Skip to main content

Wanted: New Stunt Men for Greenpeace

imageThe French arm of Greenpeace is probably searching for a few new recruits after two of its activists were arrested today by French authorities for paragliding onto the grounds of the Bugey nuclear energy facility and dropping a smoke bomb. The stunt is nothing more than a political ploy by the organization to expose what it calls, “gaps,” in nuclear plant security ahead of the French presidential election. However, plant owner EDF assures the public that no such security gaps exist and that the plant remained safe and secure despite today’s criminal activity:

Safety at the installation was never called into question. Safety measures put in place at the end of 2011 allowed the detection and immediate arrest of the intruder.

But, some people still wrongly believe that the criminal activity proves just how easily someone could intrude a nuclear plant and wreak havoc. To their false notions, I’d like to point out a few facts about nuclear plant security.

First, simply landing at a nuclear energy facility via a paraglider is about the same as watching a feather land on a bucket of water. Nuclear energy facilities are highly fortified structures with many built-in, redundant safety measures, making it nearly impossible to penetrate the reactor and cause a radiation release.

The reactor is protected by roughly 4 feet of steel-reinforced concrete with a thick steel liner and the reactor vessel is made of steel about 6 inches thick. The steel-reinforced concrete containment structures are designed to withstand the impact of natural disasters as well as airborne objects with a substantial force.

Research by the Electric Power Research Institute after 9/11 confirmed the latter part of these scenarios in a 2002 study on the impact of an unexpected jetliner attack. The study results found that the structures that house reactor fuel can adequately guard against a release of radiation in the event of a terrorist strike by a large, fully fueled Boeing 767-400. The state-of-the-art computer modeling techniques used in the study determined that the areas of the plant most vulnerable to radiation release—including used fuel storage pools or the nuclear reactor—could withstand the impact forces despite concrete crushing and bent steel on the containment structures.

NEI has a video that shows the different layers of protection in a reactor containment structure and also the impact to a jetliner if it were to strike one of these elaborate structures (around the 1:30-mark).

image

As you can see in the video, a jetliner that strikes a nuclear energy facility at roughly 350 miles per hour (about the same speed as the aircraft that struck the Pentagon on September 11) does more harm to the plane than the structure. One can only imagine what dire consequences would come to a paraglider if he or she were to strike a nuclear energy facility at the same force!

Second, if the paraglider actually was a terrorist who had attempted to fly into a reactor and cause damage, he would have had a lot more to worry about—including the French military.

Threats of aerial attack are serious scenarios that are handled with great care by the military and air traffic control. These types of attacks are not something that government authorities, or nuclear energy facilities, take lightly and given such a scenario, there are provisions in place to “neutralize” the attacker. In fact, after the Greenpeace stunt, EDF’s head of the nuclear division Dominique Miniere confirmed this point.

The case of aircraft approaching nuclear plants is handled with great care and the French air force intervenes to divert airplanes violating--generally by mistake--the no-fly zone around nuclear plants, he said. "Sometimes airplanes get lost and they get the scare of their life," Miniere said.

This type of high-level, interagency security is mirrored in the United States, making U.S. nuclear energy facilities some of the best-defended facilities among the nation’s critical infrastructure. The utilities that operate the plant monitor the airspace around the nuclear energy facility and the government and the Transportation Security Administration protect the area.

After talking to NEI’s Security Director Dave Kline this morning about the Greenpeace stunt, he reassured me that U.S. nuclear plants are very secure facilities:

I am very confident that the U.S. plants would identify and neutralize any threats related to paragliders.

Put that way, I think Kline fully captures the ridiculousness of stunts by Greenpeace activists to show the “threat of aerial attack.” It only begs the question…what’s next? Hot air balloooning over a facility?

In the French case, officials were able to make the determination that the paraglider and his accomplice were not trying to cause harm, but rather, to make a political statement. This is why they arrested the activists immediately after the demonstration. In the future, I’d hate to hear about the copycat stuntman who meets a different fate and learns firsthand what the word “neutralize” means…

Photo: AFP/Greenpeace

Comments

jimwg said…
Fabulous report and facts! I only regret that it can't be put up on the mainstream media where it really counts!!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Victoria B said…
Thanks James!

-Victoria
Anonymous said…
"In 1988, an unmanned F-4 Phantom, ballasted with water and mounted on rails, was "flown" into a concrete wall at 480 MPH. As reported, the plane crumpled, and penetrated only about 2 inches of concrete. A very impressive test - except it wasn't meant to be a test of nuclear reactor safety. The wall the F-4 crashed into was not a simulation of a nuclear plant's wall. It was a 12-foot-thick wall mounted on an air cushion. The test was designed to study impact forces by measuring how far the impact would push the wall. Breaking through the concrete was the last thing any of the involved scientists wanted to achieve. Furthermore, the F-4 was ballasted with water to give it the same weight as a plane fully loaded with fuel, and its final weight was 42,000 pounds. Needless to say, crashing a 412,000 pound 767 loaded with fuel into a fixed wall would have slightly different results."

http://everything2.com/title/Nuclear+Power
Russ Finley said…
That is not a jetliner. It is an F-4 Phantom fighter jet. As the anon commenter points out, it is not crashing into a simulated containment vessel.

On the other hand, anon chose to ignore the link to the million dollar finite element study that showed that a 767 would not create a dangerous situation if crashed into a nuclear power plant.
jimwg said…
Re: Tolerating nuke site "stunts". Public acceptance of nuclear energy is now mostly all a matter of perception, which is almost in the toilet for nukes right now because of long criminal lack of education by nuclear industry. Why give Greenpeace the image that their assertion is correct? I don't think any security force should give a pass for PC or PR. Be lethal. You're just doing your job with warning.

Re: Jet

Airliners are incredibly flimsy shells!! My Washington DC relative in the Pentagon stated that if it weren't for all the windows on the side of the building struck by the plane, the blast and concussion likely wouldn't even had reached the middle rings -- and we're not talking about solid four-foot steel-lined walls here.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Brian Mays said…
James - You don't need to be lethal.

Unfortunately, we as a civilization have lost many of the fine traditions that used to be employed to deal with the a****les that exist in every society.

The plant owners should publicly announce that anyone trespassing on their property assumes the risk of being shot, and anyone caught by their security forces will be summarily tarred, feathered, and released — but not until after amusing photos and video have been taken.

By the way, you're completely right about the flimsy shells. Only the engines of an aircraft (the densest part) pose a plausible threat to a concrete containment, which means that the F4 Phantom test provided useful and realistic data to be used to analyze the impact of a jetliner on a reactor containment structure.

Plus, the video of the test is really fun to watch, but not as much fun as watching a Greenpeace stunt-idiot trying to pick the feathers off of his tar-covered body.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …