Threat Assessment:  U.S. Nuclear Plants Near Airports May Be at Risk of Airplane Attack

Thousands of small airports are close to U.S. nuclear power plants, raising concerns that terrorists might attempt to attack a nuclear plant using a hijacked aircraft, USA Today reported today (see GSN, May 13).

While security at major U.S. airports has been increased since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there is little to no security at most of the 18,000 “general aviation” airports that handle smaller aircraft, according to USA Today.

“What would prevent some terrorist or criminal from taking a Learjet from a small airport?” said security consultant Jalal Haidar, senior vice president of Aerospace Services International.  “They have no security measures.  They’re a loophole in the overall aviation security system,” Haidar said.

According to USA Today, more than 6,200 airports and heliports are within 60 miles of nuclear plants.  Every U.S. nuclear plant is located within less than 20 miles of at least one public airport.

Nuclear power plant operators have said, however, that most planes based at airports near nuclear plants are to small to cause the release large amounts of radiation (see GSN, Dec. 30, 2002).  The concrete around a plant’s nuclear reactor would shield it from damage, and a crash attack on other sections of a plant would not result in a massive radiation release, they said.

There is increased concern that a plant’s spent fuel pool might be more vulnerable to an attack using a hijacked aircraft because their roofs are often made of corrugated metal or concrete that is less thick than that of a reactor shell, according to USA Today (see GSN, Jan. 31). 

“It’s more difficult than a World Trade Center target but not beyond the capabilities of any commercial airline pilot,” airline pilot Marc Feigenblatt said, noting that an airplane attack on a spent fuel pool is possible.  “It’s also not beyond the capabilities of a Sept. 11 terrorist with some degree of training in a commercial aircraft,” he said.

Nuclear plant operators have said that commissioned studies indicate that while an airplane crash would damage a spent fuel pool, it would not result in a radiation release.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a study as to the possible effects of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear power plant.  The study remains uncompleted, though it has “the highest priority,” said NRC security chief Alan Madison, adding that science “does take time” (Gary Stoller, USA Today, June 11).

The fear that terrorists might attempt to crash an aircraft into a nuclear site did not originate with the Sept. 11 attacks, according to USA Today.  In 1972, three hijackers took control of a passenger flight during a stop in Birmingham, Ala., and threatened to crash the plane into a U.S. nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn.  The plane got as close as 8,000 feet above the site before the hijackers’ demands were met, USA Today reported.

The hijackers were later arrested and imprisoned in Cuba after flying the plane to Havana.  They were returned to Alabama in 1980, where they were sentenced to 20 to 25 years in prison each.  Then have since been released (Gary Stoller, USA Today II, June 11).

Back to top

Australian Response:  Canberra Revises Threat Alert Level System

Australia has implemented a new terrorism threat alert level system, with four levels of alert replacing the existing three classifications, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said today (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002).

The new system includes an “extreme” alert level in addition to the existing low, medium and high classifications.  The new level indicates that a terrorist attack is imminent or that one has already occurred, according to Agence France-Presse.

The revised system will more accurately inform the public about any potential terrorist threat and help remove confusion, Howard said, adding that the system was not revised because of any new threat information.

“We don’t have any information additional to what we have previously received that has led to the reclassification,” Howard said.  “I don’t want people to be concerned that we’ve got some new information and that we’re preparing the ground to release that by ordering the (new) classifications,” he said (Agence France-Presse, June 11).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Washington Warns of Al-Qaeda WMD Attack

The United States believes there is a “high probability” that al-Qaeda members will attempt an attack with weapons of mass destruction within two years, according to a report released by the United Nations yesterday (see GSN, June 3).

The April U.S. report was prepared in response to a U.N. resolution requiring members to increase efforts against al-Qaeda, according to Reuters.  The U.S. report said al-Qaeda will continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction and could use them in attacks against targets such as banks, supermarkets and shopping malls, as well as in “spectacular attacks.”

“We judge that there is a high probability that al-Qaeda will attempt an attack using a CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] weapon within the next two years,” the report said (Reuters/Yahoo!News, June 9).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Alert System Needs Modification, Ridge Says

The color-coded U.S. terrorism alert level system must be modified to improve the system’s usefulness, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said yesterday (see GSN, June 3).

“We worry about the credibility of the system,” Ridge said.  “We want to continue to refine it, because we understand it has caused a kind of anxiety,” he said.

Ridge said he hoped the system could be changed to allow for alerts targeting specific regions or industries, while leaving the overall level unchanged for others, the New York Times reported today.  “We’ve only had it in operation for a year, but our hope is to refine it in the months and years ahead so we can get that kind of specificity,” Ridge said.

One concern is that terrorism-related intelligence is currently too “generic” to allow for such specificity, Ridge said.  “There will come a time, I believe, that we’ll have that kind of — a word they like to use in intelligence — granularity, that kind of specificity, that we’ll be able to do that,” he said.

Ridge praised the overall effectiveness of the alert level system, however, despite its flaws, according to the New York Times.

“The threat advisory system, I believe, is an essential means of communication to the citizens,” Ridge said.  “It means that the intelligence community says at this particular period of time, we think the threat’s been increased,” he added (Philip Shenon, New York Times, June 6).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Canada Frequent Target for WMD-Related Procurement Activities, Report Says

Rogue states and terrorist organizations often seek WMD-related materials from Canada, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service said yesterday in an annual report (see GSN, Jan. 8).

Canada is a “frequent target for clandestine and illicit procurement activities” for countries and groups seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction because it is “an internationally recognized leader in many high-technology sectors (such as the nuclear, chemical, pharmaceutical, biotechnological, electronics and aerospace sectors),” the report says. 

In its report, the CSIS also warned that a number of groups or individuals associated with international terrorist groups were active in Canada.  In particular, Sunni Islam-related groups remain “the primary focus of the CSIS counterterrorism program,” the report says (Agence France-Presse, June 6).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Lawmakers Upset Over Port Security Funding Diversion

U.S. lawmakers expressed distress Tuesday about the Transportation Security Administration’s effort to divert port security funding to aviation security efforts, the Newport News Daily Press reported yesterday (see GSN, May 20).

The transportation agency, part of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, asked to move $105 million in port security funding to cover aviation security.

“I’m very concerned,” said Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Transportation subcommittee that oversees the Coast Guard.  “We’re going to have to somehow revisit this,” he added.

Representatives said the move would shortchange the Coast Guard.

“I fear the Coast Guard is being stretched way too thin,” said Representative James Oberstar (D-Minn.), the senior Democrat on the House Transportation Committee.

Port security efforts are also hampered because funding has not yet been provided for the 7-month-old Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Daily Press reported.  Under that bill, the Coast Guard was ordered to conduct vulnerability assessments and security plans for 55 of the nation’s largest ports.

At a subcommittee hearing Tuesday, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas Collins said he was confident the assessments would be completed.

“I see no major potholes on the road to pursuing the vulnerability assessments,” he said, expressing confidence that the port security flap would be resolved soon (David Lerman, Newport News Daily Press, June 4).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP