Skip to main content

NRC Chairman Responds to Time Article on Nuclear Plant Security

By Eric McErlain
The NRC has just published a letter (PDF) from its Chairman, Nils Diaz, commenting on Time's report from earlier this week on nuclear plant security:
The article unfortunately relies on opinion without an accurate picture of current plant defenses and strategies. The NRC has ordered these plants to take strong defensive measures that make them well prepared to protect the facilities. Moreover, the NRC has worked closely with law enforcement and security agencies at all levels of government in developing protective measures and an integrated response. The story also cites an out-of-date study conducted for other purposes that does not reflect present knowledge of nuclear plant capabilities and accident scenarios. Such scenarios indicate that the potential consequences are orders of magnitude less than described.

The American people should know that these plants are well protected with multiple layers of defenses to ensure safety and security. This agency vigorously monitors plant security to ensure our homeland is well protected.
For our previous posts on this topic, click here and here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Not a surprising response. However, there are many real, serious and well known security issues at NRC facilities. Providing security commensurate with the potential threat and consequences does not seem to have adequate management support. The cost seems to have been deemed unacceptable. Yet it also seems the pressure is mounting from the public, private business and political sectors. This Tsunami may just be beginning to build. This is certainly not the end of the debate.

For one relatively small but important point: How can anyone legitimately believe that it is reasonable to have the company responsible for providing security at these nuclear power plants also be the one "responsible" for testing that same security? How would it go over at said company if the the testing group found serious flaws in the security their company is providing? Sure, they would be honest and report that and keep all the relevant stakeholders fully informed! Sure they would! (Want to buy a bridge?) Seriously, even if they would do the right thing and do a good job, who would truly believe it? Appearances are very important in this business and that kind of arrangement does not give off the appearance of objectivity or independence both of which are also extremely important when it comes to testing, auditing or inspecting organization.

The application of the DBT and the testing of security forces is very serious and important business and the use of outdated tactics, practices, equipment and intelligence is not "taking strong defensive measures."
June 15, 2005 at 10:58 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more