Energy Probe

Dennis Bueckert
Toronto Star
November 15, 2001

OTTAWA (CP) – The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is studying how to “harden” nuclear reactors against possible attack by a hijacked commercial aircraft.

The new efforts go beyond measures already introduced such as on-site armed guards at nuclear stations, barriers to prevent crash attacks by surface vehicles and visitor screening.

An internal report says the commission is reviewing the capability of Canada’s 22 nuclear power plants to withstand an air attack of the kind carried out Sept. 11.

“This robustness study will include the impact of a modern large commercial aircraft fully loaded with fuel, and the resulting fire, as well as other threats,” says the report.

Commission spokesperson Jim Leveque said “hardening” the reactors could mean literally reinforcing concrete walls around key areas, but it could also refer to changes in procedures.

Given the variation in design at nuclear stations, measures will be tailored for each site, he said.

The commission is also reviewing the risks of theft or sabotage at uranium mines and mills and research reactors, and at 4,000 facilities that use radioactive materials in medical or industrial applications.

Leveque said the commission still has not reached a decision on the feasibility of imposing no-fly zones over nuclear reactors, but discussions are progressing. No-fly zones would involve the placement of surface-to-air missiles around reactors, he said.

The drive for improved security will continue regardless of what happens in the military campaign against Osama bin Laden, who is the main suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, he added.

He said the effort to upgrade security began before those attacks and would continue regardless of bin Laden.

The International Atomic Energy Agency recently warned that terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors are 10 times more likely in the wake of the attacks.

The agency also said radioactive materials commonly used in medicine and industry could be combined with conventional explosives to make a “dirty” bomb.

Canada’s nuclear power stations are located at Gentilly, Que., Point Lepreau, N.B., and three Ontario sites: Bruce, Pickering and Darlington.

There are seven research reactors across the country, a handful of nuclear processing facilities, two accelerators, and several mines and mills, mainly in northern Saskatchewan.

Giles Elgood
Planet Ark
November 9, 2001

LONDON (REUTERS) – Britain has imposed no-fly zones over major nuclear power stations after warnings they could be at risk from terrorist attacks similar to those launched against America, a government spokesman said this week.

Industry chiefs had expressed fears that Britain’s nuclear installations were dangerously exposed after news organisations overflew plants with light aircraft and helicopters.

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said no-fly zones had been imposed around 11 nuclear plants. Seven installations were already covered by long-standing bans.

The restrictions prevent aircraft from flying within two miles (3.2 km) of a nuclear plant or below 2,000 feet (600 metres), the spokesman said.

“These overflights were causing concern,” the spokesman said. “This will help prevent air accidents.”

Since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, terrorism experts have drawn attention to the vulnerability of nuclear plants to suicide attacks using airliners.

Two Royal Air Force Tornado warplanes were scrambled over the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in northwest England late last month after a security alert which proved to be a false alarm.

France has installed surface-to-air missiles around a nculear reprocessing plant at Cap la Hague and said it will use warplanes to shoot down any hijacked aircraft threatening nuclear installations.

British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon indicated last week that the country’s part time soldiers could be used to guard potential targets.

He said there was “no reason” why they should not be used to guard nuclear power stations.

Last month, the U.S. nuclear power station at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania was briefly put on high alert, and nearby airports were closed, after a security threat.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has warned that an act of nuclear terrorism is far more likely than previously thought and called on countries around the world to ensure that nuclear plants can withstand terrorist attacks.

ENN
November 6, 2001

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (Reuters)–While the United States steps up security at its nuclear power plants, energy experts warn the plants’ fuel dumps are far more vulnerable than reactors to attack by anyone trying to spread radioactivity.

“Spent fuel has never gotten the same attention as the reactor … as a result you don’t have the same level of security and safety as exists for the reactor,” David Lochbaum, a former nuclear plant engineer now with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Reuters.

“Because it’s a softer target and has greater consequences, terrorists may elect to go after the spent fuel,” he said.

Security has been tightened at the 103 nuclear power plants in the United States, the source of 20 percent of the country’s electricity, since the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks that killed about 4,800 people in New York and the Pentagon.

Amid U.S. calls for increased vigilance at strategic sites worldwide, the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency warned on Thursday that an act of nuclear terrorism was “far more likely” than previously thought.

Since Sept. 11, much of discussion in the nuclear industry has focused on whether an aircraft could penetrate the steel and concrete containment building surrounding a plant’s reactor.

