Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

(IPS) analysis

Nuclear watchdog groups here worry that government efforts to reassess security at US nuclear power plants in light of last month's terrorist attacks will not be as broad as needed.

US lawmakers last week approved legislative measures to protect nuclear energy facilities against potential attacks.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved by voice vote measures to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to boost security at 103 US nuclear reactors. The measures, which could be added to anti-terrorism legislation now under consideration by other House of Representatives panels, would obligate the NRC to prepare contingency plans for nuclear installations.

If enacted, the bill would give the NRC 60 days to propose rules after consulting with the Defense Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, the newly proposed Homeland Security Agency and other state and federal groups.

Another approved measure boosts maximum penalties for sabotage crimes against nuclear facilities to one million dollars, from 10,000 dollars, and maximum prison terms to life without parole from a previous 10-year maximum.

Not designed to withstand aerial attacks

Power plants and other nuclear facilities, according to officials, are designed to withstand extreme events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. But they have not been designed to withstand aerial attacks such as those that killed thousands Sept 11.

Other countries also are taking steps. Japan's coastguard, for example, has mobilised patrol vessels near the country's 51 nuclear reactors on round-the-clock missions to guard against possible terrorist attacks.

''We had done nothing like this before the terrorist attacks of Sept 11,'' Japan's Maritime Safety Agency says in a statement.

NRC Chairman Richard Meserve says that in addition to heightening security at nuclear plants, the agency would review its security regulations and procedures.

''It's about time,'' says Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

David Orrick, a retired US Navy officer and security specialist for the NRC, says ''significant weaknesses'' were identified in 27 of 57 plants evaluated in February 1999.

''Significant here means that a real attack would have put the nuclear reactor in jeopardy with the potential for core damage and a radiological release, i.e., and American Chernobyl,'' says Orrick.

Substantial revisions

Several public interest groups, however, are worried that the NRC - under pressure by the nuclear industry to keep security costs low - will not undertake a broad enough review of what constitutes a terrorist threat and where such a threat could come from.

''It is a good initial step, but we would want to see substantial revisions,'' says Chris Sherry, research director at the Safe Energy Communication Council, a network of advocacy groups.

Such revisions, Sherry says, would include rewriting the so-called ''design basis threat',' a term used by the regulatory agency to describe the types of attack licensed operators of nuclear plants are required to protect against. While the details are classified, a design basis threat does not include strikes from the air or vehicles carrying explosives, says Sherry.

''In light of the recent attacks, it is obvious that the design basis threat is inadequate to protect against truck bombs or air attacks,'' he adds.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, says regulators also must increase security at plants that have been shut down. Spent nuclear fuel rods remain at such nuclear facilities yet these are not under armed guard.

''Even though the power plant is shut down, it is still a hazard,'' Lochbaum told IPS.

Paul Leventhal, president of the anti-proliferation Nuclear Control Institute (NCI), calls for the immediate use of National Guard troops to deter attacks on nuclear reactors from land and water, and the ''prompt deploying'' of anti-aircraft weapons to defeat attacks from the air.

''We do not have the luxury of time to allow the NRC and other federal agencies to engage in a prolonged bureaucratic review process,'' says Leventhal.

Officials, meanwhile, acknowledge they do not know would happen if an attack like those on New York and the Pentagon were unleashed on a nuclear power facility.

''The capacity of spent fuel dry storage casks to withstand a crash by a large commercial aircraft has not been analysed,'' according to an NRC statement.

Tens of thousands cancer deaths

Edwin Lyman, a physicist and scientific director at NCI, warns that following such an assault, the possibility of a significant release of radiation into the environment is a ''very real one.''

Such a release, whether caused by an air strike or by a ground or water assault could result in tens of thousands of cancer deaths downwind of the plant, Lyman says.

If a nuclear reactor caught fire, radioactive particles could be carried long distances, depending on weather conditions.

The NRC, says Lochbaum, should require the stockpiling of potassium iodide tablets for people living downwind of nuclear facilities. Also known as IOSAT, the pharmaceutical is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and prevents the absorption of radiation by the thyroid gland.

Nuclear plants keep the tablets on hand in case workers are exposed to radiation and ''people living downwind of the plant should be protected as well,'' says Lochbaum.

The Department of Energy also should review all its safety and environmental assessments, say watchdog groups.

Some 17 active and hundreds of former nuclear weapons facilities across the country contain barrels of radioactive and toxic waste, says Bob Schaeffer, public education director at the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a network of 34 peace and environmental organisations. If the sites were assaulted, the waste could ''severely contaminate'' the air and water, he says.

''Our concern is that these sites are obvious targets and could result in a major radioactive release or meltdown,'' says Schaeffer.

ADS