Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Coordinates: 14°37′45″N 120°18′50″E / 14.6291°N 120.3140°E / 14.6291; 120.3140
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
Brutalist concrete building
The power plant in 2011
Map
CountryPhilippines
LocationMorong, Bataan
Coordinates14°37′45″N 120°18′50″E / 14.6291°N 120.3140°E / 14.6291; 120.3140
StatusCompleted, but never launched
Construction began1976
Construction costover US$2.3 billion
Nuclear power station
Reactor typePWR
Reactor supplierWestinghouse
Power generation
Nameplate capacity621 MW
External links
CommonsRelated media on Commons
[edit on Wikidata]

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is a nuclear power plant on the Bataan Peninsula, 100 kilometers (62 mi) west of Manila, Philippines. Completed but never fueled, it is located on a 3.57 km2 (1.38 sq mi) government reservation at Napot Point in Barangay Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan. It was the Philippines' only attempt at building a nuclear power plant. It was mothballed due to safety concerns in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986[1][2][3][4] and issues regarding corruption.[5][6][7]

Background

[edit]

In 1958, the Philippine nuclear program started with the creation of the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC).[8] In July 1973, under a regime of martial law, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos announced the decision to build a nuclear power plant.[8] A presidential committee was set up to secure funding for two 620 megawatt nuclear reactors for the energy needs of Luzon.[9] Marcos reasoned that this was in response to the 1973 oil crisis, as the Middle East oil embargo had put a heavy strain on the Philippine economy.[10]

Controversy

[edit]

Two proposals were submitted by General Electric and Westinghouse Electric. General Electric submitted a proposal containing detailed specifications of the nuclear plant and an estimated US$700 million cost. Westinghouse submitted a lower cost estimate of US$500 million, but the proposal did not contain any detail or specification. The presidential committee tasked to oversee the project preferred General Electric's proposal. This was overruled by Marcos in June 1974, who signed a letter of intent awarding the project to Westinghouse, despite the absence of any specifications on their proposal.[9] Similarly, Marcos disregarded the advice of the National Power Corporation, the government-owned and controlled corporation responsible for electricity in the Philippines.

The project was plagued with problems during construction, including the location, welding, cabling, pipes and valves, permits, and kickbacks, and setbacks such as the decline of Marcos's influence and the incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor.[11] By March 1975, Westinghouse's cost estimate ballooned to US$1.2 billion without much explanation. The final cost was $2.2 billion for a single reactor, producing half the power of the original proposal.[9]

Many problems identified in earlier stages remained throughout construction, as reported by inspectors, though denied by Westinghouse.[11] In 1976, the Philippine economy only had a GDP of US$17 billion and a government budget of US$1.5 billion.[12] As such, the burden to the economy for a single project was deemed too heavy.[citation needed] The power plant would be responsible for 10% of the Philippine's external debt.[13]

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) later ordered Marcos crony Herminio Disini to return US$50.6 million in commissions he earned from the deal. Marcos received US$80 million in kickback from the project.[14] The Office of the Solicitor General ruled that Marcos return PHP22.2 billion to the government for his conspiracy with Disini to defraud the government.[15] In 2021, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ordered Disini, through his estate, to pay back the government over PHP1 billion in damages, affirming a 2012 Sandiganbayan decision.[16][17]

In August 2023, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reduced from P1 billion to P100 million the temperate damages that Herminio T. Disini estate must pay for brokering the 1974 deal behind the now mothballed $2.3-billion Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.[18][19]

Construction

[edit]

In 1976, construction on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant began. Following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States, construction on the BNPP was stopped, and a safety inquiry into the plant revealed over 4,000 defects.[8] Among the issues raised was that it was built near a major geological fault line and close to the then dormant Mount Pinatubo.[9][10]

In November 1979, President Ferdinand Marcos stated via a decree that the continuation of the construction was not possible due, to potential hazards to the health and safety of the public. However, the Marcos administration eventually supported the project.[20]

By 1984, when the BNPP was nearly complete, its cost had reached US$2.3 billion.[10] Equipped with a Westinghouse light water reactor, it was designed to produce 621 megawatts of electricity.[10]

In February 1986, President Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution. Days after the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino decided not to operate the plant.[8][21] Among other considerations taken was the strong opposition from Bataan residents and Philippine citizens as well as concerns over the integrity of the construction.[8][21][22] From 1989 to 1993, the Philippines experienced 8- to 12-hour rolling blackouts and power rationing.[23]

