Flights grounded in Pittsburgh after two small planes violate airspace near nuclear power plant

KDKA radio Pittsburgh | 10/31/01

[Dane]

Flights at Pittsburgh International were grounded this morning after reports that 2 single engine planes violated the airspace around the Shippingport nuclear power plant. Flights have resumed.

[chimera]

Little do you know. Yes the old Shipingport plant has been, but there are two other plants, Beaver 1 and Beaver 2. These plants have operated for many years.

Actually, I know a lot. See my post 13. Beaver Valley 1&2 are not THE Shippingport Plant. The original Shippingport plant was called Shippingport. The official name of the Beaver Vallet units is just that, Beaver Valley, not Shippingport. When I was a training consultant at Beaver Valley, that was what it was called, Beaver Valley. It was not called Shippingport.

[chimera]

There most certainly is a working nuclear reactor at Shippingport.

But its official name is Beaver Valley, not Shippingport. The original post referred to the Shippingport nuclear plant. FReeper Dane has noted that this is a local name. Those familiar with the history of nuclear development will know there is a difference when one talks about The Shippingport Plant, one of the original pioneers of the nuclear plants.

[Amerigomag]

Both WTCs withstood the impact pretty well .... they simply melted a short time later. The insulation around the support beems was stopped about half way up the buildings for either economic, health or political reasons.

[chellis]

I grew up in this area and my family worked for both Bruce Mansfield and Stone & Webster. Locals call the nuke plant Shippingport. It is in Beaver Valley on the Ohio river located directly between Midland and Beaver.

[chimera]

Yes, I am familiar with Beaver Valley. And you have its correct name, Beaver Valley, not Shippingport. The original post referred to the Shippingport reactor. To old timers like me, there is a difference between THE Shippingport Plant, the original, real article, and the reactors now at (or near) Shippingport, whose site comprises the Beaver Valley station. I'm not nitpicking here, because unless the reference is clear, a lot of confusion results. The original Shippingport plant was a very historic and groundbreaking facility. Beaver Valley is its inheritor and benefactor, as are esssentially all LWR commercial plants.

[chimera]

I grew up in this area and my family worked for both Bruce Mansfield and Stone & Webster. Locals call the nuke plant Shippingport. It is in Beaver Valley on the Ohio river located directly between Midland and Beaver.

So FReeper Dane has informed us in an earlier post. For non-locals, the familiar name is the official one, Beaver Valley. For amateur nuclear historians like me, mention of The Shippingport Plant connotes an entirely different unit. One that isn't there anymore but whose legacy is vested in all modern technology.

[Combat Override Button]

It would be easy to accidentally violate some of the new FAA rules. I go up in a private plane a lot and the rules have definitely changed. A pilot has to really be on top of things to avoid violating airspace where previously there would be no violation. Pilots in some respects can be like drivers... some are just not very good. For a pilot that owns his own plane and just flies VFR, where he doesn't have to contact anyone or be in contact with anyone during flying, it would be very easy to accidentally violate the new rules.

[chimera]

Isn't that what they said about the WTC, too?

And they did withstand the impact. What got them was the fire, which was in a confined space and fed by a high energy content accelerant (jet fuel).

Such an event with a nuclear containment structure would not have similar effects. The missile shield (the outside part, the rebar-filled concrete) is much heavier and thicker than the walls of the WTC. The containment shell itself, the interior solid steel "liner" would not be subject to the same stresses or dynamic loads from floors collapsing on it from above.

Furthermore, the impact and fire would not be as confined as in the WTC scenario. The mechanical energy and thermal radiation would be dispersed over a large, open volume of space, and thus leaks away and dissipates relatively readily.

Finally, the shape of a containment structure is a much more inherently strong shape than a skyscraper. You can test this out at home. Try crushing a rigid cylinder versus breaking a pencil or bending a plate. A cylindrical or hemispherical form (which is what containments are built as) distributes the loads throughout the structure much more uniformly than flat shapes like the walls of a building or long, thin tubes or rods, which tend to build up stresses at points like corners and connections. Unless those are very strong and not compromised in their strength, they tend to be the failure points.

