Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 10/18/2001 10:09:26 AM EDT
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a "credible" threat of a terrorist attack at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, PA last evening. The Harrisburg International Airport and Lancaster Airport were both closed to incoming and outgoing traffic until this morning. I was taking a college class at an off-campus location of Penn State Univ. only 1 mile from the airport and TMI last night. The sky was full of fighter planes. Needless to say I was not happy being that close if something went down. This is gettin freakin scary! My wife is really paranoid. I'm not that bad yet. Be on the lookout for all kinds of crap to happen and be sure you're packin heat! AR_SHORTY
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 10:13:04 AM EDT
Be on the lookout for all kinds of crap to happen and be sure you're packin heat! AR_SHORTY
View Quote
Can't, I work in DC. But don't worry, the Govt will protect me. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 10:41:32 AM EDT
We have been hearing about "credible" threats for 3 weeks now, it"s getting old. It reminds me of the Chicken Little scenero "The sky is Falling".
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 12:50:44 PM EDT
Give me a break.... TMI has a B&W reactor.. Those have containment domes that are something like 10 feet thick layers of steel and concrete. Crash as many jets as you want into those... you aren't gonna scratch something designed to contain a nuclear explosion such as the one a Chernobyl. (Chernobyl didn't have a containment building for it's reactors.) [img]http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/us_plants/region4/rancho_seco/Reactor.jpg[/img] I would be worried about being in a jetliner though cause if yer on that plane you're going to die if you crash into something of course. I suspect it's some tree hugging hippie from green peace making theses threats.. because I bet they think 1. A nuclear power plant can explode like a nuclear bomb (they are stupid) and 2. A threat will shut down the plant. (they are wrong.) Knowing how stupid terrorists are I bet they would try and crash a jet into one of the cooling towers... heh
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 12:55:31 PM EDT
Yeah, credible threat. Right. Wanna buy a bridge?
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:06:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FrankTheSpank: Crash as many jets as you want into those... you aren't gonna scratch something designed to contain a nuclear explosion such as the one a Chernobyl. (Chernobyl didn't have a containment building for it's reactors.)
View Quote
Uhhh, no. I work with someone who build part of TMI. A jet crashing into the containment building would cause big damage. Btw, I don't think the containment buildings are designed to contain a nuclear explosion, just the radiation of a leak.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:15:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 7:
Originally Posted By FrankTheSpank: Crash as many jets as you want into those... you aren't gonna scratch something designed to contain a nuclear explosion such as the one a Chernobyl. (Chernobyl didn't have a containment building for it's reactors.)
View Quote
Uhhh, no. I work with someone who build part of TMI. A jet crashing into the containment building would cause big damage.
View Quote
Maybe not, some news channel showed a test conducted years ago. At a test site, they had a 5ft thick steel/concrete containment wall, and crashed a F-4 loaded with fuel into it. The F-4 was on a rail system and was driven into the wall. Basically, nothing happened to the wall and the F-4 was no more.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:17:09 PM EDT
the more credible threats that 'THEY' have, the fewer rights WE have..........
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:24:02 PM EDT
Did the threat sound like the threat on the WTC? yeah that's right, there was no threat on the wtc, they just flew planes into them. These chicken shit terrorist want to kill as many people as possible, and calling in a threat just gives people time to take refuge. I wish I was answering the phone to these "threats". I'd be like, "can you hold please?"
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:29:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2001 1:25:56 PM EDT by FrankTheSpank]
Everything I have read says the containment dome is to contain a nuclear explosion and why America criticized Russia because their RBMK reactors do not have containment domes. That reactor EXPLODED, not just a melt down. Here is a snip:
In spite of its dangerous features, the RBMK -- unlike other reactors -- had no actual containment structure to prevent release of contamination. Such a design could not be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in this country, nor in most countries of the world. Studies done since the Chernobyl accident have shown that its releases would have been successfully contained by a U.S. type reactor. As a matter of fact, a test of a 37-foot tall scale model of a nuclear plant containment building was made at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico in 1987. The test showed that the type of light water containment used at U.S. nuclear plants could withstand more than three times the pressure it was designed for without rupturing or fragmenting.
