June 17, 2009
Sensitive nuclear information has leaked out. A 266-page document that is considered "highly confidential" but not "classified" and containing information on this country's civilian nuclear sites has been mistakenly made public.
On the whole, it is a stain on nuclear energy. And while the industry's foes will use the mishap as a public relations weapon, the matter does pose a broader, legitimate question, namely whether this country is prepared to ward off or to deal with any terrorist attack on its critical infrastructure.
Every utility in America has taken steps to safeguard the security of its facilities as well as develop robust systems that can continue to generate and deliver power if attacked. Preventing arbitrary acts is still an obstacle. But the erection of barriers along with emergency practices if disaster does strike has long been underway -- processes that experts say will keep the country's power flowing in times of crisis.
The most recent confidential data, which was placed on the Internet by the Government Printing Office in early June, contained detailed maps explaining where nuclear fuels were stored. Much of the information applied to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. But the material also had intelligence on the Argonne, Livermore and Sandia National Labs as well as a Westinghouse Electric Co.'s research unit in Pittsburgh.
Energy insiders say that while the incident is "embarrassing," it is not a disaster. That's because the information had already been publicly available, although now it could be located in one easy web-based location. The flare-up came about as President Obama first released the data to the printing office in preparation for its delivery to Congress. It has since been removed from the printing division's web site.
It's all part of the administration's efforts to abide by an earlier international agreement that sets out to create more transparency among nations as to what they are doing in the nuclear field. By providing such information to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Paris, the president has said his goal is to encourage other, more deviant nations such as Iran to do the same.
The National Nuclear Security Administration issued a statement saying that it has thoroughly reviewed the case and has found that national security has not been compromised. But the Federation of American Scientists winces, saying that the matter amounts to a "one-stop" shopping process for would-be terrorists.
"That is of great concern," says the U.S. Department of Energy's Secretary Steven Chu, at a congressional hearing. "We will be looking hard and making sure the physical security of those lab sites is sufficient to prevent people, terrorists, others from getting hold of that material."
Critical Infrastructure
The United States was undoubtedly broadsided in 2001. But the federal government has strategized and met continually with the industry in the intervening years. The Department of Homeland Security has focused on the sharing of intelligence while the power sector specifically has greatly enhanced its physical and cyber security measures.
According to a new General Accountability Office (GAO) study on nuclear safety, the U.S. Department of Energy must guard against sophisticated techniques such as having a gang of terrorists take over a plant that contains radioactive material in an effort to build a basic nuclear bomb. Current plans conceive of such an effort but go on to predict that any terrorists would be detained on the way out.
Meanwhile, the study adds that nuclear storage facilities all have security plans centered on a small band of terrorists who might enter facilities. But the Energy Department says that special nuclear material sites are exposed to a large-scale attack, although those that handle nuclear weapons have adequate safety precautions.
A subsequent GAO report reports that the nuclear power plants had made "substantial improvements" to security since the attacks on 9/11. But it added that such changes were premised on the notion of what the industry had considered to be "reasonable" and "feasible" as opposed to any assessment of the terrorist threat itself.
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, all nuclear facilities are now required to counter terrorists' threats using multifaceted protective systems that include integrated alarms and sensors, physical barriers such as concrete blocks and special nuclear material detectors as well as metal detectors. At the same time, all such plants have a heavily armed paramilitary security force that is equipped with automatic weapons, night vision equipment, body armor and chemical protective gear.
Perhaps the greatest danger to nuclear plants could come from the air, or possibly by missile. More than half of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors are located near population centers, including two near Washington, D.C., and two close to New York City. Also at risk are the nuclear reactors and radioactive fuel deposits that are in transport.
Such attacks, however, would still be difficult to pull off. Even if a ground assault could succeed at getting past armed guards and concrete barriers, experts say that a nuclear reactor could be quickly shut down. Air attacks, meanwhile, would be more difficult to ward off but nuclear power plants are small targets. Moreover, the strength of a reactor's containment dome, say some experts, could withstand that kind of strike.
Exelon Nuclear, the largest nuclear power plant operator in the United States with 17 reactors on 10 sites, says that its security is top-notch. Plain-clothed employees carry semi-automatic weapons while all cars are searched for explosives. And, barricades surround facilities to impede speeding vehicles.
Protecting the country's critical assets is of paramount importance and a process that is perpetually evolving so as to meet potential new threats. The publishing of sensitive nuclear material is unfortunate and it shows that nearly eight years after the 9/11 attacks, the nation still has weak points.
Respond to the editor.
Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog
