control room not to sneeze heavily lest, because of the fail-safe mechanisms, the reactor is shut down. This is the type of defense in depth or bias towards safety that is built in.

Suggesting that Holdren’s paper could serve as an action document about the steps that can be taken to reduce future risk, Srinivasan elaborated on the design of safety systems and redundant systems. At first these systems were designed for a few incidents, such as a jet of water coming out. Then, after a few fire incidents, the spacing between redundant systems was adjusted for fire. Now we must incorporate threats from explosives and sabotage into the DBT, so there is reason to redesign the safety systems.

Additionally, Srinivasan noted that international cooperation on nuclear safety is very important, and while there may be proprietary details to worry about, these can always be addressed. He was particularly pleased that Holdren had specifically emphasized cooperation with India.

When Srinivasan was Vice-Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board there was fairly satisfactory control over the regimented areas, such as nuclear power plants and nuclear facilities, but for the nonregimented areas, such as radioactive sources and the materials necessary for a dirty bomb, there were many areas in need of greater security. This is the situation in many other countries, and there is a real dearth of information in this area.

Security considerations should be included from the beginning—they cannot be retrofitted—and security-related training is critical; the nuclear industry is a knowledge-driven industry and safe operation requires training. Nuclear safety-related training would be strengthened by international cooperation and an exchange of experience.

The DBTs for nuclear power plants are useful in fighting terrorism, as these are state-of-the-art. They include safeguard systems, physical protection systems, extensive data mining (required to fight terrorism), and advanced tools for analysis of design-basis threats such as codes and computer models. In fact, even the response and the delay and modeling of the physical protection system is run through software programs. So any upgrade required has a considerable science and technology component for security-related concerns.

Srinivasan also emphasized that the nuclear industry should not be shut down because of terrorists and their activities; this amounts to punishing the victim, not the aggressor. As for energy supply, he noted, diversity of energy supply equals security.

Srinivasan concluded his comments by reemphasizing a point made by both speakers: that nuclear security is a comprehensive, top-to-bottom, multidimensional, multidisciplinary, multiorganizational effort, not a matter of pointing at one particular area. Production, safety, and security objectives have to be simultaneously achieved. Security is an area where a small security staff of 50 or 80 people cannot tackle the problem. In a nuclear power station everyone needs to be involved with security. Security culture has to be embedded in the organization itself and all four or five hundred employees. It is important that each person does the right thing even when no one is looking.

Discussion moderator Rose Gottemoeller observed that no country owned the perfect model for security. Instead, the best practices of each country can contribute to improving worldwide performance in this area. International cooperation is vitally important because of the driving need to improve the security of the entire system of nuclear material and facility protection worldwide in the face of the urgent threat of



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement