Scenario: Proximity To Nuclear Generating Facility

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

We are 'lucky' enough to live within 2 miles of a nuclear power generating facility. (This is known as "Zone 1" in local emergency-speak)

Moving would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive. We had thought that our current rural location (w/ well, septic, generator, propane supply, land for growing, good neighbors, very low crime) made as good a place as any to stand our ground. We had considered meltdown, but agreed the more likely senario was shutdown.

(Having done a fair amount of research, I have never been overly worried about 'meltdown' senarios Possible? Sure. Just ask the Russians. But it is far more likely that I'll be killed driving to work.)

Even today I'm not especially worried about meltdown, though long-term security/containment of the facility is certainly an issue.

But now I have a new concern that seems to invalidate all my previous thinking (so much to consider, so little time). In a national emergency, this nuclear facilty becomes a 'strategic resource'.

Given the real/perceived threat of terrorist activities associated with such facilities, military-style security at the plant seems likely.

In an emergency, if our military/NG is able to respond (and I'm betting it will - uh, at least initially) then their first job in protecting the facility will be to establish a fairly large exclusion zone.

Civilian residents within that zone are likely to be ordered out - and quickly. (ME: Wait just a sec! What about my food stores?" THEM: "I'm sorry sir, an emergency has been declared and you'll have to leave immediately.")

There doesn't seem to be any hard facts here but common sense tells me that "Zone 1" (or larger) would be the most likely candidate for a minimal exclusion zone.

If this happens, many of our preparations will have been pointless.

We were getting ready to install a hand-pumped water well and have some electrical work performed (transfer switch, etc). I've put those plans on hold until I can 'guesstimate' the risk of this actually occuring.

Has anyone discussed this? I'm interested in pointers to hard facts, of which I've found few. But based on my quick research to date, this scenario is sounding more and more like a real possibility. Because of the consequences of being wrong, I need to make the best decision here.

Worse, it also seems to me that this scenario is likely even if events are less than catastrophic. Yes? No?

Especially helpful would be anyone who has experience with military emergency security operations of this nature. Or anyone familiar with nuclear generating facility emergency preparedness.

Better to accept this as likely now rather than get the bad news later.

Thanks for your help.

-- Steve B. Cooper (Steve199@usa.net), September 26, 1998

Answers

Tough decision! Everyone should have a Plan B. I would suggest making some preparations elsewhere if possible (family, friends within 50 miles) and then make yourself portable. Buy/lease a major 4wd (Tahoe,Suburban, etc), buy a 4x8 trailer (about $300) and make sure you can load and be gone in under an hour. I suspect the price on used 4wd may skyrocket if panic sets in next year.

-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), September 26, 1998.

Stay where you are.

Here, in my humble opinion, you're getting excessively worried about very low proabablity, fifth-tier effects of Y2K. [Y2K -> kills power grids -> kills national security response -> terrorist group expects this -> plans terrorist attack at Your plant -> "they" declare disaster response area -> evacuate civilians -> throw you out.

No argument, yes, its possible. But to throw away the splendid natural advantages and investments at your homestead now is like being worried about tornandoes when you are in the middle of a flood caused by overflow from a hurricane a hundred miles up river. So you get off the roof to go down to the basement to dig a storm cellar, and end up drowning.

Protect your investment, finish the well, get the water sampled, and keep working. If you feel you need a "second site" help a family "upstate" get prepared, and return for their allowing you to "move in" if needed.

This way, you get an alternative, and they get the basics.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 28, 1998.


I'm not so sure I'd consider a nuclear power plant a top terrorist target. Maybe I'm all wet, but here's my reasoning: Nuclear plants are fairly secure already. With Y2K problems security may tighten, but it's more likely that the military would restrict movement - roadblocks, checkpoints etc. Also, if you look at the spots terrorists have gone after, they like to strike at symbols of the U.S. Government, like OK City, or one of the many embassies, or sysbols of capitalism, like the World Trade Center. A nuke is a more likely target than the local 7-11, but not as likely as these other types of locations. Besides, if the military moves in and restricts movement, you could end up being safer than folks elsewhere.

-- Mike (gartner@execpc.com), September 28, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