|
News Archive 2002
REPORT: U.S. NUCLEAR PLANTS CAN
SURVIVE PLANE ATTACK
By Tom Doggett
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A hijacked commercial airliner loaded
with explosive jet fuel like the one that hit the Pentagon
on Sept. 11 could not penetrate a U.S. nuclear power reactor
and release deadly radiation, according to a nuclear industry
study announced on Monday.
The report's conclusions are intended to calm a nervous public
and nuclear industry critics worried the nation's 103 nuclear
reactors, especially those near big cities, are susceptible
to a Sept. 11 type of attack.
The study was commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute,
an industry trade group, which hired independent consultants
to analyze what damage would occur if a Boeing 767 airplane
filled with fuel crashed into a nuclear power plant.
"We think it's extremely unlikely that the aircraft
would be able to penetrate the reactor," said Stephen
Floyd, NEI's senior director of regulatory reform. "We
feel very, very confident about the containment structure."
Floyd announced the study's preliminary findings during a
National Press Foundation seminar on the threat of terror
attacks on nuclear power plants.
The study was based on scenarios in which the wide-bodied
aircraft crashed into a nuclear reactor traveling at about
300 miles per hour (480 kilometers per hour), the same speed
as the plane that damaged the Pentagon.
It did not analyze a nuclear reactor hit by a plane traveling
at the higher speeds of the two airliners that destroyed New
York's World Trade Center.
Security has been boosted at nuclear plants since the Sept.
11 attacks, but some lawmakers and environmental activists
have urged regulators to station military personnel with sophisticated
weapons at nuclear plants to repel a hijacked plane.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said earlier this month
it would analyze what devastation could occur if a fuel-laden
commercial airliner crashed into a reactor. U.S. plants are
designed to protect the radioactive core from tornadoes, hurricanes,
fires and earthquakes.
The industry's report used computer models to analyze the
impact of a plane hitting a reactor from different angles.
Neither the plane or its engines would be able to slice through
a reactor's protective concrete shell, which is several feet
thick at the base, the study said.
The experts studied several scenarios, including the reactor
taking a direct hit from an airplane or being hit by the engine
under an airplane's wing.
A resulting fire from the airplane's jet fuel might engulf
a nuclear reactor, but would not cause it to collapse like
the World Trade Center, the industry report said.
The report did not consider the scenario of a reactor being
hit by an airplane flying at more than 500 mph (800 km/hour),
the speed at which the two planes hit the World Trade Center
last September.
A pilot flying closer to the ground and aiming at a nuclear
reactor would not be able to control an airplane at 500 mph
because of pressure waves that would be created, it said.
Hijackers also could not nose-dive a commercial airliner
into the top of a reactor where the concrete shell is thinnest,
because the plane would break apart at such a steep angle
and high speed, according to the study.
"The plane in all likelihood would destroy itself before
it could hit the target," Floyd said.
The report was viewed skeptically by other experts.
Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute,
questioned the methodology of the report funded by U.S. utilities
and said his group's review has found that a Boeing 767 airliner
could crash through a reactor.
However, Lyman's group based its conclusions on an airplane
flying at maximum cruising speed of 530 mph. Such a high speed
just a few hundred feet off the ground would make it difficult
to accurately strike a nuclear plant.
Lyman also reiterated his group's recommendation that federal
regulators should consider asking the Defense Department to
place anti-aircraft missiles at nuclear power plant facilities
to shoot down a hijacked plane aiming for the site.
The nuclear industry opposes such a plan, saying it runs
the risk of shooting down a commercial airliner that has simply
strayed off its flight path. A military commander would have
only about 45 seconds after spotting an airplane to decide
if it was an attack and should be fired upon.
The report will be reviewed by industry experts before being
released to the public at the end of the summer
BACK TO TOP
|
