May 25, 2012

What are the Risks of an Earthquake Beneath a Reactor Near You?

Event underscores delay by NRC in revising understated seismic risks to nuclear plants

Indian Point nuclear power plant's containment silos rise above the skyline along the Hudson River.

Indian Point nuclear power plant's containment silos rise above the skyline along the Hudson River.  Julie Jacobson / Associated Press

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said two reactors were taken off line near Lake Anna in central Virginia, near the epicenter of Tuesday's earthquake, which shook buildings up and down the east coast. Eight other plants, including some in Pennsylvania , Maryland and New Jersey, declared "unusual events" requiring further scrutiny.

The NRC, in an April inspection meant to identify potential risks from an earthquake at the North Anna Power Station, noted earthquake "vulnerabilities" found there. Specifically, the NRC report notes that portions of water and gaseous suppression systems and hose stations "are not seismically designed."

The report noted that "potential leakage can occur through penetrations following seismic event."

In the report, the NRC said the company would “evaluate the issues above in order to determine if additional mitigation strategies are required.”

The NRC stated in a May 13  letter that it was trying to "promptly assess" the capabilities of the nuclear plant "to respond to extraordinary consequences similar to those that have recently occurred at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station."

The results from such inspections around the country, regulators continued, "will be used to evaluate the U.S. nuclear industry's readiness to safely respond to similar events."

U.S. reactors, including the four plants operated by Dominion Resources Inc. in Virginia, are supposed to be shut down in the event of a major earthquake such as the one that struck Japan in the spring of 2011. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry organization, noted Tuesday that "all U.S. companies have completed inspections of systems that protect nuclear energy facilities against these extreme events. Necessary changes to these systems are being undertaken by individual companies where warranted."

Exelon's Limerick plant near Philadelphia, Oyster Creek plant near Toms River, N.J., Peach Bottom plant near Lancaster, Pa., and Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., declared "unusual events."

At mid-afternoon, top advisors including NRC chairman Greg Jaczko told President Obama in a conference call that there had been no initial reports of major infrastructure damage from the quake, including at airports and nuclear plants. Obama asked them to let him know of any developments.

Since the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, energy companies in the U.S. already were dealing with heightened investor anxieties over the status of nuclear power in the U.S.

Following the disaster, Robert S. Harris, a specialist in corporate finance and dean of University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, testified on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Dominion Resources) before Virginia's State Corporation Commission on the company's cost of equity and general financial condition.

He noted that possible policy changes and heightened scrutiny of the industry have led to re-pricing of utility stocks and added "new uncertainties to the complicated challenge of finding a reliable, cost-effective and safe mix of power generation." And he added that "utilities with nuclear exposure have been harder hit" in the markets.

While hard to predict, Tuesday's earthquake along the east coast might add to the aftershocks on Wall Street.

What are the chances of an earthquake beneath a reactor near you? See this map.

As iWatch News has reported , regulators have been aware for years of understated seismic risks to nuclear plants -- but have dawdled on fixes to make reactors more secure. Despite six years of study, industry collaboration and a missed deadline, the NRC is still months from a decision. Read more here .

More information about the nuclear plants at Lake Anna is here.

The day of the east coast quake, the nuclear industry issued a list of steps it had been taken to learn lessons from the Japanese disaster. More information here.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, 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 Credentials.