|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response I: Nuclear, Chemical Plants Step Up Security Efforts By Bryan Bender While stepping up international nonproliferation efforts to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, U.S. officials are also looking to shore up U.S. commercial facilities. Such sites, while already well-secured, could be attractive targets for terrorists seeking to cause mass casualties and panic by attacking a nuclear reactor, stealing nuclear materials, igniting chemicals or detonating a conventional explosive attached to radiological material. Two pieces of new legislation, the Nuclear Security Act and the Chemical Security Act, were approved by a Senate committee last week and aim to strengthen security at the 103 nuclear plants and 15,000 chemical plants nationwide (see GSN, July 26). Also attached to the nuclear security bill is the Dirty Bomb Prevention Act of 2002, which would require radioactive materials that are used in industrial and medical activities to be tracked (see GSN, June 27). “These bills address the concerns that all of us shared since the tragic events of Sept. 11,” Senator James Jeffords (I-Vt.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said last week. “We must do everything in our power to make sure that terrorists are not able to turn our own resources against us.” The House of Representatives is taking up similar legislation. While the legislation is considered a good start, security experts and industry officials believe that more needs to be done to prepare for a possible attack, including more drastic measures such as distributing potassium iodide pills to people who live within 50 miles of nuclear power plants to reduce radiation risk in the event of an attack (see GSN, May 24), as well as shutting down nuclear power plants deemed to be most at risk. The Nuclear Security Act Although stopping short of making security personnel federal employees, as some lawmakers originally sought (see GSN, Jan. 18), the Nuclear Security Act calls for a variety of new security measures at power plants, beginning with a comprehensive review of security procedures and the detailing of federal personnel to coordinate facility security — including an evaluation of training standards, facility security plans and emergency response plans. The Nuclear Security Act also calls for a federal task force responsible for continuing assessments of nuclear power plant security; a federal team to be responsible for coordinating air, water and ground access to nuclear power plants; and creation of a new Nuclear Regulatory Commission office of nuclear security and incident response to coordinate and consolidate the agency’s security functions. In addition, it would require plants to conduct more force-on-force terrorist mock exercises with larger enemy forces than the three terrorists currently considered the “design basis threat.” A Comprehensive Nuclear Security Assessment The NRC, in charge of overseeing the 5,000 private security personnel that guard nuclear power plants, will also conduct the comprehensive security review. The NRC must “look hard at the … threats that they face and come up with answers as to how best to deal with them, to look at the zone around nuclear power plants to determine … what needs to be done to improve the safety and security of the people living near nuclear power plants,” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a committee member and proponent of the legislation, said. Many observers say a comprehensive security assessment of nuclear power plans must be the first step to beefing up security. “Although the possibility of a catastrophic event occurring at a nuclear power plant as a result of accident, natural disaster or deliberate act of terrorism has always been on the table, the events of Sept. 11 demand a re-examination of all aspects of the vulnerability and security of the nation’s nuclear facilities,” Irwin Redlener, president of the Children’s Health Fund, told the Senate committee last month. “Simply put, what was improbable to the point of impossible has become possible. Assessment of risk and specific planning scenarios need to evolve to new levels taking into account a much more aggressive, educated, trained and organized terrorist for whom capture or death is not a deterrent to action.” According to NRC figures, more than 30 security advisories, including threat warnings from the CIA and FBI, have been issued to nuclear power plants since Sept. 11 and some facilities are still using National Guard troops for added security. The energy industry, too, has called for a comprehensive security assessment followed by greater federal oversight of security, contending that it remains unclear who is responsible — plant owners or the government — for various aspects of the counterterrorist mission. The United States Energy Association concluded that nuclear power plants “remain among the most secure and protected commercial facilities in the nation,” according to a report issued earlier this month, National Energy Security Post Sept. 11. Nevertheless, a more thorough assessment, combined with a clear delineation of responsibilities is necessary, according to the association. “It is imperative that the physical security of critical infrastructure receive a coordinated assessment at the federal level to determine what should be protected, how it will be protected and what the dividing line between the responsibilities of commercial enterprise and the government is with respect to attacks by terrorists or other acts of war,” the report said. “Nuclear facilities, like other critical infrastructure, were not designed to withstand acts of war and their security forces are not a substitute for the military capability of the United States,” the report added. Spent Nuclear Fuel Is a Prime Target Among the vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants, experts believe that the spent fuel stored on site in cooling pools is an attractive target to terrorists and is insufficiently protected. Terrorists seeking to develop a crude radiological weapon could theoretically use the spent fuel for that purpose. “The NRC has never tested a power plant guard force’s ability to protect spent fuel being possibly the prime target of a terrorist attack,” according to Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. “The NRC needs to create a target/assets list prioritized by importance,” she said in written testimony to the Senate committee. Officials worry that some spent fuel pools are located just inside the fence perimeter of nuclear plants and are highly vulnerable to a quick terrorist strike. According to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve, “the concern about spent fuel and the possible vulnerability of spent fuel has been something that has received a great deal of attention by NRC. Since Sept. 11 … we have significantly upgraded the security that is provided for spent fuel,” he testified last month. Meserve said that an estimated $30 million will be spent next year for enhanced security efforts. “That would involve our continuing work on evaluation of vulnerabilities and enhancements of communications capabilities and our own capacity to deal with confidential information and things of that nature,” he said last month. Still, others say more needs to be done to avoid a catastrophe. The Children’s Health Fund’s Redlener, for example, believes that potassium iodide pills should be distributed to residents within 50 miles of nuclear power plants. “If the proper dose of potassium iodide is given prior to or within two hours of exposure … excess thyroid cancers can be almost entirely prevented,” he said. It remains unclear, however, how worried the public may be. NRC provided pills for residents within 10 nautical miles of power plants in April, but the program has been slow to take hold. Of the 20,000 residents who are eligible around the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, only 660 have applied for the free potassium iodide pills (see GSN, July 9). Redlener also believes that the security situation at some power plants calls for an outright shutting down of the facility. “A cogent case can be made for closing nuclear power plants altogether, particularly those with inherent safety problems, those in highly populated areas with inadequate evacuation plans or those with relatively insufficient means of safeguarding spent fuel rods.” Chemical Security Act While nuclear security has been most pressing, improving security at the nation’s estimated 15,000 chemical plants is also receiving greater attention. The Chemical Security Act would require high-priority chemical plants to assess their security vulnerabilities and draft improvement plans, including ways to utilize safer technologies. It also would require the Environmental Protection Agency and proposed homeland security department to develop regulations to determine which chemical plants should receive high priority. The legislation would also allow the new department to determine whether a facility should be punished for failing to implement a response plan to address threats. “There are 123 chemical facilities where worst case release of toxic chemicals could threaten more than 1 million people,” Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) said in June. “I know that this issue doesn’t get as much headline attention, but I continue to be very concerned.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
