BACKGROUND

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear facility in the Philippines, and the first
and only attempt by the nation to harness nuclear energy. With a cost of $US 2.3 billion,
construction began in 1976, during the regime of then-President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
The power plant was envisioned by Marcos as the key to solve the country's energy woes
in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis that crippled the economy and compounded energy
demands, what with the country being primarily dependent on imported oil. The power
plant is capable of producing 621 megawatts of electricity.
The power plant is equipped with a Westinghouse light water reactor, a thermal-neutron
reactor designed to produce heat by way of controlled nuclear fission.
LOCATION
The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is located atop a hill in Morong, Bataan.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
As with all things connected to or arising from the use of nuclear energy, the Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant is possessed of a turbulent history that carries on to this very day.
The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was a product of the now-forgotten Philippine nuclear
program, set forth under Republic Act No. 2067 with the establishment of the Philippine
Atomic Energy Commission, but was a mere idea among many until 1973, when Marcos
made an announcement that the government is to erect a nuclear power plant of its own.
Problems soon arose. In 1979, a nuclear meltdown, known to most as the "Three Mile
Island accident", occurred in Pennsylvania. Fears that the same thing might happen to
the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant led to construction stoppage and a safety inquiry that

revealed a staggering amount of defects, amounting to over 4,000, including the

apparent fact that it was constructed near Mount Pinatubo and a number of major fault
lines.
Almost a decade later, and due to the Chernobyl incident, the worst nuclear disaster in
the history of the world, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was mothballed by thenPresident Corazon Aquino. This move was done with the support of the citizens of
Bataan and people from all over the country.
ISSUES
Nuclear power has always been a sensitive issue, and the question of whether the
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or, perhaps more accurately, nuclear energy per se
should be used always looms overhead, more so that the Philippines chronic energy
problems can be felt more than ever; in light of this, clashes between two opposing
ideologies and its supporters are inevitable.
Environmental activists stress that nuclear power is just as much of a liability to its
wielder as it is a boon, if not a grave problem entirely devoid of any benefit to spare.
Indeed,

anti-nuclear

protesters

According

to

non-governmental

environmental

organization Greenpeace, rehabilitating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is not costefficient and will pose a sore economic disadvantage to the nation. In addition and
more importantly Greenpeace contends that the "entire nuclear power plant life cycle
contributes significantly to climate change". There is also, of course, the ever-present
possibility of the power plant somehow undergoing a meltdown and subsequently
leaking, as was the case in Chernobyl and Fukushima compounded by the apparent

proximity of the power plant to a fault, making it susceptible to damage in the event of
an earthquake.
At the other spectrum of the argument lie those who advocate the use of nuclear power
of the Philippines as a dependable source of affordable electricity for all. Some sectors
hold that the doubtful stance espoused by environmental activists is in fact groundless,
and subscribing to said views would lead to the nations continued suffering from
blackouts or brownouts.
An unverifiable number of people, most of them ordinary folk, contend that it might be
that the pressure exerted to discourage the use of nuclear energy could very well come
from advocates of fossil fuels and those who earn money from them, like oil companies
and their stockholders, merely machinations to brainwash the populace into eschewing
nuclear power which is, as far as things go, mere speculation and baseless conspiracy,
but does its own share of fueling the fires of debate, for better or for worse.
ANALYSIS
Research on the matter yields the finding that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant has been
maintained well surprisingly despite never being used for its intended purpose, as it
is in fact made into a tourist attraction since 2011. The question that remains is that
while it is given that apparently the facility is well-kept, is it at a level that would allow
rehabilitation the beginning of achieving safe nuclear fission without compromising
the safety of the workforce stationed there, if ever?
In 2008, a team sent by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted a
site-wide inspection with a prospective rehabilitation of the power plant in mind. The

IAEA concluded that further inspections and evaluations must be done by a group of
nuclear power experts in order to determine whether rehabilitation is a feasible course
of action, without directly stating from on-hand information whether the power plant, as
it was back then, was usable, or the cost it would take for it to be rehabilitated. Two
years later, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), in conjunction with the
National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) assessed the amount required, pegging it at
$US 1 billion.

In January 2014, Energy Secretary Carlos Petilla released a statement revealing that
the task of deciding the fate of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is one that the
government aims to accomplish by 2016, saying that "[wh]ether [the power plant] be
mothballed, activated or scrapped totally, my thrust is this administration will decide on
it, but not without impressing upon the importance of public opinion on the matter.

ETHICAL CONCERNS
It is submitted that the question of whether the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is safe
enough for rehabilitation and whether the facility as a whole and the equipment therein
could go about its work in a manner that would not endanger anyone is a massive gray
area. With available information, it can be inferred that a big part of the power plant is
in dire need of repair which would make sense of the billion-dollar fund needed to fully
rehabilitate it. It can thus be concluded that operating the power plant without doing

the necessary work as advised by the IAEA among others would not be a smart move,
economically, logistically, and ethically.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ever-raging debate on the merits of nuclear energy aside, it is recommended that
the government take the prospect of having the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant evaluated,
as per the IAEAs suggestion, so as to find steady ground to base a rehabilitation project
on.
Once the power plant is rehabilitated to meet international safety standards, the Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant could very well serve its purpose, finally, as a means to equalize
ever-increasing power costs and to make electricity a more accessible resource that is,
if everybody would be amenable to the idea.
REFERENCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/Archives/campaigns/climate-change/end-thenuclear-age/nuclear-energy-not-a-solution/bataan-nuclear-power-plant/
http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/01/09/1276586/doe-takes-another-look-bataannuclear-plant
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2013/08/06/1057341/bataan-nuclear-power-plantreopen-it-or-not
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20100224-255181/Reopen-theBataan-Nuclear-Plant