Mothballed: Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

A Case Study
Overview

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP)

Was completed back in 1980s and costing $2.2 billion, the BNPP
currently stands in Morong, Bataan, atop Napot Point that
overlooks the West Philippine Sea. However, it never achieved its
goal of generating 623 MW of electricity. The BNPP is currently
the only nuclear power plant in the Philippines and more
interestingly, was still the only nuclear plant in the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as of 2014.
Nuclear energy first came to the forefront of Philippine politics back
in the 1950s when the U.S. gave the Philippines a nuclear fission
reactor. The government then formally established a nuclear
program in 1958 under the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
(PAEC). The BNPP was then proposed in the 1960s and 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.
 Issues

One of the biggest issue was the Marcos connection with

Westinghouse. First, Marcos requested that National Power Co. (the
government owned electric utility) negotiate a deal to buy two
nuclear reactors. Westinghouse used connections to Marcos to
strike the deal. Already known to be more expensive than other
options, the Westinghouse contract jumped from $650 million for
only one reactor to $2.2 billion. Later, evidence of large sums of
money going to President Marcos himself was found. Westinghouse
denied corruption accusations.
 Issues

Another issue was how Westinghouse was able to gain the contract
over General Electric. It is documented that National Power was
negotiating with General Electric before Westinghouse came into
the picture. However, once the connections between Westinghouse
and the Marcos regime were established by Hermino Disini, a friend
of the president himself, General Electric appeared to be strung
along, as thought they were still in contention even though they
actually were not. There is documentation that contract
negotiations began before General Electric could pitch its proposal
to the government.
 Issues
Additionally, there were issues during and after the construction of how Ebasco Services
(hired for safety testing) were observing protocol. Librado Ibe, Marcos' top nuclear
expert questioned Ebasco's work of checking the siting. He is documented as saying
that he was offered bribes to approve the site for construction and reluctantly did end
up issuing the construction permit in 1979. [3] After the construction was completed in
1984, William Albert, an advisor from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
was brought in by new Aquino government to do inspections. Albert brought up issues
of welding, working hours, base plates, pipe hangers, water values, and transmission
cables. He attibuted all these shortcomings to quality control. Even though these issues
were brought up to National Power, who had the final say whether the plant was to be
operable or not, there is no evidence that the structural issues were dealt with
appropriately.
 Issues

When the Marcos dictatorship crumbled, the administration of Corazon Aquino

transferred the nuclear plant’s assets to the government without ever operating
it. It was mothballed in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Russia. For
every year the matter sits in indecision alley, the government is spending P50
million ($1.06 million) to maintain the mothballed plant. Such has been the case
since, in 2007, the Philippines completed the payment of the $2.3-billion debt
that had been used to fund the BNPP's construction between 1976 and 1984.
 Issues

The House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy approved a bill aimed at

commissioning and rehabilitating it. Everything stalled following Japan's
Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011 – the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.
The issue reawakened in an energy committee hearing in Congress the last
quarter of 2015.
It would take $1 billion spread over 4 years to restore the BNPP, the study
concluded. 80% of the plant and equipment needed overhauling. The rest had to
be replaced.
Arguments In-favor with the Restoration of the Bataan Nuclear power Plant

Operating BNPP will save foreign exchange, recognized as our scarcest resource.
Uranium’s energy density is extremely high. A small amount contains a large amount of
energy.

BNPP will result in cheap electricity. This will make us more attractive to foreign
investors. We will be less bypassed as an investment/manufacturing destination. Our
costly electricity cost us dearly in terms of economic opportunity.

Nuclear energy is good for the environment. It emits nothing. It means less CO2 and
pollution everywhere.
This is the other magic of nuclear. We are not “burning” anything in the chemical sense.
There is no fire, no smoke, no ash as we know it. There is only heat produced by the
invisible fission reaction.
Arguments In-favor with the Restoration of the Bataan Nuclear power Plant

Nuclear energy saves lives. How deadly is your Kilowatt? According to the WHO, from
various sources it is as follows in “Deaths per terawatt-hour” (TWh): Coal 170,000, Oil
36,000, Biofuel 24,000, Gas 4,000, Hydro 1,400, Solar 440, Wind 150, Nuclear 90. The
numbers for nuclear already include Chernobyl, ThreeMile, and Fukushima. If not for
the fatalities at Chernobyl, nuclear would be ZERO. No one died or was injured at Three
Mile or at Fukushima. And so, nuclear is the safest of energy sources.
Nuclear being the lowest, implies that for every other kind of energy which
nuclear substitutes, it is saving lives the entire time for which it is in operation.
Meaning, nuclear has saved millions of lives already.
Arguments Against the Restoration of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

In a country prone to earthquakes and other catastrophes, fears of a Fukushima repeat

cannot be shrugged off. The tsunami produced by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan
damaged Fukushima’s several reactors and disabled the reactors’ cooling systems,
which resulted in the release of radioactive materials.

The $1 billion rehabilitation budget could build several renewable energy plants. In
2011, the government established the National Renewable Energy Program, which aims
to boost the current capacity of renewable sources from 5,438 MW to 15,304 MW by
2030.

For environmental group Greenpeace, the imminent costs of commissioning and

operating the BNPP would outweigh its power generation benefits, given the failures of
other nuclear facilities abroad, and the burden of debt that was passed on to Filipinos.
Arguments Against the Restoration of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

The government should not reactivate the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant for
the primary purpose of securing the safety of the public. No one can be saved from the
fatal consequences of nuclear power. It is against the right to existence of every human
race. There are still many alternatives that we can resort to in addressing energy and
power shortages. We can live without it.

Before the Bataan nuclear plant project was conceptualized, a feasibility study said that
the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. We borrowed huge sums to finance the
project. However, the project was aborted when it was discovered that the original
findings were false.
Arguments Against the Restoration of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Historical and more current experiences of countries with existing nuclear programs
show that nuclear power construction have gone consistently over-budget, two to three
times higher than what the nuclear industry estimates.

Most nuclear power facilities worldwide depended heavily on state subsidies and
massive loans. The BNPP's commissioning will be no different. Under HB 4631, the cost
of the rehabilitation will come from state budget, with provisions to raise money via
surcharges to consumers, and/or international or domestic loans.

For operational costs, the procurement of uranium fuel is also not cost-effective for
Filipinos. Uranium for the BNPP will have to be imported, increasing the country's
dependence on foreign fuel. Uranium is further subject to large price hikes since the
resource is only available to a few countries.
Arguments Against the Restoration of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Not an answer to climate change or energy security. HB 4631 puts forth nuclear power
as a "proactive" solution to climate change and energy security. But clearly, its
economic disadvantages heavily outweigh whatever perceived benefits it can offer.
Greenpeace further contends that the said benefits of nuclear power are misleading.
Studies show that entire nuclear power plant life cycle contributes significantly to
climate change.