The Nuclear Regulatory Commission runs a Force on Force (FOF) program at Nuke plants around the country since 1991. They stage fake attacks and test to see if the local security is up to the task of saving us from terrorists. This is their first defense: FOF training. I think this is a very good program to conduct and assumed they did it at least once a year when I read about it. Here is the incredibly stupid part: They only conduct FOF exercises once every eight years at a plant! Are they kidding? Most of the people who learned from it are long gone in 8 years. All 65 nuclear plant sites are ONLY tested once every 8 years!Here is the even more incredible part, they suspended FOF after 9/11/2002 -- when preparedness know-how was most needed -- because they said "they would have distracted plant security forces." Aren't the multiple sleeping guards we had post 9/11 at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant pretty much distracted anyway NRC?
Anyway, they began their new FOF program in November 2004. I wonder if they are still doing one at a plant every 8 years? If, what the NRC says about FOF exercises, that "they are the primary means to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of plant security programs to prevent radiological sabotage" then why aren't they done often? Not feeling so safe from terrorism now are you?
Last stupid thing: The new improved post 9/11 plan has a new component called CAF - 'composite adversary force.' They say that this force is trained to standards issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. CAF is managed by Wackenhut -- the NRC says that Wackenhut is well-versed in the security operations of power plants as they provide security for MANY U.S. nuclear power plants. Uh... maybe someone should tell the NRC that they also supplied the sleeping guards. Also, a May 22, 2006 Channel 4 report said:
In the days following September 11th, Governor Jeb Bush sent National Guard to provide extra security against any attacks at the Turkey Point power plant in South Miami-Dade. However, Monday, he was pondering whether security operations at the plant are enough. Bush saw Gary Nelson's report of a single guard working the front gate at the plant, sporting an M-16 without ammunition.
13 comments:
This is what the chamber and others should have been harping on safety with 4 reactors, not jobs.
Why don't they tell us these things? I live in Homestead and I just figured security was tight. I am not feeling safe now. Not with no show Wackenhut, a company that lied to Miami Dade county about guards.
HoW can the NRC "identify, review and fix" problems related to terrorist response at plants only once in a decade? This borders on criminal. I agree that these drills need to be yearly in this age of terrorism- if not more often.
We're Not Ready
By BOB HERBERT - New York Times
Published: July 19, 2010
We were told by oil industry executives and their acolytes and enablers in
government that deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would not cause
the kind of catastrophe that we've been watching with an acute and painful
sense of helplessness for the past three months. Advances in technology,
they said, would ward off the worst-case scenarios. Fail-safe systems like
the blowout preventer a mile below the surface at the Deepwater Horizon rig
site would keep wildlife and the environment safe.
Americans are not particularly good at learning even the most painful
lessons. Denial is our default mode. But at the very least this tragedy in
the gulf should push us to look much harder at the systems we need to
prevent a catastrophic accident at a nuclear power plant, and for responding
to such an event if it occurred.
Right now, we're not ready.
Nuclear plants are the new hot energy item. The Obama administration is
offering federal loan guarantees to encourage the construction of a handful
of new plants in the U.S., the first in decades. Not to be outdone, Senator
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a certifiable nuke zealot, would like to see
100 new plants built over the next 20 years.
There is no way to overstate how cautiously we need to proceed along this
treacherous road. Building nuclear power plants is mind-bogglingly
expensive, which is why you need taxpayer money to kick-start the process.
But the overriding issues we need to be concerned about, especially in light
of our horrendous experience with the oil gushing in the gulf for so long,
are safety and security.
We have to be concerned about the very real possibility of a worst-case
scenario erupting at one of the many aging nuclear plants already operating
(in some cases with safety records that would make your hair stand on end),
and at any of the new ones that so many people are calling for.
The problem is that while the most terrible accidents are blessedly rare,
when they do occur the consequences are horrific, as we've seen in the gulf.
With nuclear plants, the worst-case scenarios are too horrible for most
people to want to imagine. Denial takes over with policy makers and the
public alike. Something approaching a worst-case accident at a nuclear
plant, especially one in a highly populated area, would make the Deepwater
Horizon disaster look like a walk in the park.
"We are way, way behind when it comes to the hard work of preventing
accidents and responding to these catastrophes when they happen," said Dr.
Irwin Redlener, the director of the National Center for Disaster
Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "With
the deep-water oil drilling, we allowed the technological advances to drive
the process at a rate that was unsafe, and we got really badly burned. The
potential of a nuclear catastrophe is a major disaster in waiting."
There are already plenty of problems on the nuclear power front, but they
don't get a great deal of media attention. David Lochbaum, the director of
the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told me
last week that there have been 47 instances since 1979 in which nuclear
reactors in the U.S. have had to be shut down for more than a year for
safety reasons.
"We estimated, in 2005 dollars, that the average price tag for these outages
was between $1.5 billion and $2 billion," said Mr. Lochbaum.
People of a certain age will remember the frightening accident at the Three
Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, a partial meltdown that
came dangerously close to a worst-case scenario. As Mr. Lochbaum put it, "In
roughly two hours, conditions at the plant rendered it from a billion-dollar
asset to a multibillion-dollar liability. It cost more to clean up than it
cost to build it."
go to part TWO
New York Times PART II
Another frightening accident occurred in 2002 at the Davis-Besse plant at
Oak Harbor, Ohio. A hidden leak led to corrosion that caused a
near-catastrophe. By the time the problem was discovered, only a thin layer
of stainless steel was left to hold back the disaster.
The potential problems with nuclear power abound. No one knows what to do
with the dangerous nuclear waste that is building up at the plants. And no
one wants to have an extended conversation in polite company about the
threat of terrorists who could wreak all manner of mayhem with an attack on
a plant.
For many very serious people, our overreliance on foreign oil and the
potential dire consequences of global warming make the case for moving more
toward nuclear energy a compelling one. But if this is done without a whole
lot more serious thought given to matters of safety and rigorous oversight,
it's a step we'll undoubtedly come to regret.
What a load of horse shit the NRC is trying to feed us.
This is mind-boggling. Our own state of Florida Health Department/Water Safety has at minimum a yearly drill for "emergency" situations. I hope the state idiots in TLH don't see this story or they'll think they can slide to 1 "drill" every 20 years...I am really ready for that small island in the middle of nowhere,far far away, with a big pile of books, a cistern and a fishing pole..
Make room for me Miamiexile....
First of all, you have to realize that there is the ultimate whistle blower's fear amongst workers at these Nuke sites. There is a central clearing system that all the energy companies use and if you get a black mark there, you will never be employed again.
Secondly, go read 30 years worth of NRC incident reports and you will find that there have been spills at TP.
Thirdly, ask about the pile of "dirt" that was never moved off the site. My understanding is that there was a spill and they excavated the soil, but they did not remove all of it from the site.
And last of all, did we hear too much about the hole that was drilled into a pipe and then covered up. It was considered an act of terrorism (from the inside). Where the hole was drilled - this was the only place that a camera could not see.
FPL is very secretive, and the stories about things going wrong don't tend to get out. Those stories never have legs. I wonder why.
They hold it once every 8 friggin' years??? Even Miami tests emergency response every year or two and we are close to incompetent. I would feel safer at the Port.
I just read in the news that the government had spent over a trillion dollars to fund the 'war on terror', and now we learn that the NRC is testing nuclear plant sites once every 8 years...unbelievable. Maybe it's just equally safe to be living on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul...
The inspections are conducted every three years... I don't know where the author of this posting got this flase information.
Blame the NRC website if it is inaccurate.
Post a Comment