Tag Archives: risk

Big stink! 24,500-pig factory farm defeated Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Environment Agency has turned down a permit application by Midland Pig Producers for a 24,500 pig ‘mega-farm’ because the operation would risk human health and the rights of residents to breathe clean air free of heavy agricultural odours.

According to the Agency, “The reason for refusal is that based on the information that has been provided to us we cannot be satisfied that the activities can be undertaken without resulting in significant pollution of the environment due to odour which will result in offence to human senses and impair amenity and/or legitimate uses of the environment.”

“We do not have confidence in the Applicant’s control measures to prevent an unacceptable risk of odour pollution beyond the installation boundary”, the decision notice continued. “We cannot give the Applicant any comfort that in this location any proposals would reduce the risk of odour pollution to an acceptable level.”

On health impacts, the Agency stated that “we cannot yet conclude that the risks from bioaerosols emitted from site are low”, and “we cannot yet conclude that the risks from ammonia emissions on human health from site are not significant.” It also found that the plans to dispose of excess water were “unclear” and could pose a risk to a local stream, Dale Brook.

Residents welcome decision

The proposed unit at Foston, Derbyshire, has been the subject of fierce opposition in a four-year-long fight that saw celebrities – including actor Dominic West and River Cottage chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall – stand up against the proposed farm due to its monstrous scale.

The Ministry of Justice, which runs the women’s prison at Foston less than 150 metres from the proposed site, also sent in a list of objections.

Jim Davies, leader of the Foston Community Action Group, said local residents, who had been almost unanimous in opposing the plan, were hugely relieved: “After four years of public consultation the facts are now clear; the applicants provided insufficient information and should now abandon this flawed scheme forever.”

Sue Weston, whose house is next door to the proposed site, said she was “over the moon” at the decision. “This industrial development would totally ruin the small village community of Foston and put innocent families in danger from the unknown consequences of an experimental pig prison.”

But the story may not be over yet. A spokesperson for Midland Pig Producers told the BBC: “While not wishing to second-guess any decision by any other body, it seems inevitable that this outcome will provide others with the reason to refuse any application connected with our plans. However, now that we have an actual decision, we can move forward. This is not the end of the matter, but the beginning of the second stage.”

The wider problem

There is mounting public anxiety that industrial, intensive pig rearing systems cause stress and illness in animals and threaten human health. The regular over-use of anitbiotics in such ‘factory’ farm systems is producing antibiotic-resistant superbugs. The farms also pollute the air and water.

“These factory systems are cruel to pigs”, said Tracy Worcester, Director of Farms Not Factories, which campaigns for consumers to buy their pork from real farms. “They are also a threat to traditional family farmers who, though costing less in terms of human health and environmental pollution, incur more expense when rearing their pigs humanely and therefore cannot compete economically with cheap, low-welfare pork.”

“Consumers need to look for UK high welfare labels like Freedom Food and Organic”, she added. “To cover the extra cost we can buy less popular cuts, shop online or at a local farmers’ market. We urge consumers to take our Pig Pledge and pay a fair price for high welfare pork to avoid animal factories such as Foston.”

Responding to the company’s statement about moving to “the second stage”, Worcester insisted: “It’s time for Midland Pig Producers to withdraw their planning application and give local people back their peace of mind.”

Not a moment too soon!

Her view is heartily endorsed by the Soil Association, which in 2010 received legal threats from the company insisting that it withdraw its formal complaints to the planning authority about the proposed farm.

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said: “This is a great victory for the local residents, who remained resolute in their determination to defeat this proposal, which posed a serious health risk to the village of Foston and the nearby Foston Women’s Prison.

“What is most significant is the signal this sends to the British farming industry about the future of livestock farming in this country. We are not, as is often claimed, on a relentless and unstoppable drive to have bigger and more intensive livestock systems.

“The Soil Association’s Not in My Banger campaign, launched nearly five years ago to oppose the Foston pig farm, calls for all pigs to have the right to live part of their lives in the open air, not to be subject to mutilation and for sows to be able to make a nest in which to give birth. The Environment Agency’s decision vindicates the Soil Association’s long campaign.

“We are confident that the planning application can now be swiftly dismissed by Derbyshire County Council, bringing an end to this unhappy saga.”

 

 

Action: Buy only high welfare pork (or go meat-free). Look for supermarket labels ‘Freedom Food’, ‘outdoor bred’, ‘free range’ or ‘organic’. Sign the Pig Pledge and get your local high welfare producers to sign up to our High Welfare Directory.

 




390800

Nightingales at risk as housebuilding threatens ‘protected’ SSSI breeding site Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




It is revered for the beauty of its song and is a beloved adornment to the British countryside. But the nightingale – hailed by Keats as a “light-winged Dryad of the trees” – is now in trouble, having suffered a catastrophic drop in numbers in recent years.

Even worse, say ornithologists, the best site in Britain for protecting the songbird – at Lodge Hill in Medway, Kent – is under threat of destruction.

Its loss, they say, could deal an irreparable blow to the nightingale in this country. It could also open the floodgates to commercial exploitation of hundreds of other protected environmental sites across the country.

“Lodge Hill is the only Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK that is specifically set up to protect nightingales”, said Sarah Lee, of the RSPB.

“It is the most important site for the birds in the UK. Yet the local council want to build 5,000 homes there. It would absolutely destroy the site and the birds’ homes – and send a very worrying signal about the prospects of protecting other critically important sites in the UK.”

According to ornithologists, the nightingale has suffered a 90% reduction in numbers over the past 40 years. Factors involved in this population crash include the intensification of UK farming that has destroyed swaths of sandy scrubland on which nightingales like to breed.

The spread of human populations in West Africa, where the nightingale spends the winter, has also affected numbers. In 2012, a survey revealed there were only 3,300 breeding pairs left in the UK. The bird is now on the amber list of species of ‘conservation concern’.

Nightingale SSSI targetted for building

In an attempt to protect the nightingale, the Lodge Hill site – a piece of land once owned by the Ministry of Defence – was named as an SSSI, a place where local species are given special protection against human interference.

However, three years ago, Medway Council prepared plans to build 5,000 homes at Lodge Hill, a proposal that was approved by its planning committee in September.

The Council, like others around the country, is under intense pressure from the government to build new housing but has only limited amounts of available land. Lodge Hill is the only large site it possesses, the council claims. Hence the planning committee’s decision to allow the building of houses there – even though the land is an SSSI.

“We are eager for this scheme, which is on government-owned land, to progress and deliver the houses and jobs we badly need”, said leader of the Conservative-controlled council Rodney Chambers in 2013, when the proposal was first discussed at council level.

By contrast, wildlife groups and heritage organisations are enraged. “This decision is deeply flawed”, says John Bennett of the Kent Wildlife Trust, which claims that Medway Council has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of house building outweighs the destruction of a key SSSI at Lodge Hill.

Plans contravene national policies – but ministers sit on hands

At the same time, the RSPB claims the Council’s proposals contravene government planning policy. Natural England argues that alternative building schemes could deliver a similar number of houses in Medway without touching Lodge Hill.

The National Trust has also dismissed a Medway Council plan to provide an alternative wildlife site to compensate for the loss of Lodge Hill as “unrealistic”.

These groups want the Medway Council plan to be called in by the secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles, who would then have to hold a public inquiry.

But Pickles – a keen ornithologist – has said he will stand aside from making that decision and has left it instead to Brandon Lewis, the minister of state for housing.

Lewis has yet to act, however, and groups such as the National Trust and RSPB are getting nervous. They fear the Lodge Hill plan will be allowed to proceed – with disturbing implications for the UK environment.

If this development goes ahead, nowhere is safe

“If Medway’s plan for Lodge Hill is allowed to go ahead, the implication for every SSSI in Britain is that the government is not going to step in if any of them are threatened”, said Sarah Lee. “The government would be saying to developers that SSSIs are now fair game.”

In addition to Lodge Hill, 71,000 hectares of MoD land are designated as SSSIs along with 157,000 hectares of Crown Estate land. The Highways Agency, local authorities, Natural England, the Environment Agency and Forest Enterprise also possess significant amounts of SSSIs.

All this property – which gives protection to rare plant life, birds, amphibians, and special geological features in Britain – would be vulnerable to being built over if Lodge Hill is allowed to be developed, it is argued.

This point was stressed by Karin Taylor, head of planning for the National Trust, in a letter to the government. Giving go-ahead for the housing project, she wrote,

“would threaten the wider environment and wildlife networks in which we have a deep interest in terms of protecting the nation’s special places for ever, for everyone.”

Or as Lee said to the Observer last week: “Giving Lodge Hill the go-ahead would be a disaster. It would open the floodgates for uncontrolled development in rare, precious places across the country.”

 

 

Robin McKie is science editor at the Guardian.

This article was originally published in the Guardian. It is reprocuced here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




388440

UK faces serious winter blackout risk – National Grid’s rosy nuclear forecast fails reality test Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




National Grid says that the country has the electricity generating capacity to meet the average maximum need over the course of the UK winter.

But this calculation critically depends on the reliability of power stations as well as an accurate assessment of the true generating capacity of each plant.

This article looks at National Grid’s assumptions on power station availability over the next months and casts a somewhat surprised eye on its apparent errors, particularly in calculating the likely output from nuclear stations.

These mistakes – if they are mistakes – may not matter. The Grid has introduced new payments for cutting electricity demand, meaning that the spare capacity margin is around 3.4 GW or 6% of maximum expected demand in the average year.

However what I believe may be its errors over nuclear power reduce this number by at 50% at the very least. It seems strange that the business at the centre of the electricity industry in this country appears to be substantially over-optimistic in its assessment of power supply.

If you don’t like the evidence – ignore it

It seems that National Grid has ignored evidence published by EdF that its nuclear power stations cannot possibly reach the output that the Grid projects over the winter months.

Last year, National Grid estimated that the average availability of electricity generators would be 79.4% of rated capacity over winter 2013/14.

The figures ranged from a low 25% for wind (for obvious meteorological reasons) to 97% for pumped storage plants. For plants subject to the possibility of mechanical or other failure, such as coal power stations, the number tends to be between 80 and 90%.

This year, even in the face of strong, repeated and growing evidence of declining mechanical performance of our ageing power stations, National Grid has increased its estimate of the reliability of the main types of power station, coal, gas and nuclear. Across all power plants, the expected availability rises from 79.4% to 81.8%.

Perhaps this seems a small change. However it raises the amount of capacity the Grid expects to be ready to meet peak winter demand by about 1.7 GW. This is half the buffer that the Grid says will be available on the day of highest demand in the average winter. When margins are tight, apparently small changes really matter.

The striking errors in National Grid’s nuclear forecast

Perhaps most strikingly, National Grid has raised its assessment of the nuclear fleet’s availability, and by more than any other major type of power station. It predicts that 90% of the UK nuclear capacity will be working at the point of maximum demand, up from 84% last year.

In the face of repeated unplanned shut downs at EdF’s plants this year, I can think of absolutely no reason for this enhanced optimism. And, indeed, National Grid’s cheery forecast is not shared by Ofgem, which held its estimate at 81% availability, in its report in mid-summer.

The Ofgem document actually predates the unplanned closures at Hartlepool and Heysham 1 that started a couple of months ago and I doubt Ofgem would be as optimistic today.

I looked at the performance of the UK’s nuclear fleet from early December to mid-February this year. Only for a couple of days did it actually achieve the 90% output that National Grid – based on information from operator EdF – suggested it will for 2014 /2015. Average performance was 81% of potential, in line with Ofgem’s more conservative forecasts for this winter and last.

As I write this, only three of EdF’s nuclear generating units out of 16 (in eight power stations on seven sites) are working to their full rated capacity. A further four are operating at 20% below maximum power as a precaution.

Sizewell (one station but two turbine units) is on a planned refuelling stop. Two other units are suffering from mechanical faults and four are being inspected for a possible problem in their boiler units and will return to operation between now and the end of December – although at a lower output than previously. Another plant is returning to full power after refuelling.

The current state of the UK’s nuclear power stations as at 29th October 2014

 

The claimed 90% availability of nuclear plants is impossible

The total nuclear output, including from Wylfa (which is not owned by EdF), is currently (18.00 GMT on October 29th 2014) around 4.5 GW, or less than 50% of potential capacity. Only three stations (and I cannot even be sure about Wylfa) are working to full capacity).

It certainly seems that National Grid is unrealistic in thinking that 90% of nuclear power will be available at the moment of peak need, which typically happens about seven weeks from today in mid-December.

In fact, we already know that 90% is actually not achievable. The total rated capacity of UK nuclear is – according to National Grid – about 9.6 Gigawatts. Both EdF itself and Ofgem give lower figures, and National Grid surely should have noticed this, although the differences are small.

More significantly, 90% of the National Grid figure is slightly more than 8.6 Gigawatts. But, according to EdF’s own public statements, 8.6 GW is unattainable at any point this winter.

  • Heysham 1, Unit 1, is said by EdF to be out until the end of December, past the point of likely peak demand. This reduces maximum output by about 0.6 GW.
  • As Heysham 1, Unit 1 returns to service, the second unit at Hinkley Point B moves offline, cutting power by almost 0.5 GW. So even if peak demand occurs in January, there won’t be additional capacity to meet it.
  • The other unit at Heysham and the two units at Hartlepool are subject to a 20% restriction on output when they return to service at some point during November or December. This cuts maximum output by just under 0.5 GW.
  • The working power stations at Hinkley Point and Hunterston are also subject to precautionary power reductions of about 20%. This reduces potential output by about 0.5 GW.

In total, EdF’s fleet can only produce a maximum of 1.6 GW less than their rated output, or about 8.0 GW. This means that the availability of UK nuclear during winter 2014 / 2015 can only be 85% of the maximum potential, much less than the central National Grid assumption of 90%.

This is before any additional mechanical or electrical problems. The reality is that nuclear output at critical times is, if recent experience is any guide, likely to be little more than 7 GW.

A real prospect of winter blackouts may lie ahead

This reduces the UK’s spare capacity at winter peak by about 1.6 GW, cutting the safety margin by about 50%. A more conservative view of the reliability of gas and coal power stations would have an effect similar in size.

If these numbers are correct, National Grid is being too optimistic in its Winter Outlook and the true position is that a typical winter will bring the UK far closer to power cuts than the company admits. A colder than average winter will make the UK’s position worse.

National Grid hasn’t responded to my written questions on Tuesday afternoon about the overstatement of nuclear availability and other issues.

 

 

Chris Goodall is an expert on energy, environment and climate change. He blogs at Carbon Commentary.

This article was originally published on Carbon Commentary.

 

 




386198

UK faces serious blackout risk this winter – National Grid’s rosy forecast fails reality test Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




National Grid says that the country has the electricity generating capacity to meet the average maximum need over the course of the UK winter.

But this calculation critically depends on the reliability of power stations as well as an accurate assessment of the true generating capacity of each plant.

This article looks at National Grid’s assumptions on power station availability over the next months and casts a somewhat surprised eye on its apparent errors, particularly in calculating the likely output from nuclear stations.

These mistakes – if they are mistakes – may not matter. The Grid has introduced new payments for cutting electricity demand, meaning that the spare capacity margin is around 3.4 GW or 6% of maximum expected demand in the average year.

However what I believe may be its errors over nuclear power reduce this number by at 50% at the very least. It seems strange that the business at the centre of the electricity industry in this country appears to be substantially over-optimistic in its assessment of power supply.

If you don’t like the evidence – ignore it

It seems that National Grid has ignored evidence published by EdF that its nuclear power stations cannot possibly reach the output that the Grid projects over the winter months.

Last year, National Grid estimated that the average availability of electricity generators would be 79.4% of rated capacity over winter 2013/14.

The figures ranged from a low 25% for wind (for obvious meteorological reasons) to 97% for pumped storage plants. For plants subject to the possibility of mechanical or other failure, such as coal power stations, the number tends to be between 80 and 90%.

This year, even in the face of strong, repeated and growing evidence of declining mechanical performance of our ageing power stations, National Grid has increased its estimate of the reliability of the main types of power station, coal, gas and nuclear. Across all power plants, the expected availability rises from 79.4% to 81.8%.

Perhaps this seems a small change. However it raises the amount of capacity the Grid expects to be ready to meet peak winter demand by about 1.7 GW. This is half the buffer that the Grid says will be available on the day of highest demand in the average winter. When margins are tight, apparently small changes really matter.

The striking errors in National Grid’s nuclear forecast

Perhaps most strikingly, National Grid has raised its assessment of the nuclear fleet’s availability, and by more than any other major type of power station. It predicts that 90% of the UK nuclear capacity will be working at the point of maximum demand, up from 84% last year.

In the face of repeated unplanned shut downs at EdF’s plants this year, I can think of absolutely no reason for this enhanced optimism. And, indeed, National Grid’s cheery forecast is not shared by Ofgem, which held its estimate at 81% availability, in its report in mid-summer.

The Ofgem document actually predates the unplanned closures at Hartlepool and Heysham 1 that started a couple of months ago and I doubt Ofgem would be as optimistic today.

I looked at the performance of the UK’s nuclear fleet from early December to mid-February this year. Only for a couple of days did it actually achieve the 90% output that National Grid – based on information from operator EdF – suggested it will for 2014 /2015. Average performance was 81% of potential, in line with Ofgem’s more conservative forecasts for this winter and last.

As I write this, only three of EdF’s nuclear generating units out of 16 (in eight power stations on seven sites) are working to their full rated capacity. A further four are operating at 20% below maximum power as a precaution.

Sizewell (one station but two turbine units) is on a planned refuelling stop. Two other units are suffering from mechanical faults and four are being inspected for a possible problem in their boiler units and will return to operation between now and the end of December – although at a lower output than previously. Another plant is returning to full power after refuelling.

The current state of the UK’s nuclear power stations as at 29th October 2014

 

The claimed 90% availability of nuclear plants is impossible

The total nuclear output, including from Wylfa (which is not owned by EdF), is currently (18.00 GMT on October 29th 2014) around 4.5 GW, or less than 50% of potential capacity. Only three stations (and I cannot even be sure about Wylfa) are working to full capacity).

It certainly seems that National Grid is unrealistic in thinking that 90% of nuclear power will be available at the moment of peak need, which typically happens about seven weeks from today in mid-December.

In fact, we already know that 90% is actually not achievable. The total rated capacity of UK nuclear is – according to National Grid – about 9.6 Gigawatts. Both EdF itself and Ofgem give lower figures, and National Grid surely should have noticed this, although the differences are small.

More significantly, 90% of the National Grid figure is slightly more than 8.6 Gigawatts. But, according to EdF’s own public statements, 8.6 GW is unattainable at any point this winter.

  • Heysham 1, Unit 1, is said by EdF to be out until the end of December, past the point of likely peak demand. This reduces maximum output by about 0.6 GW.
  • As Heysham 1, Unit 1 returns to service, the second unit at Hinkley Point B moves offline, cutting power by almost 0.5 GW. So even if peak demand occurs in January, there won’t be additional capacity to meet it.
  • The other unit at Heysham and the two units at Hartlepool are subject to a 20% restriction on output when they return to service at some point during November or December. This cuts maximum output by just under 0.5 GW.
  • The working power stations at Hinkley Point and Hunterston are also subject to precautionary power reductions of about 20%. This reduces potential output by about 0.5 GW.

In total, EdF’s fleet can only produce a maximum of 1.6 GW less than their rated output, or about 8.0 GW. This means that the availability of UK nuclear during winter 2014 / 2015 can only be 85% of the maximum potential, much less than the central National Grid assumption of 90%.

This is before any additional mechanical or electrical problems. The reality is that nuclear output at critical times is, if recent experience is any guide, likely to be little more than 7 GW.

A real prospect of winter blackouts may lie ahead

This reduces the UK’s spare capacity at winter peak by about 1.6 GW, cutting the safety margin by about 50%. A more conservative view of the reliability of gas and coal power stations would have an effect similar in size.

If these numbers are correct, National Grid is being too optimistic in its Winter Outlook and the true position is that a typical winter will bring the UK far closer to power cuts than the company admits. A colder than average winter will make the UK’s position worse.

National Grid hasn’t responded to my written questions on Tuesday afternoon about the overstatement of nuclear availability and other issues.

 

 

Chris Goodall is an expert on energy, environment and climate change. He blogs at Carbon Commentary.

This article was originally published on Carbon Commentary.

 

 




386198

Earthquake risk makes California’s Diablo Canyon a Fukushima in waiting Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As aftershocks of the 6.0 Napa earthquake that occurred Sunday in California continued, the Associated Press revealed a secret government report pointing to major earthquake vulnerabilities at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants which are a little more than 200 miles away and sitting amid a webwork of earthquake faults.

It’s apparent to any visitor to the stretch of California where the two Diablo Canyon plants are sited that it is geologically hot. A major tourist feature of the area: hot spas.

“Welcome to the Avila Hot Springs”, declares the website of one, noting how “historic Avila Hot Springs” was “discovered in 1907 by at the time unlucky oil drillers and established” as a “popular visitor-serving natural artesian mineral hot springs.”

Nevertheless, Pacific Gas & Electric had no problem in 1965 picking the area along the California coast, north of Avila Beach, as a location for two nuclear plants.

Geology rocks!

It was known that the San Andreas Fault was inland 45 miles away. But in 1971, with construction already under way, oil company geologists discovered another earthquake fault – the Hosgri Fault, just three miles out in the Pacific from the plant site and linked to the San Andreas Fault.

In 2008 yet another fault was discovered, the Shoreline Fault – just 650 yards from the Diablo Canyon plants.

The Shoreline Fault, and concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, are integral to a 42-page report written by Dr. Michael Peck.