The new government sued Westinghouse for alleged overpricing and bribery, but was ultimately rejected by a United States court.[24] Debt repayment on the plant became the Philippine's single biggest debt obligation. 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.[10]

Opposition

[edit]
See also: Anti-nuclear movement in the Philippines

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was a focal point for anti-nuclear protests in the late 1970s and 1980s. The project was criticized for being a potential threat to public health, especially since the plant was located in an earthquake zone,[25] connected to Mount Natib, a caldera volcano similar to Mount Pinatubo.[1][3] According to the US Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center, several earthquakes have occurred on Mount Natib from 1951 to 2016.[1]

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.[26][27][28]

Aftermath

[edit]

2000s

[edit]

Despite never being commissioned, the plant has remained intact, including the nuclear reactor, and has continued to be maintained.[10] In April 2007, the Philippine government completed paying off its obligations on the plant, more than 30 years after construction began.[10]

In January 2008, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes announced that an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) eight-man team led by Akira Omoto inspected the Bataan Nuclear power station on rehabilitation prospects. In preparing their report, the IAEA made two primary recommendations. First, the power plant's status must be thoroughly evaluated by technical inspections and economic evaluations conducted by a committed group of nuclear power experts with experience in preservation management. Second, the IAEA mission advised the Philippine government on the general requirements for starting its nuclear power program, stressing that the proper infrastructure, safety standards, and knowledge be implemented.[29] The IAEA's role did not extend to assessing whether the power plant is usable or how much the plant may cost to rehabilitate.[29]

Critics of the Bataan Nuclear power plant at an assembly in a basketball court around the compound of the Morong Parish Church, 2009

Plans to reactivate the plant was questioned by critics, citing the need to consider people's safety, the plant's structural defects, the fact that the plant stands near a major earthquake fault, and the large sums of money the government would need to loan to revive the plant.[30][31] Critics also alleged that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was being revived to become another source of government corruption.[6][32] Opposition to the nuclear plant's revival came from Bataan and nearby provinces.[6][33]

2010s

[edit]

In February 2010, NAPOCOR started evaluating the financial plan of Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), assessing that it may cost US$1 billion to rehabilitate the nuclear plant.[34] In February 2011, the Philippine government reimbursed the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) ₱4.2 billion (US$96 million) it spent for maintaining the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.[35] It requires an average of ₱40 million a year just to maintain it.[36] In May 2011, it was announced that the plant would be turned into a tourist attraction.[37]

In 2012, the Sandiganbayan graft court ordered entrepreneur and Marcos crony Herminio Disini to repay the Philippine government the amount of $50 million for his role in defrauding the country through the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.[38][39][40]

In 2016, various senators and a few media personnel inspected the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant for a possible bid to open it for public use. Inspecting senators told the media that the power plant was still in good condition. The Department of Energy was later given the go-ahead to look into the plant's rehabilitation.[41] At least one senator has cautioned against reviving the nuclear power plant and stressed the need to consult scientists on the issue.[42]

Citing risks associated with the presence of the Lubao Fault, an active earthquake fault running through the nearby Mount Natib, scientists have advised against reviving the nuclear plant.[1] 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.[43]

In late 2017, representatives from Russia's Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation and Slovenia's GEN Energija went to assess the plant and make recommendations for its rehabilitation.[44] They estimated rehabilitation costs between $3 billion to 4 billion and proposed steps for securing financing, drafting of relevant regulations, and training of technical personnel. They also recommended that the government consider constructing new nuclear power plants.[45]

In an interview with CNN Philippines in April 2018, the Russian ambassador to the Philippines commented that he believed that revival of the plant would not be possible due to its outdated design.[5][46] In contrast, Rosatom's vice president for Southeast Asia, Egor Simonov, stated that it would be possible to revive the plant, noting its "relatively good condition" despite decades of disuse.[43] However, Simonov added that reviving the nuclear power plant may not be cost-effective.[43]

In 2019, the Department of National Defense expressed its support for the revival of the nuclear power plant.[47] The Philippine Nuclear Research Institute also urged the government to revive the power plant.[47]

2020s

[edit]

Amid the 2021–2023 global energy crisis, President Bongbong Marcos, in his 2022 State of the Nation address, expressed his wish for the Philippines to revive research into nuclear power.[48]

