Nuclear Energy
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, July 8, 1902
A visit to KU's nuke
By JOHN SCARFFE
Columnist
"You're an Aire sign, honey.
"You're all around me all the time."
—Donovan
The building across from Green Hall on 15th Street is unobtrusive. Although the yellow-stone front has blackened, brightening the three-dimensional chrome words, the Nuclear Reactor Center, the building fails to attract attention
This unobtrusive appearance is misleading. While most faculty and students are unaware of the center, its nuclear reactor is involving the nation in major issues bearing through the rest of the nation.
AS EVIDENCE of the quiet controversy surrounding it, the reactor, which costs around $20,000 a year to maintain, has been used less and in the past few years. According to Russell B. Mesler, professor of chemical engineering and director of the reactor, a university committee has been organized to consider discontinuing its use altogether.
The non-power research reactor is capable of producing energy at the rate of 250 kilowatts an hour, but no attempt is made to capture and use the energy. Instead, it is used for student training in radiation protection and experiments such as measuring the amount of sodium in blood.
IN ITS CORE the reactor has five pounds of enriched uranium -238 lent to KU by the Atomic Energy Commission. This core is surrounded by 6,500 gallons of water that cool the reactor and slow down the neutrons. To prevent radioactive corrosion, the water is purified by daily circulation through a demineralizer. Material trapped in the demineralizer loses its radioactivity in a matter of days and is then removed and flushed into the seawire system.
OCCCAIONALLY the demineralizer must be regenerated, and material with a measurable amount of radioactivity must be taken to the KU nuclear waste disposal area on the grounds of the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant, 13 miles east of Lawrence.
Most of the material from the reactor buried in the dump has long lost its radioactivity, but waste from other University research is also taken to the Sunflower site. For example, the tritium isotope used in KU tracer experiments is often a component in hydrogen bombs and has a high energy content. In 1980 the dump was full of waste from such experiments, so more land is being added to the site.
THE DUMP and the reactor's lack of use are not the only nuclear issues with which the center has been involved. Like many other nuclear facilities, minor regulations violations and equipment failures have occurred. For example, in 1979 the docket listshes from the Title List of Documents Made Publicly Available by the Department. A failure of the pump that circulates the water through the demineralizer. The pump had to be taken out and replaced and repairs took longer than expected.
"It went on for a couple of months," Masler said, but the water was monitored and the level of radioactivity stayed about the same, so there was no reason for concern.
"The procedures called for running the pump, though." Mesler said, "so we were obviously in
violation of NRC regulations. I don't think we've ever had anything that would constitute a safety problem, though."
KU'S REACTOR problems are harmless in contrast to those encountered by many nuclear power plants that also involve KU. Money provided for students and faculty has been partially earned there, but utilities still own power plants, such as Three Mile Island, Woolfcreek and Diabol Canyon.
The Kansas University Endowment Association, an incorporated association separate from the University, obtains private contributions and invests much of it to benefit KU. According to Richard V. Porto, treasurer of the association, the dividends from these investments provide $3.1 million annually in scholarships and assistance for professorships, construction and areas such as the burn center at the University of Kansas Medical Center.
Barnes maintains that because of steam generator problems, four plants have been shut down completely. Two such plants are three Mile Island No. 2, owned by Pennsylvania Electric, in which the association has a $30,000 investment, and Indian Point No. 2, owned by Consolidated Edison, in which the association has a $120,000 investment.
A REPORT by the Internal Revenue Service on the Endowment Association's investments includes 28 nuclear plants. Of these plants 16 have either been shut down or have had their re-construction begun. The accounting according to Charles Barnes, president of the Kansas University Nuclear Diversion Association.
ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION investments in nuclear-related corporations are not limited to utilities. According to the Internal Revenue report, five corporations invested in are involved in nuclear reactor manufacturing and research, eight in the production of nuclear weapons parts and nuclear weapons systems and five in nuclear materials. The US Department of Defense awards Department of Defense contracts totaling over $1 billion, according to a 1988 department report.
One example of such a corporation is the General Electric Co., the fourth largest corporation in money earned from defense contracts. It produces nuclear submarines, F-18 fighter aircraft engines and the miniatum missile. The Endowment Funds have $84,764.12 invested in General Electric in 1980.
Todd Teymour, Endowment Association president, and Richard Porto said regulations did not allow them to discuss specific investments, but Porto said the criterion for an investment was the Prudent Man Investment Law. Investments must be made as a prudent man would invest his money. Many of the investments are made by outside managers retained by the association.
"WE DO NOT impose on the manager personal biases or opinions that would restrict him from investing in a well-managed, profitable company." "We do not impose on the manager profitable companies in our portfolio."
Since these profits benefit the University, involvement in nuclear-related issues will continue. From its own nuclear reactor and dump to investment in other reactors and arms producing corporations, nuclear issues are an Aire sign. They're all around us all the time.
Our future is nuclear
Guest Columnist
Rv WILLIAM ADAMS
NUCLEAR ENERGY. Once it offered us a vision of cheap electricity. In some ways, many hoped it would prove to be a vindication of the atom. But This dream ended, as do all dreams.
And this is probably good, for there are clearly large problems associated with the generation of electricity by nuclear power. However, it is unfortunate that the shattering of this dream has resulted in a virtual halt in the construction of additional nuclear power plants.
Our society is based on a steady supply of cheap, plentiful energy. We are limited to a few means of generating this energy economically and in sufficient quantity to satisfy the needs of our society. It is true that conservation has helped tremendously, but it has only served to slow the projective increase in the consumption of energy.
It would be naive for anyone to think that we could reverse this trend. Once an advanced civilization is set in motion, there is nothing short of global disaster that can stop it. It will continue to extend its influence beyond our planet in search of additional sources of energy and raw materials.
BUT FOR NOW we are limited to just a few means of energy production. Fusion is still obviously decades off, if it ever becomes feasible. Solar energy provides all but no energy that will not be accessible on a large scale.
While many advocate a decentralized system of energy production, for which solar energy seems ideally suited, it is doubtful that such schemes would prove adequate for the large urban industrial complexes scattered over the world.
The future of coal is a little more promising. It is projected that the world's supply of coal will last at least a couple of centuries. However, the problems of pollution from coal-fueled power plants is one that is being viewed with increasing concern.
Hydroelectric power is a clean and fairly inexpensive means of generating electricity. Unfortunately, most of the localities in the United States amenable to this method are already being exploited, and those that are not should probably be left undeveloped for aesthetic and environmental reasons. The world's supply of oil and natural gas is slowly, but surely, running out. And both will be in rather limited supply by the turn of the century.
AND THEN THERE is nuclear energy. Sure,
there are risks associated with the generation of electricity through nuclear power, just as there are with other forms of electricity generation. In fact, just about any human endeavor entails some risk. But are the risks associated with nuclear power sufficient to justify the concern which has arisen around this industry? I think not.
It is true that some people have died while working in this industry, but not nearly so many as have died in other power-generating industries. Just look at the hazards of coal mining, of these deaths in the nuclear power industry has been due to an overexposure to radiation.
Now the problem of nuclear wastes is clearly a valid one. These radioactive wastes are going to be with us for a very long time. An ideal solution would be to simply convey the wastes into orbit and then send them into the sun, our solar system's all purpose incinerator. But the potential for an accident in transit to earth's orbit is probably too great. Barring that, we will just have to contain the wastes until a more reasonable solution can be discovered.
I DO NOT THINK that nuclear power is the only, nor even the best, form of energy production that we have at our disposal. But there are going to be some lean years ahead, and we should keep our options open to a wide variety of methods for supplying our civilization with the energy which it will require to survive and continue to grow.
WHOA! RADIATION? This term has almost become a buzz word. You mention it and some people just go off the deep end. There is no reasoning with them about nuclear power. Why, I don't know. Especially since coalfired power plants put out up to 200 times as much radiation as do normally functioning nuclear power plants. Is there concern about this?
And, quite frankly, I won't be willing to listen to those who demonstrate against the use of nuclear power until they are also prepared to demonstrate against something such as the persecution of Muslims. In fact, fifty thousand people a year in the United States alone. Any endeavor entails some risk.
We have managed to contain the wastes so far, and there is no reason to think that we cannot continue to do so. In fact, our management of wastes from other energy industries has become much more efficient. Stance, acid rain has devastated the ecology of lakes in a quite few places around the world.
EDITOR'S NOTE: William Adams is a graduate in biology at KU and is President of the Society for Biology at KU.
