[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

[cdn-nucl-l] Fw: Comparative risk analysis of large-scale natural gas turbines in urban locations



Title: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Chemical plant security
Jeremy,
 
We have a double standard of judgment of acceptability when it comes to nuclear energy vs other options.
 
If we defined the safety of an energy option as the inverse of the actual number of deaths caused by the option, then the safety of nuclear energy (in the western world) would be infinite.  You could then compare this with the safety of fossil-fuelled energy.  But we don't do this.  Why?
 
Why are we surprised that people think nuclear is dangerous?
 
Jerry
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: Comparative risk analysis of large-scale natural gas turbines in urban locations

Thanks Jerry.  That is an utterly ridiculous sitation isn't it.  What a world we live in.
 
Jeremy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cuttler [mailto:jerrycuttler@rogers.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 8:50 AM
To: Whitlock, Jeremy
Subject: Comparative risk analysis of large-scale natural gas turbines in urban locations

Dear Jeremy,
 
I asked the VP of Engineering of Sithe Canada to show me a copy of the safety report for this plant.  He said that he didn't have one.
 
Boyd Upper of Mississauga told me that he asked executives of Sithe about the likelihood of fires and explosions at this plant and he was told that this gas-fired plant is perfectly safe.
 
So you now have a comparative risk analysis:  Nuclear plants are dangerous and gas-fired plants are perfectly safe.
 
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Chemical plant security

It's about time this threat received more publicity.  Chemical plants lack the containment of nuclear reactors, are usually closer to large population centres, are far more abundant, and often contain toxic material in easily-dispersed form, with acute health effects that make the reactor threat pale in comparison.

I'd also like to see a comparative risk analysis of large-scale natural gas turbines in urban locations, such as the 800MWe Sithe project in Mississauga.

Jeremy Whitlock

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam McLean [mailto:adam.mclean@utoronto.ca]
> Sent: Friday January 18, 2002 1:29 AM
> To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
> Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Chemical plant security
>
>
> Posted on the Sandia National Lab e-mail distribution list on January
> 17, 2002.
> Work being done to improve security at the 10,000 (!!!) facilities
> dealing with hazardous chemicals in the US. 
>
> Adam
>
> P.s. That's a lot of places to prohibit civilian airspace to and place
> rocket launchers at...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandia National Laboratories [mailto:mediarel@sandia.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:35 PM
> To: Aboytes, Iris
> Subject: Chemical plant security
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> January 17, 2002
> Sandia studies security at nation's chemical plants
>
> ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Security experts at Sandia National
> Laboratories are
> helping shore up anti-terrorism defenses at the nation's chemical
> plants.
> As part of a project sponsored by the Department of Justice (DOJ),
> Sandia physical security experts have developed a systematic,
> risk-based
> assessment process called a vulnerability assessment methodology (VAM)
> that could be used to evaluate and improve security at more
> than 10,000
> facilities in the U.S. that manufacture, store, or use hazardous
> chemicals. The Sandia researchers have visited several facilities,
> reviewed current security practices, and developed a methodology that
> can be used to assess the adequacy of efforts at U.S.
> chemical plants to
> prevent terrorist attacks or blunt their effects. A draft report has
> been submitted to the DOJ for review, and the Attorney
> General's office
> will prepare and submit the final report to Congress. Sandia experts
> previously have helped U.S. government and industry assess
> the security
> of government buildings, dams, drinking water supplies, and other
> possible terrorist targets using some of the same systematic
> risk-assessment tools that protect U.S. nuclear weapons
> facilities. The
> chemical plant project began in January 2001. But the
> terrorist attacks
> on Sept. 11 increased awareness of vulnerabilities not only of the
> physical security of the plants themselves but also of the
> transport of
> chemicals and of the cyber systems that control the plants,
> says Sandia
> project leader Cal Jaeger. Since January 2001 Sandia experts have
> visited several U.S. chemical plants, discussing each plant's
> operations
> with security officials and touring the sites with a terrorist's eye.
> They review security plans, study plant layouts and access controls,
> evaluate the use of security technologies, gauge safety and other
> mitigation measures, and test and refine the methodology. "We
> ask, if I
> am a bad guy, what could I do," says Jaeger. "Then we evaluate the
> effectiveness of current protection measures and the likelihood and
> consequences of each threat scenario." The visits, along with the
> expertise of the chemical industry, have helped shape the
> prototype VAM.
> The long-term goal is to create a methodology that, after
> some training,
> can be used by plant owners and security managers to assess
> the risk at
> their facilities for a wide range of threats, says Jaeger. "The VAM
> prototype helps you identify critical areas and provides a
> means to not
> only assess the risk of an adversary attack but also helps in
> selecting
> the most cost-effective upgrade options for those areas where the risk
> is unacceptable," says Jaeger. Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory
> operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company,
> for the U.S.
> Department of Energy. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and
> Livermore, Calif., Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national
> security, energy and environmental technologies, and economic
> competitiveness.
>
> # # #
>
> News media contact: John German, (505) 844-5199, jdgerma@sandia.gov
>
> Related Sandia projects:
> Dam and power system security:
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/ramdramt.htm
> Government building security:
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/rampart.htm
>      
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/archsurety.htm
> Building chem-bio vulnerabilities:
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/build.htm
> Protecting water supplies:
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/watinfr.htm
>      
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/watsniff.htm
> Anti-terrorism assistance for communities:
>      
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/ccfp.htm
>      
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/physprot.htm
>      
> http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR1999/bombtech.htm
>
>
> Sandia National Laboratories' World Wide Web home page is located at
> http://www.sandia.gov. Sandia news releases, news tips, science photo
> gallery, and periodicals can be found at the News and Events button.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
>