But nuclear experts are warning that guarding on-site storage facilities for these same reactors’ highly radioactive spent fuel is also a critical issue that must be addressed.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the U.S. nuclear industry, needs to devote more attention to this issue, agency spokesman Victor Dricks said.

DE FACTO WASTE DUMPS

When most of the energy is wrung from the radioactive pellets used to run the power plants, the spent fuel is tightly sealed in water-filled, on-site pools. Water is needed to cool the fuel, which gives off heat and radiation for many years after it is removed from the reactor.

Over the years, the pile of spent fuel from U.S. reactors has grown to more than 40,000 metric tons, enough to bury a football field under 15 feet of waste material, the Washington-based industry group Nuclear Energy Institute said.

About two-thirds of this fuel is kept in underground pools, which provide far better containment than for the third stored in above-ground buildings.

But most of these pools are housed in far less robust structures than the reactor containment vessels, which are designed to contain the equivalent of a small nuclear explosion should things go badly wrong in the reactor core.

Though the walls of waste storage pools are thick, reinforced concrete lined with steel, the roofs are made of “pretty insubstantial material” like sheet metal, Lynnette Hendricks, director of licensing at Nuclear Energy Institute, told Reuters.

And while the pools lie within high security areas, there are fewer locked doors and safety barriers between spent fuel and the atmosphere than surrounds the fuel in the reactor.

Another concern is the vulnerability of the pools’ cooling systems. “If you knock out that system, there are no automatic back-up systems,” Lochbaum said.

If the water boils or drains away, the discarded fuel would overheat, either melting or catching fire, threatening to release a radioactive cloud.

POTENTIAL CONCERNS

The pools, initially designed as temporary containers, can withstand earthquakes, tornadoes and other natural calamities, but were not built to withstand acts of sabotage.

“The pools are not designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner, but they are relatively small … it would be extremely difficult for an aircraft, even if deliberately targeting one, to hit one,” said Dricks of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

When most of the country’s nuclear reactors were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, it was assumed their radioactive waste would be shipped off to a central repository or reprocessing facility.

But commercial reprocessing was never successfully developed in the United States, and plans to open a permanent disposal site in Nevada have already been delayed 12 years until around 2010 — if it opens at all.

While legislators, power companies and environmentalists squabble over what to do with the spent fuel, storage space in the temporary facilities gets ever more crowded.

“Now (pools) hold considerably more (spent fuel) than in a reactor,” said Gordon Thompson, a nuclear scientist and executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies, an independent think tank based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

It only takes about five to six years of operation for a power plant to produce more nuclear waste than it holds in its reactor, and the biggest of these pools now holds seven to eight times as much fuel as in a reactor, said Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

PlanetArk.org
November 5, 2001

WASHINGTON (Reuters)- A Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives called last week for the Bush administration to post National Guard units at all operating or decommissioned nuclear reactors to protect them against attack.

Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a longtime critic of the nuclear power industry, also urged the stockpiling of potassium iodide to give to residents who live near such facilities in the event of an accident or attack that results in the release of radioactive material.

Markey also told a news conference the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should drop its opposition to developing new security regulations at the nation’s nuclear plants in wake of the deadly Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

“The time for action is now,” said Markey, who won committee approval earlier this week for his proposal requiring the NRC to write new rules to step up protection of nuclear power plants against a sophisticated, coordinated attack.

The proposal was attached by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to a reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which allocates federal funds to cover nuclear operators in the event of a mishap.

Neither the full House nor the Senate has taken up the measure. The House could take it up in the next few weeks.

Governors of several states have ordered National Guard units to duty to protect nuclear power plants in light of heightened government warnings against an imminent attack.

Markey said the plants were vulnerable to attack, and the nuclear industry had not adopted adequate safeguards.

Toronto Star
November 3, 2001

Terrorism attack worries may prompt Ottawa to tighten security measures

OTTAWA (CP) — The federal government is considering deploying soldiers armed with surface-to-air missiles around Canada’s nuclear facilities to guard against possible terrorist attacks from the air, says Natural Resources Minister Ralph Goodale.

“That is a dimension to this that we obviously have under consideration,” Goodale said yesterday, commenting on a decision by France this week to take similar action.

Goodale said Ottawa believes no-fly zones over nuclear sites, which the United States has imposed for its reactors, would be difficult to enforce because of the time it would take for the military to respond.

“That in itself, unfortunately, is no guarantee when you’re dealing with what would be a suicide bomber,” he told reporters.

Goodale said the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission took steps immediately after Sept. 11 to increase security at the country’s seven nuclear facilities, which include five sites in Ontario, and two in Quebec and New Brunswick.

The U.S. has imposed no-fly zones over its reactors but Canadian officials are still pondering the issue, with no indication of when a decision will be made.

The FAA has imposed a ban on flights within a 10-nautical mile radius of and below 18,000 feet over nuclear reactors. The ban is effective until Nov. 7 and may be renewed.

France has gone even further, placing surface-to-air missiles around its reactors, while protecting them with extended radar surveillance.

In a report issued Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. make it “10 times more likely” that terrorists could target nuclear facilities.

BBC
November 1, 2001

Energy Minister Brian Wilson has confirmed that security at UK nuclear sites is being reviewed.

Following international warnings about the likelihood of an act of nuclear terrorism, Mr Wilson told the BBC that safety at nuclear sites was being closely monitored.

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Wilson said: “We are constantly reviewing security arrangements around nuclear sites in the UK and both the security and safety regulators have continued to review all relevant precautions.”

He was unable to divulge specific details for reasons of confidentiality.

Threat

Meanwhile, former Conservative environment minister John Gummer has called for European countries to work together against the threat of nuclear terrorism.

His comments and those of Mr Wilson followed warnings from the United Nations nuclear watchdog that security at some industrial and medical sites housing nuclear materials was “disturbingly weak”.

Experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts have called for stricter security at nuclear plants and other centres using radioactive material, in the wake of the US terror attacks.

September 11 has been a real wake up call for the industry.
The BBC’s Christine McGourty

The United States has put “no fly zones” around its nuclear installations.

France’s increased security measures include surface-to-air missiles near its nuclear plant at Cap la Hague

Britain says security and safety at civil nuclear sites are being reviewed since the 11 September attacks, but refuses to detail what steps are being taken.

European issue

Mr Gummer told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that protection of nuclear facilities was a Europe-wide issue.

“The French nuclear establishments are as close to parts of Britain as some British sites,” he said. “We have to make sure we are taking all measures across Europe.”

Mr Gummer, whose Suffolk constituency includes the Sizewell B plant, said UK security had improved since the US attacks.

“Since September 11, because we are aware of the reality of this threat, it is both easier and obviously more important to try to meet it.

“In a sense it was more difficult before September 11 when people didn’t realise and didn’t take it seriously enough.”

Change of perception

The threat of terrorist targeting nuclear materials should not be concentrated on nuclear installations, he added.

“When one thinks of water supplies and the way anthrax has been used…we have got to recognise that terrorism is something civilised societies have to deal with and have to deal with it together,” he told the BBC.

BBC science correspondent Christine McGourty said the UK’s nuclear power plants were industrial sites, not military and not hardened to withstand the intentional impact of a fully fuelled jet aircraft.

She said the nuclear industry was very aware of the dangers of radioactive material falling into terrorist hands and there are very strict procedures in place to make sure material is not smuggled out of them

“But September 11 has changed everyone’s perception of nuclear terrorism because no one had ever thought this sort of attack would take place,” she said.

One fear is that terrorists could use radioactive materials from industrial or medical sources to create a low-tech “dirty bomb” which would not cause devastation of nuclear bomb but could cause widespread radioactive contamination, she said.

No threat

At a special session on nuclear terrorism in Vienna on Friday, the IAEA is expected to ask for up to £20m for a new worldwide initiative to widen security and improve responses to any nuclear attack.

Security measures at the UK’s civil nuclear sites are regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security which works closely with the Health and Safety Executive.

They provide advice on the safety implications of events, including the possibility of plane crashes at nuclear installations.

A spokeswoman for the BNFL, which runs seven of the UK’s nuclear plants, said its power stations were on increased security, in accordance with government advice.

“But we feel that there is no reason to believe our facilities are under threat,” she told BBC News Online.

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry told BBC News Online: “Both regulators are reviewing all relevant precautions in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in the USA.

“It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.”

Louis Charbonneau
National Post
November 1, 2001

Experts discuss security: Access to radioactive materials is ‘deeply troubling’

VIENNA (Reuters – The ruthlessness of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States shows that an act of nuclear terrorism is “far more likely” than previously thought, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said yesterday.

“The willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their lives to achieve their evil aims creates a new dimension in the fight against terrorism,” said Mohamed el-Baradei, the agency’s director-general.