KU ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION UTILITY INVESTMENTS:
STATUS SUMMARY OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
Total Investment ... $3,221,000
Number of Reactors Invested in ... 83
Reactors Under Construction ... 21
Reactors Licensed to Operate ... 29
Operating Reactors Shut down over 25% of the time in 1980 ... 17
Operating Reactors Affected by Steam Generator Problems in which Tube Plugging has been Necessary ... 18
Mishan in 1994* ... 16
Sugificant Mishap in 1980* . 16
KANSAN
Operating License Denied ... 2
Operating Licenses Revoked ... 1
Shut Down Indefinitely ... 3
Construction Proposed ... 8
Reactors Under Construction or
Proposed, which Merrill-Lynch's
Securities Research Division
Recommends be Cancelled ... 8
Reactors Cancelled Since May 1,
1960 ... 9
*Nuclear Regulatory Commission code
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom-864-4810
Business Office-864-4358
(USPS 60-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, May and June. Mail in enclosed to: U.S. Postal Service #6001855. Bates County $6004. Bates County $6004. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $7 a year in Douglas County and $8 for six months or $3 a year outside the county. Student fees are $1 a semester, paid in advance or as a fee activity.
Editor Business Manager
Coral Beach Sharon Bodin
Managing Editor Marsha Brick
Retail Sales Manager Martha Kobe
Campus and Classified John Lairdon
Sales and Marketing Advisor John Obernaz
General Manager and News Advisor Paul Jess
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansas. First Hall, The University of Kansas, Law School.
THE FACILITY was shut down for 18 months; repairs totaled $50 million. Investigations blamed the fire on faulty equipment design and a subsequent Senate investigation revealed that final reactor design had failed, which caused regulatory requirements. This accident caused people, both inside and
Nuclear energy is a poor investment
By CHARLES BARNES Great Columnist
Guest Columnist
The nuclear industry is terminally ill. The giant that was to be an endless source of electrical energy is reeling. But what happened?
THE PLANS looked great on paper—uranium ore mined and milled in the "remote" southwest, trucked and railed to uranium hexafluoride conversion plants, next to enrichment facilities and then on to fuel fabrication plants to be packed into ships for the core of commercial nuclear reactors.
Never mind the by-product—uranium mill tailings, depleted uranium hexafluoride, spent fuel oils, and assorted high and low-level radioactive waste. American ingenuity and the taxpayers' subsidies would surely find an answer. Atomic power would also be attractive to financial entrepreneurs as a centralized, capital-intensive energy source.
NATURALLY, government help was needed to get the fledgling industry off the ground and to provide valuable technical information. In addition to the acres and acres of facilities that were built to advance the nuclear weapons program, vast new complexes of experimental and research reactors were constructed to study the "peaceful application" of the mysterious atom
The taxpayer was not told that the atomic power research that he financed was to be given over free of charge to private utilities. He was not told that his tax dollars, through the Department of Defense, were paying 80 percent of the costs of the largest uranium mining company, Kerr-McGee. And a mere two years after the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the atomic energy program had received $14 billion in federal appropriations.
NOT ONLY did the taxpayer subsidize uranium mining and the research and development of nuclear power, he also paid for the actual construction of commercial nuclear power plants. He also paid for the Atomic Energy Commission's Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program, a program in which the AEC and utilities built and operated commercial nuclear power plants. Of the fourteen that were built, only three were constructed without heavy government sub-
The Hallam Nuclear Power Facility is a local example of how tax dollars were fumored into technological white elephants, Hallam, which was to be owned by the AEC and operated by Consumer's Public Power Co. of Nebraska, was constructed 130 miles north of Lawrenceville in 1984, built in a era of sodium graphite reactors as its first electricity in May of 1963.
Before long, however, it was noticed that the zircaloy-2 control rod thimbles had become embrittled and they had to be replaced with stainless steel ones. Unfortunately, stainless steel was also susceptible to embrittlement; the failure of eight moderator cans resulted. By August 1964, after 14 months of commercial operation, Hallam had to be permanently shut down. Of the total cost of $7 million, the AEC had to pay approximately 80 percent of the customer's Public Power Co of Nebraska $20 million. It was also the AEC's responsibility to entomb and decontaminate the plant.
BUT 1975 was the year of the Brown's Perry accident. In March a fire broke out in the common control room of the twin Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear plants, the largest nuclear power facility in the world, when a workman used a candle to test for air leaks. The blaze quickly spread and burned uncontrolled through the facility for seven and one-half hours, destroying or incapacitating plant safety systems and including 'control of reactor coolant systems' and 'energy emergency core cooling system of Unit No.1'. The core cooling system, almost uncovering the core in that unit; a meltdown was projected as an hour away. Operators fought to gain control of the plant.
