MARKEY SEEKS ANSWERS AFTER REPORTED SECURITY BREACH AT NUCLEAR PLANT

5/16/07

MARKEY SEEKS ANSWERS AFTER REPORTED SECURITY BREACH AT NUCLEAR PLANT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jessica Schafer 202-225-2836

May 16, 2007

http://markey.house.gov

MARKEY SEEKS ANSWERS AFTER REPORTED SECURITY BREACH AT NUCLEAR PLANT

Former Employee of Palisades, Seabrook Allegedly Lied About Past, Still Given Sensitive Jobs

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, today wrote to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) demanding answers in light of reports that the former security manager at the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan who had also been employed at the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire, is an individual who claimed to be a paid assassin and evidently fabricated much of his background but still managed to obtain both of his sensitive jobs and the necessary security clearances.

“If they’re handing out sensitive nuclear security jobs to someone who claimed to be a gun for hire, who else are they hiring to secure nuclear materials? If the reports about this individual, William E. Clark, are true, there are potentially deadly gaps in the current process used to evaluate prospective employees,” said Rep. Markey. “Nuclear plant operators can build all the walls or blast-resistant chambers they want, but if they’re not screening the security personnel, none of that will matter.”

According to an article in the June edition of Esquire, Mr. William E. Clark was hired as the head of security at the Palisades nuclear plant in early 2006 and resigned several weeks ago, before the article was published. Mr. Clark also reportedly worked at the Seabrook nuclear plant prior to working at the Palisades plant. Mr. Clark reportedly told the author of the Esquire article and others that he had been employed as a marksman for Blackwater Corporation; had killed people in Vietnam, New Orleans and Iraq; had top security clearances at the Departments of Energy and Defense; served in the French Foreign Legion; worked as a guard for President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Paul Bremer in Iraq; and was a covert operator employed by the Federal Government through a “handler,” which required his identity to be kept secret.

Rep. Markey’s letter asks NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein to respond to detailed questions about how Mr. Clark was hired and the general vetting process for other individuals employed at nuclear reactors. The questions included:

* How and when did the Commission and the licensee, Entergy, first become aware of the possibility that Mr. Clark had fabricated portions of his resume?

* Has the Commission or the licensee considered the possibility that Mr. Clark may pose a danger to the facility, or to other nuclear facilities, since he now possesses sensitive information regarding the operation of nuclear power plants and any security weaknesses? If so, what is the Commission and/or the licensee doing to ensure that he cannot gain armed or unarmed access to a nuclear power plant?

* Mr. Clark reportedly claimed to his employer that he had been a paid assassin, although it appears that this claim was not in fact true. Can the Commission account for how someone making such a claim, true or not, could be considered eligible for employment at nuclear power plants?

* Please fully describe the process by which applicants for sensitive positions at nuclear reactors are screened. What background checks are required? How are claims made on resumes verified?

* When did Mr. Clark work at the Seabrook nuclear power plant, and in what capacity? Did he work for any other nuclear power plants, and if so which, and during what time period?

“Mr. Clark has reportedly resigned his position at Palisades, but this episode, if true, raises serious questions about every other individual employed at nuclear reactors across the country. The NRC needs to quickly explain the troubling circumstances of this bizarre episode and ensure that all reactor employees are properly vetted before receiving sensitive responsibilities,” concluded Rep. Markey.

# # #

Rep. Markey’s letter is attached and available at http://markey.house.gov.

The Esquire article is available at http://www.esquire.com/features/mercenary0607.
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Jessica Schafer
Communications Director
Congressman Ed Markey (MA-07)
202.225.2836

Fair Use Notice / Copyrights

Fair Use Notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Ten Reasons To Say No To Nuclear Power

1. Climate change is underway. Renewable energy can be brought online faster, more cheaply and more safely than nuclear power. 2. Reactors are sitting-duck targets and are not even defended to the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks. 3. Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors routinely release radioactivity and use fossil fuels at every step from uranium mining to waste storage. 4. Building more reactors in the U.S. sends the wrong message abroad. Commercial nuclear technology inevitably leads to nuclear weapons capability. 5. The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive dump is unsound and even if opened could not accommodate all wastes if generation continues. 6. Evacuation plans are unrealistic. Hurricane Katrina taught us that a mass evacuation during a serious radiological release would be a chaotic catastrophe. 7. A typical 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces enough plutonium each year to make 40 atomic bombs, an unacceptable risk. 8. New and old reactors are most prone to break down. U.S. reactors are old. New ones increase the risk of accident. 9. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission—mandated to watchdog the nuclear industry – chooses to protect industry profit over public health and safety. 10. The most defenseless are at the greatest risk—children, the elderly, minorities, the poor and animals—at every phase of the nuclear fuel chain. Ten Brighter Ideas 1. If every U.S. household installed one compact fluorescent light bulb, the power savings would equal the power produced by one nuclear reactor. 1=1! 2. Twenty compact fluorescents in every U.S. home could displace at least 25% of U.S. nuclear reactors. 3. Updated lighting, appliances, heating, cooling and other electrical systems can save more energy than all 103 U.S. reactors produce annually. 4. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures for homes and businesses can save at least 20% of electricity use. 5. Turning off and unplugging electrical equipment not in use and line-drying clothes seem like small measures but can make a big difference. 6. Homeowners and renters alike can choose to buy green power instead of nuclear generated electricity. 7. Properly sealing and insulating your home can save 25%-40% of building heat loss. 8. Renewable energy sources can meet 25% of U.S. energy needs by 2025. 9. Shifting to locally-generated electricity avoids waste, reduces brownouts and blackouts, increases efficiency of service and creates jobs. 10. Every dollar spent on nuclear power instead of fossil fuels results in releasing six times more carbon than if the same dollar is spent on efficiency. www.nirs.org 301.270.6477

"The No Nuker" - where No Nukes is good news !

5/16/07