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility – are particularly concerned about Eskom’s application to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) to extend the operating licence for Koeberg’s Unit 2, especially since the state utility is yet to provide proof that vital safety standards have been met to ensure that the unit is safe enough to operate for another 20 years.

“Nuclear energy carries a legacy of secrecy and exclusion,” says SAFCEI spokesperson Ntombizodidi Mapapu. “As people of faith, we are called to uphold ethical, transparent, and inclusive governance, where all voices – especially those most vulnerable – are included and heard in salient issues about their safety and wellbeing. Extending Koeberg’s life without proven safety and substantial and meaningful engagements undermines both justice, transparency, and accountability.”

With less than a month until the public comment period ends on 20 October 2025, SAFCEI encourages all South Africans – especially those in the Greater Cape Town area and around Vaalputs Northern Cape, whose homes could be directly affected by a catastrophic incident at Koeberg – to understand the implications of extending the lifespan of this aging nuclear reactor unit. Citizens have a democratic right to make a submission, highlighting their concerns. In a time of escalating climate shocks, the risks associated with nuclear power plants are magnified. Moreover, climate impacts could affect Koeberg’s safety and emergency planning. SAFCEI presented its concerns at today’s (2 October 2025) public hearings in Athlone. 

SAFCEI’s Executive Director, Francesca de Gasparis says, “Eskom has no up-to-date data about the actual status of Unit 2 containment buildings as the monitoring system broke down years ago. It is deeply troubling that Eskom seeks to extend the life of Koeberg’s Unit 2 when, by its own admission, it has no reliable data on the status of the containment building – the very structure designed to prevent radioactive leaks in the event of an accident. Instead of facts, we are asked to accept figures extrapolated from Unit 1. It makes no sense to rely on and make a premise  on data from a completely different reactor, as each unit has weathered differently over the past 40 years and each has its own issues, which would need to be assessed accordingly. Moreover, restoration of the monitoring system has been delayed to 2028 and remains only at pre-feasibility stage. ”

According to SAFCEI, the NNR’s own reports have also highlighted the urgent need for Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) at Koeberg to protect containment structures from corrosion and enable long-term operation (LTO). Both units have shown growing corrosion-related damage, and without ICCP the integrity of the buildings is at risk. The system, developed with local and international expertise, was meant to safeguard steel components and ensure structural strength under LTO. Importantly, the NNR committed to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Convention on Nuclear Safety that ICCP would be installed before any LTO licence decision. Despite approval and funding in 2019, this has not been done – raising serious questions about Eskom’s implementation and the NNR’s oversight.

Without ICCP and without functional monitoring, neither Eskom nor the NNR can make an informed decision on Koeberg’s safety. To proceed with an LTO under these conditions would mean approving nuclear operations on assumptions rather than evidence – an unacceptable regulatory failure.

“This is an unacceptable gamble,” says de Gasparis. “Safety must be proven, not assumed. As an organisation representing people of faith, we believe that good governance demands truth, transparency and accountability – and right now, Eskom has failed to meet these standards.”

Furthermore, despite originally scheduling both an Integrated Leak Rate Test and corrosion protection maintenance before the licence decision, Eskom now says these will only be done at an unknown, undetermined future date. SAFCEI says that these delays are dangerous and unacceptable, especially since Eskom already has a poor servicing and maintenance track record, in addition to continuously putting off critical repairs. Therefore, Unit 2 cannot be considered safe if vital repairs and tests are not performed before the licence decision.

“It is clear that there is insufficient information available for the public and the NNR to decide whether Unit 2 is safe. Eskom has delayed a critical Integrated Leak Rate Test, postponed vital repairs to the containment building’s concrete and corroding steel, and has not provided a functioning emergency plan that adequately covers all communities that could be affected,” adds de Gasparis.

Mapapu concludes, “It is dangerous and deeply unethical to run Koeberg without a fully tested emergency plan – another thing that Eskom says it will get to, but only after the licence is granted. While communities around the plant and waste storage facilities have grown, multiplying the risks, we are asked to accept reassurances without factual evidence and the meaningful inclusion of these communities in this discourse. Faith calls us to stewardship of life and creation and that means saying no to decisions that endanger our people and environment. It’s bad enough that Koeberg is allowed to operate currently, without verifiable safety evidence. This becomes even more serious when one considers that there are no proper emergency plans in place and that the majority of Cape Town residents do not really know what the procedures are.  Knowing all this, the NNR, cannot in good conscience grant Unit 2 a licence.”

With the mid-term budget due in just a few weeks, SAFCEI also raises questions of financial justice: Can South Africa truly afford to continue to run such a costly nuclear energy plant? Where is the budget for proper emergency planning, for safe storage of radioactive waste, and for decommissioning? These are the hidden costs that future generations will inherit if ethical and transparent governance is not upheld today.