Skip to main content

NRC Issues Final Rule on DBT for Nuclear Power Plant Security

By Eric McErlain
From NRC:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved a final rule that enhances its security regulations governing the design basis threat (DBT) – the latest in a series of actions addressing security at nuclear power plants. This rule, the first of several planned rules related to security, imposes generic security requirements similar to those previously imposed on operating nuclear power plants by the Commission’s April 29, 2003, DBT Orders. The new rule modifies and enhances the DBT based on experience and insights gained by the Commission during implementation of the Orders, and extensive consideration of the 12 factors specified in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

[...]

Today’s final rule describes the design basis threat. This rule provides a general description of the attributes of potential adversaries who might attempt to commit radiological sabotage or theft or diversion against which licensees’ physical protection systems must defend with high assurance. Although the guidance documents related to this rule are protected from public disclosure for security reasons, the final rule provides a general description of the modes of attack, weaponry and capabilities and intentions of the adversary. For example, the final rule contains provisions related to multiple, coordinated groups of attackers, suicide attacks and cyber threats.
For more information on this ruling from NRC, click here for an FAQ. Again, please check the section on Safety and Security that we maintain on NEI's Web site for more background information.

Over the next 24 hours, we're going to see a lot of reporting concerning protection against an attack by large aircraft. Again, from the NRC statement:
The rule does not incorporate the “beamhenge” concept proposed in 2004 in a Petition for Rulemaking by the Committee to Bridge the Gap and does not require protection against a deliberate hit by a large aircraft. The NRC has already required its licensees to take steps to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions from any type of initiating event. The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military. In addition, the NRC remains an active partner with other federal and state/local authorities in constant surveillance of the threat environment and will adjust regulatory actions or requirements if necessary.
Back in 2002, EPRI issued a study that found that aircraft impact would not breach structures housing reactor fuel. For a copy of the study, click here. For a previous post on this topic from November 206, click here.

UPDATE: Reports from CBS News and The Blotter. Please feel free to stop by and leave comments. As always, please be respectful. One point that's getting lost in the fine print: The Commission approved the plan by a vote of 5-0.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

David Bradish said…
Hmmm. It's two days after this posted and no comments yet. I would have thought for sure everyone would be jumping on this topic. I guess since the rule has been made final, that's the end of the discussion.
January 31, 2007 at 1:13 PM
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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more