Minutes of the Koeberg Public Safety Information Forum held
at the Old Koeberg Club on 24 November 2011
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Clarence Mentor (absent)
DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Ms Smokie La Grange
ATTENDEES
Mr and Ms La Grange
Mr N Lee
Mr and Ms Mayhew
Mr M A C Meyrick
Mr J Mwezi
Mr and Ms Williamson
Mr Ray
Mr D Ducase
Ms MJ van Vuuren
Mr Eugene Hendry
Mr Z Majangaza
Mr AGI Orfanos
Mr W Herrebrugh
Mr N Lemmer
Mr MC Kraune
Mr J Iiosiphockis
Mr and Ms Joubert
Mr L Alias
Mr R Cannel
Mr P Luhanga
Mr P Siyo
Ms Van Schalkwyk
Mr U Rothen
OFFICIALS
Ms K Kline
(Liaison Officer – Eskom)
Ms D Joshua
(Senior Advisor Stakeholder Management - Eskom)
Mr L Phidza
(Stakeholder Management Manager - Eskom)
Mr K Featherstone
(Acting General Manager Nuclear Support - Eskom)
Mr J Dyabaza
(Senior Advisor Stakeholder Management – Eskom)
Mr M Cronje
(
)
Mr LK Ndube
(Chief Engineer – Eskom)
Mr Krause
(Security Risk – Eskom)
Mr R Bakardien
(Koeberg Operating Unit Power Station Manager)
Ms P Radebe
(Assistant Communications Officer – Eskom)
Mr M Saaymans
(Manager Emergency Management – Eskom)
Mr AC van Schalkwyk (Corporate Nuclear Consultant – Eskom)
Mr M Ramarafe
(Functional coordinator Emergency Planning and
Nuclear Safety – NNR)
Mr G Moonsamy
(Manager Communication and Stakeholder Relations NNR )
Page | 1
APOLOGIES
Mrs C de Villiers
Mr J Dolby
Mr G Pillay
Mr J Spotten
Mr S van Rensburg
Ms A Tsebe
(Parliamentary Affairs Manager – Eskom)
(City of Cape Town)
(Head: Disaster Management – City of Cape Town)
(Disaster Management – City of Cape Town)
(Disaster Management – City of Cape Town)
(Deputy Director - Department of Public Enterprises)
1. WELCOME AND OPENING:
Ms Smokie La Grange (Deputy Chair) opened the Public Safety Information
Forum (PSIF) meeting at 19:08 on behalf of the chairperson, Mr Clarence
Mentor who was absent due to car problems. Ms La Grange extended a
special welcome to the new Koeberg Power Station Manager, Mr Riedewaan
Bakardien, as well as the NNR and the PSIF members.
Special thank you to Ms van Schalkwyk
The Deputy Chair handed over to Mr Gino Moonsamy (NNR) who read out an
official letter of gratitude from the Forum members, NNR, CoCT and the
Eskom Management Team to Ms van Schalkwyk for her commitment and the
impact she has made to the PSIF over the past two years in her capacity as
PSIF Chairperson. A bouquet of flowers was handed over to her as a token
of gratitude.
Ms van Schalkwyk took a moment to thank the members for their support and
commitment to her during her time as chairperson of the Forum. She thanked
the members for their kind gesture and asked to be excused from the
meeting.
2. APOLOGIES:
Ms La Grange enquired from the members whether there were any apologies.
The following apologies were tendered:










Ms Carin de Villiers – Parliamentary Manager - Eskom
Mr J Dolby - City of Cape Town
Ms A Lee
- PSIF member
Mr Greg Pillay – Head: Disaster Management – City of Cape Town
and the team from the CoCT
Mr John and Sheilah Wilson – Members of the PSIF
Ms Hanley – PSIF Member
Mr D Ducase – PSIF Member
Mr John Spotten – Disaster Management – City of Cape Town
Mr A Tsebe – Deputy Director - Department of Public Enterprises
Mr S van Rensburg – Disaster Management – City of Cape Town
Page | 2
3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
A few of the members complained of not receiving the previous meeting’s
minutes.
