Re: FLYOVER SHOWS INDIAN POINT'S A SITTING DUCK

[Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>]

It is not the NRC's responsibility to monitor air

travel.  That is the job of the FAA. That's like

demanding that the Commissioner of the State Police

explain how someone was able to get a license to

practice medicine who never attended medical school.



But I can answer some of these questions.



Sen. Clinton requested "an explanation regarding [the

April 18] incident, the potential threat posed by

small planes to the plant"



All safety-related equipment is enclosed in reinforced

concrete missile-protected structures. The plane in

question did not have enough energy to breach any

missile-protected area of the plant.



If the plane were to have struck a non-missile

protected area, the damage would have been limited to

a very small area whose affected region was less than

the required spacing requirements of 10CFR50, 

Appdx. "R". Therefore, any fire as a result of the

plane crash would not have had the potential to damage

enough equipment to place the plant in an unsafe

condition.



Moreover, the crash and all damage would have been

limited to the general area of the building's

perimeter structure. All non-SR equipment, but

equipment that is important to safety is strategically

located within the interior of the buildings away from

the walls. Therefore, the only systems that could have

been rendered inoperable 

by a plane crash would have been seocndary and

tertiary systems not required for safe plant shutdown.



"...including safety systems and spent fuel facilities

outside of the 

containment structures"



All safety-related equipment is contained within

missile-protected areas where the plane would have no

chance of damaging should it have crashed either by

accident or on purpose into the structure housing 

said equipment.



Spent fuel pools are outside of the maximum extent of

damage that could have occured in the unlikely event

that the plane would have struck the spent fuel

building. Moreover, the plane could not physically

crash through the spent fuel pool building's metal 

building and damaged the spent fuel pool itself to

such an extent as to place the integrity of the pool

in question.



"..and proposals of how these threats can be

minimized."



The only threat to the plant was a perceived &

unsubstantiated threat whose only potential damage to

the plant would have been minimal. It should be 

concluded that there are no changes required to any

structures, systems, or components to mitigate any

such perceived or actual threat. The plant systems

currently in place would have sucessfully mitigated

any airplane crash that could have occured.



Every plane in the air is a potential threat to every 

person or structure within our country - including her

(Mrs. Clinton's) own house.  Should we ban all

airplane travel because of that?



Now, if you happen to disagree with my assessment of

that plane striking a nuke plant, then just look at

historical events.  Every year, there are at least 2-3

accounts of a similarly-sized plane striking a house

or a building.



Shortly after 9/11, a teenager flew a Cessna into the

side of a building in Florida (I believe it was in

Jacksonville) with a suicide note pinned to his shirt.

 Half of the plane was still sticking out of the side

of the building - e.g. only half busted through the

glass and glass support structure.



I recall seeing footage a year or so ago of a plane

flying into a person's house.  The plane flew into the

living room and all the damage was limited to

the....yep, you guessed it...the living room.  Of

course, if the plane had enough power to do some real

major damage, then it would have at *least* busted

some plumbing and there would have been water going

all over the place.  There wasn't.  Even the

thin-walled copper tubing under the kitchen sink

survived.



And Sen. Clinton thinks that a nuke plant would fare

worse than a small single family home protected by

nothing but siding, roofing shingles, a little bit of

wood, and some drywall?



Anyone remember what happened at Turkey Point about

8-10 years ago?  There was a hurricane that came

through and tore up Florida.  It ripped the roof off

of the turbine building exposing the building to

whatever could fly in it.



The plant is still there.



Think about it....



Tim



--- Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:

> Suppose an airplane either intentionally or

> accidentally  crashed into the

> plant. Does anyone know of a reasonable worst-case

> scientific assessment

> that estimates the actual radiological consequences

> to the public (i.e.

> excluding harm from psychological damage, panic,

> traffic accidents, etc.)

> that could happen?

>  If the Chernobyl accident is indicative of "as bad

> as it gets", is the

> level of concern about Indian Point really

> justified--- or is it just

> another example of the "any risk is too much"

> mentality when it comes to

> radiation?

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Jim Hoerner <jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM>

> To: <Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com>

> Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:42 AM

> Subject: Re: [Know_Nukes] Re: FLYOVER SHOWS INDIAN

> POINT'S A SITTING DUCK

> >

> >4/19/02: SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON IS ASKING THE

> NRC AND FAA HOW a

> >plane was able to fly over Indian Point without any

> interference for

> >approximately 20 minutes. According to a statement

> from Clinton (D-

> >N.Y.), there was no attempt to stop or inquire

> about the flight,

> >which was carrying a Fox News reporter. In an April

> 18 letter to NRC

> >Chairman Richard Meserve, Clinton requested "an

> explanation from you

> >regarding [the April 18] incident, the potential

> threat posed by

> >small planes to the plant--including safety systems

> and spent fuel

> >facilities outside of the containment

> structures--and proposals on

> >how these threats can be minimized." In a similar

> letter yesterday to

> >Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator

> Jane Garvey,

> >Clinton requested an explanation of "how this

> particular plane was

> >able to fly so close to the reactor--for so

> long--without

> >interference, and what the FAA is doing to ensure

> other planes in the

> >area cannot present a threat to the reactor and the

> people of New

> >York." In both letters, Clinton asked for responses

> "no later than

> >April 25."

> 

> 

> 

>

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

> 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.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

> 





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more

http://games.yahoo.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.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/