The New York Times The New York Times Washington October 24, 2002  

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia/Photos
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version




Find More Low Fares! Experience Orbitz!


Highest in Satisfaction 3x by J.D. Power!


25 COMMISSION-FREE TRADES Join Ameritrade today!


Go to Advanced Search/ArchiveGo to Advanced Search/ArchiveSymbol Lookup
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  Welcome, paulryder1

ASSESSING RISKS

Split on Nuclear Plants: Weak Spot or Fortress?

By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — In the what's-next guessing game that began after the terrorist attacks last year, a divide has opened up among experts assessing the risk to the public from attacks on nuclear power plants.

Many current and former government officials say the reactors are in Al Qaeda's cross hairs, but inside the industry, many executives counter that what drives the issue is politics and unreasoning fear.

Current and former high-ranking officials at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland for a recent exercise on how to cope with terrorism illustrated this divide. Over two days, they simulated a meeting of the National Security Council and were fed hypothetical situations in which intelligence, vague and conflicting at first but becoming more specific as the hours went by, indicated an attack somewhere in the eastern United States.

They were also given an assessment that said that the targets vulnerable to the widest range of threats were not nuclear reactors, but places where chemicals were manufactured or stored.

Almost immediately, the role-players shifted the discussion to how to protect the reactors.

"The players defaulted in that direction," said Dave McIntyre, the deputy director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security, a nonprofit group that sponsored the exercise with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. McIntyre said he thought the concern with reactors was an unnecessary detour, because their security had been improved far more than security for other potential targets. But the group did not see it that way.

Reporters who were allowed to sit in on the exercise had to agree not to quote the participants, to allow them, the sponsors said, "to be as open and candid as possible" in the drill.

The group included former Senator Sam Nunn, playing the president; James M. Loy, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, playing the role of secretary of homeland security; Charles Curtis, a former under secretary of energy, playing energy secretary; George Terwilliger, former acting attorney general, as attorney general; R. James Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director, as national security adviser; Wesley Clark, the former supreme allied commander in Europe, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Other participants played the jobs they used to have: James S. Gilmore III, former governor of Virginia; Shirley Jackson, former chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; James Lee Witt, former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Dee Dee Myers, a former White House spokeswoman.

They explored creating a 50-mile zone around each nuclear plant where all flights would be banned, or bringing in antiaircraft batteries.

On the other side, some people outside the simulation who are actually in charge of security at nuclear plants say they do not believe that they are threatened by terrorism, and are unenthusiastic about security improvements.

Mark P. Findlay, the director of security at the Nuclear Management Company, which operates six Midwestern reactors, said in a telephone interview that there had been no credible threats against nuclear plants, and that he would prefer not to hire more guards now, for fear of having to lay them off later.

"How do I deal with staffing levels when I have a government that's based on politics and not events and credible threats?" Mr. Findlay said.

The airlines might once have said the same, and there have been attacks on nuclear plants abroad.

Mr. Findlay is not alone. Last month, 19 current and former executives in the nuclear power plant field published a paper in Science magazine that asserted that a reactor could easily withstand a crash of the kind that destroyed the World Trade Center, a position disputed by others, including some on whose work the authors relied. The Science article argued that talk of vulnerability was simply wild-eyed conjecture by people who never liked nuclear power anyway.

That category includes at least some local government officials who are now uneasy about the reactors in their midst. In the neighborhood of the Indian Point reactors, 40 miles north of midtown Manhattan, local governments have passed resolutions against them. In Westchester County, where the two plants are, the County Board of Legislators voted on Sept. 9 to close them eventually.

If the plants are so safe, why are so many people worried about them?

"The news media has made the nuclear industry the poster child for the post-Sept. 11 world," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. "People who have been inundated for a year now gravitate toward that topic."

"Some media grad student ought to do a study of air time and column inches dedicated to the subject," Mr. Kerekes said.

Peter Stockton, a nuclear security expert who is a former special assistant to the secretary of energy, drew a different conclusion. Mr. Stockton, who now works on civilian power plant security questions with the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group here, said the power plant managers were in denial as the managers of nuclear weapons plants were when he was at the Energy Department.

"They say, `We've been at this for 50 years and we've never been attacked yet,' " he said. "They believe a credible threat is that a terrorist group has targeted that one plant, and they're coming."

Paul M. Blanch, an engineer who found safety problems a decade ago at the nuclear utility where he worked, and whom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later said was mistreated by his employer as a result, said the denial was "par for the course for the nuclear industry."

"The industry has been defensive about every threat, whether it's security or accident," Mr. Blanch said.

"If something happens, like happened with airlines, maybe they wouldn't be so defensive," he said, "but it hasn't happened yet. "





DONOR WON PRAISE IN ENERGY REPORT  (March 24, 2002)  $

National Briefing | Washington: Protection From Radiation  (February 5, 2002) 

Pataki Urges Reassessment Of Safety Plan  (February 2, 2002)  $

A NATION CHALLENGED: DOMESTIC SECURITY; A-Plant Drill For Guards Is Inadequate, Group Says  (December 17, 2001)  $



Doing research? Search the archive for more than 500,000 articles:




E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Start the day informed with home delivery of The New York Times newspaper.
Click Here for 50% off.


Home | Back to Washington | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints

Advertisement

If your eyes have changed... shouldn’t your light?

Scientists adapt NASA technology to create "smart bed" sleep surface

Melanin glasses—nature’s solution to hazardous light

Keep your hands on the wheel and let your cell phone take notes

If you don’t back up your hard drive immediately...don’t blame us!

A feature-rich digital camera at a price you can afford

How can they pack this much power and zoom into a binocular this small?

Is someone watching you?



Topics

 Alerts
Atomic Energy
Terrorism
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
United States Politics and Government
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Sign Up for Newsletters










You can now track properties that interest you, with our Real Estate Tracker. Click here to sign up for the e-mail and start receiving information on the latest properties on the market.








Search by Zip Code:

Sign up for E-Mail Alerts,
Luxury & Vacation Homes
Hamptons
Florida
Wine Country
Western States
More...

Mortgage & Moving Services