ALTHOUGH FIISION reactor technology was still in a primitive stage, industrialists and politicians felt that the United States should lead the way into a large-scale nuclear power program. In the mid-1960's, General Electric and Westinghouse sold reactors at or before its end. By enciting utilities "to go atomic" at this early stage, the companies also managed to corner the domestic market.
In 1968, 10 reactors were operating, and an additional 90 reactors were under construction or planned. In early 1975 there were 35 reactors operating and an additional 183 reactors under construction or planned. Despite a few major accidents in England, Canada and at the Fermi Reactor in the United States, utility executives still had confidence in the reliability of nuclear power plants. It seemed as if nothing could stop the nuclear industry.
outside of the nuclear industry, to reappraise the "infallible technology."
In addition to mechanical failures, the nuclear industry was hit with financial hard times.
The year 1976 marked the first year that no new domestic reactors were ordered; some utilities began to cancel contracts with reactor vendors. However, despite inflation, most utilities believed that plants could be financed through accountant's maneuvers.
ONE SUCH SCHEME was for utilities to borrow money so that they could pay out higher dividends on their stock. High dividends make stock more attractive to the investor. The utilities then can issue more stock to finance construction. Utilities are guaranteed a 10 percent rate of return, and ultimately it the ratepayer who pays for the construction and cost overruns of the plant. Therefore the most important job for the utility's public relations officers is to convince the public that they need electrical power, regardless of the cost.
Severity miles southwest of Lawrence is a prime example of the financial difficulties of a utility building a nuclear unit. In 1974 ground was broken for the Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant. Eight years later what does one find? A price tag of $200 million has skyrocketed to more than $2 billion. The owners of the plant which was supposed to be producing energy this year, Kansas Gas & Electric Co. and Kansas City Power & Light Co., are frantically trying to find buyers for the remaining 115 acres of the plant's property. Its construction, KG&E, the utility in charge of the plant's construction, has had to depend almost entirely on stock sales and loans to finance construction. Loans have gone to pay higher dividends on stock. Stock sales in turn, have gone to finance construction.
According to a May 23 article in the Wichita Eagle Beacon, KGME has raised its dividend each of the past 26 years although the cash generated by KGME's business operations has not kept pace. Standard and Poor's Investor's Service recently lowered KGME's corporate bond rating from BBB to BBB; it appears that all of KGME's construction costs are financed externally. KGME's decision to go nuclear for electricity construction is the reasons that utility bills are expected to shoot up an estimated 69 percent if the plant ever goes on line.
A QUICK SURVEY of reactors under construction and planned reveals a situation similar to a utility executive's nightmare. From 1975 to 1980, 70 reactors have been canceled. Last year 6 reactors were canceled. In the first few months of 1982, 15 plants have been canceled or had their construction halted. This is an industry record. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has predicted that 14 more plants will be halted. Utilities hopping on the nuclear bandwagon have ingored on the plan for consumption to reach 70 percent. In the mid-1970's it slackened to approximately 4 percent. Many utilities are financially hard pressed to complete construction projects already underway.
50 WHERE does that leave the rate payer? He is responsible for the utility's gross overestimate of the need for power and choice of an unsafe unreliable fission technology. He is responsible for the shoddy construction that will delay the building of the plant and push utility bills ever upward. Their children will be responsible for decontaminating the radioactive mess.
BUT WHAT ABOUT the 72 operating commercial reactors? The most significant problem that faces many units today is defective steam generators and embrittled steam generator tubing. According to a recent NRC report, 40 of the nation's 47 operating pressurized water turbines have faulty or incomplete tube problems. Four of the 7 PWRS that have not experienced it on line as recently as 1980 or 1981.
The most common problem is the cracking of tubes induced by corrosion, vibration or both. These tubes must be plugged, repaired or replaced to prevent the radioactive primary coolant that travels within the pipes from mingling directly with the clean secondary coolant that surrounds the pipes to ensure that no radioactivity is released into the environment. The Nozzles plants to operate with up to 20 percent of their steam generator tubes "plugger or sleeved."
