[ RadSafe ] Terrorist Attacks on Reactor Pools

[Gerry Blackwood]

The New York Times
April 9, 2005
EDITORIAL

Terrorist Attacks on Reactor Pools

A report just released by the National Academy of Sciences bears two
disturbing revelations. The cooling pools for nuclear waste at some 
reactor sites may be far more vulnerable to a devastating attack by terrorists 
than federal regulators are willing to admit. And the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is operating in a hermetically sealed cocoon that makes it
difficult for anyone - even the academy, armed with a Congressional 
mandate - to tell whether the public is adequately protected.

The academy was brought into the fray after a group of scientists,
analyzing reports published by the regulatory commission itself, issued 
a report suggesting that a terrorist attack could crack the pools that 
hold used nuclear fuel at reactor sites, thereby causing a leak of cooling 
water and setting off fires that could unleash radioactive plumes worse than
those at Chernobyl. In asking for the study, Congress directed the
regulatory commission and other federal agencies to provide the 
information the academy needed. That proved to be wishful thinking. The academy got
only part of what it needed and was denied the rest on security grounds.

Even so, the academy was able to penetrate the myth put out by the
regulators and the nuclear industry that spent-fuel pools at reactor 
sites pose an extremely low risk. In a report made public on Wednesday, a 
panel of experts assembled by the academy concluded that several types of
credible terrorist attacks, using planes, truck bombs or a ground 
assault with advanced weapons, might be able to release large quantities of
radioactive material into the environment. The likely contamination 
would not be on the scale of Chernobyl, panelists say, but it could be 
severe The plants thought to be most vulnerable are those with above-ground 
pools in buildings not shielded behind other structures.

To reduce the potential for radiation-releasing fires, the panel 
suggested that plant operators reposition the spent-fuel assemblies in their 
pools to minimize the buildup of heat and, where warranted, install water-spray
systems to cool the spent fuel should the pools be drained. It also 
called for an evaluation of each plant's vulnerability and suggested that, if 
the results justified it, the commission might want to speed up the removal 
of spent fuel from the cooling pools into dry casks, where the likelihood 
of major releases would be less.

The commission pooh-poohed the report even before it was released,
suggesting that the academy overstated the risks, that the pools 
themselves are robust structures and that if water leaked out and the fuel 
overheated, a couple of fire hoses could save the day. That seems too glib, given 
the academy's acknowledged expertise and presumed objectivity.

It is disturbing that the commission, in the name of national security,
denied the academy the information needed to assess the effectiveness 
of security improvements instituted since 9/11, refused to brief the panel 
on what kinds of threats it was prepared to guard against and slowed the
release of this unclassified version of a classified report with 
endless fights over what could be said publicly. In general, the agency gave 
the academy what it needed to assess the physical vulnerability of 
spent-fuel pools but little of the information needed to assess the readiness of 
plant guards and technicians to hold off attackers and mitigate any damage 
they might cause. The commission is apparently now ready to supply 
additional information, but the lesson of this sorry episode is clear. The next 
time Congress asks for a National Academy of Sciences report, it needs to 
ensure that the agencies whose performance will be evaluated cooperate more 
fully.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/opinion/09sat1.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&position=
 
The Report
http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11263.pdf







"Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."