For five years Peck was the lead inspector on-site for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Diablo Canyon. He’s still with the NRC, a trainer at its Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Peck’s report was obtained by the Associated Press, which has done excellent journalism in recent years investigating the dangers of nuclear power, and they issued their story on Monday. In the report

Peck writes: “The new seismic information resulted in a condition outside of the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis. Continued reactor operation outside the bounds of the NRC approved safety analyses challenges the presumption of nuclear safety.”

“The Shoreline [Fault] Scenario results in SSC [acronym in the nuclear field for Structures, Systems and Components] seismic stress beyond the plant SSE [Safe Shutdown Earthquake] qualification basis. Exposure to higher levels of stress results in an increase[d] likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs. The change also increases the likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs important to safety…”

A ‘reasonable assurance of safety’?

Peck notes that the “prevailing” NRC staff view is that “potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have a ‘reasonable assurance of safety’.”

He disagrees, noting that the NRC staff “also failed to address the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults”, faults that the Shoreline Fault are seen as potentially interacting with, and that “new seismic information” concludes that “these faults were also capable of producing ground motions.”

In addition, “The prevailing staff view that ‘operability’ may be demonstrated independent of existing facility design basis and safety analyses requirements establishes a new industry precedent. Power reactor licensees may apply this precedent to other nonconforming and unanalyzed conditions.”

“What’s striking about Peck’s analysis”, says AP, “is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant’s mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.”

It continues: “Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon – the state’s last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California – as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting.

“In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco … and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.”

Nuclear secrecy

Calling the Peck report “explosive”, the environmental group Friends of the Earth this week described it as having been “kept secret for a year.”

According to Damon Moglen, senior strategy advisor at Friends of the Earth, “Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before it’s too late. We agree with him that Diablo Canyon is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately.”

“Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the industry’s profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians.”

“Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely.”

Can Diablo Canyon survive an earthquake?

Michael Mariotte, president of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, commented Monday that in “plain English” what Peck’s report acknowledges is:

“The NRC does not know whether Diablo Canyon could survive an earthquake, within the realm of the possible, at any of the faults around Diablo Canyon. And the reactors should shut down until the NRC does know one way or the other.

“Of course, if the reactors cannot survive a postulated earthquake, the obvious conclusion is that they must close permanently. The question is whether the NRC will ever act on Peck’s recommendation or whether the agency will continue to sit on it until after the next earthquake.”

Mariotte adds: “The irony is that this should have been the big news a year ago; Peck wrote his recommendation – in the form of a formal Differing Professional Opionion – in July 2013. And the NRC still hasn’t taken action or even responded to it.”

In his report Peck also states that the NRC is supposed to be committed to a “standard of safety” and “safety means avoiding undue risk or providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.”

PG&E’s response? Apply to extend the licenses

Meanwhile, PG&E has not only been insisting that its Diablo Canyon plants are safe, despite the earthquake threat, but has filed with the NRC to extend the 40 year licenses given for their operations another 20 years – to 2044 for Diablo Canyon 1 and to 2045 for Diablo Canyon 2.

An analysis done in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC, titled ‘Calculations for Reactor Accident Consequences 2‘, evaluated the impacts of a meltdown with “breach of containment” at every nuclear plant in the US – what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants as a result of an earthquake.

For the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, it projected 10,000 “peak early fatalities” for each of the plants and $155 billion in property damages for Diablo Canyon 1 and $158 billion for Diablo Canyon 2 – in 1980 dollars.

 

 

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and the author of ‘Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power’ and host of the nationally-aired TV program ‘EnviroCloseup‘.

 

 




383231

Earthquake risk makes California’s Diablo Canyon a Fukushima in waiting Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As aftershocks of the 6.0 Napa earthquake that occurred Sunday in California continued, the Associated Press revealed a secret government report pointing to major earthquake vulnerabilities at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants which are a little more than 200 miles away and sitting amid a webwork of earthquake faults.

It’s apparent to any visitor to the stretch of California where the two Diablo Canyon plants are sited that it is geologically hot. A major tourist feature of the area: hot spas.

“Welcome to the Avila Hot Springs”, declares the website of one, noting how “historic Avila Hot Springs” was “discovered in 1907 by at the time unlucky oil drillers and established” as a “popular visitor-serving natural artesian mineral hot springs.”

Nevertheless, Pacific Gas & Electric had no problem in 1965 picking the area along the California coast, north of Avila Beach, as a location for two nuclear plants.

Geology rocks!

It was known that the San Andreas Fault was inland 45 miles away. But in 1971, with construction already under way, oil company geologists discovered another earthquake fault – the Hosgri Fault, just three miles out in the Pacific from the plant site and linked to the San Andreas Fault.

In 2008 yet another fault was discovered, the Shoreline Fault – just 650 yards from the Diablo Canyon plants.

The Shoreline Fault, and concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, are integral to a 42-page report written by Dr. Michael Peck.

For five years Peck was the lead inspector on-site for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Diablo Canyon. He’s still with the NRC, a trainer at its Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Peck’s report was obtained by the Associated Press, which has done excellent journalism in recent years investigating the dangers of nuclear power, and they issued their story on Monday. In the report

Peck writes: “The new seismic information resulted in a condition outside of the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis. Continued reactor operation outside the bounds of the NRC approved safety analyses challenges the presumption of nuclear safety.”

“The Shoreline [Fault] Scenario results in SSC [acronym in the nuclear field for Structures, Systems and Components] seismic stress beyond the plant SSE [Safe Shutdown Earthquake] qualification basis. Exposure to higher levels of stress results in an increase[d] likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs. The change also increases the likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs important to safety…”

A ‘reasonable assurance of safety’?