ONE SUCH PLANT that had experienced a significant amount of tube plugging and sleeping was the Gimna plant in upstate New York. On January 25, 1982, a tube ruptured in its "B" steam generator. In this small loss-of-coal accident, personnel found an open bubble within the reactor vessel and a stuck-open pressurizer relief valve, not unlike the Three Mile Island No 2 accident.
Critics are now challenging the utility-accommodating NRC policy that allows reactors to be operated even after a significant number of steam generator $a$ tubes have had to be replaced or repaired. Six plants that have released more than the "normal amount" of radioactive material during the melt shut down to have their $100 million steam generators replaced. One utility, Florida Power & Light Co., sued the manufacturer Westinghouse, for supplying defective merchandise.
THE OWNERS of the undamaged Three Mile
Five additional plants have already experienced steam generator tube leak this year and subsequently had to be taken off line. Unfortunately, all shea are scheduled to free up in the next few years.
Island No. 1 wanted to have it back on line early this year. A preliminary investigation revealed that 8,000 to 10,000 of the 30,000 steam generator tubes were corroded and had to be repaired. The highly radioactive source of sandwiching potassium nitrate is expected to keep Unit No. 2 down for another year.
Since a loss-of-coal accident precludes a meltdown, it is disconcerting to find out that the tubes carrying this coolant are corroding and cracking. Radioactive effluents dispersed into the atmosphere from a few leaks is bad enough. Yet suppliers don't want the company to have no responsibility for their products. The suppliers are willing, however, to take more of the taxpayer's money to study the problem.
RESEARCH OF alternative energy sources such as solar, geothermal or hydroelectric energy, or even fusion, has come to a virtual standstill. Government officials squawk that renewable alternatives should be able to stand on their own two feet if they are to be considered viable. Funny that that rule was never applied to nuclear power. Meanwhile, the taxpayer money that is used to make it financially feasible develop nuclear technology and even construct commercial power plants is now being syphoned off to find a cure for the nuclear plague.
In addition to steam generator tube problems are the well-known and unresolved problems of plant decommissioning and the storage of high and low-level radioactive waste.
In a recent statement the Government Accounting Office blasted the NRC and the Department of Energy for their lack of comprehensive decommissioning plans. The NRC is to regulate the decommissioning of the 73 large-scale nuclear power plants licensed to operate, 67 nuclear power plants under construction, 73 nonpower reactors and 44 fuel-cycle facilities. Inside these plants is equipment that will remain highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
WHEN THE fabulous Atmos for Peace program was embarked on 25 years ago, scientists knew that these plants would eventually have to be decommissioned. It seems that the reason no plans have been advanced is that the NRC does not have any solutions. Do the people in our regulatory agencies think that if they bury their heads in the sand these problems will go away? Another government department is not only responsible for regulating the decommissioning process, it is also responsible for carrying out the decontamination process.
THESE COMPANIES, after legally stealing the land, would send unsuspecting Navajo into uranium mines minutes after dynamiting. Because of friendly faces in Congress, these companies didn't even have to lower permissible radiation levels until 1970. Miners were exposed to 100 times the level of radioactivity allowed us today. The uranium mining companies just hauled out a few tons of uranium mill tailings to constantly emit radon gas. And even now, as the companies tally their profits, the American taxpayer is being asked to clean up the mess.
High and low-level waste storage still remains one of the biggest problems. Isolating waste for hundreds of thousands of years in the earth's crust seems almost impossible. Industrialists and politicians who were well aware of this problem 25 years ago arrogantly thought that a solution would be found long before now. They naively envisioned that science, riding a white horse, would come and save the day. Here we are in 1982 and still no solution has been found. Some envision shooting waste into space. Let's hope that no one starts shooting it back at us.
The Department of Energy is responsible for decommissioning and stabilizing an estimated 140 million tons of uranium mull tailings. But from whom did we acquire such a lovely present? They were given free-of-charge from those thoughtful uranium mining companies.
REVIEWING THE evolution of the commercial nuclear industry, one finds a consistent record of government and industry collusion at the expense of the public. The U.S. government's headlong race with the Soviets, and North American industry's dash for profits have committed the U.S. citizen to a full-scale nuclear power program based on an unsafe, unreliable and hazardous technology. Many scientific databases have practical applications. Some do not. The nuclear industry and the U.S. government have proven that, despite tens of billions of dollars, they could not come up with a safe or reliable source of energy based on the fission process.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Barnes is a junior in LIBERITARY Arts and is president of the Kansas University.