|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Meltdown in One Hour If Commercial Passenger Aircraft Hits Nuclear Power Plant |
Current rating: 0 |
by Greenpeace
(No verified email address) |
04 Nov 2001
|
|
Although the references are to European nuclear plants, similar containment designs are used in the US. The Clinton nuclear plant, 40 miles upwind from the Urbana-Champaign metropolitan area, has protection at the upper end of the scale mentioned below, but this is far from reassuring in the wake of Sept. 11. The News-Gazette carried a front page article today, detailing the economic impact of the closing of the Clinton plant's cooling lake, but nothing that details the actual most threatening possibility, a airliner strike like Sept. 11. |
VIENNA - November 2 - A reactor meltdown could occur within one hour if a commercial passenger jet hits a nuclear power plant, according to a new Greenpeace report which examines the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to plane crashes in Germany.
Nuclear expert, Dr Helmut Hirsch, says in the report that in a worse case scenario of a commercial passenger jet hitting a nuclear plant, the reactor's containment would be breached, the cooling systems would fail, and within a very short period of time less than one hour - the reactor core would begin to meltdown. A catastrophic release of radioactivity on the scale of Chernobyl would follow. DR Hirsch's report was released as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General, DR Mohamed El Baradei, acknowledged that the world's nuclear reactors and other facilities are vulnerable to a September 11th type attack. An IAEA conference in Vienna today will discuss the threat of nuclear terrorism.
The GP report also states that, even if the reactor building remains largely intact, there is a high probability that as a result of the damage caused by the aircraft, a core meltdown could still occur. Such an event would be less catastrophic in the short term due to the containment structure, however, this would eventually fail - either through explosions caused by the meltdown (within ten hours) or within a matter of days due to excessive internal pressure. DR Hirsch states that in the oldest German nuclear plants the reactor buildings had walls 60 cm (two feet) thick which could withstand a sports plane, weighing 10 tons and flying slowly (300 kmph) while others were designed to withstand a crash by a Starfighter warplane and the newest to withstand a crash by a Phantom fighter jet.
However the report points that the mass of commercial passenger jets and the amount of fuel they carry far exceed those of jet fighters. The F4E Phantom II jet has a take off weight of 26,309 kg with maximum estimated fuel reserves of 6,000 liters while a Boeing 747-400 has a take-off weight of 396,890 kg and maximum fuel reserve of 216,840 liters"In general it can, given the current state of knowledge, be assumed that even in an accidental crash by a big passenger plane the reactor building will probably be broken into - if a 'direct hit' occurs - even if the facility involved is protected against the impact of a Phantom jet fighter.
This possibility cannot be ruled out even with a medium sized passenger plane (eg Airbus A-320). The probability is greater still in the case of a deliberately aimed crash at higher speeds," the report states.
DR Hirsch questioned the safety of deploying air defense systems at nuclear sites saying the most effective safety measure would be to close down the nuclear plants as soon as possible. "Stationing military units at nuclear power plants for the purpose of air defense, a measure already implemented in France and the Czech republic, must be regarded as extremely problematic," the report said. "Apart from the obvious danger of shooting down aircraft which have no interest in the plants - planes whose radio and navigation systems have failed, for example - new risks are created as a result."
While the IAEA Director General stated that reactors were vulnerable to aircraft attack, he downplayed the threat posed by fissile materials - the ingredients needed for nuclear weapons - being used by terrorists to make weapons. However Greenpeace International spokesperson Shaun Burnie said nuclear weapons experts have stated the contrary, that the design and manufacture of a nuclear weapon is relatively straightforward once fissile materials, such as plutonium, have been obtained. During the last ten years global stocks of plutonium in commercial nuclear programs have grown to over 200,000kg. As little as 5kg of this plutonium would be sufficient for a nuclear weapon.
"The IAEA has two functions: to promote nuclear technology and to safeguard nuclear material. The two are in direct contradiction. Proliferation of nuclear power, the job of the IAEA, increases the threats of nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism," Burnie said. "Instead of seeking to reassure the world that it can be protected from nuclear terrorism it would be more effective for the IAEA to admit that the risk is so high that reactors have to be shut down and that the trade in plutonium should be halted," Burnie said. "Future energy requirements must come from energy efficiency measures and renewable energy ."
|
See also:
http://www.greenpeace.org
|
