You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
U.S Nuclear Plants Vulnerable To Big Attacks
2005-06-15
The US government may have set its security standards for nuclear power plants too low, and guards say they may not be ready to stop a terrorist attack of September 11 magnitude, a US magazine reported Sunday. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) document "raises serious questions about whether the government has set security requirements for nuclear plants too low and allowed nuclear plant operators to provide security on the cheap," Time reported. Even plant guards worry they would be unable to thwart a big terrorist operation, saying they lack the necessary training and weapons, the magazine said. The plants could also be vulnerable to an attack on foot, it said. "Our training has increased, but I don't think it's increased enough to deal with that," a veteran guard, who was not named, told Time. Another guard said: "We don't have the weapons or training to stop an attack of that magnitude. ... Everyone feels that way. It's a consensus of opinion."

"I don't think they could handle a 9/11-size attack," David Orrik, a senior NRC official who retired in February after a 20-year career probing power-plant vulnerabilities, was quoted as saying. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the government has spent one billion dollars to boost nuclear power plant security, compared to 20 billion for aviation security, Time reported. "The NRC and the nuclear power industry are today where the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and airlines were on Sept. 10, 2001," a senior US anti-terrorism official was quoted as saying by the magazine.

NRC-commissioned studies say a plant's concrete and steel infrastructure could withstand a suicide airplane attack, making the risks of a major release of radioactivity low. But other experts, including a recent National Academy of Sciences panel, say the particular design and vulnerabilities of each plant make such blanket assurances meaningless, Time said.
Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042

#13  LSMFT? ya think nobody else remembers that? What about IOTTMCO? Huh?

At the end of a geometry proof, sophomore geometry -
Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer.

Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco
Posted by: Bobby   2005-06-15 21:01  

#12   The plants are not allowed to have belt-fed weapons because of state and local regulations. That is just nuts. David Orrick is a smart guy. There are weaknesses, but they can and will be addressed.

Holy moley, missed that the first time thru.... you know RB only got enough room for one of us.... :)
Posted by: Shipman   2005-06-15 20:04  

#11  Ah ha! The 727 wasn't equipped with a shaped charge! Thus QED LSMFT leave the exercise for the students.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-06-15 18:04  

#10  If you think about it, the headline is one of those Master of the Obvious gigs that journalists love so dearly.

Everything is vulnerable at some point. Let's say we man every nuclear power plant with a battalion's worth of guards. Guess what? The plant is vulnerable if the bad guys somehow manage to attack with a division's worth of terrorists. And so on and so on.

The real question that adults must ask: what is the most likely size of unit that jihadis (or anyone for that matter) can muster without drawing attention to themselves? (Given the PC-blinders law enforcement is working with, I'd say about corps level) From that level of threat, what is needed to properly defend said target?

Having worked as a reactor engineer, I must agree with a previous poster, the plants themselves are pretty hard targets. The containment building is highly reinforced. The reactor vessel is designed to handle over 2000 psig of pressure.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2005-06-15 15:44  

#9  Jack-is-Back!
Most of the plant is built with reinforced concrete and lead lining right? Also, nothing really goes boom, right? We only really need to worry about radioactive steam being released if the shielding is cracked, right?

I don't know the details of nuke plants, but I'm pretty sure about the above details. Let me know if I am wacked on one of 'em.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-06-15 15:37  

#8  What Jack said. If we really want to get some measure of energy independence, we're gonna hafta get over the hysteria of nuclear power. Chernobyl had serious safety problems, our nukes have safety up the ying-yang, and had pretty good security before 9-11.

They probably are not designed to ward off meteors, either. Wait 'till the Times finds out about that!
Posted by: Bobby   2005-06-15 12:33  

#7  The plants are not allowed to have belt-fed weapons because of state and local regulations. That is just nuts. David Orrick is a smart guy. There are weaknesses, but they can and will be addressed.
Posted by: remoteman   2005-06-15 12:22  

#6  ahhhhh that's why nobody's trained to actually land that beast
Posted by: Frank G   2005-06-15 10:33  

#5   the largest missile we used was a 727 fully fueled

That's what the new jumbo Airbus is for...


[/chicken little]
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-06-15 10:29  

#4  There you go again, muddling a good story with facts...
Posted by: Fred   2005-06-15 10:23  

#3  Since I worked on building 4 nukes in my time as an engineer, construction manager and project manager, I would like some one in the press to show me exactly where the vulnerabilities are and how you would attack them or cause them to become dangerous. It is easy to say "nuclear" and "threat" and "vulnerable" but to actually take advantage of it is another thing. Internal security is such that even getting into the spent fuel area would be near impossible without complete knowledge of the security process which includes HP (health physics)and documentation up the ying-yang. Also, attacking the containment structure would have to be absolutely precise. My work in the PSR and FSR for PWR containment structures included missile vulnerability. At that time the largest missile we used was a 727 fully fueled. It survived and all safety systems performed as required. Albeit this is a desktop simulation and model but it shows that careful calculation and safety engineering has been utilized.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2005-06-15 09:57  

#2  An anonymous source was quoted as saying, "we need rockets, yeah, big ones."
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2005-06-15 07:58  

#1  But other experts, including a recent National Academy of Sciences panel, say the particular design and vulnerabilities of each plant make such blanket assurances meaningless, Time said It really pisses me off when journalists write this weasly crap. 90% of the people reading this will conclude that some 'experts' say nuclear plants are vulnerable to a 9/11 type airliner attack, whereas in fact it says nuclear plants have unspecified vulnerabilities to unspecified types of attack, i.e. security aint perfect.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-06-15 00:51  

00:00