Mr. el-Baradei, whose Vienna-based UN agency sets world standards for nuclear security, said the concern was no longer limited to the possibility of governments diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs.

“Now we have been alerted to the potential of terrorists targeting nuclear facilities or using radioactive sources to incite panic, contaminate property and even cause injury or death among civilian populations,” he said.

Experts from around the world have gathered at the IAEA’s headquarters this week to discuss security. In the light of the Sept. 11 attacks, they have added an extra session tomorrow devoted solely to the issue of nuclear terrorism.

Mr. el-Baradei’s remarks came as John Bolton, the U.S. Undersecretary of State, expressed similar fears in a meeting with journalists in Washington.

Answering questions at a breakfast with defence writers yesterday, Mr. Bolton predicted that if extremists possess weapons of mass destruction — the term encompasses nuclear, biological and chemical arms — they will use them.

“I’m concerned about weapons of mass destruction everywhere and my concern … has gone up since the [U.S.-led anti-terrorism] war began,” said the State Department’s top official dealing with arms control and international security affairs.

Sept. 11 proved that anybody willing to fly a jet airplane into the World Trade Center is “not going to be deterred by anything,” Mr. Bolton said. “Had these people had ballistic missile technology, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that they would have used it.”

Mr. Bolton refused to say if the United States knows whether Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of Islamic extremists have nuclear weapons.

Iran, Iraq and North Korea have long been key states of U.S. concern in regard to weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Some administration officials have urged including Iraq as a target in the war on terrorism but so far they have not prevailed.

Mr. Bolton sidestepped a direct answer on whether the United States believed Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear arsenal in any political instability that might result from its alliance with Washington in the anti-terrorism war.

Mr. el-Baradei called on countries around the world to take a careful inventory of the security risks at their nuclear power plants and to spend the money necessary to ensure they can prevent or withstand terrorist attacks.

Although there are no confirmed cases of terrorists using a nuclear weapon, Mr. el-Baradei said there was concern at reports some militant groups attempted to acquire nuclear material. Since 1993, there have been 175 known cases of trafficking in nuclear material and 201 cases of trafficking in other radioactive sources, such as those used for medical or industrial purposes.

But only 18 of these cases have actually involved highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the material needed to produce an atomic bomb. The IAEA believes the quantities involved to be insufficient to construct a nuclear explosive device.

“However, any such materials in illicit commerce and conceivably accessible to terrorist groups is deeply troubling,” Mr. el-Baradei said.

The IAEA estimates there has been a sixfold increase in nuclear material in peaceful programs worldwide since 1970.

There are 438 nuclear power reactors around the world and 651 research reactors, of which 284 are in operation.

While the level of security at nuclear facilities is generally considered to be very high, the IAEA believes the security of medical and industrial radiation sources is disturbingly weak in some countries.

“The controls on nuclear material and radioactive sources are uneven,” said Mr. el-Baradei. “Security is as good as its weakest link and loose nuclear material in any country is a potential threat to the entire world.”

While the IAEA is concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism, Mr. el-Baradei said it would be easy to exaggerate the consequences of an attack on a nuclear plant.

“Nuclear facilities are perhaps the strongest, most robust industrial structures in the world,” he said.

He said the soundness of nuclear facilities had been demonstrated in U.S. experiments in which a military jet was slammed into a concrete and steel structure identical to that of a nuclear power plant. The structure held.

Nevertheless, security at all nuclear plants must be kept tight: “After Sept. 11, we realized that nuclear facilities — like dams, refineries, chemical production facilities or skyscrapers — have their vulnerabilities,” Mr. el-Baradei said.

“There is no sanctuary any more, no safety zone.”

Richard Brennan
Toronto Star
October 31, 2001

$4.5 million for rapid-response OPP unit to protect nuclear plants

Premier Mike Harris has announced a $9-million package of security measures that will include rapid response and anti-terrorism units.

“Sept. 11 was a wake-up call for governments the world over. It was a reminder that we cannot take cherished freedoms and security for granted,” Harris told the Legislature yesterday.

The Premier said a $4.5 million rapid-response OPP unit will be equipped to protect nuclear facilities and water treatment plants, while the anti-terrorism unit, which will receive $3.5 million, will track down suspected terrorists and their supporters.

In addition, Harris said front-line police officers will be given $1 million for the “necessary equipment” to respond to chemical, biological and other kinds of attacks.

