|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Threat Assessment: U.S. Officials, Industry Leaders Disagree on Level of Threat to Nuclear Plants Current and former U.S. officials and nuclear industry executives disagree on the level of threat terrorists pose to nuclear power plants, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Sept. 12). Many U.S. officials believe nuclear power plants are at risk of a terrorist attack. That belief was illustrated during a recent anti-terrorism exercise held at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, according to the Times (see GSN, Oct. 2). The exercise simulated a National Security Council meeting, where participants were given information indicating a terrorist attack in the eastern United States. They were also given an assessment that chemical manufacturing plants, not nuclear plants, were the most vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Almost immediately, however, the exercise participants starting discussing how to protect the nuclear power plants, including establishment of no-fly zones and the deployment of anti-aircraft guns, the Times reported. “The players defaulted in that direction,” said Dave McIntyre, deputy director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security, a nonprofit group that co-sponsored the exercise with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Nuclear industry executives have said that plants are at little risk from a terrorist attack and could withstand such an attack if one were to occur, according to the Times (see GSN, Sept. 20). Mark Findlay, director of security at the Nuclear Management Co., which operates six reactors, said there have been no credible threats against nuclear plants and would prefer to not hire more security guards for fears of having to dismiss them later. “How do I deal with staffing levels when I have a government that’s based on politics and not events and credible threats?” Findlay asked. Some industry officials said the news media has played a large role in inflating the threat of a terrorist attack on nuclear power plants. “The news media has made the nuclear industry the poster child for the post-Sept. 11 world,” said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main nuclear industry lobbying group. “People who have been inundated for a year now gravitate toward that topic.” Others, however, have criticized the nuclear industry’s apparent low regard for the threat. The denials of credible threats against nuclear power plants are “par for the course for the nuclear industry, said Paul Blanch, an engineer who discovered safety problems 10 years ago at the nuclear plant where he worked, and whom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said was later mistreated as a result of his findings. “The industry has been defensive about every threat, whether it’s security or accident,” Blanch said. “If something happens, like happened with airlines, maybe they wouldn’t be so defensive, but it hasn’t happened yet” (Matthew Wald, New York Times, Oct. 23). Australian Response Meanwhile, Bob Carr, premier of the Australian state New South Wales, is expected to present an anti-terrorism plan today to state and territory officials, which includes placing a Sydney nuclear reactor under military guard. Australian laws should be changed to allow states to use military personnel to guard important infrastructure sites, such as the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, in the event of credible threats of a terrorist attack, Carr told the Australian Parliament yesterday. “Commonwealth legislation ... requires that an incident is actually occurring or likely to occur, and the states must show that they are unlikely to be able to meet the threat,” Carr said. “These are high thresholds and in a time of heightened threat, a more flexible approach is required” (Robert Wainwright, Sydney Morning Herald, Oct. 24).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
