TOPICS

NRC holds firm on keeping nuclear security forces private

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials are continuing to resist efforts by Congress to federalize security forces at the nation's nuclear facilities.

"The private guard forces that exist today at such facilities are qualified, trained and tightly regulated," NRC Chairman Richard Meserve testified Wednesday during a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "There is no need, unlike the situation of airports, to federalize security at such plants. There have been no failures in nuclear plant security that would warrant the creation of a new federal security force for NRC-licensed facilities."


RELATED STORIES

Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and James Jeffords, I-Vt., introduced "The 2001 Nuclear Security Act," (S. 1746). The bill would make more than 5,000 nuclear security officers federal employees and establish a training and evaluation process for them. Currently, NRC regulations put private companies in charge of nuclear plant security.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., testified at the hearing as well, arguing that serious lapses in security have occurred at nuclear facilities. Markey sponsored a companion to the Senate bill in the House ( H.R. 3382). Markey drew attention to the potential threat to nuclear plants at a press conference with six whistleblowers in January.

"The nuclear industry's guard forces have been routinely failing elementary school force-on-force security exams, when we now know they will be faced with a college-level test," Markey told committee members. "The NRC is still operating in a pre-Sept. 11 world. While the NRC and the nuclear power industry has been saying nothing short of 'It can't happen here,' we know all too well that the terrorists of al Qaeda have contemplated and would carry out an attack on a nuclear facility."

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), an investigative organization that works to improve public policy, said mock terrorist attacks, staged to prepare nuclear security guards, serve no purpose because they are "seriously dumbed down to favor the guard forces."

But Meserve held firm to his belief that federalization was not needed, telling lawmakers they needed to focus on overall protection of the nation's critical facilities, such as nuclear plants and chemical plants, rather than focusing solely on nuclear facilities.

"Congress is going to have to decide how much our society is prepared to spend on security as a whole," Meserve said.

COMMENTS

  • We should be federal due to what we protect. The turnover rate would be much lower and less negative attention towards security officers would arise. This would happen due to better job satisfaction, better pay and better benefits that r just not their right now. I am 25 years old; i hold a bachelors degree in criminal justice and serve as a military police officer in the army reserves. I am currently looking and close to getting a job as a federeal law enforcement officer with the department of homeland security. The pay and benefits of a nucloear security officer has lead me to search for bigger and better things elsewhere. Along with many of my coworkers with prior law enforcement and military experience this job just does not offer anything but maybe a better opening to bigger and better things. We risk losing are jobs about 6 times a year due to continuous training we go through every three months or so. For what?