The New York Times The New York Times National September 20, 2002  

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
- Columns
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia/Photos
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version

Join Ameritrade. Get 25 commission-free trades.


Find More Low Fares! Experience Orbitz!


FREE Streaming News from Dow Jones Newswires


Small Business Center: OPEN NetworkSM tools


Go to Advanced Search/ArchiveGo to Advanced Search/ArchiveSymbol Lookup
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  Welcome, aoster

REACTOR VULNERABILITY

Experts Say Nuclear Plants Can Survive Jetliner Crash

By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 Seeking to counter assertions that the nation's nuclear plants are vulnerable to attacks like the one on the World Trade Center, 19 prominent nuclear experts have concluded that a reactor containment building could easily withstand the force of a jetliner crash.

But the federal laboratory that conducted a major test cited by the experts says its experiment was not meant to demonstrate anything about reactors' structural soundness.

The 19 experts, many of them retired, work or worked at universities or companies that build or operate reactors. In an article on Friday in the journal Science, they dismiss fears voiced by opponents of nuclear power that the nation's reactors are vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

"We read that airplanes can fly through the reinforced, steel-lined 1.5-meter-thick concrete walls surrounding a nuclear reactor," the article says, "and inevitably cause a meltdown resulting in `tens of thousands of deaths' and `make a huge area uninhabitable for centuries,' to quote some recent stories." But, they add, "no airplane regardless of size, can fly through such a wall."

The article says the scenario "was actually tested in 1988 by mounting an unmanned plane on rails and `flying' it at 215 meters per second (about 480 m.p.h.) into a test wall." The engines penetrated only about two inches and the fuselage even less, according to the article.

But the relevance of the test, conducted at Sandia National Laboratories, has long been in dispute. People who opposed nuclear power before Sept. 11 pointed out that the test wall moved several feet; the movement reduced the damage by absorbing some of the force of impact.

At Sandia, a spokesman, John German, said the point of the test was to move the wall, as a way to measure the impact forces. The test was sponsored by the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics Inc., of Tokyo, as a preliminary step in building a computer model of such impacts, but the Japanese decided not to sponsor the next step, Mr. German said.

Asked if it showed that a plane could not penetrate a dome, he said, "We've been trying like heck to shoot down this rumor."

Mr. German said: "That test was designed to measure the impact force of a fighter jet. But the wall was not being tested. No structure was being tested."

The nuclear experts contend that the test makes their point nevertheless. The opponents of nuclear power have argued that the plane in the Sandia test, an F-4 Phantom, weighs far less than a jumbo jet.

But James Muckerheide, a nuclear engineer who is the co-director of the Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, on whose work the authors relied, said in an e-mail response to a reporter's question that penetrating a reactor containment building would take far more than an airliner. Compared with the F-4, Mr. Muckerheide said, "a large passenger aircraft is a slow, empty, tin can."

"The mass of the aircraft can put a heavy compression load on the containment structure," he said, "but it has negligible penetrating ability."

The containment building can withstand huge compression loads, he argued. The fact that the block in the Sandia test moved had a trivial effect, Mr. Muckerheide said.

Whether a containment building is the soft spot of a nuclear plant is also not clear. Most of the radioactivity in a power plant is in the spent fuel pool, which, critics note, is usually in a building that is far less sturdy.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting an engineering analysis of the vulnerability of power plants to aircraft attack, Sue Gagner, an agency spokeswoman, said. "If warranted by the ongoing detailed analysis, we will consider changes," Ms. Gagner said.

Articles in Science, like those in many scientific journals, are reviewed before publication by experts not connected with the authors. But the magazine's editor in chief, Donald Kennedy, said that if there was a difference between the authors and the group that performed the experiment, "they're going to thrash it out in our letters column, and we'll let them do it."

The magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.



Doubts Are Cast Over Plan For Converting Warheads  (April 19, 2002)  $

National Briefing | Washington: Protection From Radiation  (February 5, 2002) 

Pataki Urges Reassessment Of Safety Plan  (February 2, 2002)  $

A NATION CHALLENGED: DOMESTIC SECURITY; A-Plant Drill For Guards Is Inadequate, Group Says  (December 17, 2001)  $



Doing research? Search the archive for more than 500,000 articles:




E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Start the day informed with home delivery of The New York Times newspaper.
Click Here for 50% off.


Home | Back to National | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Advertisement


Topics

 Alerts
Atomic Energy
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Hazardous and Toxic Substances
Terrorism
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour
Sign Up for Newsletters









You can now track properties that interest you, with our Real Estate Tracker. Click here to sign up for the e-mail and start receiving information on the latest properties on the market.