In 2022, the Biden administration committed to increased cooperation with the Philippines on nuclear power planning, including allowing American nuclear technology to be sold to the Philippines.[49] Marcos allies and staunch supporters of the BNPP, including Representative Mark Cojuangco welcomed the news, noting that they were also open to seeking assistance from China and South Korea.[50] However, energy analysts including Bert Dalusung and Gerry Arances[48] said the nuclear power plant might be less important for government funding priorities than building out a system of distributed renewables, pointing to their emerging cheapness. Local lawyers and activists such as Derek Cabe and Dante Ilaya have also vowed to fight the revival of the BNPP.[51][50]

In October 2024, an agreement was announced between the Department of Energy and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power where the latter will conduct a feasibility study for the rehabilitation of the nuclear plant at no cost of the Philippine government.[52]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Orejas, Tonette. "Risk too high for Bataan nuke plant, says scientist". Retrieved March 12, 2018.
  2. ^ "Scientists, green group reject Bataan nuke plant reopening". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved March 12, 2018.
  3. ^ a b "Is The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Safe? by Professor Roland G. Simbulan". YONIP. February 28, 2013. Archived from the original on March 27, 2018. Retrieved March 12, 2018.
  4. ^ "DOE: Nat'l consensus needed to reopen Bataan Nuclear Power Plant". Rappler. Retrieved March 12, 2018.
  5. ^ a b Cabato, Regine (April 4, 2018). "Russian ambassador: Bataan nuclear power plant revival 'not possible at all'". CNN. Archived from the original on June 23, 2018. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  6. ^ a b c Olea, Ronalyn V. (January 31, 2009). "Revival of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant a Source of Corruption?". Bulatlat. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  7. ^ Ellao, Janess Ann J. (June 29, 2009). "Reliving and Reviving '85 Welgang Bayan: Move to Open Bataan Nuclear Plant Opposed". Bulatlat. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  8. ^ a b c d e Valdez-Fabros, Corazon (October 16, 1998). "The continuing struggle for a nuclear-free Philippines". WISE News Communique. Retrieved August 17, 2005.
  9. ^ a b c d Magno, Alex R. (1998). Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino People. Vol. 9. Asia Publishing Co. pp. 204–205. ISBN 962-258-232-X.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g ABS-CBN News. (2007). ABS-CBN Interactive Retrieved June 13, 2007. [dead link‍]
  11. ^ a b Brian Dumaine and Brett Duval Fromson (September 1, 1986). "THE $2.2 BILLION NUCLEAR FIASCO". Fortune Magazine.
  12. ^ "Philippines GDP - Gross Domestic Product 1976". countryeconomy.com. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  13. ^ Sachs, Jeffrey; Collins, Susan (1989). "Government Expenditure and Revenues" (PDF). Developing Country Debt and Economic Performance, Volume 3: Country Studies - Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Turkey: 8. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  14. ^ Butterfield, Fox (March 7, 1986). "Filipinos say Marcos was given millions for '76 nuclear contract". The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  15. ^ Salaverria, Leila B. (May 11, 2012). "Nuke plant bribery: PCGG wants Marcos, not just Disini, to pay". INQUIRER.net. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  16. ^ Navallo, Mike (June 15, 2021). "SC awards over P1B in damages to PH vs late Marcos crony over nuke plant project". ABS-CBN News. Archived from the original on June 15, 2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021.
  17. ^ Deiparine, Christian (June 15, 2021). "Marcos crony told to pay over role in mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant". Philstar.com. Archived from the original on June 15, 2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021.
  18. ^ Bautista, Jane (February 22, 2024). "From P1B to P100M: SC reduces damages in Disini-BNPP case". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
  19. ^ Panaligan, Rey (February 21, 2024). "SC's ruling final: Estate of Disini to pay damages to gov't for mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant". The Philippine Star. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
  20. ^ "Letter of Instruction No. 957, s. 1979 | GOVPH". Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved June 29, 2022.
  21. ^ a b Lee, Yok-shiu F.; Jeff So; Alvin Y. (October 1999). Asia's Environmental Movements: Comparative Perspectives (Asia and the Pacific). M E Sharpe Inc. ISBN 978-1-56324-909-9.
