[NukeNet] Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical

[Mike Ewall]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4507846.html

Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical

By Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 29, 2007; 3:12 PM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded today that nuclear power 
plant operators in the United States should not be required to 
protect their reactors against terrorist airplane attacks.

The new defense plan -- most of which is classified -- offers 
provisions related to "multiple, coordinated groups of attackers, 
suicide attacks and cyber threats," the agency said in a statement 
that provided few details.

But plant operators should not be expected to protect their reactors 
against a "deliberate hit by a large aircraft," the NRC said.

The agency suggested that would be unreasonable because "the active 
protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal 
organizations, including the military."

The commission's new plan -- approved by a 5-0 vote -- was quickly 
attacked by long-time critics of the agency, including the 
Washington-based watchdog group Public Citizen.

"Rather than requiring measures to prevent a plane crash from 
damaging vulnerable parts of a nuclear plant, which would be the 
smartest course, the government is relying on post-crash measures and 
evacuation plans to attempt to 'mitigate' the public's exposure to 
radiation," Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen's 
Energy Program, said in a statement.

On Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote to the agency that "the 
communities that surround existing plants need to be confident that 
the NRC, as the regulator charged with nuclear safety, did all it 
could to ensure that plants defend against current security threats."

These communities, she added, should be assured that plants are 
"prepared to defend against large attacking forces and commercial aircraft."

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, said the new regulations reflect "an inadequate, 
industry-influenced approach that sacrifices security in favor of 
corporate profits." The new plan was designed to spell out how 
operators should protect reactors from terrorist attacks.

Without providing details, the NRC said the plan "provides a general 
description of the attributes of potential adversaries who might 
attempt to commit radiological sabotage or theft or diversion against 
which licensees' physical protection systems must defend with high assurance."

The plan also "provides a general description of the modes of attack, 
weaponry and capabilities and intentions of the adversary."

That language didn't soothe detractors, who have been calling for 
tougher rules since terrorists flew four jets into the Pentagon, 
World Trade Center and a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001.

"We are shocked that the NRC would even consider disregarding 
aircraft attacks on existing reactors with so many operable airfields 
within 10 miles of most nuclear power stations," said Paul Gunter, 
director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information 
and Resource Service. "Given that it is impossible to react to a 
fast-breaking event such as a local private plane laden with 
explosives, structural defenses against aircraft attack must be 
inserted into regulations -- if not by NRC, then by Congress."

In September 2004, a nuclear watchdog group -- the Committee to 
Bridge the Gap -- proposed that power plants be required to construct 
steel shields around sensitive parts of facilities so an incoming 
plane would strike the shield and not the reactor.

The NRC said today it is "an active partner" with other federal, 
state and local authorities "in constant surveillance of the threat 
environment and will adjust regulatory actions or requirements if necessary."

Details of the new defense plan are protected from public disclosure 
"for security reasons," the agency said.