February 15, 2008—The risks of a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor at a college campus—and the potential consequences—have been underestimated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Congressional auditors say in a report.
According to The New York Times, the report, by the Government Accountability Office, says the commission overruled expert contractors who thought differently, and misrepresented what the contractors had said.
Security requirements at the reactors have changed little since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to the auditors, even though many of the reactors still run on enriched uranium, which terrorists could convert into an atomic bomb. In contrast, the rules for civilian power plants have become much stricter, the report said.
An unclassified version of the audit found uncertainty about whether NRC’s assessment reflects the full range of security risks and potential consequences of an attack on a research reactor. The audit said that the rules may need immediate strengthening and that more parts of research reactors were probably vulnerable to damage than the commission assumed.
Research reactors typically are less than 1 percent as powerful as civilian power reactors, and they usually do not operate under pressure, so there is less energy available to spread radioactive material in case of attack or accident. They are used for scientific research, training and making medical isotopes.
But while power reactors are surrounded by fences and guard towers, the research reactors are often in buildings on densely populated campuses. Some have added concrete Jersey barriers to protect against truck bombs, and better doors. But the “first responders” who would arrive if intruders set off an alarm are most likely to be the unarmed campus police officers, the audit said.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission asserted to The New York Times that it was the Government Accountability Office, not the commission, that had misrepresented the position of the outside experts, and made “unsupported assumptions.”
For more information, see the GAO report.
