Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear power plant, completed but never fueled, on Bataan Peninsula, 100 kilometres

(62 mi) west of Manilain the Philippines. It is located on a 3.57 square kilometre government reservation at Napot Point in Morong, Bataan. It was the Philippines' only attempt at building a nuclear power plant The Philippine nuclear program started in 1958 with the creation of the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under Republic Act 2067.[1]Under a regime of martial law, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos in July 1973 announced the decision to build a nuclear power plant. [1] This was in response to the 1973 oil crisis, as the Middle East oil embargo had put a heavy strain on the Philippine economy, and Marcos believed nuclear power to be the solution to meeting the country's energy demands and decreasing dependence on imported oil. [2] Construction on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant began in 1976. Following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States, construction on the BNPP was stopped, and a subsequent safety inquiry into the plant revealed over 4,000 defects. [1] Among the issues raised was that it was built near major earthquake fault lines and close to the then dormant Mount Pinatubo.[2] By 1984, when the BNPP was nearly complete, its cost had reached $US2.3 billion.[2] Equipped with a Westinghouse light water reactor, it was designed to produce 621 megawatts of electricity.[2] Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution in 1986. Days after the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino decided not to operate the plant.[1][3] Among other considerations taken were the strong opposition from Bataan residents and Philippine citizens.[1][3] The government sued Westinghouse for overpricing and bribery but was ultimately rejected by a United States court. [4] Debt repayment on the plant became the country's biggest single obligation. While successive governments have looked at several proposals to convert the plant into an oil, coal, or gas-fired power station, these options have all been deemed less economically attractive in the long term than simply constructing new power stations. [2]

LEGAZPI CITY - Senator Joseph Victor JV Ejercito has expressed concern over the expected power shortage in the country by 2015 that is why he is pushing for the restoration of the Bataan nuclear power plant to help avert the countrys energy crisis. In a press conference held in Legazpi City Friday, Ejercito said operating the nuclear plant will help solve the expected power shortage in Luzon. The Bataan nuclear plant must be operated provided it will adhere to allgovernment policies that would not result in any environment-related problems, he said. The nuclear plant was built three decades ago but has never been used and now only serves as a tourist attraction in Morong, Bataan. Ejercito said he visited the plant recently and he confirmed that all equipment are being properly maintained. Since then the facility has become a white elephant, costing the governmentmillions of dollars for maintenance; so therefore, it is high time for the government to operate the plant, he explained. The senator said his technical staff is now in the process of gathering more data and studies before he makes an official recommendation through a legislative action asking Malacanang to consider the full operation of the Bataan nuclear plant. The plant has lain dormant since it was completed in 1984, during the Marcosregime at a cost of $2.3 billion. The senator admitted that pushing the operation of Bataan power nuke plant will be opposed by other independent power companies. We will expect that because their companies will be affected as soon as we fully operate the plant, he s aid. "Our interest is to mitigate energy crisis in Luzon by the next three years and lessen the cost of electricity in the country in order to encourage foreign investors, Ejercito added.

MANILA, Philippines - Former Pangasinan Rep Mark Cojuangco called on the government to consider recommissioning the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), saying it is the only technology with a real chance of lowering the price of electricity. During a media tour of the mothballed facility on May 28, Cojuangco said, The renewable energies unfortunately are not ready. They will not cheapen our power, they will only make it more expensive. He added a $1-billion fund could make the BNPP operational and ready to generate power. The $1 billion rehabilitation cost will be spent upgrading and replacing 25% of the facilitys equipment. In the 14th Congress, Cojuangco filed House Bill 4631 or the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Commissioning Act of 2008. But the bill stalled after the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The pro-nuclear lobby faces strong opposition from environmental groups like Greenpeace. In a position paper presented to the House Committee on Appropriations in 2009, the group questioned the faulty economics of nuclear power compared to its suggested alternative: renewable energy. Why go nuclear? The BNPP was completed in 1984 during the Marcos administration, but was shelved by the succeeding Aquino administration in the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Russia in April 1986. But Cojuangco said a hot functional test done in May 1984 is proof the power plant is ready to operate. During the test, Cojuangco said the plant was able to generate 5 MW of power.

