Skip to main content

A Fresh Perspective on Nuclear Plant Security

Nuclear plants are widely acknowledged to be the best-defended facilities among the nation’s critical infrastructure. Critical, independent security experts share the industry’s belief that nuclear power plants are very well-defended, particularly in comparison to other elements of the nation’s industrial infrastructure. These include assessments from the the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The robustness of our industry's security isn't the easiest topic to address in great detail; appropriately, key security features for our sites are Safeguards Information. Still, this NEI video treatment of site security does offer some much-needed perspective relative to reports like today's from Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP).

There's a common/recurring flaw in many such evaluations of nuclear plant security: they ever fail to explain how attackers upon a nuclear power plant will be able to dislodge highly irradiated fuel, stored in tons-weighing 18-foot tall assemblies in reactors, pools, or in megaton dry casks, and maneuver them past layers of elaborate security measures.  

It's also important to remember that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds nuclear power plants to the highest security standards of any American industry, and industry exceeds those standards.

Approximately 9,000 extremely well-armed and highly trained security officers defend the nation’s 62 nuclear power plant sites. This is an increase of approximately 60 percent in the size of nuclear plant security forces since 9/11. These forces, a large percentage from military and law enforcement backgrounds, are drilled and tested regularly to ensure their readiness. Security officers receive hundreds of hours of training before they are deployed.

“Force on force” exercises that use dedicated teams of mock adversaries who specialize in attack strategies and tactics are part of the comprehensive oversight of industry security programs. Each plant site conducts quarterly and annual drills for each security team and undergoes an NRC-evaluated “force on force” exercise once every three years. Ongoing integrated response with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies ensures robust and extensive site protection plans. Based on its regular interactions with federal intelligence and law enforcement authorities, the NRC establishes the threat against which the industry must be protected and sets stringent standards that security forces must meet.

"U.S. nuclear plants were safe and secure before Sept. 11, 2001," Dave Kline, NEI's Director of Security, told me this morning. "They are even safer and more secure today, on the strength of more than $2 billion in additional security investment encompassing substantial physical changes and enhancements at plant sites; the hiring of thousands of additional, highly trained security officers; procurement of more sophisticated detection and access systems; and closer coordination with local, state and federal law enforcement, intelligence experts, and the military."

Some key considerations to keep in mind as you weigh allegations of lax security lobbed by academics versus the time-tested, ongoing assessments of this nation's top-ranking security professionals:
  • Every commercial nuclear reactor in the country has conducted an aircraft impact assessment. 
  • Industry's Design Basis Threat is reviewed periodically, and threat information is considered for DBT revision. DBT is Safeguards information, and as such can't have its attributes characterized.
  •  Frequent Beyond Design Basis Threat drills are conducted, confirming margin in the protective strategies. 
  • Contingency planning is in place for loss of large areas of a plant.  
Finally, a report like the NPPP's today also fails to acknowledge that the very type of terrorist attack alleged as a vulnerability necessarily represents an enemy of the state incursion within our country. It isn't the obligation of any electric utility to defend against that; that's a job for the highest levels of federal national security.   

Comments

Anonymous said…
I work within the nuclear industry and have seen many security enhancements over the years. In my opinion they are very safe from attack and are the safest place to work.
Atomikrabbit said…
Note to NEI - "megaton" is never a good adjective to use in a description of a nuclear power facility, even for dry casks. What was wrong with "multi-ton"?

Secondly, the fuel assemblies are about 12 feet in length at PWRs.

Most importantly, what are you doing to get this rebuttal as widely disseminated in the mass media as the NPPP did?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…