Peck notes that the “prevailing” NRC staff view is that “potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have a ‘reasonable assurance of safety’.”

He disagrees, noting that the NRC staff “also failed to address the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults”, faults that the Shoreline Fault are seen as potentially interacting with, and that “new seismic information” concludes that “these faults were also capable of producing ground motions.”

In addition, “The prevailing staff view that ‘operability’ may be demonstrated independent of existing facility design basis and safety analyses requirements establishes a new industry precedent. Power reactor licensees may apply this precedent to other nonconforming and unanalyzed conditions.”

“What’s striking about Peck’s analysis”, says AP, “is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant’s mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.”

It continues: “Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon – the state’s last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California – as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting.

“In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco … and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.”

Nuclear secrecy

Calling the Peck report “explosive”, the environmental group Friends of the Earth this week described it as having been “kept secret for a year.”

According to Damon Moglen, senior strategy advisor at Friends of the Earth, “Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before it’s too late. We agree with him that Diablo Canyon is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately.”

“Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the industry’s profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians.”

“Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely.”

Can Diablo Canyon survive an earthquake?

Michael Mariotte, president of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, commented Monday that in “plain English” what Peck’s report acknowledges is:

“The NRC does not know whether Diablo Canyon could survive an earthquake, within the realm of the possible, at any of the faults around Diablo Canyon. And the reactors should shut down until the NRC does know one way or the other.

“Of course, if the reactors cannot survive a postulated earthquake, the obvious conclusion is that they must close permanently. The question is whether the NRC will ever act on Peck’s recommendation or whether the agency will continue to sit on it until after the next earthquake.”

Mariotte adds: “The irony is that this should have been the big news a year ago; Peck wrote his recommendation – in the form of a formal Differing Professional Opionion – in July 2013. And the NRC still hasn’t taken action or even responded to it.”

In his report Peck also states that the NRC is supposed to be committed to a “standard of safety” and “safety means avoiding undue risk or providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.”

PG&E’s response? Apply to extend the licenses

Meanwhile, PG&E has not only been insisting that its Diablo Canyon plants are safe, despite the earthquake threat, but has filed with the NRC to extend the 40 year licenses given for their operations another 20 years – to 2044 for Diablo Canyon 1 and to 2045 for Diablo Canyon 2.

An analysis done in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC, titled ‘Calculations for Reactor Accident Consequences 2‘, evaluated the impacts of a meltdown with “breach of containment” at every nuclear plant in the US – what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants as a result of an earthquake.

For the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, it projected 10,000 “peak early fatalities” for each of the plants and $155 billion in property damages for Diablo Canyon 1 and $158 billion for Diablo Canyon 2 – in 1980 dollars.

 

 

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and the author of ‘Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power’ and host of the nationally-aired TV program ‘EnviroCloseup‘.

 

 




383231

Earthquake risk makes California’s Diablo Canyon a Fukushima in waiting Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As aftershocks of the 6.0 Napa earthquake that occurred Sunday in California continued, the Associated Press revealed a secret government report pointing to major earthquake vulnerabilities at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants which are a little more than 200 miles away and sitting amid a webwork of earthquake faults.

It’s apparent to any visitor to the stretch of California where the two Diablo Canyon plants are sited that it is geologically hot. A major tourist feature of the area: hot spas.

“Welcome to the Avila Hot Springs”, declares the website of one, noting how “historic Avila Hot Springs” was “discovered in 1907 by at the time unlucky oil drillers and established” as a “popular visitor-serving natural artesian mineral hot springs.”

Nevertheless, Pacific Gas & Electric had no problem in 1965 picking the area along the California coast, north of Avila Beach, as a location for two nuclear plants.

Geology rocks!

It was known that the San Andreas Fault was inland 45 miles away. But in 1971, with construction already under way, oil company geologists discovered another earthquake fault – the Hosgri Fault, just three miles out in the Pacific from the plant site and linked to the San Andreas Fault.

In 2008 yet another fault was discovered, the Shoreline Fault – just 650 yards from the Diablo Canyon plants.

The Shoreline Fault, and concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, are integral to a 42-page report written by Dr. Michael Peck.

For five years Peck was the lead inspector on-site for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Diablo Canyon. He’s still with the NRC, a trainer at its Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Peck’s report was obtained by the Associated Press, which has done excellent journalism in recent years investigating the dangers of nuclear power, and they issued their story on Monday. In the report

Peck writes: “The new seismic information resulted in a condition outside of the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis. Continued reactor operation outside the bounds of the NRC approved safety analyses challenges the presumption of nuclear safety.”

“The Shoreline [Fault] Scenario results in SSC [acronym in the nuclear field for Structures, Systems and Components] seismic stress beyond the plant SSE [Safe Shutdown Earthquake] qualification basis. Exposure to higher levels of stress results in an increase[d] likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs. The change also increases the likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs important to safety…”

A ‘reasonable assurance of safety’?

Peck notes that the “prevailing” NRC staff view is that “potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have a ‘reasonable assurance of safety’.”

He disagrees, noting that the NRC staff “also failed to address the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults”, faults that the Shoreline Fault are seen as potentially interacting with, and that “new seismic information” concludes that “these faults were also capable of producing ground motions.”

In addition, “The prevailing staff view that ‘operability’ may be demonstrated independent of existing facility design basis and safety analyses requirements establishes a new industry precedent. Power reactor licensees may apply this precedent to other nonconforming and unanalyzed conditions.”

