FlyerTalk Forums - Worst-case terrorist scenario

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

There are many active reactors of older design in which a China Syndrome scenario (release of tons of radioactive steam) is still possible - although those built since the lessons of Three Mile Island may be less vulnerable.

Construction at North Anna 1 and 2 completed in 1978 and 1980, respectively - Unit 1 was producing power at the time of TMI. The plants are virtually identical, to the point that operators licensed for Unit 1 can legally operate Unit 2 (there are sites here in the US with three reactors, all of different designs, which have completely separate crews mandated by law). Sure, there've been upgrades since they went online, which make them safer than originally designed - those would be NRC-mandated upgrades, and ANY plant not in compliance with the law as applied by NRC gets shut down. Whether or not they were built after TMI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

But in the TMI incident, the core was less than an hour away from a containment breach when they finally got it under control. In the event, half the core melted. Besides that, no one knows for sure exactly what would have happened if the concentration of radioactive hydrogen inside the containment blew up. Every deterioration in the conditions in the country's worst accident was either caused by faulty machinery, faulty instrumentation, or unfortunate guesses on the part of the control room personnel.

Exactly correct. I would add complacency and laziness. And in spite of all that, someone standing on the site boundary received less exposure than you get from a cross country plane trip. On the order of half a millirem, IIRC, but I'd have to look that up. FYI, over my entire time in nuclear power, I received a total dose of just under 1 rem - or about 3 years worth of natural background radiation, over the course of nearly 15 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

Nothing has changed the human factors,

Incorrect. NRC requirements also cover operator initial and continuing training and evaluation. The nuclear-power mindset is different than it was 30 years ago, which constitutes a MASSIVE change in the human factors. Can people still be lazy, or complacent? Sure. I would argue that it's significantly less likely today, as current routine testing will cause those individuals to lose their jobs much faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

and an attack on a control room (which could probably be accomplished by a light single) could quickly lead to an out-of-control reactor.

C'mon, Cessna, we've COVERED this before! Point 1 - you're absolutely WRONG about a light single being able to (successfully) attack the control room. A light single would *BOUNCE*. It'd scratch the paint, maybe crack a little concrete, and depending on where it hit it might trigger ventilation to automatically shift to internal sources. That's if it could get through the huge amounts of industrial machinery between the outside and the control room in the first place. I really just don't see that happening. Point 2 - a successful attack such as you suggest on the control room would result in the operations staff evacuating the room and conducting - monitoring, really - the safe shutdown of the plant from the emergency control facility, which is even MORE heavily protected than the main control room. The plant I was at, we could have LOST THE CONTROL ROOM ENTIRELY (staff and all, instantaneously) and safely shut down the plant using personnel not in the control room, either operating equipment locally or from the emergency control room.

China Syndrome? Well, I suppose it COULD happen - if the operators MADE it happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

I think fission power is a bad idea from a risk/benefit point of view. Do we really need the power that badly? In the case of the Palo Verde construction, the interest paid on the construction financing would buy a solar water heater for every residence and business in the service area, obviating the need for additional generating capacity altogether.

Except for those darned cloudy days...

Does nuclear fission have its potential problems? Sure. I contend that they are manageable and that fission is our best bet for increasing power demands, until we get fusion licked. You, obviously, do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

Instead of building more time bombs (which is what anything capable of causing widespread devastation is, no matter how improbable such an event might be),

What, like jumbo passenger/cargo jets carrying any number of unscreened and dangerous items?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CessnaJock (Post 8632090)

why don't we require all beverage containers to be reused, thus saving gigaWatt-hours of electricity by not smelting a million tons of aluminum every year?

And how presumptuous of you for suggesting that I don't understand the technology. Shame on you.

Your fearmongering led me to that conclusion. While you appear to have some (a little) knowledge on the subject, you still display knowledge gaps leading you to apparent beliefs which are better suited to nuclear power as portrayed on 'The Simpsons' than to real life.

I'm not a security type. I could well be mistaken about some things - but I WORKED on fission plants, as an operator, for 15 years, almost, between military and civilian life. From what I personally have seen on the job, your fears about air attacks on a nuclear plant are COMPLETELY unfounded.