Napocor general manager Mauro Marcelo said the BNPPs 620 MW capacity can supply the 10% power requirement of the Luzon grid. In the Department of Energys power outlook for May, Luzons peak demand may reach 5,521 MW . Marcelo said nuclear power will bring down the high costs of electricity in the Philippines. "When we operate the nuclear power plant in the first 20 years, the cost of electricity (per kilowatt hour) is about P1. It will go to about P2 per kWh for the transmission cost. With coal, it can cost about P6." Non-base load energy For pro-nuclear advocates, the problem with renewable energy is its non-base load nature. Baseloadsources of power such as coal, gas, and nuclear provide continuous energy to meet demand. Renewable energy sources on the other hand generate power at certain times and conditions. Nuclear energy advocates also hit the feed-in tariff (FiT) scheme in the Renewable Energy Act of 2008. The FiT scheme mandates a fixed rate collected from power consumers to cover energy production from renewable sources. The system aims to provide investors an incentive as it assures future cash flows and ensures the economic viability of their projects. In July 2012, the Energy Regulatory Commission approved FiT rates of P5.90/kWh for hydropower projects, P6.63/kWh for biomass, P8.53/kWh for wind, and P9.68/kWh for solar. The approved rates are lower than what the National Renewable Energy Board proposed in May 2011. Various groups opposed the measure because of the added rates on consumers. Renewable energy advocate group World Wide Fund for Nature though said the estimated increase due to the system only amounts to five centavos per kilowatt hour. Cojuangco though said he would be open to supporting renewable energy if it can be proven to be economically viable in terms of infrastructure investments and power generated. He added renewable energy proponents fail to consider additional investment needed in promoting renewable energy. What people don't talk about when they talk about renewable energy is the investment needed to back it up which means a double investment, Cojuangco said. They're being subsidized under the law so that we make their inefficient technology economically viable by paying more. How does that make power cheaper? It doesn't. And the non-base load of renewable energy makes our power less reliable, he added.

The costs of going nuclear Greenpeace Southeast Asia Climate and Energy Campaigner Anna Abad disputed claims by the pro-nuclear lobby, arguing the massive costs in operating nuclear facilities outweigh its power generation benefit. In its position paper, Greenpeace cited operations and maintenance costs, waste storage costs, and decommissioning costs as reasons behind what it called the faulty economics of nuclear power. Greenpeace said the recommissioning budget estimate of $1 billion will not be enough to cover actual costs. The group pointed to historical data showing actual costs grossly exceeded projected figures, citing nuclear facility constructions in India, the United States and Finland. Greenpeace added, "The BNPP's age and document defects, this cost, an estimate not actually provided by experts in the first place, may well be exceeded." In a 2009 forum, at the height of discussions on the merits of Cojuangcos HB 4631, professors from the University of the Phi lippines said government should focus on boosting geothermal power capacity in Visayas and Mindanao instead of re-opening BNPP. Giovanni Tapang, chair of AGHAM and assistant Professor at the University of the Philippines National Institute of Physics, sa id geothermal power is a better and cheaper option compared to nuclear energy. He said a geothermal power plant, which costs $1.43 billion, can generate 750 MW of energy. In contrast, the BNPP can generate 620 MW of energy, but will cost $1 billion to recommission an addition to the $2.3 billion the Philippine government already spent on its construction. Abad said investments should be redirected towards the tried and tested path of renewable energy instead. Once you put inv estments in nuclear power, its investment away from renewable energy, she said. The government is also pursuing the development of renewable energy through the National Renewable Energy Program, which came into effect in 2011. The program aims to increase renewable energy capacity from its current level of 5438 MW to 15,304 MW by 2030. Rappler.com

12. Why should we accept a nuclear plant I our community where we get the risk, while others get the benefits? Social progress on taking shares of the responsibilities along with the benefits. This is true in power plants, shopping centers, manufacturing plants, and garbage dumping. Even the construction of a large park exacts localized cost which are met with frequent compositions. Among the important points in aiming towards a successful siting of facilities are: to minimize the responsibilities or costs charged to the local communities; to provide them added benefits (make sure that the local public is aware of the benefits derived); and to involve them in planning. Nuclear plants can be visually pleasing and occupy a minimum of land area that poses only minor traffic without disturbance. At the same time, they can offer job opportunities for local residenrs. In fact, nuclear plants have proven to be excellent neighbors. It must be emphasized that communities can only derive benefits when they are also willing to accept these facilities. 13. Is NPC capable of operating the PLANT SAFELY?

Philippine Atomic Energy Commission Regulations require that only licensed operators shall be authorized to operate the PNPP-1. The training and development of operators is a lengthy and costly process. Existing requirements specify programs that usually extend over three years and cost more than P3,000,000 per operator. Each operator applicant is also required to pass extensive written and oral as well as practical examinations to be conducted by PAEC. To maintain in Operators competence, NPD has instituted an annualRetraining and Requalification Program for all its licensed operators to ensure the desired level of competence in responding to abnormal and emergency conditions. On the qualifications of the plant operators, NPC has required that only those with engineering degrees and licenses be employed at PNPP-1 in contrast to the US nuclear plant personnel most of whom are only high school graduates. Aside from these, NPC has also trained 413 personnel since 1974, 102 which was abroad and 413 locally. Local training includes Nuclear Engineering, Quality Assurance, Health Physics, Thermal Plants Operation and Maintenance and other Nuclear Power related courses conducted by the University of the Philippines, PAEC, NPC, Westinghouse Electric Co. and EBASCO Consultants. Foreign trainings, on the other hand, include On-The-Job Assignment at Operating Nuclear Power Plants, Instrumentation and Control, Radiation Protection and Maintenance, Fuel Management, Plant Safety Analysis and Construction Management. With the high level of operators qualifications, the number and quality of trainings each operator and technical personnel h ave undergone and the stringest operators licensing requirements, NPC is assured of the proficiency necessary for safe, reliable and efficient operation of the plant. 14. Is the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Safe from any expected earthquake, volcanic activity or tsunamis? One of the major findings of the Puno Commission is that the plant is adequately designed to withstand any expected earthquake or volcanic activity in the area as well as tsunamis. The Puno Commission with the assistance of two independent world renownedseismological and geophysical expert scientists- Dr. Cinna Lomnitz, head of the Geophysics Institute of the National University of Mexico and Dr. Jesse Carl Stepp of Los Angeles, California concluded in its report that eruption of either Mt. Natib or Mt. Mari veles is considered remote, since both are virtually extinct and have not shown activity in the last 70,000 and 190,000 years, respectively. Inspite of these volcanoes being inactive, the NPC has installed a sophisticated volcanic-seismic monitoring system to detect indications of any impending eruption during the 30 year life of the plant. The monitoring system will provide a warning in time to allow protective measures to be taken to protect the plant. The PNPP-1 at Napot Point, Morong, Bataan has a natural ground elevation of 18 meters above sea level which is high enough to protect the plant structurea againsttyphoon, storm surge flooding as well as tsunamis, the highest record level of which in the Philippines is only 17 meters which was recorded in August 1969 in Southern Mindanao. Carbon-free? The proposed bill writes that the use of the BNPP to generate electricity is intended as proactive action in addressing the ever worsening global warming and carbon emissions issue. Even this promise of the nuclear plant being a solution to address climate change is questionable since the processed nuclear fuel has used embedded carbon in its processing even before it has been used. According to a feature in Nature Reports (doi:10.1038/ climate.2008. 99), the life cycle carbon emissions of a nuclear plant can range from a low of 1.4 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh produced up to a high of 288 grams. The article points out that the reasonable average, 66 grams per kilowatt hour, is still twice as much carbon than solar photovoltaic and six times as much than the carbon emissions produced by wind farms. Overall, the proactive impact of the BNPPs operation on global reductions on climate change would be ve ry minimal as the Philippines is not a top producer of greenhouse gases and energy production is second only to transportation in terms of emissions in our country. Although the risks associated with climate change is real and immense, the present power plant in Bataan is not without any risk as well. Safety issues While the proponents of the move to recommission the plant are enthusiastic about the supposed benefits of having a running nuclear facility, the economic, technical and social aspects of the plants operation should be addressed fully and to the satisfaction not only of the experts but of the nearby communities as well before even considering turning on the plant. Every pipe, every component, equipment and systems has to be inspected by a competent independent team. Each seal has to be tested if it is still viable and a thoroughgoing test of the plants structural integrity should be done. The Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) has volunteered to do a preliminary study on reopening the plant since they operate a similar plant in South Korea. However, leaving the preliminary inspection to interested parties such as KEPCO is questionable since they have an interest in pushing for the reopening of the plant. The national government, according to the pending bill in Congress, would be hiring foreign nationals to operate the plant in the absence of local skilled workers and engineers. The study that KEPCO will make would also be its foothold in the management contract that would follow the reopening of the plant. We should approach KEPCOs report in this light. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency in news reports has cautioned th e Philippines not to let commercial interests take precedence over safety issues when considering the revival of delayed nuclear plants. Other issues regarding the safety of the site as well as the plant have already been amplified by other oppositors including geologist Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo. He clearly pointed out the danger of Mount Natib and possible faults in the area. Passing this bill would make the operation of the BNPP a fait accompli despite absence of studies on the actual safety of the plant after 20 years of non-operation, on its site location and its long term economic viability. The BNPP has been shown to be defective according to the Puno Commission, the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on the BNPP and other studies. Its partner plant in Brazil has a spotty record in delivering power. There are numerous and significant arguments being raised with regards to geologic hazards, infrastructure integrity, and nuclear waste storage and disposal. Its operation will pose great risks to the health and lives of the people and the environment. Government has a poor record on regulation and enforcement of environmental laws. If we are to look at recent environmental accidents in the Philippines such as the Rapu-Rapu mine spill, the Marinduque Copper spill and the like involved poor regulation and enforcement by the concerned agencies of government. Furthermore, the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute has to be retooled into a nuclear regulatory commission that should have the interest of the community and the people foremost in their mandate. - See more at: http://iboninternational.org/resources/pages/EDM/72/30#sthash.So8CpzCU.dpuf