Nuclear power plants: Are they really that safe?
The events of 9/11 exposed the vulnerability of U.S. airports and, by extension, other critical infrastructure facilities. Large amounts of money have been poured since then to bolster the defense of these facilities against terrorist attack. The nuclear industry, for example, has invested more than $1.25 billion in upgrading its security, but critics charge that the industry is not doing enough.
In a report released Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shares the criticism of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), stating that the security provided in nuclear plants represents not an objective measure of security, but rather the degree of security which the industry was willing to assume. Industry officials countered that nuclear plants were the safest critical infrastructure element in the country and that government security requirements in place were already too much of a burden.
The NRC tightened security regulations in February of 2002 and is now reviewing them before they are made permanent. This set of regulations in known as the Design Basis Threat (DBT) and are secret. Enough is known about them, though, to allow scrutiny, especially because the demand for energy and the price of oil have renewed interest in building new nuclear reactors.
Charles Ferguson, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. and coauthor of The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism is critical of the nuclear industry’s record on security. “If the industry wants nuclear to have a viable future and substantially expand its footprint in the U.S., it has to invest some serious money in security … If there’s any kind of attack on one of these facilities, it could torpedo any plans for future expansion,” he says.
Nuclear facilities are an attractive target for terrorists. If attacked, the probability of mass casualties would be great, especially in facilities which are near large metropolitan areas — the Indian Point power plant is only thirty-five miles north of midtown Manhattan. Nuclear industry officials disagree, stating that with the amount of redundant backup systems and fortification of power plants, the likelihood of mass casualties is small. Stephen Floyd, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in Washington, D.C. recognizes nuclear power plants are potential targets, but says that less-fortified infrastructure such as chemical plants are more vulnerable to attack. “There’s nobody who’s stronger than we are,” says Floyd. “If they’re being critical that the nuclear industry cannot totally withstand a terrorist attack, I shudder to think of what that means for the rest of the critical infrastructure that hasn’t done a tenth of what we have done.”