Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Plans to Tighten Nuclear Power Plant Security

CDMA_Demo writes "The 103 nuclear reactors running in USA can voluntarily agree to follow a new 15 page update to a 1996 regulatory guide. The update notes possibility of "unauthorized, undesirable, and unsafe intrusions", and recommends measures aginst such activities. It also recommends such facilities to be cut off from external networks: "Remote access...[that may pose a potential security risk]...should not be implemented". The Slammer worm in 2001 managed to bring down the network at Ohio's David-Besse nuclear plant and concerns kept growing at the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

22 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Away from External Networks by wot.narg · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know you got owned when someone cracked your power plant and the fuel rods spell "owned" in binary.

    --
    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    In Soviet Russia
    Poems write you!
  2. Volunteering... by dilvie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that it's voluntary makes me a bit nervous. The fact that the suppliment was this long in coming makes me even more nervous.

    1. Re:Volunteering... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Informative
      What exactly was wrong with the reactor design with Chernobyl?

      • No containment (outer shell): once the reactor itself is burst, the radioactive material is out in the open, whereas in western designs, there is still an outer shell.
      • Unsafe RBMK design, which has a huge positive void coefficient, i.e. it is (mis)designed in such a way that when the cooling water in the primary circuit starts boiling, the nuclear reaction accelerates... with predictable consequences. Most western designs have a slightly negative void coefficient (boiling water leads to slowdown of reaction), which makes the design intrinsically safer.
    2. Re:Volunteering... by lbrt · · Score: 3, Informative

      No containment (outer shell): once the reactor itself is burst, the radioactive material is out in the open, whereas in western designs, there is still an outer shell.

      Years ago I did some research on Chernobyl accident and remember reading that there was a concrete containment shell, but it blew up with the reactor. Most of the sites I now found by googling repeat the statement that there was no containment shell, but at least this site claims the opposite: "2. Despite official statements made in the U.S. right after the accident, Chernobyl No. 4 did have a reinforced-concrete containment--one that was installed in 1980. Whether the shell was comparable to what you'd find on the average U.S. reactor isn't clear. In any event, Chernobyl No. 4's outer shell was probably breached by a powerful hydrogen explosion, which, you may recall, was the greatest fear in the days following the Three Mile Island accident. The power released in such an explosion could be great enough to destroy any existing reactor's containment."

    3. Re:Volunteering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, your source is wrong. There are a lot of sources with inaccuracies about the Chernobyl incident due to the USSR's lack of glastnos. I've done a great deal of research on the accident and the RMBK 1000 design used in Unit 4. There was never any containment structure as it was seen as a waste of money since the Soviet government made sure that the people believed in the design's infallibility as they've never heard of any problems with the plant including the positive void coefficient causing the reactor to run away(Again due to the lack of glastnos, Even other units in the same power plant experienced problems that would've probably made a huge difference if the crew of Unit 4 were allowed to know about it). One thing about shell is that it doesn't have to mean containment. Perhaps this author misunderstood the design and is referring to the thick concrete biological shield(Thick, but not that thick. Thick enough to do its job of shielding from radiation but could not withstand the pressure build up). One thing I've noticed was that even the books that had ridiculously wrong accounts of what happened at Chernobyl(Again, due to the lack of glastnos as the government wouldn't let them publish anything that defied the infallibility of the Communist regime) admitted the lack of a containment structure which is only because they still insisted in their writings that the lack of a containment structure in the RMBK design was fine since the RBMK was so safe(Yes, they wrote this AFTER Chernobyl).

      After skimming that site you gave, I'd have to say that they haven't done their research. The claim that the accident was caused entirely by human errors is just plain wrong. The accident was caused for the most part by the fataly poor design of the RBMK reactor and that design combined with the Soviet way of running the nuclear industry made an accident inevidable anyone. It's a absolute miracle it didn't happen sooner! The explosion happened when someone hit the AZ button. That's the EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN button. This caused the accident because all the control rods were dropped at once which due to a huge design flaw pushed neutron absorbing and reactor cooling water out of the core allowing for a heat surge great enough to twist the channels to prevent the rods from descending further and allowing the explosion. Tell me, if an explosion happens when you hit an emergency shutdown system, whose fault is it? As far as the operators knew, the AZ button should've been a completely safe way to stop that reactor. The point of an emergency system is to be a failsafe way to bail from a bad situation, to prevent disaster. It was due to the poor design of the control rods that the AZ button instead caused an incredible surge. There's a book that explains all the alleged violations of the operators and how many of the supposed terrible one didn't really contribute to the accident. Alot of the violations weren't because the operators were rouges but really normal in Soviet power plants. The truly significant violation was the removal of practically all inserted control rods which a guideline disallowed(AFTER Chernobyl!) and was protested by the operators but ordered by the Deputy Chief Engineer.

      "Within half a minute they realized that the reactor was running out of control, and they tried to shut it down by dropping all the control rods into the core. Probably because the fuel rods had already overheated and distorted, some of the control rods failed to go all the way into place."

