Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Quake Concern Delays Nuclear Plant Extension in California

 

A California utility, waiting for "safety lessons" arising from the crisis in Japan, has asked to delay a hearing on extending the operation of one of its nuclear plants by 20 years. The plant lies near a fault that could trigger an earthquake.

The Center reported this morning that, although regulators worried six years ago that nuclear plants in the eastern two-thirds of the country might be more vulnerable to earthquakes than previously realized, the risk assessment spawned by these concerns is unfinished and almost a year past its target completion date.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Roger Hannah told the Center that agency officials are assessing whether any plants require retrofits to enhance safety. But, he added, “The currently operating plants are all safe from a seismic standpoint.”

And President Barack Obama asked the commission on Thursday to review the ability of U.S. nuclear plants to weather a natural disaster. Thirty-one nuclear reactors operating in the U.S. have the same design as those in danger of a meltdown in Japan.

In California, the proposed extension of the Diablo Canyon plant’s life from 2025 to 2045 — requested by plant owner and operator Pacific Gas and Electric Company — had prompted concern even before the earthquake in Japan. Company seismic tests, which would be important in determining whether an earthquake could lead to a nuclear meltdown, are not finished.

Some have expressed concern about the plant’s proximity to populated areas. Among them were California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who wrote a letter to the NRC questioning the safety of the state’s two nuclear plants — Diablo Canyon and another in San Clemente — and asking the commission to inspect both.

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Chris Hamby has a master’s degree in journalism with a concentration in investigative reporting from the University of Missouri, and he has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Richmond. In 2010 he completed a yearlong re-examination of a disputed murder case, supported in part by an investigative reporting fellowship. He has written about subjects such as politics and policy, the criminal justice system, and the environment for various print and online publications.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Crede