  22. ^ "Is the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Safe? By Professor Roland G. Simbulan – YONIP – Yes, Observe National Independence & Peace". Archived from the original on March 8, 2016. Retrieved November 30, 2014.
  23. ^ Miah Maye M. Pormon (2017). "'Alleged Collusion' Effects in Power Supply Shortage in the Philippines" (PDF). University of the Philippines-Visayas Tacloban College.
  24. ^ Goodno, James. (July 24, 1993). Fossil fuel plans for nuclear station. New Scientist Retrieved October 21, 2009
  25. ^ Lee, Yok-shiu F. and Alvin Y. So (1999). Asia's Environmental Movements: Comparative Perspectives, M.E. Sharpe, pp. 160–161.
  26. ^ "Philippines looking at nuclear revival to meet energy needs". The Financial Express. May 23, 2018. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  27. ^ Domingo, Ronnel W. (November 20, 2017). "Nuke plant rehab, revival opposed". Inquirer. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  28. ^ Agaton, Casper Boongaling (2019). A Real Options Approach to Renewable and Nuclear Energy Investments in the Philippines. Germany: Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH. p. 54. ISBN 978-3-8325-4938-1.
  29. ^ a b Report, Staff. (July 12, 2008). IAEA Advises Philippines on Next Steps for "Mothballed" NPP. International Atomic Energy Agency Retrieved October 21, 2009.
  30. ^ "BAYAN assails proposal to open mothballed Bataan nuclear plant". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved March 22, 2018.
  31. ^ "Critics of Bataan Nuclear Plant Revival Gear for House Battle - Bulatlat". Bulatlat. June 12, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2018.
  32. ^ "After Cha-Cha Railroading, Congress Prepares to Rush BNPP Bill". STOP BNPP Revival Online. June 3, 2009. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  33. ^ Macatuno, Allan (September 21, 2016). "Reviving a relic of Marcos dictatorship". Inquirer. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  34. ^ World, Business. (February 2, 2010). Cost of Bataan nuke plant rehab set at $1-B. ABS-CBN News Retrieved March 16, 2011.
  35. ^ Business. (February 22, 2011). Official: Napocor to get paid P4.2B for BNPP. GMA News Retrieved March 17, 2011.
  36. ^ Amadora, Len. (February 21, 2011). BNPP to power the future? Archived February 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Manila Bulletin Retrieved March 17, 2011.
  37. ^ Lendon, Brad. (May 11, 2011). Philippine nuclear plant to become tourist attraction. CNN News Blog Retrieved March 14, 2011.
  38. ^ Salaverria, Leila B. (May 11, 2012). "Nuke plant bribery: PCGG wants Marcos, not just Disini, to pay". Inquirer. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
  39. ^ "Court orders Marcos crony to return $50-M". Rappler. April 12, 2012. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  40. ^ "BNPP broker Herminio Disini passes away". ABS-CBN News. June 16, 2014. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  41. ^ Lucas, Daxim (November 11, 2016). "Energy chief gets Duterte's green light for $1-B nuke plant rehab". Inquirer.net. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  42. ^ "Consult scientists on Bataan Nuclear Power Plant – Recto". Rappler. Retrieved March 13, 2018.
  43. ^ a b c Cordero, Ted (May 13, 2018). "Bataan nuclear plant can be revived, says Russian state firm Rosatom". GMA News Online. Retrieved August 28, 2018.
  44. ^ "Russian nuclear experts now studying BNPP for possible revival". ABS-CBN News. ABS-CBN News. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  45. ^ Endo, Jun. "Philippines considers activating long-dormant reactor". Nikkei Asian Review. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  46. ^ Roque, Veronica (April 5, 2018). "Too Late? Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is 'beyond revival'". Power Philippines. Archived from the original on June 23, 2018. Retrieved June 22, 2018.
  47. ^ a b Maralit, Kristina. "DND backs nuclear power push". Daily Tribune. Retrieved January 27, 2019.
  48. ^ a b Lalu, Gabriel Pabico (July 25, 2022). "Time is ripe to examine state policy on nuclear energy, says Bongbong Marcos". INQUIRER.net. Retrieved April 13, 2023.
  49. ^ The White House (November 20, 2022). "FACT SHEET: Vice President Harris Launches New Initiatives to Strengthen U.S.-Philippines Alliance". The White House. Retrieved April 13, 2023.
  50. ^ a b Wingfield-Hayes, Rupert (March 29, 2023). "Philippines: The 70s nuclear relic that may open at last". BBC News. Retrieved April 13, 2023.
  51. ^ Tan, Rebecca (January 25, 2023). "Clean-energy push puts abandoned Philippine nuclear plant back in spotlight". Washington Post. Retrieved April 13, 2023.
  52. ^ Gascon, Melvin (October 8, 2024). "PH, Korea eye revival of Bataan nuke plant". INQUIRER.net. Retrieved October 8, 2024.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bataan_Nuclear_Power_Plant&oldid=1251638640"