Pentagon-Sponsored Report: Civilian Nuclear Reactors at Risk of Attack

Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
Aug. 16, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — A new re­port com­mis­sioned by the Pentagon main­tains that nuc­le­ar fa­cil­it­ies run by private com­pan­ies and uni­versit­ies re­main vul­ner­able to a 9/11-style ter­ror­ist at­tack.

By con­trast, atom­ic sites op­er­ated by the De­fense and En­ergy De­part­ments are largely pro­tec­ted from the pos­sib­il­ity of such as­saults.

The re­port, is­sued by the Nuc­le­ar Pro­lif­er­a­tion Pre­ven­tion Pro­ject at the Uni­versity of Texas-Aus­tin, calls at­ten­tion to the reg­u­la­tions of the U.S. Nuc­le­ar Reg­u­lat­ory Com­mis­sion, which li­censes ci­vil­ian nuc­le­ar re­act­ors. Alan Ku­per­man — one of two of au­thors of the doc­u­ment — said in a con­fer­ence call with re­port­ers on Thursday that the NRC rules cur­rently re­quire com­mer­cial re­act­ors to be able to de­fend them­selves against at­tack by a group of ap­prox­im­ately five or six ter­ror­ists.

This is nearly double the num­ber of hy­po­thet­ic­al at­tack­ers that com­mer­cial re­act­ors were re­quired to de­fend against pri­or to the Septem­ber 2001 at­tacks on New York and Wash­ing­ton, Ku­per­man noted. He ad­ded though, that it is still less than half of the 19 ter­ror­ists be­lieved to have dir­ectly car­ried out the World Trade Cen­ter and Pentagon at­tacks.

“We com­mend the up­grades, but our con­cern is they’re not enough,” said Ku­per­man, re­fer­ring to the abil­ity of the reg­u­la­tions to pro­tect against a worst case scen­ario.

Also of con­cern is that NRC rules do not re­quire man­agers of ex­ist­ing com­mer­cial re­act­ors to pro­tect the fa­cil­it­ies from at­tacks that might come from the air — as they did in 2001 — or by sea, Ku­per­man said.

Past at­tempts by watch­dog groups to per­suade the reg­u­lat­ory com­mis­sion to re­quire re­act­ors to pro­tect against such at­tacks have been met with in­dustry res­ist­ance and have proved largely un­suc­cess­ful. However, Ku­per­man sug­ges­ted that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment could play a role in provid­ing such de­fenses dir­ectly, rather than by pla­cing the bur­den en­tirely on nuc­le­ar en­ergy util­it­ies.

In­dustry has bristled at some past ef­forts by the gov­ern­ment to provide this form of as­sist­ance, though, Ku­per­man said. His re­port cites an in­cid­ent in which the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment deemed the wa­ter in­take struc­ture at the Mill­stone nuc­le­ar power plant in Con­necti­c­ut to be a vul­ner­ab­il­ity and offered to provide pro­tect­ive bar­ri­ers for free. The privately run fa­cil­ity re­jec­ted the DHS of­fer, Ku­per­man said, not­ing that the bar­ri­ers might have ad­ded to the plant op­er­at­or’s main­ten­ance costs.

The Nuc­le­ar En­ergy In­sti­tute, which rep­res­ents the atom­ic power in­dustry, re­spon­ded to the re­port on Thursday with a blog post as­sert­ing that nuc­le­ar plants “are widely ac­know­ledged to be the best-de­fen­ded fa­cil­it­ies among the na­tion’s crit­ic­al in­fra­struc­ture.”

The nuc­le­ar sec­tor’s lob­by­ing arm ar­gued that the FBI and Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment share this po­s­i­tion, but provided only links to the fed­er­al en­tit­ies’ In­ter­net home pages rather than to spe­cif­ic gov­ern­ment re­ports sup­port­ing the claim.

“Ap­prox­im­ately 9,000 ex­tremely well-armed and highly trained se­cur­ity of­ficers de­fend the na­tion’s 62 nuc­le­ar power plant sites,” the NEI re­sponse ad­ded. “This is an in­crease of ap­prox­im­ately 60 per­cent in the size of nuc­le­ar plant se­cur­ity forces since 9/11.”

The in­dustry group said, however, that the type of at­tack that Ku­per­man’s re­port ad­dresses would con­sti­tute “an en­emy-of-the-state in­cur­sion with­in our coun­try,” for which it is not “the ob­lig­a­tion of any elec­tric util­ity to de­fend against.” This, in­stead, is a “job for the highest levels of fed­er­al na­tion­al se­cur­ity,” the group said.

What We're Following See More »
MAYBE MORE COMING
Cohn Rules Out Easing Russian Sanctions
9 hours ago
BREAKING
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
1 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
1 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login