Posted on 08/16/2013 9:56:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Are America’s nuclear-power facilities uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attack? A new report by the Department of Defense says none of the 107 reactor sites in the US have adequately protected themselves against terrorist attack, but the bar seems a little high — at least as McClatchy reports:
All 107 nuclear reactors in the United States are inadequately protected from terrorist attacks, according to a Defense Department-commissioned report released Thursday.
The report, by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin, warns that the current security required of civilian-operated reactors fails to safeguard against airplane attacks, rocket-propelled grenades and more than a small handful of attackers. …
“There are 104 nuclear power reactors and three research reactors, none of which are protected against a 9/11-style terrorist attack,” Alan J. Kuperman, an associate professor at the university who co-authored the report, said during a conference call Thursday.
He said current policies “leave U.S. nuclear facilities . . . vulnerable to credible terrorist threats of theft of bomb-grade material and sabotage that could cause a massive meltdown and release of radiation.”
At first this sounds damning, but, er … how is a nuclear reactor supposed to prevent a 9/11-style terrorist attack by airplanes? That would require each facility to have at least its own battery of anti-aircraft artillery, and potentially its own air force, complete with standing orders to shoot down civilian aircraft that get too close and fail to respond. It’s highly unlikely that existing facilities could strengthen their buildings to withstand a collision with a fully-loaded jumbo jet in the manner that the Pentagon did, for the most part.
There are similar problems with the other standards being applied in this blurb. The only way for nuclear facilities to safeguard against RPG attacks is to control the ground for a thousand yards in any direction, the maximum range for RPG systems. That’s over a half-mile, which would have to be closed to traffic, housing, industry, and so on. In California, the state’s biggest road (Interstate 5) goes right past San Onofre, for example, and would have to be rerouted in an almost impossible fashion. Similarly, guarding against “more than a small handful of attackers” would require an army to accomplish, although it is the most reasonable criterion on this list.
The solution for these issues isn’t going to be found at nuclear-power sites, not unless we put them all in Death Valley. The US has to provide airport security to prevent a 9/11-style attack on a reactor, not the reactor facility, and we should be controlling our borders and policing our communities well enough to prevent RPG attacks and vast armies of terrorists from getting within shooting range of these facilities as well. I’m all for improving security around nuclear reactors, but it’s also important to have realistic expectations about what can be done by the facilities themselves. This sounds more like satire than serious analysis.
so where’d all the money go? we were supposed to be doing stuff to make them less vulnerable twelve years ago. (yeah i know where the money went)
may as well ask where’s the border fence?
Lemme get this right - the DOD commissions a report from a bunch of lefties in a lefty city?
Of course, we know why...I only ask the question 'cause someone has to, and the media sure aren't.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I know where *some* of porkulus went: I’m here in the communist state of MA, and my nearby state road has probably been re-paved every year since the 0’ regime took office. You might think the road would be getting real thick... but they grind/groove it each time (removing the evidence of prior annual re-pavings).
Ah ,what the hell just tell the world
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
This was posted earlier today.
US Nuclear Reactors Vulnerable to Terrorist Threat – Report
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3055350/posts
Article: (Russian publication?)
http://en.rian.ru/world/20130816/182794379/US-Nuclear-Reactors-Vulnerable-to-Terrorist-Threat—Report.html
Report:
http://blogs.utexas.edu/nppp/files/2013/08/NPPP-working-paper-1-2013-Aug-15.pdf
This is just GREAT!!! Nothing better than sending an engraved inviatation to our enemies.
WOW!!!
I guess CA is saved (for now), since our nuke power plant has been shut down already .. Awwwwwwww!
But, I have not forgotten that just 3 miles from my residence there lived 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.
Doesn’t CA have more than one plant ?
I read the report and applied a rule of thumb I’ve found extremely useful:
Any academic study that cites the Union of Concerned Scientists for support is totally worthless.
This one uses the fatal citation several times.
On a technical matter: among the study’s imaginative scenarios is this one:
RPGs are not considered to be a risk to damage the plant, but rather as a way of attacking access points to allow bad guys to get in. So, loud explosions would be ignored while Ninja terrorists calmly proceed to the next barrier?
I don’t have a background in nuclear and not even a science major, but just listening to a person reporting on the status of nuclear plants on the radio leads me to believe NRC will be the next “scandal”. They have not been doing due diligence (likely due to leadership failure).
The Dept. of Internal Policing, Security, Home Inspections and Traffic Stops.
Using the acronym, we already have elected too many of these already.
Scandals involving nuclear materials are legion - in government facilities. If you draw conclusions from news reports, you are making an error. Even before political bias and the constant need to generate headlines are considered, journalists are virtually illiterate on science and engineering matters. All they know is what somebody tells them; they have no way of ferreting out bogus data claims.
Do you really think your reporter actually took the time to read 33 pages or to evaluate the report’s methodology?
Do you really think your reporter
**********
The person I was listening to was a scientist/ engineer. And it was not in reference to this particular report. It was in reference to other incidences or reports of criticality.
As an example - the nuclear plants have battery backup but only for about 8 hours. That issue came up during the flooding in the midwest (Mississippi area) a couple of summers ago.
Eight hours of backup battery is not enough in a situation such as a hurricane.
If an elderly nun can infiltrate a nuclear facility then anyone can. But, hey, lets remind the terrorists how lax security is.
Not sure .. the only one I know of is close to Oceanside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.