      Wrong. Definate lack of research. This statement implies that the rods simply never made it into the core and it was the already present conditions from before the AZ button that caused the explosion. Wrong. It was the conditions created by the entrance of all those rods into the core because the graphite at the end of the rods did make it inside to make conditions far worse.

      When you do research, consider the source. A source entitled "Mother Earth" is not considered a reliable source as it would certainly be imbued with irrational

  3. You gotta be kidding me. by The-Bus · · Score: 5, Funny

    This, the week after a similar weakness* is shown on 24?

    Remember to always question policy this way: WWJBD? What Would Jack Bauer Do?

    That is all.

    * Yes I know, it's TV.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  4. Wouldn't you think... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That MAYBE, they would've done this, oh I don't know, say in October of 2001?

    But silly me, what do I know about national security. Here I still think it's better to make less enemies than more.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Wouldn't you think... by i41Overlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But silly me, what do I know about national security. Here I still think it's better to make less enemies than more.

      Exactly. You know nothing of national security.

      You see, what you are supposed to do is piss off most of the world, and when they start coming after you, ignore it. After you've been hit a couple times, declare your patriotism and implement strict new laws which ironically only limit the legal citizens in your country. Then to top it off, you enact a few meaningless laws which limit people's mobility but makes the dumbest 51% of the population feel more secure.

      After that, declare the war "won" and go about your way. It's time to piss off more countries my friend...

  5. Slammer? by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Would someone like to explain to me why the systems (assumingly CRITICAL systems) at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT are connected to the Internet (and therefor exposed for Slammer) at all? I would think that you would want such stuff to be isolated so that nothing like that could happen. I mean, if you MUST get some data out to the outside world, connect two computers by serial cable. One is connected to the 'net and can only recieve data, the other is connected to the internal network and can only send data. That way NOTHING can get into the system.

    That would be common sense, wouldn't it? I'm not trained in network security, but why would controll systems need to be connected to the 'net?

    PS: I'm ignoring the obvious "Why are you running Windows and not some ultra-hard OpenBSD or RTOS or something".

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Slammer? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Would someone like to explain to me why the systems (assumingly CRITICAL systems) at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT are connected to the Internet

      They aren't. Just like the critical systems for life support aren't. Just like the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System isn't. There are, however, obviously people at the DOD, hospitals, and even nuclear power plants who do the same kind of tedious work done in other places (spreadsheets, memos, powerpoint presentations) and THEIR computers are often connected to the internet. Honestly, I understand why the media likes to make it sound liike the power plant control system crashed because of a virus, but I don't understand why so many people swallow the intimations of the inflamatory headlines.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  6. Re:Windows + Nuclear Reactor = Scarey by elid · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...in the Nucelar Power Plants...

    You can't say nuclear That really scares me Sometimes a brain can Come in quite handy.

  7. Re:Sneaking out with rods by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please google for the string "dirty bomb".

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  8. The conversation that started it all... by GnomeAttic · · Score: 5, Funny

    What follows is the transcript of a conversation that took place between a top US defense official and his wife after watching this week's episode of Fox's popular drama 24.

    Wife: It's a good thing the real nuclear power plants don't allow remote access! Man what fanciful terror alert situation will those 24 writers think of next?

    Official: Uh...

    1. Re:The conversation that started it all... by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Jack Bauer said there were 104...

      OMFG, one of our reactors is MISSING!!!!

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  9. Sucks for Homer by ortcutt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess he won't be able to work from home in his muumuu.

  10. Re:Slightly offtopic but .. by oudzeeman · · Score: 4, Informative
    In the US, after the three mile island incident in 1979, all unapproved reactor orders were cancelled, and no new orders were made. Some reactors that had already been approved prior to the incident didn't come online until the mid 90's. If these orders had not been cancelled and new orders were being put in, we would probably have 2-3 times this number of reactors (Nixon wanted 1000 by the year 2000, BUT before the accident new orders had already began to slow because with all the regulations and the oil crisis ending nuclear power became very expensive compared to oil). Unfortunately, nuclear was never cheap enough to challenge coal, which the US has plenty of.

    My home state of Maine became the site of the first complete decomissioning of a large commercial reactor. The plant became operational in '72 ( and it had to survive a referendum to close it in '80, '82, and '87). In '95 it was shutdown many months for repairs and they discovered cracks in the steam generator tubes. The plant opened back up for less than a year I believe, they evaluated the cost to refit the plant and they decided they would have a hard time making back the investment in refitting the plant, so they shut it down permanently. They had originally intended to operate the plant at least until 2020 or 2030. Part of the huge cost was the fact that they need to store the waste onsite. Now all that is left of the plant is a semi-permanent high-level waste storage facility on a few acre footprint. Several hundred acres of the plants land are already being developed on. Several hundred more are a peninsula where the waste storage is located and the gated access make it less attractive for commercial development.

    Bush wants to have a new reactor running in the US in the next 10 years. This will be the first approved since '79 and the first to come online since the mid 90's.

