Why Kodak Kept A Nuclear Reactor In Its Basement

When someone says "Kodak," you're probably more apt to think "camera" than "nuclear reactor." But, apparently, Kodak had both cameras and a nuclear research reactor in its Rochester, New York, headquarters.

According to a report by Democrat and Chronicle's Steve Orr, the well-known camera company had housed a refrigerator-sized nuclear research reactor containing three and a half pounds of highly enriched uranium below the basement level of a building in Rochester's Eastman Business Park from 1974 to 2007.

For more than 30 years, the company used the research reactor, a californium neutron flux multiplier (CFX), to "check chemicals and other materials for impurities" and "for tests related to neutron radiography, an imaging technique," reports Orr. While the company had never deliberately hid the reactor's existence, it seems it never publicly announced it either, even after the uranium's removal and transport to South Carolina in 2007. (You can read the rest of Orr's report here.)

However, the company did comply with all federal regulations and, as shown by a document available on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website, Kodak operated the CFX safely in the 30 years it had it and the reactor's decommission did not adversely impact the surrounding environment, as its contents were disposed off-site.

The fact that Kodak had a nuclear reactor to begin with could be a bit troubling to some, but, as Chris Veronda, Kodak's manager of corporate communications, explained in an email to The Huffington Post, the device the company used "operated with barely enough power for a night light, while a typical power plant would operate at a level 85 million times greater."

He continued later:

In 2003, Kodak decided that there were alternative, more cost-effective means to perform the specific analysis, and communicated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it would not renew its license to operate the device. In 2006, the Californium source was removed and transferred to another licensed recipient for reuse. The Uranium was removed in 2007 and transferred to a federal government facility under the close management of several federal agencies.

What do you think about Kodak housing a nuclear reactor in a building's basement? Do you think they should have let more people know about its existence? Share your thoughts with us in the comments!

Also on HuffPost:

From our partners

Comments

[Cat Nium]

04:48 AM on 03/17/2013

Yo dumb people!!!!!! a nuclear reactor is NOT the same as a nuclear power plant so stop freaking out..
did you know jodium is radio active ? did you know some of the nuts in your nutmix you can buy anywhere contain more radiation than uranium.. and you bloody well eat those

for the love of sience go learn something before you cry wolf

[Kurt Heumiller]

04:39 PM on 05/24/2012

It was not a REACTOR. You should spend some more time on research and less time trying to craft the most alarmist headline. People freak out with anything related to the word "Nuclear", but the truth is the full name of an MRI is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Hospitals knew better and dropped the N from the name that would keep people from wanting to have these scans (which are safer than the high level of X-Rays you get from a CAT scan). This device Kodak had is impossible to have a melt down or have gone off in a nuclear explosion (it was sub-critical... meaning you have to apply energy to it to get anything out of it and it doesn't stay on after you remove the power) and emitted very controlled radiation.

[Genders]

11:50 AM on 06/03/2012

Does that smarter than thou attitude come with every pro nuke propaganda kit?

It was NOT MRI!

It was a REACTOR.

MIR's don't use Uranium.

[Kurt Heumiller]

01:42 PM on 06/03/2012

Actually I'm generally against nuclear energy. This was not an MRI but it's as an example where the word Nuclear freaks people out. A scientist friend works on a machine called an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) and it freaks people out until she explains "well it's really just a laboratory MRI" and people respond "but it's NUCLEAR!" and she responds, "technically, so is an MRI".

This thing is closer to a smoke detector than a nuclear reactor. Every smoke detector as a bit of radioactive Americium to work. Everything that has radioactive materials isn't a reactor. In the 50's FiestaWear was made of uranium and they were not reactors.

A reactor is something with a critical mass that sustains a chained reaction. What this means is once you turn it on, it keeps going by itself. This is why reactors are very scary things. A meltdowns is when they lost cooling or some other control system and it runs out of control, because with a reactor, if we don't do something proactive, it will get continually hotter until melts the building. The uranium core in this device is what they call sub-critical... meaning it was incapable of sustaining a chain-reaction. If you turn the power off, it shuts down. Kodak had to put more energy into it to get a a little special type of energy out.

My point was that there is a lot to be legitimately scared about a reactor. This was not a reactor.

[ModMark]

01:07 PM on 05/22/2012

Some background concerning Kodak Park. At one time it was the largest chemical plant in New York State. A massive complex with stacks coming out of the roofs everywhere. And this plant was in operation long before the EPA and environmental laws were put on the books. Who knows what is buried in the ground.

A low power reactor was the least of our worries.

And by the way, if you need some industrial zoned land for a bargain price, drop by Rochester.

[Genders]

12:20 PM on 06/03/2012

Three lbs highly enriched uranium in private hands certainly is something worth worrying about. Funny how they say you need 100 lbs of uranium, when 15 lbs will do, but they didn't mention the actual enrichment of the uranium.

The real question is what were the radioisotopes created by the operation of the reactor for all those years. That's the nasty stuff.

[PoloniumMan]

11:59 PM on 06/03/2012

If you want to know what isotopes were produced, you can look at this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield
Here's some info on the decommissioning plan for this sub-critical assembly at Kodak Park: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A2189207511.pdf
The reactor produced about 60 mg of fission products.

[ToneeyT]

07:40 AM on 05/19/2012

It appears the Kodak Reactor was in business 30 years before those nukes were approved.
Somebody is lying or very misinformed!

Who made and/or approved the Kodak Nuke ? Tony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/17/corporations-of-mass-destruction-eastman-kodak-operated-a-nuclear-reactor-with-weapons-grade-uranium-for-30-years/?feed=rss_home

[Atoms4Peace1]

03:32 AM on 05/20/2012

Its safety significance was zilch. It was a low power subcritical facility. Big whoop. They turned over their HEU which was the right thing to do for them and neutron testing was limited.

[cmacattack]

01:33 PM on 05/16/2012

I don't like this at all, it could fall into the wrong hands far too easily. I'm sure Kodak had basic security at best and it makes me uneasy to know that there could be other companies we do not even know about that have this or something similar.

[Jiff]

02:49 AM on 05/16/2012

Yes, Yes no one cares until we all find out the BP way!

[Jiff]

02:47 AM on 05/16/2012

Let us just say if "Kodak" is doing this who else is doing this?

[any mouse]

08:49 AM on 05/16/2012

Lots of people.

I know of at least TWO research reactors in the SF Bay Area (with very lax security), plus many radiation oncology centers with cesium.

In addition to the two I know of, I suspect there are at least three others, on DoD sites not regulated by the Nuclear regulatory agency. This is not counting the commercial power reactor at Diablo Canyon

[Atoms4Peace1]

03:33 AM on 05/20/2012

There are a ton of small critical and research reactors at universities. These are vital training tools.

[Terris-Linenbach]

10:44 PM on 05/15/2012

Just one of the many eccentric items at Kodak's garage sale

[Larry Foard]

06:59 PM on 05/15/2012

It sounds like there was insufficient fuel to ever go critical. Assuming that's the case, this was
simply a radioactive source and not a reactor no matter what the failure more might have been.

[Marlyn]

05:18 PM on 05/15/2012

I'm horrified. How many other nuclear reactors are hidden away like this?

And WHY use nuclear power when regular electricity is available? It only took them 30 years to figure that out.

Nuclear reactors produce POISON that can never be disposed of. Don't use nuclear energy.

[2crudedudes]

06:58 PM on 05/15/2012

You didn't read the article, did you?

[Chris Reese]

11:49 PM on 05/15/2012

Actually Coal power plants kill more American's every year than nuclear plants. The reason people hate nuclear is that when people do die it is in a more traumatic ( think Chernobyl or japan) than the pollution caused by coal slowly killing over a large area. Perceived danger and actual danger are 2 very different things. I work in a radiology department and witness the "poison's" you are talking about save lives by letting doctors catch and treat cancer and heart conditions sooner. The Sun also produces Gamma radiation and you receive about 300 millirem every year this way. More if you live at high altitude or near natural uranium deposits. Bananas are radioactive as well. Not saying people should be careless with radiation, but the dangers of nuclear power plants is way over blown by the media. http://www.e-radiography.net/radsafety/rad_biology.htm is a good site to learn more. Chris Reese R.T(R)

[Harold Kozlowski]

04:43 PM on 05/15/2012

Obviously Kodak was working on creating weapons of mass destruction, likely to use against digital camera manufacturers.

[Atoms4Peace1]

03:34 AM on 05/20/2012

Now that is funny.

[Reality always bites]

03:46 PM on 05/15/2012

Beats solar panels any day!
30 years use without incident.
Average life of solar panels- 10 years.
The cost of solar panels is probably more than the NR cost back then.
They should be charged (pun intended) for not using the reactor to it's full potential!

[SeekingClarity]

03:59 PM on 05/15/2012

It's not that kind of reactor.

[Reality always bites]

04:10 PM on 05/15/2012

I was just being flippant!

[Atoms4Peace1]

03:35 AM on 05/20/2012

Hmm. I read the other day how a person was crushed to death by a solar panel.

[TisKishnsing]

03:37 PM on 05/15/2012

news for HP isn't news for everyone... HP get urself together...

[Chris Phelan]

02:53 PM on 05/15/2012

HuffPo fail on this one. It's obvious why they Kodak would need a radiation source. They used to be (possibly still are) the main manufacturer the film and detectors for radiography for medical and industrial use. Hard to test your new improvements to X-ray film without having X-rays, gamma ray detectors (for PET scans) without gamma rays, etc.

[dennishastings]

02:10 PM on 05/15/2012

The real story is: who else has a reactor just like this one? I know, all of you brainiacs, that americium is used in a variety of situations, but what would be interesting to know is just how many sources there are that are producing radioactive waste like this in our country. No paranoia... it would just be nice to know. Don't you think? Since they chose not to disclose the amount of radioactive material on hand who's to know just how much other companies are not reporting?

[Atoms4Peace1]

03:38 AM on 05/20/2012

there is americium in standard garden variety smoke detectors.

[dennishastings]

04:17 AM on 05/20/2012

Hey! I had a nice little rant going! Anyway, I don't need a smoke detector in my garden and I think I'm more interested in places like the Kodak facility that are a little more in the 'we should be concerned' zone.