Terrorist and nuclear plants

[goldinem@SONGS.SCE.COM]

A couple of points about nuclear plants:

First, I was advised by a former Vietnam-era pilot, after showing the

Sandia video with the F4 Phantom on the rocket sled, that the plane had no

engine, it was only an airframe.  He suggested, as many others have

recently, that the engine internals (the turbine shaft) are the most

serious risk to a structure.  So, while the F4 video is spectacular, it

probably doesn't really represent reality.  Personally, having seen

construction of containment buildings, I find it absolutely inconceiveable

that an aircraft or jet engine shaft could penetrate the structure, but I'm

not a civil engineer.



Secondly, the note from the TMI activist suggested that entrances to

nuclear plants are unguarded.  Depends on the definition of "entrance."

The outside gates to most nuclear plants define the Owner Controlled Area,

and that is the same boundary as any controlled access to any industrial or

commercial facility.  Today, in a mode of heightened security, those gates

have armed guards.  But the real entrance is the Protected Area (hence the

name) which always has locked turnstiles and armed guards.  The commonly

repeated story about 50% failure by power plants during NRC security

exercises/inspections is taken out of context and not wholy factual.

Additionally, all plants were required some years ago to install vehicle

barriers to prevent truck bomb-type risks.  So the security is pretty darn

good, but of course, like the German anti-nukes said, it (and everything

else) is not absolutely perfect.



All of the above is disclaimed and my opinion only, of course.

Eric M. Goldin, CHP

<goldinem@songs.sce.com>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.