Nuclear Energy in Philippines

Engr. Joshua Malajito

In 1984, the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC; then
name of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI) decided to
convert and upgrade the reactor into a 3 MW TRIGA Mark III reactor.
The converted reactor achieved criticality in April 1988.[4] The
converted PRR-1 TRIGA reactor used low-enriched uranium instead
of highly enriched uranium. After its conversion, technical and
administrative problems rendered the facility inoperable, which
resulted in its extended shutdown. In 2005, it was initially decided
that the reactor would be decommissioned.
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant “Sleeping Giant”
The government then formally established a
nuclear program in 1958 under the
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
(PAEC). The BNPP was approved under the
Marcos regime (1965 - 1986) in July of
1973. The final contract was given to
Westinghouse Electric. The project was
completed in 1984. [2]
 Bataan Nuclear Power Plant “Sleeping Giant”
The government then formally established a
nuclear program in 1958 under the
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
(PAEC). The BNPP was approved under the
Marcos regime (1965 - 1986) in July of
1973. The final contract was given to
Westinghouse Electric. The project was
completed in 1984. [2]

Twin sisters of BNPP

The state-run power generation firm added that the

nuclear reactor in the BNPP has a “twin sister” in
South Korea, the 650-MW Kori 2, commissioned in
1983 and which has been operating since then.
 Bataan Nuclear Power Plant “Sleeping Giant”
The government then formally established a
nuclear program in 1958 under the
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
(PAEC). The BNPP was approved under the
Marcos regime (1965 - 1986) in July of
1973. The final contract was given to
Westinghouse Electric. The project was
completed in 1984. [2]

Twin sisters of BNPP

The state-run power generation firm added that the

nuclear reactor in the BNPP has a “twin sister” in
South Korea, the 650-MW Kori 2, commissioned in
Angra I, India Krško, Slovenia 1983 and which has been operating since then.
2010 - However, officials from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology
and Seismology had declared the site of the plant is safe noting the
facility's solid foundation and the dormancy of the nearby volcano
Mount Natib.
Following proposals submitted in 2017 by Korea Hydro & Nuclear
Power Co. Ltd. and Russia's Rosatom to rehabilitate the plant,
Opposition to the nuclear plant also raised concerns related to safety
and health issues, reliance on imported uranium, high waste, and the
steep cost of decommissioning.
The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear
secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-
operated relief valve in the primary system.
This allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor
coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were
compounded by the initial failure of plant
operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-
coolant accident due to inadequate training
and human factors, such as human-computer
interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous
control room indicators in the power plant's user
interface.
The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear
secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-
operated relief valve in the primary system.
This allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor
coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were
compounded by the initial failure of plant
operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-
coolant accident due to inadequate training
and human factors, such as human-computer
interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous
control room indicators in the power plant's user
interface.
 The accident began with failures in the non-nuclear
secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-
operated relief valve in the primary system.
This allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor
coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were
compounded by the initial failure of plant
operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-
coolant accident due to inadequate training
and human factors, such as human-computer
interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous
control room indicators in the power plant's user
interface.

The night shift had very limited time to prepare for

and carry out the experiment. Anatoly Dyatlov,
deputy chief-engineer of the entire Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant, was present to supervise and
direct the experiment; as he out-ranked all other
supervisory personnel present, his orders and
instructions overrode any objections of other senior
personnel present during the test and its preparation.
Serving under Dyatlov, Aleksandr Akimov was chief
of the night shift, and Leonid Toptunov was the
operator responsible for the reactor's operational
regimen, including the movement of the control rods.
Nuclear Power Plant Diagram
 Difference Between

Thermal Power Plant Nuclear Power Plant

 Difference Between

Thermal Power Plant Nuclear Power Plant

Fuels By Product Fuels By Product

A single uranium fuel pellet, only as big as a fingertip,
contains as much energy as
481 cubic meters of natural gas,
807 kilograms of coal
564 liters of oil.

Fuel Rod