Thursday, March 12, 2009

NRC's False Assertion Regarding A Terrorist Attack on American's 104 Reactor Licensee Sites

If you believe the propaganda perpetrated upon aging reactor host communities, you would believe America's 104 aging reactors are safe from aerial attack, or if attacked, they have enough in depth defenses to excuse them from the requirements of NEPA. In fact, that has been the NRC's position in every License Renewal Application brought before their agency, despite the decision against them in the "Mothers For Peace" case decided in the Ninth Circuit despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Everyone knows why the NRC is clinging to this position...including the environmental costs should a plane attack or crash into a Nuclear Power Plant would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars instantly, show stakeholders and Congress the folly of the Price Anderson Act's waiver of liability granted to Nuclear Reactor Licensees. More importantly, it would suddenly make license renewal a very unattractive and potentially costly choice when risks and costs are weighted fairly. Problem is, the facts on the ground refute the NRC assertions, make them guilty of lying, make them guilty of dereliction of duty, put them in collusion with the Nuclear Industry to Rubberstamp License Renewals, which begs the question, where is a RICO investigation? Maybe Eric "Americans are cowards" Holders could do something right for a change, redeem himself by opening up such and investigation...oh, wait a minute, his BOSS is owned by Exelon!

Despite, or in spite of the NRC's claims, the Department of Homeland Security sees Energy Infrastructure much differently than the nuclear industry wants to admit. In the DHS 2006 Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan, nuclear reactor sites are identified on the list of critical infrastructure in America that must have much more indepth and repetitive defense of the structures than say the local outlet mall. So why is the Generic DBT (which includes the list of weapons that on site security has to be capable of defending against) been watered down to such a degree that Stakeholder Communities receive less protection that is found at the Grand Central Train Station in New York City? As one example, isn't it true that the explosive laden vehicle in the DBT was downsized from a Ryder Truck to a SUV when it was realized through computer modeling that the explosive laden Ryder Truck would in fact and deed to CRITICAL damage to the reactor?

Perhaps a more important can the NRC refuse to include in the Site Specific GEIS, or in the GEIS (Generic Environmental Impact Statement) the costs/damages to the environment, basically claim a successful terrorist attack or significant natural or man made event (say with a plane) is all but impossible when in fact and deed the United States and their NATO allies not only admit such scenarios are within the realm of reality, but go further to sate such events are probable, and that many of the NATO members have real life experiences in dealing with such events, further stating that NATO is unsure of what their role would be in civil emergency due to the lack of a conceptual model. In fact, the NRC has admitted they have been guilty of a false propaganda campaign to protect their licensees in denying the possibility of a plane flying into a reactor as is witnessed in their own recent decision to require new reactor builds to include adequate safeguards for just such an event.

As we here at the Green Nuclear Underground prepare our Rule Making Petition, as we work on a formal complaint to be filed with the NRC Office of Inspector General, we have a question that needs brought to the attention of the Chairman of the NRC which in many ways goes to the heart of the DBT, shows the incestuous relationship between the parties, especially when it comes to the Force On Force exercises.

Stakeholder communities have expressed great dismay that NEI is allowed to have any involvement at all in the Force on Force exercises. They are the lobbying arm of the Nuclear Industry. That said, the NRC shortsightedly allows them involvement, even lets them supply the force on force security teams. Perhaps the NRC could explain to the Stakeholders how it is that Force On Force Security Team members supposedly employed by the NEI are getting payroll checks drawn on EXELON accounts?

By the way, here is another one for you...Your X-Ray equipment does not always work right! I'll let you figure out the FLAW WITH IT on your own. I'll just say that one of your Licensee Security Staff spoke about the flaw, and I happened to over hear it.

No comments:

Post a Comment