January 14, 2002
 
Governor Mike Easley
State of North Carolina
 
Subject:  Nuclear Terrorism Risks Require Your Attention
 
 
Dear Governor Easley,
 
I appreciate your public statements saying you will do all possible to protect North Carolina from terrorism.  However, I am concerned by your administration’s focus on chemical and biological terrorism risks to the apparent exclusion of risks at nuclear power plants.  I urge you to take a personal interest in pursuing measures that would reduce the risks at those plants.
 
Earlier this month, former ambassador Mark Erwin warned you and Gov. Hodges of South Carolina about the vulnerability of nuclear plants in the Carolinas, saying there are 100,000 terrorists in dozens of nations – including many in the U.S. – who are highly sophisticated, dedicated, well-funded, and “patient beyond our understanding.”   He repeats what Bush Administration officials have said:  The U.S. will be attacked again at some point.  Since Ambassador Erwin’s warning is based on years of experience in foreign policy, I trust that you are giving it your close personal attention.
 
I realize that your anti-terrorism task force has been dealing with a variety of important issues since September.  However, NC WARN and others have provided information several times that should be incorporated into your administration’s message to the public and into planning for potential emergencies, so that there is a realistic basis for decisions to increase the safety of the state’s residents.
 
You have emphasized the need for solid information.  However, your “security” web site contains only superficial information about risks of terrorism at nuclear plants, and spokespersons for your task force are providing inaccurate and incomplete information to the public.  For example, your web page entitled “Nuclear Plant Safety” is very similar to publicity by CP&L and Duke Power, and appears designed to ease public concerns instead of providing substantive information.  It excludes any mention of several important issues:  1) the overt and repeated threats by terrorists to attack nuclear plants; 2) federal studies showing the vulnerability of plants to attack by jetliners and other weapons; 3) the utilities’ clearly demonstrated inability to ensure protection against ground-level assault, and 4) the largest and most vulnerable potential target at each plant, the cooling pools for irradiated fuel rods.
 
I was surprised to discover that one of your task force’s spokespersons did not know that CP&L transports those rods (high-level waste) to Shearon Harris, and in December told one resident that storage at nuclear plants is “much safer than if it were on the highway being moved to another location.”  Many experts agree with that ill-informed but correct statement.  CP&L is the only utility transporting this lethal waste, and does so by train many times each year.

Also, the State’s response to potential terrorism places almost sole attention on the issue of emergency planning – how to respond if a disaster occurs.  While such planning is of course necessary, I urge you to instruct your task force to fully explore all opportunities to prevent damage from terrorism.  On October 10th, twelve public officials sent you a letter detailing feasible measures that could greatly reduce the risk of a radiation release at nuclear plants.  Twenty-five officials have now endorsed that plan.  But in numerous responses to the public, your task force has seemed oblivious to this risk reduction plan, and when asked by citizens about reducing risks from potential attacks on nuclear waste transport and storage, responses are being redirected to the issue of how much security is present at the nuclear plants.
 
Since CP&L and Duke Power operate 11 nuclear reactors and 14 waste cooling pools in the Carolinas, your partnership with South Carolina’s Gov. Hodges is an opportunity to address risk avoidance.   There is no way to ensure that security alone can prevent an attack; there are too many attack scenarios to protect against – some, such as attacks by air, simply cannot be prevented.  The only prudent approach is to minimize the potential targeting – and the damage that could occur if a plant were attacked.
 
Ambassador Erwin notes correctly that an attack on a nuclear plant could make destruction of the World Trade Center “pale in comparison.”  With ten million** pounds of high-level waste already stored at Shearon Harris, and with CP&L planning to double that stockpile, there is the potential for a radiation disaster of historic proportions.  That risk could be almost entirely avoided by eliminating transports and by storing irradiated fuel rods in small batches in reinforced concrete casks surrounded by earth or gravel mounds, which would mute the effects of a fire or explosion.  This is a simple and inexpensive approach.
 
On December 6th, we apprised you that the U.S. General Accounting Office calls pursuit of a national repository for used nuclear fuel “a failed scientific process” that will take at least a decade to correct.  Ironically, in pressing for politics to override science at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, the nuclear industry and the D.O.E. are using the argument that the storage pools at the nation’s nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack.   It is clear that if a national repository is ever opened, it will not be for many years.  Thus, North Carolina must fully and honestly address the risks for waste storage at each nuclear plant.
 
Along with Ambassador Erwin, the Bush Administration cautions that terrorists might wait years before striking again.  Elected officials in other states, particularly those in New York, are aggressively calling for action to protect against attacks on nuclear plants.  CP&L and Duke Power, which are among the state’s largest corporations, have an obvious interest in downplaying publicity about the vulnerability of their plants.  They also apply prodigious pressure on public officials at every level to remain silent on controversial issues involving these utilities’ operations.
 
Local and state officials, along with our organization, have called for these companies’ cooperation in addressing and minimizing risks.  The Risk Reduction Plan is on the table, and many people, including two professors retired from N.C. State University’s nuclear program, are convinced it would largely eliminate the risk of attack.  I hope you will commit to ensuring that full and open consideration is given to this plan and the other opportunities for risk minimization.  With your help, and influence with the utilities, North Carolina can lead the nation in protecting against a potentially catastrophic attack on its nuclear power plants.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jim Warren
Executive Director
 
PS.  I would appreciate it if you would have a copy of your reply to Ambassador Erwin sent to me.
 
cc:  Elected officials
      William Cavanaugh, CP&L/Progress Energy
      Rick Priory, Duke Energy
      Ambassador Mark Erwin

** This data was mis-stated. CP&L is progressing toward storing 10 million pounds of high-level nuclear waste, the total of all four cooling pools once filled. It is estimated that Shearon Harris presently holds 3-4 million pounds of waste.