Mr Nick Lee – commented that he cannot receive or open minutes in dot doc,
Ms Smokie La Grange agreed to deliver them to him herself at 11 Atlantic
Avenue, Duynefontein.
Mr Tug Wilson – it appears that Mr Wilson’s email address was incorrect.
This has subsequently been changed and he’s received.
Comment
A comment was made by Ms Debbie Joshua that usually an email reply
message is received when an email address is invalid or no longer in
existence. One of the members commented that 50% of email service
providers do not send a “notice received” message.
Acceptance of the minutes:
The minutes of the meeting were accepted by Mr Robert Mayhew and
seconded by Ms Sylvia Mayhew.
4. MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

Correction of Mr Ramarafe’s surname. It was stated as Mr Ramerafe
on page 7. Should be Mr Ramarafe.
Comment by Mr Mayhew
Mr Mayhew requested that the PSIF agenda be sent to members before the
meetings to their email address along with PSIF Agenda.
Comment by Mr Meyrick
The name of an official from Town Planning who attended the previous PSIF
meeting has not been captured on the register. I cannot remember his name.
Response by Mr Phidza
Noted. The agenda of the meeting was published for two weeks in a row in
the following newspapers: Table talk, Impact 24/7, Die Burger and Weskus
Nuus. Members were also sent the agenda items by e-mails, we however
note the previous comment about the e-mail addresses.
Comment by Mr Williamson
The minutes are 20 pages long, is there no way that the minutes can be
summarised instead of being verbatim?
Response by Mr Mayhew
I don’t agree with the comment as I feel that it should be verbatim as I would
feel offended if information is not correctly stated.
Page | 3
Response by Mr Phidza
This question has come up before and members concluded that they prefer
the minutes to be verbatim. We are more than prepared to do a summarised
version if this is what members prefer.
The Deputy Chair, Ms La Grange, asked members to vote for their preference
by means of a show of hands for a shortened version or for the full Minutes.
The majority of members voted for a full version of the minutes.
Presentations:
Traffic Evacuation Model presentation (CoCT)
Comment by Mr Phidza
The Traffic Evacuation Model presentation which was to be presented at
tonight’s meeting by the City of Cape Town will not take place tonight but will
be rescheduled for the first meeting of 2012. The CoCT formally
communicated their apology for not being able to attend or present at tonight’s
meeting on Tuesday 22 November 2011.
Question by Mr Mayhew
Why are they not coming? They had plenty of time to prepare.
Response by Mr Phidza
They will be here next year to present. They are part of this meeting; they are
also officials that need to be in this meeting in their capacity as Disaster
Management. In any eventuality, communication will happen and be shared
with the members in advance.
Comment by Ms La Grange
The traffic evacuation model was not acceptable in some instances and is
currently being re-looked, hence the failure to present today. Mr Phidza will
share any further developments with the meeting in the event that the CoCT
do not honour their commitment. If they’re not here by next year March we
will have to address the matter.
Response by Mr Phidza
I am definitely sure they will be here next year. They are also officials to be in
this meeting in their capacity as Disaster Management, in any eventuality
communication will happen and be shared with the members in
5. KOEBERG’S QUARTERLY SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL
PERFORMANCE – RIEDEWAAN BARKARDIEN
Mr Bakardien greeted the members and introduced himself. He informed the
members that he’s been in the position as newly appointed Koeberg Power
Station Manager since the 1st October 2011.
The following is a summary of his presentation:
Station performance:
Unit 1 has been operating at close to 100% power.
Page | 4
Unit 2
5 September;
Unit 2 experienced a reactor trip due to an electrical penetration cover not
sufficiently tightened following a modification, causing bad connections in the
penetration. This resulted in unit 2 being down for less than 2 days.
28 October;
An unplanned shutdown occurred due to a hydrogen leak on the generator.
Unit 9;
There was pilchard ingress into the intake basin during Nov 2011 which posed
a risk to the cooling of the plant condensers. It posed no safety risk however it
did pose a risk to production. This was dealt with by means of a planned
response.
Recent notable Koeberg activities
 The appointment of a new PSM;

Koeberg hosted IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) on behest
of DoE(Department of Energy) identifying areas of improvement as well
as strengths;

We’ve hosted WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) in Nov
2011 for a nuclear peer evaluation by industry experts. These
exercises are useful in conjunction with other reviews to check the
safety and quality of our plant.

IAEA and WANO confirmed that a good nuclear safety culture exist at
Koeberg.

We’ve also had a successful visit by the Eskom Nuclear Sustainability
Board and member of EXCO who focuses on nuclear sustainability
within Eskom
Focus areas:
The station’s top three business action plans are focussed on:
 Outage excellence and duration reduction
 Vendor management
 Leadership, Management and Supervision development
Other focus areas:
 Annual Emergency Plan Station 7 week training exercises are currently
underway;

Escalation of site security arrangements in preparation for COP 17.
This entails the closure of the site to most visitors due to high levels of
security.

Preparation for the next outage on unit 1 - planned for March 2012.
Page | 5
Question by Mr Mayhew
Since it was a contractor who caused the SDO, as far as money goes, whose
paying? The electricity payer or are you claiming from the person who caused
the SDO?
Answer by Mr Bakardien
The losses due to unavailability are carried by the utility. Koeberg forms part
of a grid so the impact is not so bad as the coal fired power stations where
they are available to the grid when Koeberg was down. This doesn’t mean an
increase in cost to the customer.
Comment by Mr Featherstone
We cannot claim for consequential damage, we can only claim direct cost. We
are trying to exert pressure to get the vendor to pay but we have no legal
recourse.
Question by Mr Iosiphockis
You’ve mentioned about the sardines problem, what about the jellyfish?
Response by Mr Bakardien
We don’t have an issue with jelly fish as we have experience in dealing with it
and we have a response procedure in place. If it is bad, we can activate our
Emergency Control Centre. Jelly fish are one of the risks we face from time to
time.
6. FEEDBACK ON KOEBERG STATION EXERCISE – MARTIN SAAYMANS
The annual Station exercise took place on 17 November and it went well.
Today, 24 November, was the 5th exercise of the 7 scheduled exercises which
are being rolled out as part of the 7 week training cycle. The purpose of these
7 week exercises is to train and exercise the station standby teams. The big
Koeberg station exercise is done annually whilst the NNR exercise is only
done every two years with the last one being in November 2010. The station
exercise of 17 November went very well, with our new PSM, Riedewaan
Bakardien performing the role as Emergency controller on the day. The NNR
and NECSA Pelindaba site was also in attendance and good feedback was
received all round.
Question by Mr Mayhew
In the last meeting (29 September 2011), we had a debate about the
20 outstanding items as identified by the NNR which were to be closed out by
Koeberg the day after the meeting (30 September 2011). What I want to
know is, was all the outstanding items closed out as promised?
Response by Mr Martin Saaymans
As indicated it was confirmed that all the outstanding actions were going to be
closed out on the final day (due date) and it was closed out. However, it did
require some signatures. To put it in perspective, there were multiple roleplayers involved but everyone did their part. The proof was sent to the NNR
Page | 6
and they verified that it was closed out on the day. Eskom is in possession of
the close-out letter from the NNR confirming the close out of all outstanding
action items.
Comment by Mr Mayhew
It is very sad that everything was done on the due date after having two years
to complete it.
Response by Mr Saaymans
Let’s put it into perspective. It wasn’t two years; we’ve had 6 months from the
issue of the report to close out the findings as per the report. However not all
of the findings was significant. The NNR has criteria to assign significance to
certain activities. The significant findings were the ones that was outstanding
and for which we’ve received extensions. Most of these findings were related
to training.
