Nuclear Security Buck MIA at NRC

Yesterday came yet more news from the so-called "Nuclear Regulatory Commission" about security standards that nuclear power plants do not have to meet. In this case, nuclear power plants do not have to defend against the possibility of a commercial airplane crashing into a power plant or its spent fuel pool. According to the NRC's press release:

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.

This is yet another installment of the refusal by this agency to protect the public from the very real threat posed by an attack on a nuclear power plant. Last February, the Commission voted against requiring the plants to protect against commonly available Rocket Propelled Grenades.

The Commission is delusional if they accept that there are other federal agencies, including the military, ready to protect the plant.  Tests have shown repeatedly that any support from others would come long after the attack.  The nuclear industry says it is not their responsibility to protect plants against a terrorist attack and points to the government, the NRC points to other government agencies, but there aren’t others there.

Conflicts of interest, irresponsibility, and incompetence which have plagued this agency will undoubtedly keep the Congress busy in the next two years.

-- Beth Daley and Danielle Brian

Comments

[Tony]

Great post, thanks. The Ironic thing is, we have nuclear industry making the same arguments that the people who built the world trade center made: "Oh, these buildings can survive a direct hit from a commercial airliner, no problem." But we all know how well that turned out on 9/11. It seems like we are just setting ourselves up for another catastrophe . . .