Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief

The industry counters that it has spent about $1.25 billion since that fateful morning, including increasing the numbers of ground security from 5,000 to 8,000 as well as implementing concrete barriers. While pragmatic, critics complain that it is not enough to insulate the plants from attacks similar to the ones perpetrated on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. If the industry is to expand, it must continually improve security measures to combat a threat that is constantly mutating.

“There’s an assumption that the design basis threat will protect the plant, and therefore the public,” says Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., at a congressional hearing last week. But, he goes on to say that some protective measures were softened “because we’ve made a decision that it’s not practical to meet what may in fact be a very realistic threat.”

Without a doubt, the nuclear industry’s input was and remains vital to any ideas. That fact could lead critics to believe that it had undue influence over safety protocols -- something that the GAO report insinuates. But, Marvin Fertel, testifying on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute at the House hearing, said that certain ideas were rejected not because they were too expensive but because they would have little effect.

For example, industry argued against forcing plants to defend against high-speed jetliners and rocket-propelled grenades. That’s because the plant operators are aligned with air defense command and the Transportation Security Administration in the battle.

Nuclear plants are definitely on the minds of would-be terrorists. A memo released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that a senior al Qaeda operative indicated that the group had discussed ways to crash a plane into a nuclear power plant. At the same time, the FBI said it uncovered information contained on a computer owned by a terrorist organization that also implies nuclear plants would make good targets.

More than half of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors are located near population centers, including two near Washington, D.C. and two close to New York City. All nuclear facilities are required to counter terrorists' threats using multifaceted protective systems that include integrated alarms and sensors, physical barriers such as concrete blocks and special nuclear material detectors as well as metal detectors. And such plants also have a heavily armed paramilitary security force that is equipped with automatic weapons, night vision equipment, body armor and chemical protective gear.

Swift Attack

Despite those efforts, the Project on Government Oversight says that it is not enough. It says that nuclear plants are not guarding against such things as truck bombs and a multitude of terrorists -- 12 to 14 -- who might invade a plant. It is not realistic to believe that outside help such as the U.S. armed forces could be depended upon to react in a timely manner to defend against an attack that would take minutes.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s security standards should be based on the needs of the greater good and not the financial impact it would have on nuclear operators, it says. It notes that attorney generals from six states have said the current safety mechanisms in place are inadequate. A year ago those public officers urged the commission to amend federal regulations to require nuclear plant owners to repel air, water or land assaults by a group at least as large as the 19 terrorists who acted on 9/11.

“If there is an attack on a nuclear plant with the weapons and tactics described -- weapons and tactics against which the Commission decided were not important to defend -- (the) records will reveal to the public exactly who ... dismissed the actual threats,” writes Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, in a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The industry counters that nuclear plants are far better protected than other critical infrastructure, such as chemical plants. That view is echoed by former U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn.

Meanwhile, doing critical damage to a nuclear reactor is not an easy task. Even if a ground attack could succeed at getting past armed guards and concrete barriers, experts say that a nuclear reactor could be quickly shut down.

An air attack might be a more concerning scenario. Unlike the World Trade Towers, however, nuclear reactors are small targets that necessitate a plane to slow down in order to lower its altitude. The strength of a reactor's containment building, say some experts, could withstand that kind of strike. The effects of such an attack could be further lessened by placing steel poles and cables in strategic locations -- fixtures that would force the break up of an aircraft before it hit critical components.

Exelon Nuclear, which is the largest nuclear power plant operator in the U.S. with 17 reactors in 10 sites in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, has been proactive when it comes to protecting its facilities. Plain clothed employees carry semi-automatic weapons. All cars are searched for explosives. And, barricades surround facilities to impede speeding vehicles.

"We are not an industry overly driven by profits, and we have not pushed back very hard," says Christopher Cane, president and chief nuclear officer of Exelon Generation Co. At the congressional hearing, he emphasized that the industry will continue to spend the needed resources to protect its nuclear plants. "Show one other sector that's put anywhere near that money into it.”

It’s obviously too soon to declare the sector’s efforts to improve security a success or failure. Critics complain that the nuclear industry and regulators have far too cozy of a relationship and that such a dynamic inhibits further improvements. But, more far reaching steps should and will be done -- with industry’s active participation. Nuclear power has more potential now than at any time in the last 30 years. And the industry will do what it must to safeguard that future.

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit:  http://www.energycentral.com .

Copyright © 1996-2005 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.