Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Government to End Public Nuclear Updates
AP via Yahoo ^ | 8/4/04 | MALIA RULON

Posted on 08/04/2004 1:00:09 PM PDT by ZGuy

The government will no longer reveal security gaps discovered at nuclear power plants, hoping to prevent terrorists from using the information, regulators said Wednesday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the change in policy during its first public meeting on power plant safety since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Until now, the NRC has provided regular public updates on vulnerabilities its inspectors found at the country's 103 nuclear power reactors, such as broken fences or weaknesses in training programs.

"We need to blacken some of our processes so that our adversaries won't have that information," said Roy Zimmerman, director of the commission's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, which was created after the attacks.

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said commissioners voted to take the step March 29, but kept it quiet as agency staff worked to implement the plan. The vote itself was revealed Wednesday.

"We deliberated for many months on finding the balance between the NRC's commitment to openness and the concern that sensitive information might be misused by those who wish us harm," commission Chairman Nils Diaz said in a written statement.

Protection at the nation's nuclear power reactors — located at 64 sites in 31 states — has been ratcheted up since the Sept. 11 attacks. The commission has long been guarded about revealing specifics of the security efforts.

But that has not stopped accusations of inadequate guard training and other security lapses.

Congressional investigations have found problems such as a guard falling asleep on the job and lost keys to sensitive areas. Reports from the Energy Department's inspector general noted other problems, such as guards being warned of upcoming security exercises and inconsistent training from site to site.

Nuclear activists have expressed concern about the adequacy of guard training, fire protection, the security of pools containing spent nuclear fuel, and planning for different kinds of attacks.

"The vulnerabilities at a lot of the reactors in this country have not been addressed," said Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. "Here we are nearly three years from the attacks and I don't see anything they've done except extending the perimeters of these facilities."

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, operators at the nation's nuclear power plants posted more guards, added security patrols and reduced access to the installations' most sensitive areas.

Military planes at nearby bases stood ready to intercept any suspicious aircraft, the Coast Guard patrolled the Great Lakes near power plants to keep ships away, and many facilities enlisted the help of National Guard troops.

Some critics have said nothing short of military occupation of the plants will provide adequate safety. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) said in May that the possibility of creating a federal police force to guard nuclear plants was being seriously discussed.

Paul Gunter, a nuclear expert at the watchdog group Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said he's worried that plants since 1992 have been allowed to delay implementation of fire protection equipment for control room cables.

"Our major concern is that the NRC really has to stop protecting the nuclear power industry from the cost of security and really start protecting it from the clear and present danger of terrorism," Gunter said.


TOPICS: Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: jihadinamerica; nrc; nuclear; nuclearplants

1 posted on 08/04/2004 1:00:09 PM PDT by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Well, if you want to talk about a federal force to protect the nuclear plants I would ask you to look at our borders and the folks screening the airports. This is an absurd idea. If you look these people had ever really been to a nuclear plant they would know better. Missile protection is another issue but it always has been.

I would more worry about the protection of our chemical plants and energy infrastructure. If there is a real serious problem that is where it is at.
2 posted on 08/04/2004 2:48:29 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Duh


3 posted on 08/04/2004 2:50:41 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

Especially as a lot of chemical plants can go "boom", a nuclear power plant can not.


4 posted on 08/04/2004 6:50:10 PM PDT by TheFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheFrog
Unfortunately, the public doesn't understand that. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
5 posted on 08/05/2004 11:33:15 AM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson