While the U.S. government and the atomic energy industry are confident that the country's nuclear power plants are safe from any terrorist attack, critics caution that there are holes in those defenses, CNN reported today (see GSN, Sept. 15).
(Nov. 12) -
An Illinois nuclear power plant, shown in 2007. Some experts have warned that U.S. atomic energy sites are not adequately secured against potential terrorist strikes (Jeff Haynes/Getty Images).
"The protection level at nuclear power reactors is not anywhere near that required," said Princeton University nuclear physicist Frank von Hippel. "The utilities are unwilling to spend the money and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is basically under the thumb of the utilities, is not willing to make them."
The Sept. 11 attacks increased fears that terrorists might try to initiate a nuclear meltdown by flying an airplane into a nuclear facility and crashing it against a reactor. A 1980s report by the U.S. government's Argonne National Laboratory had highlighted the risks of such an event occurring.
The U.S. government plays down the likelihood of such an event. A terrorist would find it extremely hard to overcome airport security and hijack an airplane, avoid military fighter aircraft and hit a plant that significantly smaller than the World Trade Center buildings or Pentagon, officials say.
Nuclear power plants also have concrete reinforcements around their reactors, and an attack would not create an explosive-like detonation. It would take hours, possibly days, for a nuclear meltdown to occur. That is enough time, authorities say, to remove people from the surrounding area.
"A direct hit by an airliner on a containment building isn't a significant problem," said Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy Director Scott Morris. "We've got the right procedures, protocols and mitigation measures in place to deal with it."
Critics point to spent nuclear fuel, which is sometimes kept in above-ground pools outside of barriers, as another security risk.
"It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool ... spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly ... (and) the fire could well spread to older spent fuel," according to a 2003 report prepared by von Hippel and others. "The long-term land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl."
The report advised that the spent fuel instead be kept in impermeable containers. Some plants already do when their pools become filled.
Morris argued that the spent fuel does not pose a significant enough threat to warrant such measures.
Another potential threat is a ground attack in which terrorists would try to use armed force to take a plant and then instigate a meltdown from the inside, according to CNN. Nuclear power plant security personnel are trained to counter an assault of that type, while barriers and other security measures are installed at the facilities.
"We train for armed intruders," said Mark McBurnett, vice president of the South Texas Project. "Basically, it's paramilitary fashion to stop these people from getting into the plant."
However, critics contend that such drills don't prepare plant security for a real assault.
"They are training for an attacking force of five, when in reality they'd come in with at least 12," said former Energy Department security expert Peter Stockton, now with the Project on Government Oversight. He added that the "terrorists" in the drills are not equipped with automatic guns or powerful explosives. "It's ridiculously unbelievable."
Still, the majority of industry experts, the U.S. government and some environmental organizations believe that the nation's nuclear plants are secure against attack.
"They're safe enough, until they aren't," said Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio (Steve Hargreaves, CNN, Nov. 12).