Comment by Mr Mayhew
I do understand what you are saying; my only concern is that as a nuclear
power station you are always under the spotlight. Maybe it was petty but
everything at a nuclear power station is always under the spotlight petty or
not. I would like to think that whatever action it is you will pick up on it and
close it out.
Comment by Mr Martin Saaymans
Whatever we can, we fix upfront. It’s a matter of the NNR not receiving the
letter. We don’t send single close-outs but we send out and submit when
there’s a significant close out. On the last day we just struggled with
signatures. We work with various role players which we unfortunately do not
have direct influence on i.e. The City of Cape Town, SABC, NECSA etc.
Response by Mr Phidza
We do hear you and we understand where you’re coming from Mr Mayhew.
As a nuclear power station, we do have an internal goal which is to beat all
the target dates we are given by the NNR.
7. PROGRESS FEEDBACK ON ACTIONS ARISING FROM FUKUSHIMA –
DAVE NICHOLLS
After Mr Dave Nicholls made a presentation on Koeberg progress on actions
mitigated as a result of the Fukushima accident, the following were follow up
questions from the members:
Question by Mr Williamson
I have three questions. 1) When is it all going to be done? 2) What are the
priorities? 3) How many major enhancements are there? Enhancements as in
anything that resulted from the Fukushima experience.
Page | 7
Answer by Mr Nicholls
Response plan modifications are not, they will probably be an organisational
problem but the actual job is not major. The first 3 pages of my presentation
are not significant as it is refers to reasonably small changes. The Expensive
ones are the top two; filtered containment venting and alternative heat sink for
component cooling (this will improve our Emergency Plan). He referred
members to slide 57 of his presentation.
Question by a PSIF member
Is it possible to tell us what the schedule for these will be?
Answer by Dave Nicholls
It is difficult to determine as modifications (mods) takes a long time to
implement and many of them needs approval from the regulator which also
impacts on the time frame.
Question by a PSIF member
Can’t give you a cost benefit analysis?
Question by Mr Williamson
Could one assume that this will change Koeberg’s specifications?
Answer by Mr Nicholls
Yes, you can assume that. The biggest problem will be for us to decide in
which conditions we will use it. These changes will almost cost nothing on a
new build plant.
Comment by Deputy Chair
The Deputy Chair requested that Mr Nicholls provide progress feedback at
our next meeting in March 2012.
Question by a PSIF member
Is this information available on the website?
Answer by Mr Nicholls
Part of the information is not for public consumption, so you will not find it on
the Eskom website. It is meant to be presented to Eskom investment
committee members and other relevant committees as well as the NNR. The
information is more for the Eskom decision makers.
Question by Mr Iosiphockis
What is the theoretical lifespan of the plant at the moment?
Response by Mr Nicholls
The current Eskom view is that the Koeberg’s lifespan is 60 years which gives
it about another 30 years. Essentially there is no real end life because with
good maintenance it can last forever, with the only constraint being the
purchasing of parts.
Page | 8
Question by Mr Meyrick
Have you taken into consideration the rise in the sea levels?
Response by Mr Nicholls
Ten and a half is the terrace height for the New Build plant and yes there are
mechanisms in nature which will lead to these things.
Comment by Mr Meyrick
I can’t remember the actual figures?
Response by Mr Nicholls
It’s about a meter
Response by Mr Meyrick
I thought it was about 50 metres.
Response by Mr Nicholls
If its 50 metres, then don’t buy property in False Bay or Melkbos.
I wouldn’t worry so much about Koeberg but about Cape Town.
8. PSIF CONSTITUTION FINALIZATION
We’ve received only one response thus far.
Comment by the Deputy Chair
The final date for comments and inputs to the PSIF constitution is 31
December 2011. The amended constitution will be sent to everyone before
March 2012. In the March meeting we will sign off the comments.
Question by Mr Nick Lee
Can we have the comments?
Response by Mr Phidza
We will send with the minutes.
9. GENERAL
Proposal by Mr Phidza
As Koeberg we believe in being more transparent when it comes to
dissemination of nuclear safety information. We are therefore proposing that
this meeting i.e. the PSIF allows us a platform where we can have more proactive Koeberg events meetings. In these meetings we will share with the
members of the public and stakeholders, information about events happening
at Koeberg related to the safety of the plant. We are further proposing that
more frequent meetings be run by Koeberg under the banner of information
sharing by Koeberg. These meetings will be treated as additional to the PSIF
meetings. They will be focussed on Koeberg events and will not be chaired by
a PSIF chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and it will not be run as a PSIF
though if there are more presentations to be made as a follow-up from these
meetings, it can be made in the bigger and formal PSIF meeting.
Page | 9
Comment by Ms La Grange
Maybe once a month?
Question by Mr Gino Moonsamy
What do you want to achieve by it?
Response by Mr Phidza
The objective is to share information more frequently without having to wait for
the PSIF (which happens every quarter). Also to be more transparent about
what we are doing and share key safety information (including events) when
the information is still new and fresh.
Question by Mr Williamson
Will there be an agenda or will it be open? Give me some idea of what you
want to achieve.
Response by Mr Featherstone
It stems from feedback received from the EdF in terms of their interactions.
This is not to undermine the PSIF. The PSIF will continue as planned.
If you remember the airborne contamination event, members were upset
about getting information long after the event. The idea is not to have another
PSIF but to have a regular timeslot and a fixed venue to speak about regular
events that happen at Koeberg in real time as opposed to having to wait for
the PSIF. The objective is to have more meaningful interaction with the
public. The agenda will be that the power station updates residents on events
that happened at Koeberg. It’s for transparency and it requires the ‘blessing’
of the PSIF as a potential extension of the forum.
Question by PSIF member
Why not put the information out to the media?
Response by Mr Featherstone
The media is interested in sensational information; if it’s not sensational they
are not interested for it to be published. We want to report on all aspects at
Koeberg even the boring stuff.
Comment by a PSIF member
What about a short summery via email or the internet?
Comment by a PSIF member
I think it’s a good idea, why don’t have a short summary and have it as part of
the PSIF.
Comment by Mr Featherstone
There are potential pitfalls in that; we can’t go straight to that level as total
transparency comes at a cost. Let’s see it as an end vision, not an immediate
vision.
Page | 10
Question from Eugene Joubert
Not a lot of people can attend this forum at this time of the evening. But if you
can have it at central venues spread across the surrounding areas, if welladvertised, people will come out and attend.
Question by Mr Meyrick
Do you consider this for only members of the public living in the 16km radius?
Do you consider us as members of the public?
Response by Mr Phidza
We consider you as members of the PSIF which means a key stakeholders,
both members and representatives of members of the public, so in one PSIF
member we see three different people represented.
Comment by Mr Williamson
On the proposal - I’d like to give it a try to see if it will work.
The deputy chair asked members to vote by a show of hands that supports
the proposal. The majority voted in favour of the proposal.
Mr Nick Lee brought up the topic of illegal overhead electricity cables in
Du Noon, and his photographs. He was not supported by the members and
Ms Sheila Mayhew objected quite strongly as she felt it was outside the
jurisdiction of the PSIF as per the Act. It was decided that this topic should
never be brought up in the PSIF again. The Deputy Chair noted the decision
by the members and ruled that this topic will not be raised in the PSIF again.
10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The Deputy Chair thanked everyone for attending the meeting and
acknowledged the attendance of Mrs Marissa Jansen Van Vuuren,
Democratic Alliance Councillor, at the meeting.
She confirmed that the date for the next PSIF meeting is scheduled for
29 March 2012.
11. (PROPOSED)TOPICS FOR THE NEXT MEETING:
 Traffic Evacuation Model
 Feedback on the 7 week EP training (Martin Saaymans)
 Feedback on progress on Fukushima (Mr Dave Nicholls)
The meeting was adjourned at 20:30.
Page | 11