View Quote
Source: [url]http://www.dne.bnl.gov/atd-mag/chernobyl.html#record[/url] That dome is to contain a nuclear explosion, not just a radiation leak. A jet crashing into it would not rupture something designed to take the force of a nuclear explosion such as Chernobyl [img]http://user3.allnet.ne.jp/greenhands/World/Chernobyl.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:30:44 PM EDT
SurpriseSurprise: [url]http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20011018nukethreat4.asp[/url] "We received word this morning that law enforcement authorities have determined that it's not a credible threat," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in King of Prussia. Nuckles. [smash]
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:31:18 PM EDT
I grew up in Oak Ridge Tn and still live less than 15 miles from Y-12 there. It's spooky to see them re-manning the guard towers around town, I guess they're ready for anything. I mean, they're still makin it right there. 24/7/365.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 1:39:34 PM EDT
In a decommissioned plant, security is there to guard the spent fuel rods from the reactor. When Uranium is fissioned it turns to plutonium which is one of the ingredients for a nuclear bomb. Those guards will be there until the government can construct a permanent storage facility in Yucca Mountain Nevada for those fuel rods.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 2:02:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FrankTheSpank: In a decommissioned plant, security is there to guard the spent fuel rods from the reactor. When Uranium is fissioned it turns to plutonium which is one of the ingredients for a nuclear bomb. Those guards will be there until the government can construct a permanent storage facility in Yucca Mountain Nevada for those fuel rods.
View Quote
This is my question. Knowing you can't trigger a nuclear chain reaction for an nuclear yield explosion with normal bombs, if a "suitcase nuke" was set off inside the reactor, or right next to the stored plutonium waste, would that take a low yield nuke(25# of plutonium or less) equivalant to a nuclear weapon with multiple tons of plutonium(since there is that much sitting there as waste)? More direct, Once fission is started by the implosion on the nuclear warhead, would that reaction be able to spread to the spent nuclear fuel from the reactor?
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 2:05:15 PM EDT
Given the effeciency of nuclear energy, and the violent forces released by a nuclear explosion, I would seriously doubt that the accident at Chernobyl was an explosion. A reactor out of control, overheating, etc.... but not an explosion. If the containment domes are designed to withstand a [i]nuclear[/i] explosion, then they are some feat of engineering. Also, in the snippet posted, there was no reference to an explosion of any type that I could see. It simply mentioned that a U.S. type containment dome would contain the [b]releases[/b] from the accident. Now, as to the credibility of the threat, I have to go with nnciderr9 that no threat was made on the WTC (either time if I recall) and if these guys were going to do something, they wouldn't threaten, they'd just do it.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 2:37:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2001 3:33:21 PM EDT by Fis_Prod]
Originally Posted By gunman0:
Originally Posted By FrankTheSpank: In a decommissioned plant, security is there to guard the spent fuel rods from the reactor. When Uranium is fissioned it turns to plutonium which is one of the ingredients for a nuclear bomb. Those guards will be there until the government can construct a permanent storage facility in Yucca Mountain Nevada for those fuel rods.
View Quote
This is my question. Knowing you can't trigger a nuclear chain reaction for an nuclear yield explosion with normal bombs, if a "suitcase nuke" was set off inside the reactor, or right next to the stored plutonium waste, would that take a low yield nuke(25# of plutonium or less) equivalant to a nuclear weapon with multiple tons of plutonium(since there is that much sitting there as waste)? More direct, Once fission is started by the implosion on the nuclear warhead, would that reaction be able to spread to the spent nuclear fuel from the reactor?
View Quote
No...a secondary nuclear expolosion would not be initiated by the primary one. Simply put, you have way too much negative reactivity in the form of fission products, moderator and structural material in the way of that fissile Uranium and plutonium to create the geometry required for a nuclear explosion to occur. Remember only a small mass fraction of that core is fissile material. The disassembly of the core would however contribute to the contamination in a significant way. Edited to add some info: As far as the containment buildings are concerned, they are not built to withstand a nuclear explosion. They are designed primarily to withstand steam explosions with the building being a pressure vessel built to withstand certain overpressure events. These building have dousing systems which reduces the pressure from a steam explosion by condensing the steam. These systems are relatively fast and the reduction in pressure occurs quite rapidly. The design of the containment building also allows for potection against forces from a large solid mass such as a plane engine falling from the sky. Fis_Prod
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 3:54:59 PM EDT
I'd feel sorry for the passengers & the plane that would try to scratch one of our reactor enclosures!