[Mat_Helm]

I understand your point , but my question was concerning a nearby detonation of a low yield .5Kilo or 1 Kiloton device within 100 yards of the reactor. The explosion would breach the containment wall and reactor and vaporize most of the reactor core. Would this additional material that is fissionable and in a tremendous quantity add to the energy released? If it was to far away and less densly packed than a warhead to add energy than would all this material be thrown up into the atmostsphere and add to the horrendous amount of radioactive fallout.
Fusion bombs are two and three stage tritium, but densely packed around the core of the fission central core. What happens when a nuke goes off near a large commerciol reactor with 20 tons of fissionable uranium in its core?

[snopercod]

There was a time when FReepers did not give in to media hysteria, but thought things out rationally.

These "little airplane" threads both amaze and depress me. Have the FReepers who used to be some of the most intelligent, funny, and witty people on earth suddenly gone stupid and joined up with the likes of Rosie O'Donnell? It sure seems that way to me.

As an engineer, a private pilot, and one who helped to build two nuclear plants, I know a little about this subject, not that first-hand knowledge seems to matter much any more on this forum.

Let's talk about "violating the protected airspace around nuclear plants". Did anyone bother to mention that this "protected area" extends out to ten miles from these plants, up to 18,000' altitude. Hell, that's ten times wider and four times higher than the "prohibited area" around Ronald Reagan's ranch up in the Santa Ynez mountains! So if a "little plane" came within 9 miles of a nuclear plant - it would be in technical violation. Isn't this probably what happened?

Did these NATO AWACS planes circling above America sound the alarm? Where F-16's scrambled to shoot the "invaders" (who probably had their wife and kids in the back) out of the skies?

This "incident" will probably turn out just like the "crop duster" [it wasn't] who sprayed [he didn't] a substance [there was none] on a Coast Guard facility on the Mississippi. The media - and FReeRepublic went hysterical. Then two weeks later a small retraction on the back pages...

Let me tell you that when you're up there in the haze, that big red 20 mile diameter "prohibited" circle is not easy to see. Especially when these "prohibited areas" pop up daily around this or that "terrorist target". One day it's stadiums, the next day it's power plants. The terrorists (or somebody) is playing our federal government like a violin.

And even if a single-engine Cessna did hit a nuclear plant, it would just leave a grease spot on the containment structure. These plants were designed and certified to withstand a direct hit by a 747, among other things.

If you want to actually learn something about flying and terrorism, read Safe ... Or Free? by a 30,000 hour 747 pilot, who is also flies a "little plane".

If you just want to continue getting more and more hysterical, stay on this thread.

[GEC]

No, the WTC buildings were only designed to withstand a 707 I believe, which is a much smaller plane.

Also, the WTC buildings didn't crumble initially, they had to burn in order to crumble and this was the goal of the terrorists.

The containment buildings of nuclear reactors are not nearly that tall. Any fire could be put out within minutes.

[Dane]

Sheesh I always hate when these threads turn into flame threads over semantics.

Oh well anyway, Beaver Valley 1&2 will always be known to me as the Shippingport nuclear power plant and probably also to 90% of the people who live in the Pittsburgh metro area.

I guess that is the cost of living in the "boonies".

[ExSES]

"If you want to actually learn something about flying and terrorism, read Safe ... Or Free? by a 30,000 hour 747 pilot, who is also flies a "little plane"."

But, don't you realize that the sky is falling (saith CHICKENLITTLE)!

Unfortunately, there are many among us who would gladly "ban" guns, cars, trucks, boats, "small planes", "swarthy males", etc. in a vain attempt to "feel safe"!

I'm afraid we lost the "war against terrorism" on day one!

[stormbringer]

It's interesting that the Clinton, Illinois plant isn't listed. The IFR airway from the Pontiac (IL) VOR to the Decatur VOR (just south of the Decatur airport) is almost directly over the plant.

[stormbringer]

Up to date list on AOPA's web site

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2001/011030airports.html

[jammer]

18,000 feet below every nuke plant

I would think that 18,000 feet below the plant would be definitely restricted. Just teasing. :)

[snopercod]

I'm afraid we lost the "war against terrorism" on day one!

Seems that way...

[stormbringer]

Map of Beaver Valley area here

http://www.jeppesen.com/download/notam_images/Beaver_Valley_IFR.jpg