On 11/26/06 3:55 PM, "Kostas Kavoussanakis", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> An accident, as you say, is unlikely; but after 9/11 that does not seem >> like an unneeded safety feature. > > I think that the impact is so great that, even without the increased > probability, you cannot ignore the risk. I do not wish to litter the list with this OT, but just googled to see if anything had changed since I left the industry, and found this: http://www.stpnoc.com/EPRI%20study.doc Accessing above will automatically download the Word file titled "Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant¹s Structural Strength". I have not read this through but it seems to be describing the re-evaluation of the existing primary containment structures in the wake of 9/11, and utility companies are pretty confident that the structures still withstand the Boeing 747 impact. In my days, this was the definite requirements (it was one of the most ridiculed and complained requirements by utility companies at the time) but might have been relaxed a bit until 9/11. On page 5, it is showing the relative size of WTC bldgs, Pentagon and typical reactor building. You can almost intuitively tell that the reactor building with special structure designed specifically for the aircraft crash and seismic requirements would withstand the crash (and it is probably hard, if not impossible to precisely target these relatively small structures). Just for your reading amusement :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