“What’s striking about Peck’s analysis”, says AP, “is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant’s mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.”

It continues: “Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon – the state’s last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California – as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting.

“In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco … and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.”

Nuclear secrecy

Calling the Peck report “explosive”, the environmental group Friends of the Earth this week described it as having been “kept secret for a year.”

According to Damon Moglen, senior strategy advisor at Friends of the Earth, “Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before it’s too late. We agree with him that Diablo Canyon is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately.”

“Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the industry’s profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians.”

“Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely.”

Can Diablo Canyon survive an earthquake?

Michael Mariotte, president of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, commented Monday that in “plain English” what Peck’s report acknowledges is:

“The NRC does not know whether Diablo Canyon could survive an earthquake, within the realm of the possible, at any of the faults around Diablo Canyon. And the reactors should shut down until the NRC does know one way or the other.

“Of course, if the reactors cannot survive a postulated earthquake, the obvious conclusion is that they must close permanently. The question is whether the NRC will ever act on Peck’s recommendation or whether the agency will continue to sit on it until after the next earthquake.”

Mariotte adds: “The irony is that this should have been the big news a year ago; Peck wrote his recommendation – in the form of a formal Differing Professional Opionion – in July 2013. And the NRC still hasn’t taken action or even responded to it.”

In his report Peck also states that the NRC is supposed to be committed to a “standard of safety” and “safety means avoiding undue risk or providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.”

PG&E’s response? Apply to extend the licenses

Meanwhile, PG&E has not only been insisting that its Diablo Canyon plants are safe, despite the earthquake threat, but has filed with the NRC to extend the 40 year licenses given for their operations another 20 years – to 2044 for Diablo Canyon 1 and to 2045 for Diablo Canyon 2.

An analysis done in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC, titled ‘Calculations for Reactor Accident Consequences 2‘, evaluated the impacts of a meltdown with “breach of containment” at every nuclear plant in the US – what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants as a result of an earthquake.

For the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, it projected 10,000 “peak early fatalities” for each of the plants and $155 billion in property damages for Diablo Canyon 1 and $158 billion for Diablo Canyon 2 – in 1980 dollars.

 

 

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and the author of ‘Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power’ and host of the nationally-aired TV program ‘EnviroCloseup‘.

 

 




383231

Earthquake risk makes California’s Diablo Canyon a Fukushima in waiting Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As aftershocks of the 6.0 Napa earthquake that occurred Sunday in California continued, the Associated Press revealed a secret government report pointing to major earthquake vulnerabilities at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants which are a little more than 200 miles away and sitting amid a webwork of earthquake faults.

It’s apparent to any visitor to the stretch of California where the two Diablo Canyon plants are sited that it is geologically hot. A major tourist feature of the area: hot spas.

“Welcome to the Avila Hot Springs”, declares the website of one, noting how “historic Avila Hot Springs” was “discovered in 1907 by at the time unlucky oil drillers and established” as a “popular visitor-serving natural artesian mineral hot springs.”

Nevertheless, Pacific Gas & Electric had no problem in 1965 picking the area along the California coast, north of Avila Beach, as a location for two nuclear plants.

Geology rocks!

It was known that the San Andreas Fault was inland 45 miles away. But in 1971, with construction already under way, oil company geologists discovered another earthquake fault – the Hosgri Fault, just three miles out in the Pacific from the plant site and linked to the San Andreas Fault.

In 2008 yet another fault was discovered, the Shoreline Fault – just 650 yards from the Diablo Canyon plants.

The Shoreline Fault, and concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, are integral to a 42-page report written by Dr. Michael Peck.

For five years Peck was the lead inspector on-site for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Diablo Canyon. He’s still with the NRC, a trainer at its Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Peck’s report was obtained by the Associated Press, which has done excellent journalism in recent years investigating the dangers of nuclear power, and they issued their story on Monday. In the report

Peck writes: “The new seismic information resulted in a condition outside of the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis. Continued reactor operation outside the bounds of the NRC approved safety analyses challenges the presumption of nuclear safety.”

“The Shoreline [Fault] Scenario results in SSC [acronym in the nuclear field for Structures, Systems and Components] seismic stress beyond the plant SSE [Safe Shutdown Earthquake] qualification basis. Exposure to higher levels of stress results in an increase[d] likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs. The change also increases the likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs important to safety…”

A ‘reasonable assurance of safety’?

Peck notes that the “prevailing” NRC staff view is that “potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have a ‘reasonable assurance of safety’.”

He disagrees, noting that the NRC staff “also failed to address the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults”, faults that the Shoreline Fault are seen as potentially interacting with, and that “new seismic information” concludes that “these faults were also capable of producing ground motions.”

In addition, “The prevailing staff view that ‘operability’ may be demonstrated independent of existing facility design basis and safety analyses requirements establishes a new industry precedent. Power reactor licensees may apply this precedent to other nonconforming and unanalyzed conditions.”

“What’s striking about Peck’s analysis”, says AP, “is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant’s mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.”

It continues: “Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon – the state’s last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California – as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting.

“In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco … and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.”

Nuclear secrecy

Calling the Peck report “explosive”, the environmental group Friends of the Earth this week described it as having been “kept secret for a year.”

According to Damon Moglen, senior strategy advisor at Friends of the Earth, “Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before it’s too late. We agree with him that Diablo Canyon is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately.”

“Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the industry’s profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians.”

“Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely.”

Can Diablo Canyon survive an earthquake?

