Skip to main content

Time To Run Story on Security at Nuclear Power Plants

We've learned that Time is planning to run a story on security at nuclear power plants in their next issue, due to hit news stands on Monday morning, June 13. The story will be posted online at Time.com on Sunday just after midnight.

Here's what we know:

Time military/defense writer Mark Thompson has been working on this piece for about a month and has toured Exelon's Peach Bottom nuclear power plant to get a first-hand look at security -- as much as Nuclear Regulatory Commission safeguards restrictions will permit. He interviewed NEI Vice President Steve Floyd, NRC Chairman Nils Diaz (for audio excerpts from his March 2005 speech at the National Press Club, click here, here and here), Exelon executives at Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant and most likely anti-nuclear activists and members of Congress.

This week, reporters from Time arrived unannounced in vehicles at the North Anna and Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plants in an attempt to breach security. In neither case did the reporters gain access to the plant. They were repelled at the first armed check point -- the first line in concentric circles of security around nuclear power facilities.

Tomorrow, NEI Chief Nuclear Officer Marv Fertel will speak with ABC News for a piece expected to be broadcast on the Sunday evening news.

When it comes to plant safety and security, there is no way to guarantee that there will never be a terrorist attack. But you can prepare for them by making contingencies for an emergency before it happens, thereby lowering risks for the plant, plant personnel and the public.

Since 9-11, the nuclear industry has spent $1.2 billion enhancing security at plants across the U.S. to help protect against attacks or contain them if they were to occur. Post-9-11 security enhancements include:

● Increased number of security officers -- now 8,000 at 64 sites -- and capabilities
● Extension of security perimeters and installation of additional physical barriers
● Vehicle barriers and checks, more restrictive site access controls

As NEI President and CEO Skip Bowman said in March at the NRC's Regulatory Information Conference:
"We've worked this hard for three and a half years with the best minds in the country. We've identified and fixed vulnerabilities. If after three and a half years, we haven't identified the real threat, shame on us. No one is saying the threat might not evolve in the years ahead. No one is suggesting rigidity.

"But . . . the industry is at the practical limit of what private industry can do to secure our facilities. NRC Chairman [Nils] Diaz and Commissioner [Jeffrey] Merrifield both have said . . . that licensees have achieved just about everything that can be reasonably be achieved by a civilian force."
For an overview of security issues, click here. NEI also maintains a large archive of documents on safety and security. Among these documents you will find information on: the NRC role in regulating plant security; armed guards, physical barriers and protection systems; post 9-11 security enhancements; security readiness; workforce security; and independent studies and drills the industry has undertaken to prepare for any emergency.

To watch our video on nuclear plant security, click here. For our graphics gallery, including a diagram on nuclear plant security zones, click here.

Check back throughout the weekend with NEI Nuclear Notes for updates.

UPDATE: Time has posted the story (subscription required). We'll be back with more later.

Technorati tags: , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
The story is out already and I have to say that is one of the most biased pieces of "journalism" I have read in a while. My respect for Time magazine has just gone out the window.
Matthew66 said…
Journalists should adopt an attitude of professional skepticism when investigating a story. The authors of the three articles in this week's Time appeared to have adopted cynicism in relation to representatives of the nuclear industry and credulity in relation to those expressing anti-nuclear views (even those fired from the industry, who should be assumed to be disgruntled unless proven otherwise).

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...