Schaub 6:00
L12
THE ETHICS BEHIND BUILDING A NUCLEAR REACTOR
John D’Alessio (jwd27@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: ARISING ETHICAL
ISSUES FOR NUCLEAR POWER
With great power comes great responsibility. This saying
is applied to nuclear energy because of its surplus power, but
volatile nature. Radioactive material is difficult to store, can
present a threat to public health, and is associated with the
most powerful manmade weapons. As an engineer posed with
the problem of building nuclear reactors, many controversial
issues must be addressed. It is the price for a source of energy
that is less harmful to the environment and more sustainable
than coal and oil. I am asked to produce a fast breeder nuclear
reactor near a busy city in a politically unstable country. The
ethical issues that arise with this situation include the
ramifications of the location of the plant: how it affects the
public’s well-being and how the locals react to the idea.
Global safety will also need to be addressed because although
the plant is designed to produce energy, it produces
byproducts used to create nuclear weapons.
How Nuclear Reactors Work
Nuclear reactors produce energy by causing an atomic
chain reaction that spins turbines and produces electricity. A
lone neutron is fired at a fuel rod of Uranium-235 causing it
to split into new elements and loose neutrons. These loose
neutrons then travel to the next fuel rod and cause another
reaction [1]. The reaction produces heat, which transforms
water into steam [1]. The steam then travels down a tube and
rotates the turbines [1]. More complex reactors are also able
to create fuel while producing energy. These are known as
breeder reactors, breeder referring to the ability to generate
new fuel [1].
Fast Breeder Reactors
Fast breeder reactors, a special form of breeder reactors,
work very similarly to the more common light water reactors,
but with one key difference. Liquid sodium is used as the
primary heat conveyer rather than pressurized water [2]. In a
light water reactor, water fills the tank where the fuel rods are
held and the reaction occurs [1]. The water absorbs the heat
and reaches a temperature of around 300 °F [2]. The neutrons
travel through water slowly, making it difficult and unlikely
for breeding to occur [1]. Liquid sodium can reach upwards
of 800 °F and allows neutrons to travel much quicker, hence
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29
the name “fast” reactors [2]. In all reactors there are control
rods that absorb excess neutrons to keep the reaction from
becoming too violent. However, in breeder reactors there are
also rods of “fertile material” usually in the form of Uranium238, a non-fissionable atom. When this is bombarded with
neutrons, Plutonium-239 can be created and this is fissionable
[1]. Unfortunately, safety is a main concern for fast breeder
and other reactors.
ETHICS INVOLVED WITH THE SAEFTY
OF REACTORS
The safety of the nuclear reactor’s design is addressed first.
According to the National Society of Professional Engineers
code of ethics, engineers “hold paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public” [3]. The reactor I am building will
use liquid sodium rather than the safe version of water. Liquid
sodium may be more efficient, but it is also unpredictable.
When exposed to air, liquid sodium is known to combust and
burn [1]. Any contact with water will cause an immediate
explosion [1]. It is also very corrosive, causing a problem
with the piping [1]. Any miscalculations could become
catastrophic. These incidents can compromise the structure of
the reactor and cause a meltdown. This is similar to the
accident that occurred in Fukushima, Japan when a tsunami
damaged and caused the meltdown of a nuclear reactor. This
resulted in the relocation of nearly 130,000 people and 1,600
deaths [4]. However, the country we are creating this reactor
for needs the energy.
Why the Fast Breeder Reactor is Important
There are risks involved, but fast breeder technology is one
of the most efficient ways to produce energy. Fast breeder
reactors will be able to convert current nuclear waste into
usable material by a process known as reprocessing [1].
Reducing the waste is not only good for public safety, but it
will also reduce the amount of uranium mined, as more power
will be generated per unit used [1]. It is said that, “the most
important advantage is they multiply the existing fuel supply
by a factor of at least 50 to 75 times” [5]. This is important
because with current technology, the earth will run out of
useable uranium within the next 90 years [5]. Nuclear power
is also one of safest energy sources.
John D’Alessio
related disasters. Only 0.1 percent of the 110,000 Chernobyl
cleanup workers have developed leukemia [6]. In addition,
zero of the deaths connected to Fukushima were related to
radiation; they were all caused by poor relocation efforts [4].
Radiation and meltdowns are not the only harmful things that
can come from nuclear reactors.
Nuclear Reactor Safety Compared to Other Forms of
Energy
The Chernobyl incident is projected to cause the death of
nearly 9,000 people due to cancerous effects [4]. In 1975, 30
dams associated with the production of hydroelectric power
burst in China, causing flooding and killing over 230,000
residents [4]. New Scientist Magazine did a study on the death
tolls from different sources of power. The results go against
common assumptions. Coal causes 2.8 deaths per 10 billion
kilowatt hours produced, while hydroelectric energy is
accountable for 1.0 and natural gas 0.3. Nuclear power has
only been the cause of 0.2 deaths per kilowatt hour produced
[4]. This shows that nuclear power is by far the safest and does
not release harmful emissions into the atmosphere [4].
Creating this reactor is the right choice because I have trust in
myself and my colleagues. I am confident that it will be
created with standards that reduce the risk of failure to zero.
However, I am not the only one that needs to be convinced it
is safe.
Plutonium Byproducts
A key component of fast breeders is the use of and
production of Plutonium-239, also known as weapons-grade
plutonium. Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances on
Earth: “the release of one ton of plutonium into the
atmosphere could give every person on earth lung cancer, and
operating breeder reactors on a large scale would double the
amount of plutonium on earth every ten years” [8]. Increasing
the amount of plutonium also increases the materials for
nuclear weapons. This is a key concern whether or not
politically unstable countries should be able to possess a
reactor. Today’s working reactors still produce radioactive
material. If it is removed at a correct time, it can produce a
nuclear weapon [8]. This requires very large machinery and a
long process of exacting that is not able to be concealed due
to international over watch protocols [8]. Fast breeder
reactors provide a much more convenient window and easier
process to extract materials [8]. Reprocessing old fuel rods
requires transportation in-between different sites to prepare
the rod to be reused [1]. The U.S. has banned this process
because it would cause the travel of tons plutonium across the
country via heavily guarded trains [1]. My colleagues and I
have been asked to make the decision on whether or not the
reactor should be designed to involve reprocessing. However,
we are not qualified to make this decision.
PUBLIC OPINION ETHICS AND GLOBAL
CONSEQUENCES
Public opinion is an issue when creating large manmade
structures in a populated area. The “not in my back yard”
syndrome explains how a person may accept the idea and
safety of a nuclear power plant, but not if it can directly affect
him [5]. Attitude towards nuclear power is negative because
of the consequences that are associated with them. On April
26, 1986 a nuclear reactor meltdown in Chernobyl, Ukraine
caused an explosion which produced 200 times more
radiation than what had been dropped onto Japan during
World War II [6]. This affected over 7 million people and
63,000 square miles of land [6]. Incidents such as this and the
meltdown in Japan cause people to resist the construction and
evolution of reactors. My colleagues and I will need to
educate the public about the safety of nuclear reactors.
COMPLICATIONS OF COMPLETING THE
PROJECT
Engineers should only preform duties that are in their area
of qualifications [7]. We do not have sufficient knowledge of
the country’s political situation and whether or not the
government can regulate such a high security process. My
qualifications as an engineer allow me to make decisions that
are based around the design and construction of the plant that
I am asked to build. An example of working outside
qualifications can be shown by a prior president of the United
States. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson took the reins
on the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and turned it from a small
intervention to all out military conflict [9]. Johnson was
qualified as a political leader, but had no military background
[9]. However, he still required his personal consent prior to
any major acts being carried out [9]. His decisions were based
Information Presented
The American Nuclear Society code of ethics states that
information is presented “with their bases, truthfully, and are
honest and truthful in all aspects of our professional
activities” [7] Public statements and presentations on the
subject must also be truthful [7]. To adhere, I will address the
fact that catastrophic incidents have occurred involving
nuclear reactors, most notably Chernobyl, Fukushima and
Three Mile Island. On other side, nuclear power has the
lowest death to kilowatt hours produced ratio, and the worst
nuclear incident is not even comparable to other energy
2
John D’Alessio
on opinion polls and took an excessive time to relay back to
the front lines [9]. 60,000 American lives were lost and
although Johnson’s unqualified decisions were not all to
blame, they had an impact [9]. Due to my code of ethics I will
refuse to make a decision on whether or not to use
reprocessing. If I was to make an uneducated decision, the
aftermath could be tragic and endanger the public.
Unfortunately, one of my colleagues views the situation
differently and wants to act as the decision maker.
report my coworkers for their unethical decisions because
“engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this
Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies
and, when relevant, also to public authorities” [3]. They went
against engineering ethics by giving bribes, signing for areas
of qualifications they did not have, and for possibly
endangering the public.
