Nuclear energy faces security nightmare

The nuclear energy lobby tries to eke out a place in the alternative energy sector by claiming atomic power is both 'clean' and 'safe'. One of the strategies it frequently uses is to discredit renewables like wind, biomass, solar and hydro. A recent article published by Jesse Ausubel in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology gives an excellent example of this questionable approach. In his piece, Ausubel aggresively attacks wind, biomass, solar and hydropower saying these technologies 'will wreck the environment' because they take up too much space, compared to nuclear power plants.

Ausubel's single-minded article of course doesn't analyse the multiple problems faced by nuclear facilities: uranium is a finite resource that will soon deplete (and fourth generation reactors are nowhere near feasibility); mining it poses severe hidden health risks and costs to millions that are much higher than earlier assumed; nuclear energy is expensive with society carrying the costs of all 'externalities'; there is no solution to the huge waste problem (the nuke lobby has been promising decade after decade to find one, but it comes up short each time) and current storage methods are not as safe as predicted (more here). Moreover, atomic energy is far from clean - its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are higher than those of other renewables. Finally, a more in-depth look at the security risks faced by nuclear power also reveals that the sector forms the basis of potential nuclear war and terrorism, and that it fuels the worst kind of geostrategic insecurity and instability.

Some of these dramatic risks are highlighted today in research papers published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology.

The first major threat is at the source of the raw material for nuclear power itself, the uranium mine, processing plant, and transport route. Here, physical protection and security are at a much lower level than at a nuclear installation in the developed world, according to analyses by Austrian scientists.

The second threat is from saboteurs with expertise in the industry and the security of nuclear installations. Researchers from the US Environmental Protection Agency suggest that such saboteurs on the inside could wreak havoc and cause serious environmental and health threats with only small, shaped explosives or even no explosives at all.

Finally, a third major threat, at the waste end of the nuclear industry, is analysed by a second US team which points out that the significant quantities of spent radioactive fuel could also represent a security nightmare. The team from environmental health and safety consultants S. Cohen and Associates, in Montgomery Alabama, point out that there is no secure central repository for nuclear waste. Any one of the waste storage or processing plants could be vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Let us have a closer look at these three stages which all pose multiple security threats.

Security nightmare at the mine
Friedrich Steinhäusler and Lyudmila Zaitseva of the Division of Physics and Biophysics, at the University of Salzburg, Austria, have investigated the potential security threats facing the industry at the initial mining and milling end of the nuclear process:
energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: renewables :: security :: nuclear energy :: geopolitics ::nuclear war :: nuclear proliferation :: terrorism :: uranium mining :: nuclear waste ::

At this point, terrorists or saboteurs might intercept highly radioactive material. For instance, they might instigate illegal mining of an officially closed uranium mine or diverse uranium ore from a mine or mill, or more obviously demolition of facilities with the intention of causing environmental harm.

According to the Austrian team, uranium mining takes place in almost twenty countries, but 90% of world production is in just ten; seven of these states have been associated with clandestine nuclear activities.

"The current control system is inadequate as it could allow rogue nations or terrorist groups to traffic uranium or enriched yellow cake in at least 24 countries on three continents," say the researchers, "There is a critical need to counter the threats resulting from an uncontrolled acquisition of these radioactive materials in a coordinated manner."

Sabotage, insider knowledge and terrorism at the plant
Anthony Honnellio of the Emergency Response Branch OSSR and Stan Rydell of the Pesticides Toxics and Radiation Unit, both divisions of the US Environmental Protection Agency in Boston, realized that there have been many reports on nuclear security that focus on terrorist attack from outside. However, they explain that sabotage by individuals with a detailed knowledge of security procedures, plant layout and the functional nature of the critical components of a nuclear power plant, could exploit their knowledge to catastrophic effect.

They speculate that small explosives could be smuggled in as they have been into airports, despite post-9/11 security improvements. Their concerns do not lie only with the effects of an explosion. They suggest that critical damage to facility could cause widespread, long-lasting power outages to devastating effect.

Nuclear waste nightmare
In considering nuclear waste, Edwin Sensintaffar and Charles Phillips of S. Cohen and Associates highlight a recent review of security at commercial spent nuclear fuel plants, that suggests various vulnerabilities. A deliberate fire at such a facility could cause widespread radioactive contamination, with serious health and environmental consequences.

"The radioactive contamination that could be released into the environment from such an event could contaminate thousands of square kilometers, result in billions of dollars in economic impact and large numbers of both early and latent cancer deaths," the researchers say.

If these multiple threats were to be factored in into the costs of nuclear power, this type of energy would be much more expensive than it is today. But as things are now, society at large carries the burden of these risks.

Photo: an open pit uranium mine in Shinkolobwe, DRCongo, that has come in the news numerous times because of illegal mining and smuggling. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for increased security at this mine but the non-existence of a State in Congo has made it extremely difficult to protect it. Many mines in the developing world face similar problems.

References:
Friedrich Steinhausler, Lyudmila Zaitseva, "Uranium mining and milling: material security and risk assessment", International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 2007 - Vol. 1, No.3 pp. 286 - 304, DOI: 10.1504/IJNGEE.2007.014675

Anthony L. Honnellio and Stan Rydell, "Sabotage vulnerability of nuclear power plants", International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 2007 - Vol. 1, No.3 pp. 312 - 321, DOI: 10.1504/IJNGEE.2007.014677

Edwin L. Sensintaffar, Charles R. Phillips, "Environmental impact resulting from a fire at a spent nuclear fuel storage facility", International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 2007 - Vol. 1, No.3 pp. 278 - 285, DOI: 10.1504/IJNGEE.2007.014674

Eurekalert: Three-pronged nuclear attack - A trio of threats face nuclear installation - July 26, 2007.