  11. This is not a suprise after latest net nuke attack by deft · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was just watching a 24 hour news update, and apparently the internet boradcast of the execution of a US Secretary Heller was a coverup for an attack on a US nuclear base firewall.

    This all in an attempt to use a remote control system developed for nuclear installations in case of a radiation leak or disaster.

    It's no suprise... not like there wasn't a nuke detonated in the desert all those years ago. About time they wake up.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  12. An anecdote. by glrotate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My uncle is a security guard at a nuclear power plant. He is 59 years old and his occupation before nuclear powerlant security guard was truck driver. He is the most honest and trusworthy man you will ever meet, but he is 59 years old and had a triple bypass last year.

    Delta Force operators come on an occasional announced, i.e. they know they're coming, basis to try to infiltrate. Supposedly they have succeeded every time.

  13. Re:Oh well... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I was given the rare opportunity to tour a reasearch reactor up in Sacramento, CA... it was used primarily to test aircraft parts by bombarding them with radioactive particles, to see how they would put up with the stresses of the upper atmosphere. Since it was a lower power reactor, we could do some crazy things like:

    • Walk into the reactor chamber
    • Look down into the core (it was glowing blue, by the way)
    • Reach out and jangle the control rods
    • Dip our feet in the blue-glowing water.

    Pretty freaking cool, imo.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
  14. I worked at a Nuclear Power Plant by kf6auf · · Score: 4, Informative

    I even worked in IT. Here is how it works (at least at the one I worked at): all of the software that actually runs the plant is over 25 years old (and therefore does not run Windows). It runs some obscure custom shit, not that obscurity is efficient at security, but I guess it kinda helps. Yes, the computers used by the Secretaries, the Maintenance staff, the Managers, etc. all run Windows. The servers ran Red Had 7.3. This is all fluff. If this breaks or gets corrupted one of two things happens to the reactor: 1. Nothing or 2. Nothing. There are two ways the the system is electrically connected to the outside world, and both of them are through high voltage power lines, which cannot really be used to send data in to break things. If you want to break something, you need to physically be there to do it.

    If you work in a nuclear power plant, you are going to continue to do everything you can think of to make it even harder for someone to sabotage the place. Physically, this includes multiple walls, gates, barricades, guns, and more to protect the containments. From a procedural standpoint, this means anyone who wants to get on-site gets ran through a database to check your history, after getting an employee escort. Anyone who wants to get into the protected area gets personally approved after a more in depth background check, and a heck of a lot of red tape.

    If you are just Joe Public (no offense), you have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident so I wouldn't worry about this.

    And No, I didn't RTFA, but I figured as long as my comment was more useful than the rest of them (read: references to 24), I figured this comment would be helpful.

  15. Let me explain something to you.... by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Main Plant Computer System at my nuke plant doesn't actually do anything but monitor system parameters. It cannot cause the plant to do anything. It's very handy, but not vital to safety at all. I'd imagine other plants are set up the same.

    Solid state logic systems do run the safety systems, but there's no way to interface with them besides the physical controls that are directly connected to them.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  16. Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!! by Homer's+Donuts · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From a sidebar in the January issure of Forbes magazine.

    1. Terrorists storm a reactor and try to steal uranium or plutonium to make bombs.

    Not likely. Assuming attackers could shoot their way past the beefed-up phalanx of armed guards, traffic barriers and guard towers that now surround every nuclear plant, they'd still have to fight their way into the reactor building through multiple levels of remote-activated blast doors--where access requires the right key card and palm print--to get to the spent-fuel pond, says Michael Wallace, president of Constellation Energy's generation group, which operates five nuclear reactors. The pond is where highly radioactive used fuel sits in 14-foot-long stainless steel assemblies cooling under 40 feet of water. Terrorists couldn't just grab this stuff and run because, unshielded, it gives off a lethal dose of radiation in less than a minute. To avoid exposure, terrorists would have to force workers to use a giant crane inside the reactor to load the assemblies into huge transfer casks, then open the mammoth doors of the reactor building and use another crane to lift the cask onto a waiting truck--all the while being shot at by the National Guard.

    And While we are at it, How about crashing a plane into the reactor?

    2. Terrorists crash a plane into a reactor, leading to overheating and a meltdown.

    Even less likely. Assume that terrorists could get past tightened airport security and fight off passengers to get through new, improved cockpit doors and take control of a plane. Even then they'd have to crash the jet directly into a reactor to have any chance of breaking containment. In 2002 the Electric Power Research Institute performed a $1 million computer simulation to assess such a risk. Conclusion: A direct hit from a 450,000-pound Boeing 767 flying low to the ground at 350mph would ruin a plant's ability to make electricity but not break the reactor's cement shield. Reason: A reactor, smaller in profile than the Pentagon or World Trade Center, would not absorb the full force of the plane's impact. And, for all the force behind it, a plane, built of aluminum and titanium, has far less mass than the 20-foot-thick steel-and-concrete sarcophagus enclosing a nuclear reactor. It would be like dropping a watermelon on a fire hydrant from 100 feet.

    Subscription required: Stopping the Bad Guys