|
Citizens Awareness Network
· Riverkeeper
· Mothers for Peace
· NC WARN
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
Contact: | Dr. Gordon Thompson: 617-491-5177 |
| June 22, 2004 | | Jim Warren: 919-416-5077 |
| | | Deb Katz: 413-339-5781 |
Scientists, Groups Repeat Demand for Protection of Nuclear Plants
9/11 Panel Says
Plants are Targets; Groups Say They Are Highly Vulnerable
DURHAM, NC – With the 9/11 commission and its witnesses divulging last Wednesday that additional air-based
terrorist attacks have already been attempted, that more major attacks are likely in the near future, and that
nuclear power plants are top al-Qaeda targets, scientists and watchdog groups from across the U.S. today repeated
their demand that the Bush Administration immediately order measures to reduce the risk of a catastrophic
radiation release at power plants.
The 9/11 commission staff reported Wednesday that “unidentified nuclear power plants” were
among the ten targets originally planned for attack on Sept. 11. In startling testimony before the commission
Wednesday, two CIA officials claimed the agency has thwarted several al-Qaeda attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, and
one said, “I think we've probably prevented a few aviation attacks against both the East and West coasts.”
Groups from the Northeast to the West coast to the South today pointed to the latest revelations as
validation of their years-long call for security upgrades, including hardening the storage of “spent” fuel rods.
Added to Wednesday’s disclosures is the increasing consensus among independent technical experts that nuclear
plants are poorly defended against various types of air attacks – including small planes loaded with explosives –
and small, determined teams of ground level attackers.
Since the late 1990s, reactor watchdogs and experts have warned that pools filled with
highly radioactive used fuel rods are highly vulnerable to acts of malice, and that a loss of cooling water could
lead to an unprecedented release of radiation into the atmosphere. Since September 11, activists have been
joined by bipartisan elected officials in criticizing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for engaging in a
public relations campaign rather than taking meaningful actions to enhance plant security and defend reactor
sites from a post-9/11 attack. The NRC has even refused to consider terrorism when considering licensing
challenges in California and the Northeast.
Importantly, one of Wednesday’s counter-terrorism witnesses stated clearly that hardening
critical targets is a proven tactic in deterring attacks – testimony with clear implications for reactor sites
and irradiated fuel.
“Where is the Bush administration on this important issue?” said Rochelle Becker of Mothers for
Peace in California, whose group is suing the NRC to force it to consider terrorism in licensing decisions.
“The threat is real and yet the President has not demanded that nuclear power plants and high-level
radioactive waste sites be protected to the extent possible. There is no doubt nuclear plants must STILL be
considered potential targets, and we know how to greatly reduce the risks, but are being ignored by the NRC.”
Her group is leading a national call for a Senate Oversight hearing on the NRC’s negligence regarding
terrorism.
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton said during Wednesday’s hearing that "we have
almost no information with regard to their [al Qaeda] capabilities in the United States," a statement
confirmed by an FBI counter-terrorism witness. Last month, British researchers concluded that the terrorist
organization is well financed, well populated and decentralized. One of the CIA’s witnesses told the commission
that al-Qaeda is “is moving an attack forward using what capabilities it has left to attack the homeland in
the next few months.”
In October 2002, 27 state attorneys general warned Congress: “the consequences of a
catastrophic attack against a nuclear power plant are simply incalculable … urgent steps must be taken … [to]
enhance protections for one of the most vulnerable components of a nuclear power plant – its spent fuel pools.”
Yet the NRC remains frozen.
Dr. Gordon Thompson has long argued that the comparative consequences of attack on a nuclear plant are
unparalleled in their potential for widespread social and economic devastation. He was joined last year by
researchers from Princeton, MIT and other institutions in calling for feasible measures to deter attack:
- Overcrowded highly radioactive “spent” fuel pools should be returned to the original low-density
configuration – reducing the chances of a spent fuel pool fire by 80%;
- All older waste assemblies should be stored in hardened, high grade casks (currently licensed casks have
varying quality and are only licensed for 20 years, but could remain onsite for decades);
- Nuclear waste casks should be separated from each other, and further secured by berms or bunkers.
“Even if a proposed national repository at Yucca Mountain was to open by 2015, and
that’s a big IF, nuclear spent fuel waste will remain onsite over the next three decades, and possibly longer if
plants like Indian Point are relicensed,” said Kyle Rabin of Riverkeeper, which is advocating for more
robust spent fuel storage at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, 24 miles north of New York City. “The
Department of Energy’s proposed shipment schedule will span decades as the waste is gradually transported from
Indian Point out to Yucca,” said Rabin. “In the interim we need to better secure Indian Point’s spent fuel
storage systems.”
He added that millions of Americans are at risk from a terrorist attack at various nuclear facilities. Few
enhancements to security have been required at U.S. plants, and the few that have been made are solely the result
of industry input. The Bush administration has barred independent security experts, state and local emergency
personnel from providing important input that could create the defense-in-depth needed to reduce risks.
As the National Research Council readies a classified report to Congress, due within weeks, on its findings
regarding spent fuel storage safety, the nuclear power industry has continued its public relations effort by
claiming that the nation’s spent fuel pools would not necessarily burn if attacked.
“Nuclear reactors are predeployed weapons of mass destruction. An attack on a reactor’s fuel pool could
lead to the release of millions of curies of toxic radioactive waste that would create a regional catastrophe
leaving thousands of miles uninhabitable for decades,” said Deb Katz executive director of Citizens
Awareness Network, a regional group located in the Northeast. CAN commissioned a report by Dr. Thompson on the
vulnerability of fuel pool storage. “It is intolerable that reactor communities have to live with a
terrorist target in their midst; fearful for their children and their communities. The risk is unacceptable.”
| 
