Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: February 27, 2009
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has thrown its
weight behind the opposition to rehabilitating the mothballed
Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant (BNPP).
In a pastoral statement, the CBCP urged Congress to “completely and
irrevocably reject the opening of the nuclear plant as the most dangerous
and expensive way to generate electricity.”
The statement was issued by the CBCP president, Jaro Archbishop
Angel
Lagdameo.
“Multiple risks and the possibility of corruption outweigh dreamed benefits.
We recommend with other anti-BNPP congressmen and the Greenpeace Forum that
the mothballed facility in Morong, Bataan, be dismantled as its revival will
be most hazardous to health and life of the people,” read the CBCP
statement.
The power plant was built by the Marcos regime in response to the Middle
East oil embargo in the 1970s.
The $2.3-billion project, designed to generate 621 megawatts of electricity,
was scrapped by the Aquino administration in 1986.
The Diocese of Balanga headed by Bishop Socrates Villegas earlier in the
week staged a prayer rally against plans by some congressmen led by
Pangasinan Rep. Mark Cojuangco to rehabilitate the nuclear plant to stave
off an
energy crisis.
The CBCP also strongly opposed the use of a
coal-fired power plant as source
of energy in Iloilo province and other parts of the country.
“We recommend the implementation of the approved bill on the use of
renewable energy, such as solar, wind and water as safe
sources of
electricity,” the CBCP said.
*No rush*
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is in no rush to reactivate the
nuclear
power plant.
Malacañang Thursday said it would first await the study and series of
consultations being done by the
Department of Energy (DOE) before coming up
with a firm position on whether to reopen the country’s only nuclear
facility.
“The President will never compromise safety over speed,” Anthony Golez,
deputy presidential spokesperson, told reporters in a briefing.
But Golez said that should the DOE study and consultations recommend
reactivating the power plant, “then we would find no reason why we would
have to delay.”
Asked if reopening the BNPP was a priority of Ms Arroyo, he said: “We know
that her priority is that we should be energy-sufficient in the next few
years.”
Golez said the government had “a lot of programs” to achieve this goal and
that the BNPP was just one of them.
Last year,
Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes said the government was seriously
considering reopening the BNPP, noting that it had spent $2.3 billion to
build the facility, which had generated not a kilowatt of electricity.
*Rehabilitation cost*
Reyes said a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had
checked the facility and had pegged rehabilitation cost at $800 million for
at least five years.
If it becomes operational, the BNPP will be one of the most dangerous
nuclear power plants in the world, Greenpeace said Thursday.
The group said the BNPP, which has a
light water reactor made by
Westinghouse, did not conform to the current safety standards of the IAEA.
*Outdated*
Beau Baconguis, Greenpeace
Southeast Asia Campaigns Manager for the
Philippines, said the design of the BNPP was not only outdated but also
faulty.
The BNPP’s compliance to IAEA nuclear plant construction and site selection
protocols were already in doubt even before the BNPP was finished, Baconguis
said.
Tessa de Ryck, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Nuclear campaigner, also said the
BNPP was never evaluated according to standards of the IAEA which were
raised after the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown.
The standard for
nuclear reactors is “Generation 3,” which has double
containment for its reactor and passive safety systems, according to De
Ryck. The BNPP has a “Generation 2” reactor.
“We cannot be sure whether the BNPP can be upgraded to meet current reactor
standards,” De Ryck said.
She said Westinghouse reactors were “breaking down with alarming
regularity”
because of design defects, including cracks in the main
steam turbines,
deterioration of the
steam generator tube, and the reactor pressure valve
turning brittle.
De Ryck also cited problems of other nuclear plants designed by Westinghouse
and similar to the BNPP in Brazil and South Korea, which were plagued by
outages and leakages of radioactive water.
*Study by experts*
A study commissioned by the Senate ad hoc committee on the BNPP and the
Presidential Commission on the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant found the
nuclear plant defective.
Environmentalist Nicanor Perlas, a technical consultant to the study, said
that the study showed that the BNPP could not be operated safely because of
the defective quality assurance program.
Perlas, who was not allowed to discuss the study’s contents at the hearing
in the House appropriations committee on Wednesday, said in a statement that
the study was completed during the term of President Corazon Aquino. It cost
$9.5 million and was conducted by 50 nuclear experts.
*40,000 defects*
Perlas said the team found 40,000 defects and that it would cost $1.2
billion to $1.54 billion in 1990 rates to repair the plant. The repairs
would take six and a half years.
Should the repairs be conducted, there was no guarantee that the BNPP would
be safely operated because the quality assurance program was so problematic
that the plant’s safety may never be established, Perlas said.
He also said James Keppler, a former official of the US
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, said the review team found “pervasive and significant” defects
in the plant’s design, construction, quality assurance and start-up testing.
“The identified deficiencies are so pervasive and severe that the plant
cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health
and safety,” he quoted Keppler as saying.
Where’s the study?
Walden Bello, president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, said he was
appalled that those pushing for the reopening of the BNPP seemed to be
unaware of studies that thumbed down the facility’s operation.
Cojuangco said he had made several attempts to get hold of the study that
Perlas was referring to, but added no one had so far been able to produce
one.
He asked Perlas to give the title of the study and inform the committee
where it could be obtained. *Reports from Dona Pazzibugan, Alcuin Papa
Christian V. Esguerra and Leila B. Salaverria*
