As the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) prepares to announce its decision on whether to grant Eskom a licence extension to operate Koeberg for another 20 years, the public has raised concerns over whether the power utility has installed a core catcher to guard against a nuclear meltdown.
Also read: Engelbert Humperdinck takes Capetonians on a waltz down memory lane
A core catcher is made from thermally resistant concrete ceramic and is placed underneath a nuclear reactor to catch molten core material in the case of a nuclear meltdown. The device essentially prevents radioactive fuel from burning through the bottom of the reactor into the environment, according to environmental researcher and writer Dr Neil Overy.
Find your perfect set of wheels with these incredible deals on cars for under 100k. Find car listings here.
Overy made a separate written submission for the public consultation process that the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) facilitated to reach its decision on the long-term operation of Koeberg. The power station has two units, each with a capacity of 920MW.
Earlier this year, the regulator allowed Eskom to separate the operating timelines for both of Koeberg’s units, given that they were commissioned on different dates. Koeberg Unit 1 was first commissioned in July 1984, and Unit 2 was commissioned in November 1985. This means that Unit 1’s licence expires this month.
According to News24, the NNR is due to announce its decision on Monday afternoon.
According to Overy, core catchers are installed in nuclear reactors in France as part of similar long-term operation (LTO) requirements.
‘The French nuclear regulator, Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire, states that the installation of core catchers is so vital to the long-term safety of nuclear power stations having their lives extended that it is a non-negotiable condition of their LTO licensing.’
‘This is largely because of safety lessons learnt from the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters,’ Overy said.
Overy and others are concerned that Eskom has not followed the same procedures in its licence application to the NNR. Overy questions why the NNR is not insisting on a core catcher as a condition for Koeberg’s licence-extension approval.
‘Why are French regulators insisting on it, while the NNR remains silent on such a critical safety feature?’ he asked.
The NNR declined to comment on the matter. Eskom, in response to questions from the media, noted recent reports referring to the core catcher. It said these reports are ‘trying to cast doubt’ about the safety of Koeberg, which is not true.
‘The standards (regulations) applicable in South Africa are determined and issued by the National Nuclear Regulator, which [is] clearly informed by sources such as the International Atomic Energy Agency suite of requirements and guidance documents,’ Eskom said.
The power utility added that, as part of regulatory requirements, it completes a periodic safety review every 10 years. This includes a review of the different approaches being taken towards plant safety.
‘Through these reviews, it has been confirmed that the Koeberg approach to severe accident management is in line with international norms and many nuclear power plants have not installed a core catcher,’ Eskom said.
According to Eskom, the accident procedures at Koeberg – similar to the approach taken in many other countries – direct the technical teams and operators to use available resources to retain the nuclear fuel inside the reactor vessel.
‘In the highly improbable event of core damage and reactor vessel failure, analysis has shown that basemat failure is not expected due to the thickness of the basemat at Koeberg,’ it said.
During a public hearing last month in Cape Town, Eskom’s chief nuclear officer, Keith Featherstone, explained that the power utility is regulated on risk. Eskom has demonstrated to the NNR that the plant, as it stands, meets the regulatory requirements from a risk point of view.
‘In fact, we have taken Koeberg to an even lower level of risk than what the regulations require,’ he said during the hearing.
He added that the nuclear environment is ‘extremely regulated’ and that there are strict rules to ensure the safety of the plant, such as through maintenance, inspections, and regular testing.
‘…Through all of those processes, it keeps us in a position where the plant is always in a good condition, which is why we are in the current position to be able to say with confidence that this plant can be run safely. If it wasn’t safe to operate, we wouldn’t be putting an application through to the regulator,’ Featherstone said.
Cape {town} Etc discount: Looking for things to do in the city, at half the price? Get exclusive offers here.
Also read:
Picture: Misha Jordaan / Gallo Images