[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

AOPA Concludes GA Aircraft No Threat to NPPs



AOPA-commissioned report concludes general aviation not a threat to nuclear 

power plants



June 6 ? A new report commissioned by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association has concluded that general aviation aircraft do not pose a 

serious threat to the nation's nuclear power plants. The report by 

internationally recognized nuclear safety and security expert Robert M. 

Jefferson said that the crash of a GA aircraft wouldn't cause a dangerous 

release of radiation.



"Following the events of September 11, some expressed fears that a small 

aircraft might 'attack' a nuclear plant," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. 

"We sought out an expert to determine if those fears were real."



"The Jefferson report makes it clear that general aviation aircraft are not 

effective weapons and small aircraft aren't a significant threat to the 

safety of the public when it comes to nuclear power plants."



In the report, "Nuclear Security ? General Aviation is not a Threat," 

Jefferson said that if a general aviation aircraft were to crash into any 

part of a nuclear power facility, the "result of such an endeavor would fail 

to produce the damage necessary to cause any radiological involvement of the 

public."



Jefferson concluded that:



A GA aircraft could not penetrate the concrete containment vessel

An explosives-laden GA aircraft would not likely cause the release of 

radiation.

A small aircraft attack on auxiliary plant buildings would not cause a 

safety failure.

A GA aircraft could not ignite the Zirconium cladding on spent nuclear fuel.



Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted the Jefferson report into the 

congressional record June 5 during a hearing of the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee, while Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Mo.) said, 

"Commercial nuclear plants are probably the most physically secure and least 

vulnerable of our nation's industrial infrastructure. They are robust, 

hardened facilities with numerous redundant systems designed to assure 

public safety."



A GA aircraft could not penetrate the concrete containment vessel

The Jefferson study concluded that a general aviation aircraft could not 

penetrate the concrete containment vessel protecting the nuclear reactor.



While few nuclear reactor facilities were designed specifically against 

threats from GA aircraft, that point is misleading, according to Jefferson. 

"It overlooks the fact that by their very design, nuclear power plants are 

inherently resistant to such strikes," he said.



All containment vessels are designed to withstand the impact of 

tornado-propelled "missiles." Tornados can pick up objects as large as cars 

and hurl them against buildings with tremendous force. In one test, a power 

pole was rammed into a containment wall at more than 120 mph without causing 

damage to the structure. "A power pole impacting perpendicular to the 

surface of the concrete is certainly a more effective missile than a light, 

aluminum general aviation aircraft," said Jefferson.



In another test, a 45,000-pound F-4 Phantom jet was propelled at 450 miles 

per hour into a concrete wall simulating a containment vessel. The aircraft 

was destroyed; the concrete wall was "uncompromised."



(An F-4 is 18 times heavier than a Cessna 172, the most popular GA aircraft. 

And even in a dive, a Cessna 172 can't go much faster than 200 mph.)



Even a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 757 would not likely 

penetrate the outer containment vessel of a nuclear power plant. But even if 

it did, the reactor vessel, which contains the nuclear fuel, would remain 

intact, according to Jefferson.



An explosives-laden GA aircraft would not likely cause the release of 

radiation.

Some have speculated that a light aircraft loaded with explosives might lead 

to a release of radiation. "The capabilities of light aircraft argue against 

such an attack being successful," Jefferson said.



Most GA aircraft have payloads of less than 1,000 pounds. Any explosives 

would have to be carried in the passenger or cargo compartments, far away 

from the nose of the aircraft. Even if a terrorist were able to rig a 

contact fuse on the nose of the aircraft, the explosion would be several 

feet away from the reactor containment building. That distance would reduce 

the damage to the point that even if the containment vessel were breached, 

there would be little or no damage to the reactor vessel inside, according 

to the nuclear expert. (Jefferson has been involved in full scale testing of 

systems subjected to explosive attacks.)



A small aircraft attack on auxiliary plant buildings would not cause a 

safety failure.

Nuclear power plants are designed so that a "single failure" cannot cause 

the loss of critical safety systems. Support systems are not co-located at a 

single point. An aircraft crash could not destroy every safety and control 

system at once, Jefferson said.



"It is inconceivable that the crash of a general aviation aircraft could 

accomplish such broad safety problems in a nuclear power plant," said 

Jefferson.



A GA aircraft could not ignite the Zirconium cladding on spent nuclear fuel.

Spent nuclear fuel is stored in massive shielding systems or in deep pools, 

covered with up to 50 feet of water. The pool walls are concrete and steel. 

The pool itself is a relatively small target. Even if the aircraft could hit 

the pool, it would not likely disturb the spent fuel.



To ignite the Zirconium cladding on the spent nuclear fuel, an aircraft 

would have to create a fire that would burn for about 20 hours, according to 

Jefferson. That would take some 176,000 gallons of aviation gasoline. The 

typical GA aircraft carries 60 gallons of gasoline.



Jefferson concluded that general aviation aircraft would "prove ineffective 

in an attack similar to those carried out on September 11 ... The success of 

these attacks was predicated on the use of large, turbine-powered commercial 

aircraft with an immense fuel carrying capacity. A general aviation 

aircraft, at only a fraction of the weight, speed and fuel load, would be 

unable to inflict damage on the scale witnessed on that tragic day."



Robert M. Jefferson has more than 45 years experience in the nuclear field. 

Currently an independent consultant, his experience encompasses full scale 

testing of systems subjected to explosive attacks, full scale testing of 

spent fuel shipping casks, and the development of calculation techniques for 

assessing public impact of nuclear fuel cycle activities. The Sandia 

National Labs employed him for 27 years in the field of reactor and 

transportation safety research. He also teaches graduate-level nuclear 

engineering classes.



A copy of "Nuclear Security - General Aviation is not a Threat" is available 

online. [at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/02-2-159_report.pdf 

]



The 380,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is the world's 

largest civil aviation organization. Some two-thirds of the nation's pilots, 

and three-quarters of general aviation aircraft owners, are AOPA members.





http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/02-2-160.html



--

Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a 

half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and 

say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.









_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 

http://www.hotmail.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/