Political News

Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical

Posted January 29, 2007

— Making nuclear power plants crash-proof to an airliner attack by terrorists is impracticable and it's up to the military to avert such an assault, the government said Monday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a revised security policy, directed nuclear plant operators to focus on preventing radiation from escaping in case of such an attack and to improve evacuation plans to protect public health and safety.

"The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military," the NRC said in a statement.

The agency rejected calls by some nuclear watchdog groups that the government establish firm no-fly zones near reactors or that plant operators build "lattice-like" barriers to protect reactors, or be required to have anti-aircraft weapons on site to shoot down an incoming plane.

The NRC, in a summary of the mostly secret security plan, said such proposals were examined, but that it was concluded the "active protection" against an airborne threat rests with organizations such as the military or the Federal Aviation Administration.

It said that various mitigation strategies required of plant operators - such as radiation protection measures and evacuation plans - "are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety" in case of an airborne attack.

The Shearon Harris nuclear plant in southwest Wake County has "security and emergency preparedness plans in place to ensure the safety of the public," Progress Energy spokeswoman Julie Hans said.

The utility relies on the federal government and the FAA to prevent an air attack, Hans said, adding that Progress Energy is prepared to respond should those protections fail. She declined to elaborate.

The NRC unanimously approved the plan, which has been the subject of internal discussions for 15 months, in a 5-0 vote at a brief meeting without discussion.

"This rule is an important piece, but only one piece of a broader effort to enhance nuclear power plant security," NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a statement.

The defense plan, formally known as the Design Basis Threat, spells out what type of attack force the government believes might target a commercial power reactor and what its operator must be capable of defending against.

While details are sketchy because of security concerns, the plan requires defense against a relatively small force, perhaps no more than a half-dozen attackers, but that they could come from multiple directions including by water and could include suicide teams.

The plan, which formally approves many of the procedures that have long been in place, reflects the increased concerns raised by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It also includes measures to address cyber attacks, according to the NRC.

Some members of Congress and nuclear watchdog groups have argued that the requirements fall short of what is needed, given what was learned by the September 11 attacks on the twin towers in New York and at the Pentagon.

These critics have argued that defenders of a reactor should be ready to face up to 19 attackers - as was the case on September 11 - and expect them to have rocket-propelled grenades, so-called "platter" explosive charges and .50-caliber armor-piercing ammunition.

The NRC does not assume such weapons being used and rejected the idea of a 19-member attack force, maintaining that the September 11 attacks actually were four separate attacks, each by four or five terrorists.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, said that NRC appears not to have followed the direction of Congress "to ensure that our nuclear power plants are protected from air- or land-based terrorist threats" of the magnitude demonstrated on September 11.

The NRC "has missed an opportunity to provide the public with a real solution to the nuclear reactor security problem," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, a frequent critic of the nuclear industry and the NRC.

Daniel Hirsch, president of the Community to Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear watchdog group that had urged the NRC to require physical barriers to keep planes from hitting reactors, called the security measures "irresponsible to the extreme."

"Rather than upgrading protections, (the NRC plan) merely codifies the status quo, reaffirming the existing, woefully inadequate security measures already in place at the nation's reactors," said Hirsch.

NRC officials have emphasized that the defense plan should require what is "reasonable" to be expected of a civilian security force at the 103 commercial nuclear power reactors.

In an unclassified summary of the DBT, the NRC maintains that studies "confirm the low likelihood" that an aircraft crashing into a reactor will damage the reactor core and release radioactivity, affecting public health and safety.

"Even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to a terrorist use of a large aircraft against a nuclear power plant, the studies indicate that there would be time to implement the required onsite mitigating actions," says the summary.

Those "mitigation measures in place are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety," it continued.

The nuclear power industry has argued that protection against an air attack - or one using a large ground attack force - should be the responsibility of the government.

Responding to the NRC's action Monday, the Nuclear Energy Institute cited a $1 million study by the Electric Power Research Institute last year that concluded the concrete enclosure that surrounds a reactor will withstand the impact of a large jetliner without releasing radiation.

---

8 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • UmmmK Jan 29, 2007

    I'm waiting for all the environmental wackos to start hitting this blog with their anti-nuke crap. They are too dumb to realize that nuke power is the safest, cleanest available--and able to handle the projected needs of the future. Wind and solar as solutions is simply fantasy. UP AND ATOM WITH NUCLEAR POWER!

  • happilychildfree Jan 29, 2007

    tlewis... I am planning on crashing a plane into your CapsLock button :^} Please use proper communication etiquette.

    Otherwise, I doubt terrorists will try the same thing twice. The plane thing we pretty much got covered. I look at the ports as the next access point and targets will have to be hit with a truck bomb or something. I wouldn't worry about airplane missiles for a while... been there-done that.

  • katgoesloco Jan 29, 2007

    jparker56, I agree with you!

  • RDUTEC Jan 29, 2007

    YOU CAN SEE THE PLANT FROM THE AIR ON A CLEAR DAY WHEN YOU LAND FROM THE SOUTH AT RDU.

    THE CONTAINMENT VESSEL FOR THE REACTOR IS VERY VERY THICK. I UNDERSTAND IT COULD WITHSTAND A DIRECT NUCULAR BOMB OF A SMALL TO SUBMEDIUM SIZE. THE BIG WORRY WOULD THE SHUT DOWN FOR A DAMAGED GENERATION SECTION FOR PROBABLY AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. OF COURSE OTHER PLANTS WOULD STEP IN TO TAKE UP THE SLACK IF AS LONG AS IT ISN'T AN EXTENDED ATTACK AND KNOCKS THEM OUT ALSO.

  • jparker56 Jan 29, 2007

    Why dont we push for more solar panels for homes instead of building more of these nuke plants. Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah, I know that they are expensive. But history has shown that once something is massed produced that the price tends to come down. If mass production is not feasible then there is a Billion people in India and another Billion or so in China that will work for literatly pennies.

  • m0nky Jan 29, 2007

    blameystonenc:

    i think they would have bigger targets than the raleigh area.

  • NC to GA Jan 29, 2007

    I think we all should expect the unexpected - eventually. We have forever changed the world around us, even though we may have been reacting, in our own way, to protect the world from others. It is foolish to think we can turn back the hands of time or prevent them from moving forward, either.

  • BlarneyStone Jan 29, 2007

    I wonder about that each time we land from the south and west at RDU and you can see the Shearon-Harris plant out the right side of the plane as you land.