Skip to main content

Most of California is not susceptible …

San Onofre The California Coastal Commission takes a look at the Japanese earthquake to determine if similar conditions could affect that state. Short answer: No, but that doesn’t excuse a lack of vigilance or a need for further study:

The vast majority of faults in California, including the San Andreas fault, could not produce a magnitude 9 earthquake.

Most of California is not susceptible to an event of the scale of the Tōhoku Earthquake. Nevertheless, it is important not to become complacent; large earthquakes are inevitable throughout coastal California, and could be devastating in their own right. There is a large population and much infrastructure at risk in central and southern coastal California.

A nuclear emergency such as is occurring in Japan is extremely unlikely at the state’s two operating nuclear power plants.

The combination of strong ground motion and massive tsunami that occurred in Japan cannot be generated by faults near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Nevertheless, the geologic conditions near those plants are very likely different than previously believed and ongoing study is warranted. This has been understood for at least the past three years, and some of these studies, and the environmental planning process for other such studies, are underway.

We explored this in a earlier post: the subduction fault off the coast of Japan led to the unique attributes of the Fukushima event and there is no such fault in or off the coast of California. There is one that could affect Washington, but that state’s nuclear plant is some 250 miles inland, thus not vulnerable to a tsunami.

However, the commission does call out the need to finish some reports on seismic issues regarding the two California plants:

One of the recommendations in that report is for further detailed investigation not only of the Shoreline Fault, but of the total seismic environment of the plant. These studies are currently underway. The proposed high-energy studies meant to identify seismic characteristics deep below the plant and surrounding area will be subject to CEQA review and will require review and permitting by the Coastal Commission.

CEQA is the The California Environmental Quality Act. Interesting and rather reassuring reading.


The Union of Plumbers, Fitters, Welders and HVAC Service Techs has issued a impressive, footnote-loaded statement about nuclear energy policy in the wake of Japan. Its conclusion:

We fully support the efforts of the industry and the Obama Administration to ensure that safety remains the first and foremost priority for all U.S. nuclear plants, that existing plants have adequate and effective technology and procedures in place to guarantee safety and that plant operators and appropriate governmental authorities are fully prepared for all possible exigencies in the future.

Given the rigorous safety regulations and standards the U.S. nuclear energy industry is committed to, and its excellent safety record, we have no reason to believe that major problems will be found.

However, in the field of nuclear power there is always room for improvement and we encourage the industry and Administration to look for any and all opportunities to make our already-safe nuclear energy program even safer.

How was it put in a different context? Trust but verify.

I don’t have a link for this one yet. I’ll add it when I do.

San Onofre nuclear generating station.


Horizon3 said…
I don't think making presumptions of this nature are wise or prudent, if these plants are on the Western side of the Sierra Madre they are subject to the same types of massive quakes that took out San Fransisco and other cities in the past.
They need to re-evaluate their emergency power supply and ancillary equipment to insure they can survive a flood caused by a tsunami or other sources.And a cooling water source should their present system be interrupted by quake induced damage.
Mark Flanagan said…
Maybe. The San Francisco earthquake is thought to have been 7.9 magnitude and did not - really could not - produce a tsunami. We also have to wait and see what the relative impact of the earthquake and tsunami were on Fukushima Daiichi.
Horizon3 said…
One thing that is painfully obvious at Daiichi, is the failure of the backup generators, had they not been compromised, we would not be having this particular discussion.
I am also sure the the physical structure of the plant has been damaged, either by the quake/tsunami, or the subsequent H2 explosions.
Another is the use of seawater in their efforts to keep water flowing in the cores and water in the spent fuel pools. This action alone has guaranteed the demise of at least 4 of the reactors, they and their steam handling systems are now junk iron.

They saved a few million dollars in not totally enclosing their emergency backup power in a water tight enclosures, but have lost 4 billion or more in ruined plant.
Not a very good trade off in my opinion.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…