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 3:58:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2001 3:57:36 PM EDT by FrankTheSpank]
I guess I should have worded it better. A nuclear plant cannot explode. It can melt down. This is where scientists refer to The China Syndrome. Hypothetically when a core melts down all the way to China. At Chernobyl the graphite medium incinerated which boiled the water and blasted the core lid of the reactor off and took out half the building for reactor #4. This would not happen in the united states. 1. It is a different reactor and 2. Chernobyl didn't have a containment dome which is required by the U.S. So the containment dome is designed to withstand a Nuclear Reactor explosion. A nuclear power plant cannot have a nuclear explosion like a nuclear bomb.. just totally different.. people hear "nuke" and associate mushroom clouds with it. A jetliner will NOT scratch a 10 foot THICK dome of concrete and steel. We're talking solid steel and concrete.
It is the final barrier if a serious accident should occur. Using its advanced technology in design and manufacturing, Mitsubishi is able to supply highly reliable containment vessels, which are strong enough to resist earthquakes and all hypothetical accidents, and allow ample space for maintenance and inspection of equipment.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 3:58:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 4:15:13 PM EDT
While a US containment MIGHT survive a steam explosion, a full meltdown would surely breach it. The partial at TMI never breached the reactor vessel and considerable radiation was released anyway. A terrorist attack is likely to be MUCH more successful if directed to outdoor spent fuel casks. These contain very dirty spent fuel and are far easier to damage. VERY nasty radiation.....
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 4:37:51 PM EDT
The radiation released at TMI was released through controlled release valves. The B&W reactor at TMI is a pressure reactor never designed for the water to boil. Through various mechanical and human errors the coolant stopped flowing in the reactor which caused the water to boil. Radioactive steam was released AFTER the accident witnessed by a news helicopter. [img]http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/us_plants/region4/rancho_seco/Reactor.jpg[/img] Those little dots all over the containment building are the release valves. The dry storage facility is also made of solid concrete and steel. It is NOT easy to get to. They contain uranium fuel rods of that has turned into plutonium after being fissioned. You can watch theses videos on the storage casks at Rancho Seco: 28.8 [url]http://www.smud.org/video/nuc_fuel_move_28k.ram[/url] 56k [url]http://www.smud.org/video/nuc_fuel_move_56k.ram[/url] DSL [url]http://www.smud.org/video/nuc_fuel_move_T1.ram[/url]
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 5:11:32 PM EDT
Hey FTS, just watched the video and have one question. I think I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway: Why was Rancho Seco closed in 1989?
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 8:39:08 PM EDT
From: [url]http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/us_plants/region4/rancho_seco/rancho_seco.htm[/url]
Rancho Seco had a poor operating history, and a lifetime capacity average of only 39%. Due to this poor operating history and increasing costs, the plant was closed by public vote on June 6, 1989, even though its operating license did not expire until October 11, 2008. Decommissioning activites are currently underway.
View Quote
You can read a detailed day by day history of the plant here: [url]http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/RanchoSeco.htm[/url] I couldn't believe they had this many problems.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 9:05:55 PM EDT
FTS, the relief valves are just the point. A stucture that large is very limited in total PSI pressure it can withstand, hence need for reliefs. A steam explosion that would blow the reator vessel apart might be contained within the building but the radioactive steam would be relieved, just as it was during the meltdown. Radioactive steam is a bitch! Total loss of coolant in a hot reactor would result in a total meltdown similar to Chernobyl. Result would be nearly as bad except less than the 50 tons of material that was ejected there. Plutonium is but one of the highly dangerous fission by-products in spent fuel. The list is long and the players incredibly dangerous. Part of the reason Chernobyl was such a radiation disaster was it was at the end of a fuel cycle and chock full of spent fuel. My point about the spent fuel casks is that the nature of their contents is extemely dangerous. The protective casks, weakened by time and radiation exposure are not likely to be up to a 747 impact / fire. As a matter of fact, B&W reators such as Perry, TMI and others have a long history of poor service. Steam generator problems in particular have caused a high percentage of down time. The poor engineering concept of them (low water content in part) placed undue burdens on the operators and were largely to blame for the TMI accident. Just as some really poor engineering and unbelievable operator errors caused the ongoing Chernobyl disaster.
Top Top