CourcyInt

COURCYINT SPECIAL BULLETIN

To: All Courcy's Intelligence Service members

Date: 23 July 2004

From: Joe de Courcy, Chief Executive, Courcy's Intelligence Service

Subject: The threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities

SUMMARY

The threat from radiological and nuclear terrorism can be divided into three main categories:

* Terrorists detonating nuclear weapons, either by stealing weapons or by stealing nuclear material and constructing their own device.

* Terrorists dispersing radioactive material by means of a 'dirty bomb'.

* Terrorists dispersing radioactive material by means of sabotage of a nuclear installation or a shipment of radioactive materials.

Following the House of Commons Defence Select Committee's July 2002 report on Defence and Security in the UK, it was determined that not enough was known about the last category - that is "sabotage of a nuclear installation or a shipment of radioactive materials", and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) was asked to investigate further.  It has just issued its report.

Although the report - Assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities - is largely based on already published material, it is helpful for three reasons:

First, the authors of the study have done a thorough job of bringing together all the relevant information currently in the public domain.

Second, while they have ostensibly confined themselves to reviewing already publicly available information, the report makes clear that "the UK nuclear operators, regulators, and other official bodies have assisted POST by providing staff with access to sensitive inner areas at Sellafield and with classified background briefings".  In other words, while this report does not provide any information that is not already in the public domain, it is informed throughout by "classified background briefings" and it can be taken as read that the report's assumptions and conclusions reflect those briefings.

Third, most of what is currently in the public domain has been generated (and placed in the media) by groups that either have a pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear stance and their conclusions are therefore often driven by these biases rather than by the desire to provide an objective assessment.  This report, on the other hand, does provide an objective assessment of the risks.

Although the report concentrates on nuclear facilities in the UK and nearby in Europe, its conclusions have relevance beyond the UK.  As of March 2004, there were 440 commercial nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries worldwide, with 166 in Europe.  There are additionally 284 research reactors in operation in 56 countries, and some of these research reactors use highly enriched uranium (HEU) which may be suitable for use in nuclear weapons.

Transport of radioactive material is an additional point of vulnerability, and the report has a section dealing with this.

The full 148-page report can be downloaded using the following link: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpr222.pdf

A four-page summary is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn222.pdf

KEY POINTS:

The following are some of the key points in the POST report:

* The Safety Assessment Principles for nuclear plants are not specifically designed to address security threats such as terrorism.  However, many of the measures taken to enhance safety also provide defence against terrorist attack.  For example, because of the "defence in depth" principle on which modern nuclear plants are based, terrorists would have to damage several systems or components in order to bring about a significant release of radioactive material.  Damage to any individual system would not be enough to cause a release.

* Although some commercial reactors have been designed to withstand the accidental impact of light aircraft, no reactors have been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft.  Structural damage could be caused not only by the impact of the aircraft itself, but also as a result of the blast and fire from burning aviation fuel and by parts of the aircraft acting as projectiles.

* Some analyses suggest that although newer plants are much less vulnerable than older plants, the risk of radiological risk cannot be ruled out in either case.

* Some of the UK's older Magnox plants have design characteristics which may make them more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.  However, the report adds, "POST has been requested not to discuss these to avoid highlighting sensitive information which might be of use to terrorists".

* Gas-cooled reactors (the UK is the only country where this design in prevalent) might be more likely to sustain physical damage in the event of an aircraft impact because they are not housed in external containment buildings.  The only protection surrounding the reactor core is the concrete pressure vessel/biological shield, which is not fully hermetic, and the reactor building is a normal industrial building and not comparable with a PWR containment.  The UK has 12 first generation Magnox gas-cooled reactors operating in five power plants, and it has 14 second-generation Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors at seven plants.

* It is not possible to retrofit existing power plants to withstand attacks such as large aircraft impact.

* The only detailed study on the potential impact of a truck bomb attack in the public domain was carried out almost 20 years ago by Sandia National Laboratory in the US.  This concluded that a truck bomb attack could cause "unacceptable damage to vital reactor components" even if the truck bomb were detonated offsite.

* A ground-based attack could be mounted with a view to damaging parts of the plant or gaining access to the plant controls.  However, such an attack would have to overcome security guards and physical security barriers to reach vital areas of the plant - and British Energy states that even if intruders gained access to a plant control room "its reactors are designed such that it is not possible to override safety systems and to intentionally disable enough critical systems to cause a large release".

* Research reactors are not as well protected as power plants and therefore might make attractive targets.

* Many research reactors use highly enriched uranium (HRE) as fuel, which could potentially be used to construct crude nuclear weapons as well as dirty bombs.

* Reprocessing plants extract re-usable uranium and plutonium from used reactor fuel and handle a range of radioactive material.  High level liquid radioactive waste (HLLW) is the focus of most public attention.  The largest inventories are at Sellafield, with smaller quantities in storage at Dounreay in Scotland and Cap de la Hague in France.  As of July 2004, there are between 1,000 and 1,500 cubic metres of HLLW in storage at Sellafield.  Certain radioactive isotopes are present in quantities several hundred times greater than in a typical reactor core, and a worst-case scenario release of 10% of the total inventory (following for instance the impact of an aircraft or internal explosion) could result in hundreds of thousands of long term cancers.

It should be noted, however, that British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has disputed the above, issuing a statement saying: "We are concerned that POST has referred to public-domain reports that predict very serious consequences for the public if High Level Liquid Waste Tanks at Sellafield were to be targeted by a hijacked aircraft.  None of the authors of these reports have access to the current engineering and construction information that is necessary to undertake a credible study of the likely consequences.  For that reason BNFL considers that their conclusions are unsubstantiated, entirely speculative, and significantly exaggerate the consequences."

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

The report's main conclusions are:

1.  Nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand attacks such as large aircraft impact, however existing safety and security regimes do provide some defence.

2.  An assault on a nuclear facility would not be guaranteed to cause a large release of radioactive material, and even if it did there would not be a large number of instant fatalities, partly because nuclear facilities are generally located away from major population centres.  However, such an event could lead to significant numbers of long term cancers - and even an unsuccessful attack could have economic and social repercussions and affect public confidence in nuclear activities such as power generation.

3.  Despite the difficulties of launching a successful attack on a nuclear facility, the high symbolic value of such a target could be attractive to a terrorist group trying to heighten its profile.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, the detonation of 'dirty bombs' is seen to be an easier and therefore potentially more likely mode of radiological attack.

END