NRC Rulemaking on Terror Attacks a “Deliberate and Institutionalized Threat” to Illinois

CHICAGO— The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced rules regarding terrorist attacks against nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools which deliberately ignore the reality of the nature and magnitude of terrorist threats; and which institutionalize a permanent state of unacceptable threat to Illinois, the most nuclear reliant state in the U.S., asserts an Illinois nuclear watchdog organization.
“This ruling is utter Orwellian nonsense. NRC’s decision to wash its hands of its responsibility to safeguard nuclear reactors from real, already-demonstrated, present-day threats demonstrates both an abdication of its regulatory responsibilities, and near-criminal disregard for the safety of the public,” asserts David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS). “Congressional action will be sought to force NRC to behave rationally and responsible according to their mandate,” states Kraft.
The NRC issued its final “design-basis threat” (DBT) rules, a set of generic specifications and criteria which nuclear reactor operators like Exelon must meet to demonstrate their ability to defend against terrorist threats. For the entire decade preceding 911, nuclear critics documented the numerous inadequacies of NRC’s old DBT rules. After 911 critics expanded this critique to include the haphazard and inadequate regulations NRC had in place to resist what it termed a “determined intruder” – a euphemistic description of potential terrorist assaults, particularly those represented by potential crash of commercial airliners into reactors or more vulnerable spent fuel pools.
“If the old pre-911 DBT rules demonstrated merely incompetent or outdated assumptions about terrorist threats, the current post-911 NRC rules can only be viewed as deliberately – and criminally – ignoring the lessons and degree of such threat,” Kraft says.
“If nuclear reactors and their less-well defended and reinforced spent fuels pools are not capable of withstanding the threats posed in the 21st Century, then they should not be permitted to continue operating in the 21st Century,” Kraft maintains.
The heart of the criticism is NRC’s refusal to require that reactors and spent fuel pools be capable of withstanding the deliberate crashing of a commercial or military aircraft into such facilities without catastrophic release of radiation – even after ample government documentation that shows reactors are potential terrorist targets; and after constructive solutions were provided by nuclear critics to make the sites safer and more resistant to such suicide crashes. Instead of requiring reactors – either those presently in operation or being designed as the “next-generation” of reactors – to be constructed or protected in ways that would enhance their survivability, the NRC chose instead to falsely claim that it was not their responsibility, but rather that of the FAA and the military; and that plans to mitigate large radiation releases around potential crash sites were already in place and adequate to protect the public health and safety.
“This unconscionable attitude is akin to claiming that shipbuilders after the Titanic disaster need not have taken measures to reinforce ship design to better withstand collision – because more lifeboats would be ordered aboard ship. This is a monstrous abdication of the NRC’s responsibility to protect the public from radiation accidents; and even the nuclear industry itself from loss of assets,” Kraft notes.
“NRC’s ‘pass-the-buck’ to the military/FAA attitude expressed in this rule also deserves closer scrutiny, and perhaps Congressional attention. If citizen boaters or those injured and med-evac-ed from national parks can be charges service fees for their rescue, then clearly NRC must be in favor of the nuclear utilities and reactor operators paying the ‘service charges’ for their expected heightened FAA or military services,” Kraft insists. “Perhaps this should also argue for the repeal of the Price Anderson Act, which artificially limits utility liability in the event of catastrophic release of radioactive materials. NRC can’t credibly argue this position out of both sides of its mouth,” Kraft maintained.
“Seventeen reactors and more vulnerable spent fuel pools lie less than 30 minutes of normal-looking flight time from the world’s busiest airport. This NRC rule poses a far greater threat to Illinois and the Great Lakes than most other locations in the US. For Illinois this is no mere intellectual game; it is a question of economic and environmental survival in the post-911 world,” Kraft observes.
NEIS and dozens of other safe-energy and anti-nuclear organizations submitted detailed responses to NRC’s initial call for public comments in 2005. NRC ignored nearly all of their input and suggestions in the new DBT rules. NEIS’s detailed comments are available upon request.
“Once again NRC demonstrates that it is incapable of regulating the nuclear industry. Just as it has consistently waived and bent regulations to keep faulty or leaking reactors operating, it is content on bending reality to avoid protecting reactors and the public from 21st Century threats. NRC provides the illusion of regulation without any of the substance. Its pronouncements can no longer be accepted at face value without independent verification. As such today’s DBT rule is another argument in favor of dissolution of this rouge agency,” Kraft asserts.

-- 30 --

Nuclear Energy Information Service is an Illinois non-profit nuclear power watchdog and safe-energy education organization.