If nuclear reactor casings were penetrated, whether by an aerial attack similar to one seen on Sept. 11, 2001, or by ground forces the aftermath has the potential to be the worst disaster in U.S. history. Radioactive material emitted could release 100 times the amount of radiation that was seen after the Hiroshima atomic bomb in 1945, experts say.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent government agency charged with regulating the nation's 104 commercial nuclear power reactors and setting regulations for safety at those sites, says they have taken substantial steps to thwart such a scenario.

"Most Sept. 11 security enhancements were across the board," Holly Herrington, spokeswoman for the NRC, told United Press International. Among these improvements were more security patrols with additional training and background checks as well as additional physical barriers to the plants themselves.

But Dan Hirsch, president of nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, or CBG, sees nuclear reactor safety in a different light. Nuclear reactors are highly vulnerable to an aerial attack, he told UPI.

"The NRC has done nothing to protect reactors from aerial attacks, and has done nothing very slowly," he said.

Nearly three years ago, CBG sought to stop that threat. They submitted a petition requesting that the NRC mandate construction of a beam-hinge shield around all reactors that could potentially stop an aircraft from being flown into the reactors. The same petition also endorsed increasing the number of Design Basis Threat potential attackers to those seen on Sept. 11.

The shield that CBG endorses would be constructed of steel I-beams and is believed able to stop even a commercial aircraft from activating any nuclear material in the reactor. The cost of these shields, he said, would be less than 1 percent of the construction cost of the reactors themselves.

"The fundamental premise is that you want an attack to impart its energy on something that doesn't matter," said Hirsch.

A 2002 report done by the Electric Power Research Institute at the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the U.S. nuclear energy and technologies industry, disputes Hirsch's claims, and found that "used fuel storage pools, fuel storage containers, and used fuel transportation containers at U.S. nuclear power plants would withstand these impact forces despite some concrete crushing and bent steel."

"This confidence is predicated on the fact that nuclear plant structures have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme over-pressures and hurricane force winds," the report stated, and could similarly withstand aircraft strikes.

Because of this report, the NEI says construction of the shield proposed by the CBG would be extraneous.

"It's not necessary," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the NEI. "Because of the way the facilities are built so sturdily, there would not be a breach of the radioactive contents of the facility."

Money that would be spent to construct the shield would be better used elsewhere, he said.

James Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, agreed with Kerekes. Reactor defenses are highly fortified, he said, and more credit should be given to their ability.

"Overall, (reactors) are just not a very good target because plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes," said Lewis.

"It's a waste of money," Lewis said of the beam shield. "This isn't something you need to do, because the odds of success are so small without doing anything. You could invest in other areas that are more important."

However, other experts disagree with this assessment.

Next: NEI safety assessments challenged.

Related Links
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission