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 question...how 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.

Taking Down A Nuclear Reactor, Destroying A Nation

If there is one thing I hate, it is the ignorance of arrogance, and no better expression describes the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and its Butt Buddy the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) than, "The Ignorance of Arrogance". This post is going to be a FLUID, EVER CHANGING post as we share with our readers the truth about the Deliberately Flawed and inadequate Generic DBT used to make the false claim that Nuclear Reactor Facility Security is adequate. As Stakeholders, the NRC has decided they do not have to talk with us, nor share with us anything about the DBT, nor the weapons included in it (or more appropriately) the weapons that NEI had removed from it so their licensees would not/did not have to spend additional funds making reactor sites even relatively safe from terrorist attack. (As one example of this, would love to discuss Bullet Resistant verse Bullet Proof glass, and the use of high powered 50 caliber rifles...NEI and NRC claim terrorists cannot get this weapon...assholes, you can buy a book on how to build one at home on Amazon.com for $17 and have it delivered by Friday.)

In this blog's effort to leave a tell tale story of "I told you so" behind for those who survive the terrorist attack or significant accident that will occur at one of America's Nuclear Facilities within the next ten years (statistical probability banks on this reality), I am going to share with you the reader what weapons I think are capable of taking out one of our nations 104 aging reactors, as well as areas of weakness in Nuclear Reactor Site Security and management from my own perspective using various EPRI documentation. It is my belief as an at risk Stakeholder that we are not adequately protected, and that it is actually possible to use several avenues of attack too take out a nuclear reactor, or cause a significant leak of radioactive contaminants into the environment without actually stepping one foot on the physical plant property.

In their usual fashion, the NRC will deny everything, and claim they cannot discuss our concerns as Stakeholders on the grounds of National Security...that is fine, does not change our right as citizens to outline and discuss our own security concerns as members of the affected Stakeholder Community. As Paul Simon would say, "I know what I know".

I might be wrong, but guessing here that the first, and maybe biggest risk not adequately discussed in the DBT for nuclear power plants is their Security Achilles Heel, which is the Sub Stations and High Tension Wires that hook them (reactors) into the Grid (Tell us NRC...isn't it true, that if you successfully cripple the grid you could potentially take down the reactor?). I tried to bring my concerns up in this area at a Public Meeting with the NRC, and was HUSHED UP with a promise of a PRIVATE MEETING to talk about my concerns at a future date and time...said meeting never occurred. I again brought up these concerns as a part of my formal request for a hearing on Safety Concerns relating to the License Renewal of Indian Point, but those concerns were dismissed. Not because they did not have merit, but because the three judge panel hearing the License Renewal Case felt I was disrespectful to them when I spoke MY TRUTH that they were and are Pro Industry Pricks.

When citizens who were ordered sheltered in place are dying in their homes from radioactive contamination, when hysterical anarchy has replaced the rule of law, those three judges can explain to the world why they ignored me, ignored my 500 pages of allegations. I am not about to apologize for speaking truth to bias self important ass holes who got their feelings hurt. Tell me, tell our community NRC how easy it would be to cripple Indian Point going after off site infrastructure? How come THAT IS NOT IN THE DBT? Tell me Richard Barkley, did you folks really think the Green Nuclear Butterfly, FUSE USA, the Grassroots Anti Environmental movement here in Westchester County and surrounding areas would just lay here and let you rape us, rape our community? Timing is everything you self serving arrogant pricks, and not it is MY TURN. There is more than one avenue to have a truth spoken, to have a truth heard. Indian Point from my perspective caused my wife's cancer, caused untold hundreds if not 1,000's of our young women to grieve the stillborn birth of their children, or to see their young child stricken with leukemia. Indian Point and all 104 Nuclear Power Reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack, subject to catastrophic failure from reactor core embrittlement issues, and internal reactor core environmental degradation issues, not to mention the serious issues regarding the failure of UNDERGROUND PIPING...sadly, you know they are. It is my intent to use the intelligence God gave me to prove to the world that I am right on two counts.

1. That the Generic DBT and infrastructure improvements taken to harden nuclear facilities are inadequate to protect human health and the environment in the case of a significant nuclear incident and/or terrorist attack.

2. That the nuclear industry, EPRI, NEI, NRC, DOE, DOD and our United States Congress including Congressman John Hall know our nuclear reactors sites are vulnerable to both serious incidents caused from inadequate aging management issues, and terrorist attack, and are willing to put millions of Americans at risk in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance.

*NOTE-I challenge the three judge panel hearing the Indian Point License Renewal Case to make public their personal financial holdings (stocks, pensions, and the like) to prove they are not Pro Industry Pricks...it is suggested this should be an avenue looked into by such intervenors as the State of New York.