| Experts Say Nuclear
Plants Can Survive Jetliner Crash
By MATTHEW L. WALD
The New York Times
September 20, 2002
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — Seeking to counter assertions
that the nation's nuclear plants are vulnerable to attacks
like the one on the World Trade Center, 19 prominent nuclear
experts have concluded that a reactor containment building
could easily withstand the force of a jetliner crash.
But the federal laboratory that conducted a major test cited
by the experts says its experiment was not meant to demonstrate
anything about reactors' structural soundness.
The 19 experts, many of them retired, work or worked at
universities or companies that build or operate reactors.
In an article on Friday in the journal Science, they dismiss
fears voiced by opponents of nuclear power that the nation's
reactors are vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
"We read that airplanes can fly through the reinforced,
steel-lined 1.5-meter-thick concrete walls surrounding a nuclear
reactor," the article says, "and inevitably cause
a meltdown resulting in `tens of thousands of deaths' and
`make a huge area uninhabitable for centuries,' to quote some
recent stories." But, they add, "no airplane regardless
of size, can fly through such a wall."
The article says the scenario "was actually tested
in 1988 by mounting an unmanned plane on rails and `flying'
it at 215 meters per second (about 480 m.p.h.) into a test
wall." The engines penetrated only about two inches and
the fuselage even less, according to the article.
But the relevance of the test, conducted at Sandia National
Laboratories, has long been in dispute. People who opposed
nuclear power before Sept. 11 pointed out that the test wall
moved several feet; the movement reduced the damage by absorbing
some of the force of impact.
At Sandia, a spokesman, John German, said the point of the
test was to move the wall, as a way to measure the impact
forces. The test was sponsored by the Muto Institute of Structural
Mechanics Inc., of Tokyo, as a preliminary step in building
a computer model of such impacts, but the Japanese decided
not to sponsor the next step, Mr. German said.
Asked if it showed that a plane could not penetrate a dome,
he said, "We've been trying like heck to shoot down this
rumor."
Mr. German said: "That test was designed to measure
the impact force of a fighter jet. But the wall was not being
tested. No structure was being tested."
The nuclear experts contend that the test makes their point
nevertheless. The opponents of nuclear power have argued that
the plane in the Sandia test, an F-4 Phantom, weighs far less
than a jumbo jet.
But James Muckerheide, a nuclear engineer who is the co-director
of the Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, on whose work the authors relied, said
in an e-mail response to a reporter's question that penetrating
a reactor containment building would take far more than an
airliner. Compared with the F-4, Mr. Muckerheide said, "a
large passenger aircraft is a slow, empty, tin can."
"The mass of the aircraft can put a heavy compression
load on the containment structure," he said, "but
it has negligible penetrating ability."
The containment building can withstand huge compression loads,
he argued. The fact that the block in the Sandia test moved
had a trivial effect, Mr. Muckerheide said.
Whether a containment building is the soft spot of a nuclear
plant is also not clear. Most of the radioactivity in a power
plant is in the spent fuel pool, which, critics note, is usually
in a building that is far less sturdy.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting an engineering
analysis of the vulnerability of power plants to aircraft
attack, Sue Gagner, an agency spokeswoman, said. "If
warranted by the ongoing detailed analysis, we will consider
changes," Ms. Gagner said.
Articles in Science, like those in many scientific journals,
are reviewed before publication by experts not connected with
the authors. But the magazine's editor in chief, Donald Kennedy,
said that if there was a difference between the authors and
the group that performed the experiment, "they're going
to thrash it out in our letters column, and we'll let them
do it."
The magazine is published by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
BACK TO TOP
|