Posted on 04/25/2007 9:07:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. nuclear reactor builders will likely have to weigh the potential for a commercial aircraft strike when they design new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Tuesday.
The NRC's proposed rules are meant to protect new reactors against a deliberate hit by a jet like those that rammed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the commission said.
"This is the most recent step in a broad, proactive effort to improve the security of reactors initiated by the NRC after September 11," NRC Chairman Dale Klein said. "We need more technical analysis to understand how to address this.
The proposal would apply to companies that want to build new reactors whose designs have not received NRC certification, a spokesman for the NRC said. It will not apply to the nation's existing 104 civilian nuclear power plants, which already have adequate protection, he said.
The proposal will be made public later this year and could take effect next year, he said.
The proposal is less stringent than one backed by NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko, which would have required new nuclear plants to be built to withstand a large commercial aircraft impact.
U.S. utilities have not ordered new nuclear plants in about 25 years due to cost and safety concerns, but the NRC could weigh upward of 20 new applications for the first wave of new U.S. nuclear plants in coming months.
The NRC said it already requires the owners of nuclear reactors to take steps to minimize damage from large fires and explosions from any type of attack.
However, companies that ask the NRC to new approve reactor designs would have to "assess how the design, to the extent practicable, can have greater built-in protections to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact."
"This proposal gives us the chance to assess and make practicable changes to new reactor designs early in the design process," Klein said.
The rules would apply to reactor design proposals submitted by General Electric Co., French-based Areva, and Japanese-based Mitsubishi Heavy Industries the spokesman said.
And even though the rules would not explicitly apply to four new reactor designs already certified by the NRC, it would be "in the interest of both the designers and their clients to adopt these changes at the design stage," Klein said.
The rules would likely require designers to weigh how an aircraft strike would impact the plant operator's ability to keep the reactor core cool enough to avoid a meltdown, and to keep radioactive gases from escaping into the atmosphere, the NRC said.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, which lobbies for U.S. nuclear operators, said the proposal is appropriate, because plant designers already weigh cataclysmic events like hurricanes and earthquakes.
cataclysmic events
indeed
Wow, I’m glad they acted so quickly on this matter. 9/11 was what, almost 6 years ago?
“Plane-proof”, or “Plame-proof”?
Seeing as there have been no reactors constructed or proposed for decades, I’m not sure what the point is.
Gee, I wonder if they are doing the same for public sports stadiums as well?
And stadiums equal ratings so there will have to be an “acceptable nuisance level” of terrorism expected, as per John F. Kerry.
Put the reactor below ground?
This is one arena of government that I agree needs to be looked into. This is a bigger threat than almost any other. Apparently the hijackers were first going to target the reactors near the towers, but decided to focus on the images of the towers. If they did hit the active reactors, part of the east coast would be unliveable for thousands of years.
I hope it’s reasonable but it’s done.
Stadiums don’t leave an area unlivable for thousands of years. This isn’t a neligble issue.
I like that idea. Cheaper than hardening an above ground reactor for one or two or three airplane hits, easy to conceal its exact location, and if a leak does occur, it’s already buried.
They’re planning on building one in South Louisiana...there is a reason we bury people above ground.
They could use a Navy Nuclear Sub design for yours...
;-)
Build the reactors and all necessary support facilities underground with a heavy reinforced concrete ceiling.
Make them harder to target from the air and harder to damage if they are targeted.
Hell froze over this morning. I was listening to NPR on my way into work (the show I usually listen to was REALLY boring this morning) and heard a favorable piece on nuclear power.
It seems that nuclear engineering is suddenly a hot major in universities...and there are lots of jobs either available or becoming available in the next few years due to retirement of current personnel.
A lot of tree huggers are jumping on the nuclear bandwagon since it's the only practical option for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Didn’t see your post regarding underground building.
*kicks self for not reading the thread*
I agree with you. I’m an engineer with nuclear training and this “uninhabitable for thousands of years” is crap. I was just reading an article about Chernobyl and people are amazed about the area bouncinc back so quick. And that was a lousy Russian plant with no containment container at all.
They always have been. 6” of steel with 4 foot of reinforced concrete on top of that.
You're right - this is shameful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.