On Thursday, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission shelved its decision, yet again, on whether to restart the nation’s second-oldest nuclear power plant ― or scrap it. It was a regrettable but inevitable move.
So strained were the pros and cons of “extending the life span” of the Wolseong No. 1 atomic power plant, a 68-megawatt heavy-water reactor commissioned in 1983 along the southeastern coast, that a decision to one direction might have triggered fierce opposition from the other.
The proponents ― the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co. ― stressed the need for prolonging the use of the plant, which has been mothballed since 2012 when its 30-year technical license expired, for at least another 10 years because it is far more economical than building a new one.
Officials at the ministry and state-run electricity company also assured its safety based on the results of inspection by state-run Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, citing that they replaced most of the core parts and components with new ones at a cost of 560 billion won. They want Wolseong No. 1 to follow the example of the Gori No. 1 unit, the oldest plant whose operation was extended for a decade to 2017.
Opponents couldn’t differ more, however.
Citing the safety assessment by a private group of experts, local residents and civic groups say the nuclear power plant needs to meet an additional 32 safety requirements if it is to serve for another decade. Claiming it would incur losses of 250 billion won during the period, they are calling for its permanent shutdown, or at least seeking the public’s approval before the officials unilaterally pushing for the extension of its service.
As seen in the tense arguments, however, it would be next to impossible for lay people to judge which side is right, in either safety or economy.
It would be best in this regard for the sides to start from the ground up by re-commissioning the safety and cost appraisal to a third party on which they both could agree. Security and economic viability are two important factors for building and extending the service of nuclear power plants, but equally important is their public acceptability. At stake is the safety of not only local residents but of up to 300,000 people living in neighboring counties. The frequent accidents, corruption and cover-up attempts by the state utility also aggravated the situation.
No less problematic is the process, or lack thereof, in requesting the extension. Normally, the operators should ask for service extension about 10 years before the expiry of design life, and begin to replace parts only after receiving a green light. Officials at Wolseong asked for an extension in 2009 with only three years left, and they have already completed replacing components even before a decision was made.
The government should hold these officials responsible for ignoring due procedure and trying to make its extension an established fact by spending hefty amount of taxpayer money.
Given 10 of the nation’s 23 atomic power plants will reach the end of design life before long, what’s crucial is setting a right precedent.