Nuclear power: cost of closing old plants Retiring large commercial nuclear power reactors isn't as expensive as previous studies have shown, affirms a report released last week by the Atomic Industrial Forum, a nuclear industry trade group. Public interest groups that oppose nuclear power, however, aren't so sure about that. AIF says that the new study is the first detailed engineering analysis of decommissioning large commercial reactors. Previous studies were based on extrapolation of cost data from experience with small prototype reactors. According to the report, the cost of decommissioning a large nuclear reactor after its useful lifetime, about 40 years, ranges from $13 million to $15 million (in 1975 dollars), about 2% of the price tag for a reactor designed in 1975. The study was performed for AIF by Nuclear Energy Services, Danbury, Conn. The study evaluated five technically feasible methods for closing down old reactors, including "mothballing," entombment, and prompt dismantling and removal. But two methods were preferred: a combination of mothballing for 100 years, followed by dismantling and removal, and entombment for 100 years, followed by dismantling and removal. In either case, the idea is to keep people out long enough for major radioactivity hazards to decay. In entombment, a concrete barrier is built around the reactor and its components, obviating the need for roundthe-clock security guards as in the mothballing method. But the mothballing method is probably the better of the two preferred methods, says the report, because a new nuclear power plant could be built adjacent to the old one, and thus both could be protected by the same security force to save money. All five decommissioning methods provide for removal of nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes and fluids. Nuclear energy critics, on the other hand, believe that the industry report greatly understates the costs. Marvin Resnikoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group, a Ralph Nader affiliate, says that "the figures are very misleading." He puts the cost in excess of $100 million in 1975 dollars and notes that this doesn't include the effects of inflation over the 100-year waiting period. Resnikoff also doesn't believe that utilities are putting aside money for eventually dismantling used reactors, and thus future generations of power users will wind up paying for electricity consumed by their forebears. The Nu6 C&ENJan. 3, 1977
Dawson, chemical trade representative, dies Dr. David H. Dawson, a key figure in recent years in coordinating chemical industry views on international trade, died late last month. He was 68. A former senior vice president and member of the executive committee of Du Pont, he retired from these posts in September 1973 after serving the company for 40 years. He continued as a member of Du Pont's board of directors. In November 1973 he became the first chemical industry trade adviser, a position established and financed by a group of chemical trade associations, including the Manufacturing Chemists Association and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association. A search is already under way for a successor to Dawson. Dawson was a graduate of Drexel University. He earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Ohio State University in 1933.
clear Regulatory Commission isn't too sure about the costs of decommissioning, either. The commission estimates that $75 million will be needed to retire a large nuclear reactor, but it cautions that this is only an estimate. It is conducting its own study to find out. D
Engineers' salaries too low, NSPE says Most engineers aren't getting paid what they should be getting paid. So says the National Society of Professional Engineers, which has made a current comparison of salaries with its recommended income ranges for professional engineers. Entry-level engineers are generally
paid salaries that fall within the recommended income ranges, NSPE says. But those in jobs requiring considerable skill and critical judgment are paid far less in most cases than the proposed minimums. The society's professional employment committee developed the recommended income ranges following a professional policy directive by the organization's board of directors in 1971. The income ranges, which are expressed in percentages of an income base rate, are monitored by the committee, which recommends changes when appropriate. A new income base rate—representing a national average annual starting salary for new engineering graduates—is developed each year on the basis of statistics from such sources as the Endicott Report and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. NSPE's recommended income ranges start with a base salary of $14,300 per year—the going salary rate for new engineering graduates. The recommendations include minimum and maximum income levels for each of eight employment grades, ranging from entry-level professional work to positions of considerable complexity and responsibility. For example, positions such as junior engineer or engineer-in-training have a recommended income range of 90 to 130% of the base rate. Category VIII, for positions such as chief engineer or director of research, carries a recommended salary range of 300 to 450% of the base rate. To make the current comparison, NSPE adjusted median salaries from its 1975 salary survey by an arbitrary additional 10% to approximate inflation occurring since the survey. (NSPE surveys its membership on salaries every two years.) Some results of the comparison: • An engineer III—one who has passed the entry-level stage and begun to apply independent engineering judgment—should, according to NSPE, be paid between $17,160 and $24,310. However, the salary survey indicates the median income for this category to be $16,929. • An engineer VI—one who has achieved a position of high authority in both technical and administrative areas and is responsible for the entire scope of complex engineering projects—should be making between $31,460 and $42,900. But the median salary is $28,578. • An engineer VIII—one who is typically a public works director, a senior consultant, or a dean of engineering—should have a salary between $42,900 and $64,350. The NSPE-measured median income at this level, however, is $36,652. D
