"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission really should take the aerial threat more seriously by actually evaluating the real consequences if there were to be a successful strike by an aircraft," said Lyman.

"The facts are clear," he said. "Of course a major mechanical and thermal assault on a plant that would be caused by the crash could damage any number of systems."

Charles Ferguson, senior fellow for science and technology with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., said the beam-hinge proposal of protecting nuclear reactors from being hit by aircraft through the creation of open steel frames around them merited additional study.

"It seems like a relatively small price to pay," he said. "There's still cause for concern, such as cargo planes that aren't screened as well as passenger airplanes."

But more public discussion on the issue of increased safety at plants could be a double-edged sword, Ferguson said.

"The NRC is afraid that if they have more public discussion, that might raise the threat profile," Ferguson said. "But, more public discussion puts more pressure on industry leaders."

For now, the future of the proposed beam-hinge shield is still in limbo. Although the comment period has already been closed on the petition to adopt beam hinge protection, the NRC is still evaluating the proposal. A ruling on the petition is expected at the end of October, Holly Herrington, spokeswoman for the NRC, told UPI.

Lyman said he can "only assume (the NRC) will end up saying no" to the petition by the nuclear watchdog group, the Committee to Bridge the Gap, or CBG.

Dan Hirsch, president of the CBG, is doubtful too. He puts much of the blame on the powerful nuclear energy lobby, in particular the NEI.

"The NRC is perhaps the most captured regulatory agency in Washington," said Hirsch. "Rather than protect the public health they view their job as protecting industrial interests."

Hirsch pointed to a March report by the Government Accountability Office as evidence that the NEI had discouraged raising even the Design Basis Threat, or DBT, evaluation of civilian nuclear power reactors.

"The GAO report raised serious questions as to why the DBT was below even that of the Department of Energy's (attack scenario)," he said.

However, Herrington disagreed with Hirsch's characterization of the NRC.

"We make the decisions based on the right reasons, based on risk and analysis," she told UPI. "That doesn't mean that folks don't try to push us in one direction or another."

During a March 30 hearing by the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Danielle Brian, executive director for the Project on Government Oversight, testified that "the GAO reveals a shocking level of influence by the nuclear industry during the NRC's process of determining these security requirements."

She pointed to a portion of the GAO report that stated "a number of changes (to its initial recommendations) reflected industry objections to the draft."

NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes responded that the report noted that "the process used to obtain stakeholder feedback created the appearance that changes were made based on what the industry considered reasonable and feasible to defend against rather than on an assessment of the terrorist threat itself," and that this was simply the GAO's view. He said the report later says that the process to review the DBT "was generally logical and well defined."

"Nothing in this report challenges nor undercuts our belief, and that of many independent experts, that nuclear power plants are very well defended, and particularly so relative to other parts of the nation's industrial infrastructure," said Kerekes.

"GAO's findings address its perceptions of the process surrounding the Design Basis Threat. Those are two very different things," he said.

"We would challenge someone to find better," Kerekes said. "It is our belief that they are the best-defended facilities in the nation's industrial infrastructure."

Second of two parts

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Civil Nuclear Energy Science, Technology and News
Union of Concerned Scientists
Nuclear Energy Institute
Civil Nuclear Energy Science, Technology and News
Powering The World in the 21st Century at Energy-Daily.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News