CONCLUSION: RESOLVING MORAL
PROBLEMS
Peer Pressure
Our project is now placed on hold until the unethical issues
are resolved in our team. The poor country will now go
without the energy for many years to come. My actions cost
the country clean sustainable energy and I accept that
responsibility because of my ethics. Engineers are faced with
tasks that can have pros and cons. They need to weigh those
odds to see if the pros outweigh the cons. However, there are
some aspects that corrupt a project and cannot be bargained
with. These are held in various codes of ethics and while
working on my project I was faced with many. Public safety
comes first and this become complicated when working with
nuclear power. There are many aspects of a fast breeder
reactor that can be dangerous such as the liquid sodium
coolant and plutonium byproducts. The public must be
accurately informed about these dangers by the engineer. The
engineer must also only work in fields of his competence,
resist bribes and peer pressure, and report all incidents of
other engineers breaking the code. Engineers solve problems
and follow ethics to prevent more harms from occurring.
The reactor plan must be signed by all the operational
engineers in order for building to begin. Of my colleagues, I
am the only one who will not sign for the reprocessing aspect
of the plant. I cite them a line from the NSPE code of ethics:
“engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or
documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack
competence” [3]. They insist that I sign it, and as the
overbearing peer pressure begins to kick in, I think of Pixar’s
film Finding Nemo. This is a story of a persistent father that
will stop at nothing to find his lost son, but many do not pay
attention to why Nemo got lost in the first place. He is
pressured by his friends, colleagues, to do something
dangerous and rash [10]. They convince Nemo to approach a
boat [10]. As a consequence, he is abducted [10]. Without the
peer pressure, Nemo’s ethics would have kept him away from
the boat and the whole situation could have been avoided. I
learn from Nemo’s mistake and refuse to give in. My ethics
are upheld, but my colleagues’ assault does not stop.
Compensation and Following Ethics
REFERENCES
These men that I work with are my friends, they have met
my family and know my secrets. My poor financial standings
is well known and is being taken advantage of. By signing the
papers I would be offered a vice president position and receive
a large salary raise. Two of my kids are going through college
and I need the money, but my morals do not let me take it. As
an engineer, I may not “attempt to gain employment or
advancement by… improper or questionable methods” [3]. I
think back to what happened in the Disney movie Remember
the Titans. In this story about a racially divided football team,
the assistant coach Bill Yoast is faced with a similar decision
[11]. He is addressed by the school board and told that if he
intentionally loses the next game, he will be inducted into the
Hall of Fame [11]. This opportunity is presented to him
because the board wants the current African American head
coach to be fired [11]. Yoast insures that a clean game is
played and loses his chances at the Hall of Fame [11]. He
knows he did the right thing as the Titans go on to win the
State Championship. I deny the position, but now I must
[1] W. Beaver. (2013). “Sustainable energy: the promise
and perils of the breeder reactor.” The INDEPENDENT
REVIEW.
(Online
Essay.)
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE
%7CA337184731&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&
sw=w&authCount=1
[2] J. Kemsley. (2010). “Nuclear Efficiency.” STARLIMS.
(Online Article.) http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i37/NuclearEfficiency.html
[3] (2007). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers” National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Online Article.)
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[4] P. McKenna. (2011). “Nuclear power is safer than fossil
fuels.” New Scientist. (Online Article.)
3
John D’Alessio
2
John D’Alessio
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S02624079
11606544
[5] R. Terrell. (2010). “Clean energy: the nuclear solution:
how the black sheep of power generation could solve the
energy crisis” The New American. (Interview.)
http://rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/
[6] (2012). “Chernobyl Q&A” FRIENDS OF
CHERNOBYL
CENTERS,
U.S.
(Website.)
http://www.friendsofchernobylcenters.org/facts.html
[7] (2003). “Practices of Professional Conduct” American
Nuclear
Society.
(Online
Article.)
http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[8] (2013). “Fast breeder’ reactors destined to fail.” USA
Today.
(Online
Article.)
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE
%7CA224863215&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&
sw=w&authCount=1
[9] F. Jamie. (2009). “Worst Military Decisions in History”
Listverse. (Website.) http://listverse.com/2009/09/03/top-10worst-military-decisions-in-history/
[10] A. Stanton, et al. (2003). Finding Nemo. Buena Vista
Home Entertainment. (Movie.)
[11] B. Yakin. (2000). Remember the Titans. Walt Disney
Picture. (Movie.)
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the librarians at the Hillman and
Benedum Libraries for assisting me in my research. I would
also like to thank Bill Kirchner for presenting and clarifying
the assignment to my class. In addition, my thanks go out to
my floor mates for helping me think of movies that related to
my topic.
4