Protection of the United States' critical infrastructure and hazardous facilities — particularly nuclear power plants and chemical plants — against terrorist attacks is an absolute must. In his January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush said that U.S. forces “found diagrams of American nuclear power plants” in al-Qaeda materials in Afghanistan. An al-Qaeda training manual lists nuclear plants as among the best targets for spreading fear in the U.S.

Experts say that an attack on a nuclear power plant, all of which in the U.S. are guarded by private security forces hired by the plants and supervised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), couldn’t lead to a nuclear explosion, according to the nonpartisan Council of Foreign Relations. The danger, they say, is that attackers could cause a meltdown or a fire or set off a major conventional explosion, all of which could spew radiation into nearby cities and towns.

Currently, there are 103 operating commercial nuclear reactors producing electricity in the U.S., located at 64 sites in 31 states.

And indeed, hundreds of new U.S. power plants are planned in the next few years, reported Industry Week last Friday. “They include coal-fired, gas-fired, a solar electric power plant in Nevada and others fueled by renewable resources. Even nuclear has rejoined the conversation when it comes to power generation, although when and whether it ever translates into new power plants in the United States remains uncertain.” (Start-up construction of a new nuclear power plant hasn't occurred in this country in 32 years.)

The government has taken some action to ensure nuclear power plants remain safe:

• U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and small plane crashes. Their “containment walls” are typically made of two to five feet of reinforced concrete with an interior steel lining.
• In February 2002, the NRC issued an advisory to the nation’s 103 nuclear power plants that terrorists might try to fly hijacked planes into some of them. And eight governors have independently ordered the National Guard to protect nuclear reactors in their states.
• Generally, plants are protected by fences, intrusion-detection devices, barriers and armed private security forces hired by the power plants’ operators. The private companies that run the plants are also legally required to plan for emergencies, including evacuation scenarios.

Consider, however, an article last week from the Associated Press (via Forbes) that reported “a government defense plan for nuclear power plants assumes an attack would come from less than half the number of Sept. 11 hijackers and they wouldn't be armed with rocket-propelled grenades or other weapons often used by terrorists overseas.”

According to critics of the largely classified, AP-reported security document, such assumptions could make plants vulnerable to a terrorist takeover.

Sources, which include various congressional investigators, private watchdog groups and NRC-accessible industry representatives, say the defense plan assumes an attack force of roughly double the number that had been used in government planning before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At that time, plants were required to anticipate no more than four adversaries, including an “insider” accomplice. Nineteen al-Qaida terrorists were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Expressing concern that the upgraded defense plan falls well short, attorneys general from seven states — which together have 31 of the nation’s 103 commercial power reactors — wrote the NRC last year saying that the agency “should require defense attacks […] by groups at least as large as that involved in the 9/11 attacks.”

The commission rejected staff recommendations to require guard forces at reactors to be capable of defending against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), powerful “platter explosive charges capable of penetrating six feet of concrete, homemade torpedoes, and .50-caliber armor-piercing ammunition. These NRC decisions were confirmed by industry and congressional sources familiar with the deliberations on the defense plan.

The nuclear industry says most of the requirements already have been implemented and that nuclear power plants are much more secure than other potential terrorist targets such as chemical plants.

"We feel pretty good on balance that we have the right level or protection," says Steven Floyd, vice president for regulatory affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobbying group.

Overall, the industry says it has spent about $1.2 billion on better defenses and more guards at its 64 reactor sites in 31 states since the al-Qaida attacks in 2001.

As for chemical plants, protection is just as hazy. According to the New York Times, in late December 2005, “more than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress has still not acted to make chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest terrorist vulnerabilities, safer.”

The NY Times continued:

If terrorists attacked a chemical plant, the death toll could be enormous. A single breached chlorine tank could, according to the Department of Homeland Security, lead to 17,500 deaths, 10,000 severe injuries and 100,000 hospitalizations. Many chemical plants have shockingly little security to defend against such attacks.

As such, Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, two months ago unveiled a bipartisan chemical plant security bill that “requires chemical plants to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security and emergency response plans.” Further, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to develop performance standards for chemical plant security. In extreme cases, plants that do not meet the standards could be shut down.

A leading antiterrorism expert, according to the New York Times, has described the nation's chemical plants as “15,000 weapons of mass destruction littered around the United States.”

References/Resources

Report Profiles Nuclear-Plant Attackers
by H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press (via Forbes), Feb. 22, 2006

Time for Chemical Plant Security
New York Times (Select), Dec. 27, 2005

Energy: New Plants, Old Problems
by Jill Jusko
Industry Week, published: Feb. 24, 2006

Nuclear Facilities: Could terrorists target U.S. nuclear power plants?
Council on Foreign Affairs

Resources

Emergency Preparedness for Business: Facility Protection
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Nuclear Plant Safety
PBS series, NOW

Protecting Chemical Plants from Catastrophic Failures, Part 1
by William Wayman
Security Info. Watch, Feb. 10, 2005

Protecting Chemical Plants from Catastrophic Failures, Part 2
by William Wayman
Security Info. Watch, March 16, 2005

Are You Ready? Nuclear Power Plants
FEMA, Jan. 28, 2005