Ontario will also host a counter-terrorism summit “to allow the best minds in law enforcement and emergency services to share ideas and develop new strategies,” he said. A date for the summit, estimated to cost $500,000, has not been set, but more details are expected today from Solicitor-General David Turnbull.

The new measures were condemned by opposition critics who called the funding paltry and the measures little more than feel-good public relations.

“It has been 48 days since the horrific events of Sept. 11 (and) the fact of the matter is they (the Tories) have done very, very little,” charged Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty.

He estimated it would cost closer to $100 million — one-tenth of the money the government has set aside for infrastructure improvements — to properly protect the province against terrorism.

“This horrific event weighs heavily on the minds of our families … and has a dampening effect on our economy, and the best they can do today is to come up with some paltry supports for police measures,” he said.

New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton scoffed at the government’s measures to fight terrorism, reminding the Legislature it was the Tories who recently fired five top scientist in the microbiology field, saying Queen’s Park was more concerned with testing than research.

In a related matter, Attorney-General David Young called on Ottawa to create a new Criminal Code offence to specifically deal with terrorist hoaxes.

“The despicable acts of cowardice are diverting emergency personnel from true emergencies and are putting lives and personal safety at risk,” Young said, as he vowed to vigorously prosecute those responsible for hoaxes under existing mischief laws.

Liberal critic Michael Bryant (St. Paul’s) said there are already federal laws prohibiting things like bomb threats and anthrax hoaxes. “The government again seems to be making it up as they go along,” he said.

Young said the Tories also intend to introduce legislation to help families who need to obtain a death certificate as a result of Sept. 11. in order to probate wills and collect on life insurance policies.

Government plans also call for a special counter-terrorism task force of specialized crown attorneys to prosecute terrorist offences.

Stephen Graham, Associated Press
ENN
October 25, 2001

BERLIN — Germany’s environment minister on Wednesday urged a review of security at the country’s 19 nuclear power stations after it emerged that safety rules at one plant were broken for years. Lawmakers seized on the revelations to demand the delay of a contested shipment of radioactive waste next month. The convoy’s route to a north German dump was hit by an overnight arson attack.

The debate comes amid concern in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that nuclear installations could become terror targets. German officials acknowledge power stations here wouldn’t withstand the impact of a hijacked plane laden with fuel.

Confidence in atomic safety was shaken further Tuesday when Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg admitted that fluid in an emergency cooling system at its Philippsburg plant was knowingly kept below regulation levels for years.

Ordering Germany’s 16 states to review safety at the plants, Environment Minister Juergen Trittin said electricity firms must move fast to restore trust. The operator of the Philippsburg plant “has demonstrated irresponsible deficiencies in its security culture,” he said. The reactor, taken offline Oct. 8, must stay out of operation until “full transparency” is established on the cause of the lapse and steps are taken to prevent a repeat, he said.

Trittin, a member of Green party, negotiated an agreement this year with the electricity companies to phase out nuclear power completely within about 20 years. But antinuclear activists want a quicker shutdown. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Trittin has urged power companies to shut older, less robust, plants sooner and suggested the plants can be switched off quickly if authorities think they are threatened.

But the government has rejected the idea of deploying missiles to bring down hijacked planes, saying the power stations are too close to major airports for the danger to be recognized in time. Officials also stress that they have no current grounds to fear an attack.

The French military has stationed surface-to-air missiles at the La Hague plant, where Germany sends much of its nuclear waste for reprocessing.

Environmentalists warn that the waste shipments, long the target of protests by Germany’s militant antinuclear lobby, also are vulnerable.

German police said Wednesday that they suspected an overnight arson attack on a railroad bridge was linked to an upcoming waste transport from La Hague to Germany’s main storage dump. Tires and straw were rolled under the bridge on a trailer and set ablaze. The bridge, just a few kilometers from the Gorleben storage site, remained closed to train traffic Wednesday as authorities assessed the damage.

Lawmakers from Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s party stepped up calls for the shipment to be delayed to relieve police already working overtime to guard against terrorism. The deputy leader of the Social Democrats’ parliamentary group, Michael Mueller, said putting off the shipment would also help restore the image of the power industry after the security lapses at Phillipsburg and two other plants in recent months.

The exact date of the transport hasn’t been released for security reasons, but antinuclear activists have announced protests for the first week of November.

In April, demonstrators blocked rails and roads to delay the last shipment to Gorleben, despite the efforts of thousands of police officers. Police reported several attempts to sabotage rails and overhead power cables ahead of that shipment.