Skip to main content

NEI Responds to NPPP Report on Security at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

By
A few minutes ago, NEI issued a statement concerning the security of the nation's 100 operating nuclear reactors. The statement comes in response to the release yesterday of a report by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project. Here's the nut graf:
A report by a graduate research assistant at the University of Texas’ Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, released Aug. 15, is an academic paper developed for discussion among academia of the appropriate security levels at nuclear energy facilities. It is not a full assessment of security, nor does the author of the report have access to the safeguarded information that she would need to make such as assessment.

Like many such evaluations that examine the potential theft of uranium fuel from commercial reactors, the NPPP report fails to explain how attackers would be able to dislodge highly irradiated uranium fuel—800 to 1,200-pound, 18-foot-tall fuel bundles—and maneuver them from reactors, storage pools or steel and concrete containers past layers of elaborate security.
See our website for more information on nuclear power plant security.
Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
That report didn't have to be accurate to deliver its true intent of seeding doubt and fear to prompt shutting down and abolishing nuclear plants.

James Greenidge
Queens BY
August 16, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Anonymous said…
Anyone else notice the NPPP "staff" claimed the Japan quake drained the Fukushima spent fuel pools?

It's tough to avoid the conclusion they intentionally released that steaming pile of fetid dingo kidneys in the middle of the August news desert, complete with the "SO CLOSE to the White House" fearmongering. And the media dutifully gnawed on that dry bone. Sad.
August 17, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Atomikrabbit said…
The Fukushima #4 SFP canard, and not even accurately enumerating the number of operating power plants (100, plus the 3 research reactors they worry about), raised my suspicions about accuracy immediately.

But to NEI - most PWR fuel weighs 1000 lbs and is 12 feet long; BWR less. I know of no assemblies 18 feet long.
August 18, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said…
Thank you for the statement in bold, "nor does the author of the report have access to the safeguarded information that she would need to make such as assessment."

Sadly, I must also agree with James Greenidge.

Steve
August 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
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 …
1 comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

By
With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …
Post a Comment
Read more