[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lochbaum on nrc website
Well, bye-golly they sure have a nice point! I still say that they pulled
it because they didn't want their (NRC offices) addresses and locations so
easy to find. Most of the materials about reactors, that is interesting, is
contain in the local library (licensee's) anyway.
"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting."
--Ernest Rutherford
Dean Chaney, CHP, IBA (aka High Plains Drifter)
Fairfield, CA
magna1@jps.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:09 AM
Subject: lochbaum on nrc website
> Hi Radsafers, below is UCS's letter to NRC on why NRC closed down most of
the website.
> norm
>
>
> >
> > October 30, 2001
> >
> > Mr. Hubert Bell
> > Inspector General
> > United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> > Washington, DC 20555-0001
> >
> > SUBJECT: ALLEGATION OF UNFAIR NRC ACTIONS
> >
> > Dear Mr. Bell:
> >
> > On or about October 11, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
essentially pulled the plug on the public's access to information by
shutting down the NRC's website and ADAMS. UCS is troubled by the unfair
manner in which the NRC excluded the public from the regulatory process.
When Dr. Edwin Lyman questioned the NRC during the October 18th stakeholder
meeting about the rationale for urging rather than ordering licensees to
increase security in the wake of September 11th, Commissioner McGaffigan
interrupted to remark that he was offended. Commissioner McGaffigan went on
to explain that the NRC would have had to bring in its lawyers to process
considerable paperwork before it could legally issue an order and that the
Commission had opted for the swifter process of making recommendations. The
Commissioner's explanation is consistent with that provided by Chairman
Meserve to Representative Edward J. Markey in his letter dated October 15,
2001.
> >
> > If we properly understand the circumstances, the NRC pulled the plug on
public access to information because of a fear that terrorists might find
material that could aid them carry out a successful attack on a nuclear
facility. In other words, the plug was pulled to thwart radiological
sabotage. But "radiological sabotage" is defined in 10 CFR 73.1 as:
> >
> > * A determined violent external assault, attack by stealth, or deceptive
actions, of several persons with the following attributes, assistance and
equipment: (a) well-trained (including military training and skills) and
dedicated individuals, (b) inside assistance which may include a
knowledgeable individual who attempts to participate in a passive role
(e.g., provide information), an active role (e.g., facilitate entrance and
exit, disable alarms and communications, participate in violent attack), or
both, (c) suitable weapons, up to and including hand-held automatic weapons,
equipped with silencers and having effective long range accuracy, (d)
hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and explosives for
use as tools of entry or for otherwise destroying reactor, facility,
transporter, or container integrity or features of the safeguards system,
and (e) a four-wheel drive land vehicle used for transporting personnel and
their hand-carried equipment to the proxi!
> mity of vital areas, and
> >
> > * An internal threat of an insider, including an employee (in any
position), and
> >
> > * A four-wheel drive land vehicle bomb.
> >
> > Pulling the plug could not possibly have altered the risk from the first
bullet since the "determined violent external assault" is assumed to be
assisted by a knowledgeable insider. This insider would not be impaired by
the NRC pulling the plug.
> >
> > Pulling the plug could not possibly have altered the risk from an
internal threat. Again, the insider would not be impaired by the NRC pulling
the plug.
> >
> > Pulling the plug is extremely unlikely to significantly alter the risk
from the four-wheel drive land vehicle bomb. Building identifications and
locations are readily available such as in the emergency planning calendars
distributed by plant owners annually to thousands of people.
> >
> > So, the NRC's actions had absolutely no material hope of lessening the
risk of radiological sabotage from the regulated threats. However, the plug
being pulled could reduce the risk of radiological sabotage from a new,
previously unregulated threat: namely, a "determined violent external
assault" unaided by a knowledgeable insider. Material from the NRC website
would assist the external attackers instead of the information provided by
the knowledgeable insider.
> >
> > Consequently, the NRC apparently decided NOT to bring in its lawyers to
process considerable paperwork so 10 CFR Part 73 could be revised to include
this new Design Basis Threat. To be consistent with its logic for
recommending that plant owners increase security, the NRC should have posted
a recommendation on its website that the material not be used to plan
radiological sabotage. Instead, the NRC pulled the plug and left the public
without access to information. All of the niceties that Chairman Meserve and
Commissioner McGaffigan cited as slowing down the process were not
applicable since it was only the public involved. Once again, the NRC used
its regulations to shield the industry and ignored its regulations to
sacrifice the public.
> >
> > We know that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has investigated
and substantiated allegations that the NRC provided differential treatment
to the nuclear industry at expense of the public. Consequently, we are not
asking that OIG document yet another such abuse by this rogue agency.
Instead, we are merely asking that if the OIG audits NRC on achieving its
four stated objectives, you record our vote as being NO for "improving
public confidence." Weblite and the underhanded process used to inflict
Weblite on an unsuspecting public has not improved our confidence.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > David A. Lochbaum
> > Nuclear Safety Engineer
> > Union of Concerned Scientists
> > Washington Office
> >
> > ??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > October 30, 2001
> > Page 2 of 2
> >
> > Washington Office: 1707 H Street NW Suite 600 ( Washington DC
20006-3919 ( 202-223-6133 ( FAX: 202-223-6162
> > Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square ( Cambridge MA
02238-9105 ( 617-547-5552 ( FAX: 617-864-9405
> > California Office: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203 ( Berkeley CA
94704-1567 ( 510-843-1872 ( FAX: 510-843-3785
>
> --
> Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr
Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer
machine); ncohen12@home.com UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:
http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:
http:/www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and
Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
> "First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then
you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.