[NukeNet] NRC Willing To Allow Nuclear Terrorism

[Bill Smirnow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/09nuke.html
[ Click On URL for Hyperlinks]

   CRAC-2 Report Mandated By Same NRC [Industry
Stooge, Public Enemy] & Carried Out By Nuclear
Intoxicated Sandia Labs:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html



    Agency Considers A-Plants' Vulnerability

  a..                E-Mail
  b.. Print
  c.. Reprints
  d.. Save



By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: November 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - With construction of many new
nuclear reactors under discussion, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is grappling with the
question of whether they should be designed to
withstand a Sept. 11-style airplane attack.

The commission has told its staff to study the
vulnerabilities of the four new reactor designs,
two of which it has already approved. But it has
decided not to make the nuclear power industry
meet security requirements any tougher than those
for existing plants, which were designed before
suicide airliner attacks, and even before the
development of such airplanes.

Planes are not on the list of weapons that
reactors must be prepared to survive. One of the
five commissioners, Gregory B. Jaczko, has called
for the panel to require design changes to reduce
vulnerability, but the other four seem
unpersuaded.

Speaking about protection against aircraft
attacks, Mr. Jaczko said in an interview, "We've
left it in the hands of Transportation Security
Administration, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the reactor vendors, who are
building these plants, to do what they think is
right in this area, and to me that's clearly not
the answer."

"We should be requiring they design these plants
to withstand such attacks," he said.

One of one of the four new reactor designs, called
the European Pressurized Reactor, is advertised as
being less vulnerable to planes.

The commission has required that operators of
reactors that are already producing electricity
plan what steps they would take in case of
airplane attacks to mitigate the effect and
minimize releases of radiation. Mr. Jaczko said
that improving the new designs before concrete was
poured could sharply reduce the number of
"mitigating actions" the operators would have to
take a plane attack.

But another member of the commission, Edward
McGaffigan Jr., said, "We think we've done
 enough."

In analyzing security, nuclear engineers talk
about multiple components that an attacker would
have to reach and disable, which they call "target
sets." New reactors, Mr. McGaffigan said, have "a
terribly complex set of target sets that makes it
highly improbable that a terrorist would succeed."

The commission should not make companies that want
licenses to build and operate plants treat an
airplane attack the way they would treat an
earthquake, flood or other external threat for
which they are already designed, he said.

A senior staff member of the commission said: "We
want to be able to stand up to answer the logical
question: 'Guys, did you look at the aircraft?' We
want to be able to say yes, and we're confident
that there is no issue, or if there is an issue,
we've taken appropriate measures."

The staff member said the commission was stopping
short of setting new requirements. He said he
could not be identified because he was talking
about matters that the five commissioners had not
yet settled on.

At the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's
trade association, Adrian Heymer, senior director
for new plant deployment, said designers had
analyzed existing plants and made many changes
that cost little but made the new designs more
difficult to attack. But, in general, Mr. Heymer
said, protecting against terrorism was a
government function.

"Refineries, tall buildings, those are the
responsibility of federal government to protect,"
he said.

The commission is scheduled to meet on Thursday at
its headquarters in Rockville, Md., to discuss
licensing procedures for new reactors.

At the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy
group, David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer, said
that in the early 1980s the commission had
convened outside experts to talk about hardening
new reactors against plane crashes.

Industry experts, Mr. Lochbaum said, talked about
some simple steps. For example, backup electricity
generators could be positioned on two sides of the
plant instead of in one place. Control rooms could
be put in less vulnerable spots, and the pools
that hold radioactive spent fuel could be
hardened. The studies were classified after the
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he said.

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of
Massachusetts, a critic of the nuclear power
industry and the commission, says more should be
done. In a statement, Mr. Markey said the
commission should not only require design features
to protect against airplane attacks but should
also consider attacks by large truck bombs.

The commission has required substantial changes at
existing reactors but has been reluctant to
consider the threat of terrorism in the same way
it handles other risks. For example, it has
refused to consider the risk of terrorism in
environmental impact statements, arguing that in
contrast to earthquakes or mechanical failures, it
does not know what probability to apply to
attacks.

A California group, San Luis Obispo Mothers for
Peace, won a decision in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit saying the
regulatory commission must consider terrorism.

Pacific Gas & Electric, a California utility, has
asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.