![Gyeongju Mayor Ju Nak-young. [Provided by Gyeongju City]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/11/03/news-p.v1.20261103.97618991f8d347dcb059ba91c9660592_P1.jpg)
Gyeongju has long and quietly shouldered its responsibility for national energy security and the development of the power industry. At the center of that commitment stands the Wolsong nuclear power plant.
For decades, Wolsong has served as a reliable baseload source for the national grid, maintaining high capacity factors and a stable operating record.
The history of Wolsong is, in equal measure, a history of the dedication of Gyeongju's citizens.
Beyond the operation of the plant itself, Gyeongju residents have led the way — more than any other community in the country — on nationally sensitive and difficult issues: hosting a radioactive waste disposal facility, participating in public deliberations on the scale-up of dry storage for spent nuclear fuel, and cooperating on regional support projects. Their patience and sense of responsibility must not be taken lightly.
Residents have demonstrated a high degree of local acceptance, grounded in objective information and reasoned judgment, and have placed their trust in Wolsong's strong operating record and accumulated safety experience.
Even so, the disappointment and wounds the community suffered through the early shutdown of Wolsong Unit 1 remain deep.
Unit 1 was halted amid controversy over the objectivity of its economic viability assessment. That decision was not merely the shutdown of a single reactor — it was an event that shook the trust of local residents.
From the residents' perspective, a national baseload power source was taken offline on economic grounds they found difficult to accept. Watching the continued-operation approval process for units 2, 3 and 4 now drag on, many citizens are asking whether history is about to repeat itself.
Particularly troubling is the situation in which the approval process for continued operation is being delayed under the banner of enhanced safety — with the result that procurement of key components is falling behind and the actual period of viable continued operation is shrinking.
Safety must never be subject to compromise. But if administrative and policy decisions are excessively delayed in the name of safety, thereby eroding economic viability, and that eroded viability is then used as grounds for shutdown, it is hard to call that rational policymaking.
Within the community, this pattern has given rise to suspicion that the ultimate aim is to permanently shut down the country's only heavy-water reactors.
The relevant authorities must therefore treat the continued-operation process for Wolsong units 2, 3 and 4 as a priority and move with urgency.
Given current power supply conditions and projected demand, the most realistic near-term option for stabilizing electricity supply — compared with new reactor construction, which takes many years — is the rational continued operation of existing plants that have already been safely run.
Nuclear power is also a representative carbon-free energy source capable of supplying large-scale electricity stably while reducing carbon emissions. When both carbon neutrality obligations and energy security are taken into account, needlessly halting a proven existing plant represents an enormous national loss.
Alongside this, the cycle for continued operation of nuclear plants needs to be restructured on a more rational basis than the current system allows.
Adjusting the continued-operation cycle to 20-year intervals is well worth examining, as it would improve the predictability of long-term capital investment, maintenance planning, component procurement and power supply planning.
With short and uncertain cycles, neither operators, nor local communities, nor the national grid can plan with confidence. Safety verification must remain a prerequisite, but the regime should be operated in a more realistic and predictable manner.
In addition, the government must actively explore practical ways to make use of Wolsong Unit 1 — shut down against the wishes of Gyeongju residents — as a national power facility.
Serious consideration is needed on how to deploy, in the public interest and with efficiency, a national asset into which enormous social costs have already been invested.
If a facility was unilaterally shut down without reflecting the will of residents and the sacrifices of the region, the government must now offer a responsible alternative.
If the continued-operation process is allowed to stall, and the resulting loss of economic viability is then used as a basis for judgment, that would be a betrayal of Gyeongju citizens' trust — again.
It would also be difficult to escape the criticism that the government is treating with contempt a community that has worked alongside it to resolve the hardest challenges facing the national power industry.
The question of continued operation for Wolsong units 2, 3 and 4 is not simply a technical matter between an operator and a regulator.
It is a question of consistency in national power policy, of community acceptance and trust, of carbon neutrality and energy security, and of fair policy judgment.
Economic viability assessments matter. But national energy policy must not be decided by that criterion alone.
Safety must be rigorously ensured — but unnecessary delays made in the name of safety must stop.
What is needed now, for the sake of national power supply, carbon neutrality, regional trust and policy consistency, is not hesitation but responsible decision-making. Continued operation of Wolsong units 2, 3 and 4 can be delayed no longer.
kbj7653@heraldcorp.com