Michael Mariotte, president of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, commented Monday that in “plain English” what Peck’s report acknowledges is:

“The NRC does not know whether Diablo Canyon could survive an earthquake, within the realm of the possible, at any of the faults around Diablo Canyon. And the reactors should shut down until the NRC does know one way or the other.

“Of course, if the reactors cannot survive a postulated earthquake, the obvious conclusion is that they must close permanently. The question is whether the NRC will ever act on Peck’s recommendation or whether the agency will continue to sit on it until after the next earthquake.”

Mariotte adds: “The irony is that this should have been the big news a year ago; Peck wrote his recommendation – in the form of a formal Differing Professional Opionion – in July 2013. And the NRC still hasn’t taken action or even responded to it.”

In his report Peck also states that the NRC is supposed to be committed to a “standard of safety” and “safety means avoiding undue risk or providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.”

PG&E’s response? Apply to extend the licenses

Meanwhile, PG&E has not only been insisting that its Diablo Canyon plants are safe, despite the earthquake threat, but has filed with the NRC to extend the 40 year licenses given for their operations another 20 years – to 2044 for Diablo Canyon 1 and to 2045 for Diablo Canyon 2.

An analysis done in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC, titled ‘Calculations for Reactor Accident Consequences 2‘, evaluated the impacts of a meltdown with “breach of containment” at every nuclear plant in the US – what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants as a result of an earthquake.

For the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, it projected 10,000 “peak early fatalities” for each of the plants and $155 billion in property damages for Diablo Canyon 1 and $158 billion for Diablo Canyon 2 – in 1980 dollars.

 

 

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and the author of ‘Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power’ and host of the nationally-aired TV program ‘EnviroCloseup‘.

 

 




383231

Earthquake risk makes California’s Diablo Canyon a Fukushima in waiting Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As aftershocks of the 6.0 Napa earthquake that occurred Sunday in California continued, the Associated Press revealed a secret government report pointing to major earthquake vulnerabilities at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants which are a little more than 200 miles away and sitting amid a webwork of earthquake faults.

It’s apparent to any visitor to the stretch of California where the two Diablo Canyon plants are sited that it is geologically hot. A major tourist feature of the area: hot spas.

“Welcome to the Avila Hot Springs”, declares the website of one, noting how “historic Avila Hot Springs” was “discovered in 1907 by at the time unlucky oil drillers and established” as a “popular visitor-serving natural artesian mineral hot springs.”

Nevertheless, Pacific Gas & Electric had no problem in 1965 picking the area along the California coast, north of Avila Beach, as a location for two nuclear plants.

Geology rocks!

It was known that the San Andreas Fault was inland 45 miles away. But in 1971, with construction already under way, oil company geologists discovered another earthquake fault – the Hosgri Fault, just three miles out in the Pacific from the plant site and linked to the San Andreas Fault.

In 2008 yet another fault was discovered, the Shoreline Fault – just 650 yards from the Diablo Canyon plants.

The Shoreline Fault, and concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, are integral to a 42-page report written by Dr. Michael Peck.

For five years Peck was the lead inspector on-site for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Diablo Canyon. He’s still with the NRC, a trainer at its Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Peck’s report was obtained by the Associated Press, which has done excellent journalism in recent years investigating the dangers of nuclear power, and they issued their story on Monday. In the report

Peck writes: “The new seismic information resulted in a condition outside of the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis. Continued reactor operation outside the bounds of the NRC approved safety analyses challenges the presumption of nuclear safety.”

“The Shoreline [Fault] Scenario results in SSC [acronym in the nuclear field for Structures, Systems and Components] seismic stress beyond the plant SSE [Safe Shutdown Earthquake] qualification basis. Exposure to higher levels of stress results in an increase[d] likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs. The change also increases the likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs important to safety…”

A ‘reasonable assurance of safety’?

Peck notes that the “prevailing” NRC staff view is that “potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have a ‘reasonable assurance of safety’.”

He disagrees, noting that the NRC staff “also failed to address the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults”, faults that the Shoreline Fault are seen as potentially interacting with, and that “new seismic information” concludes that “these faults were also capable of producing ground motions.”

In addition, “The prevailing staff view that ‘operability’ may be demonstrated independent of existing facility design basis and safety analyses requirements establishes a new industry precedent. Power reactor licensees may apply this precedent to other nonconforming and unanalyzed conditions.”

“What’s striking about Peck’s analysis”, says AP, “is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant’s mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.”

It continues: “Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon – the state’s last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California – as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting.

“In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco … and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.”

Nuclear secrecy

Calling the Peck report “explosive”, the environmental group Friends of the Earth this week described it as having been “kept secret for a year.”

According to Damon Moglen, senior strategy advisor at Friends of the Earth, “Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before it’s too late. We agree with him that Diablo Canyon is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately.”

“Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the industry’s profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians.”

“Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely.”

Can Diablo Canyon survive an earthquake?

Michael Mariotte, president of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, commented Monday that in “plain English” what Peck’s report acknowledges is:

“The NRC does not know whether Diablo Canyon could survive an earthquake, within the realm of the possible, at any of the faults around Diablo Canyon. And the reactors should shut down until the NRC does know one way or the other.

“Of course, if the reactors cannot survive a postulated earthquake, the obvious conclusion is that they must close permanently. The question is whether the NRC will ever act on Peck’s recommendation or whether the agency will continue to sit on it until after the next earthquake.”

Mariotte adds: “The irony is that this should have been the big news a year ago; Peck wrote his recommendation – in the form of a formal Differing Professional Opionion – in July 2013. And the NRC still hasn’t taken action or even responded to it.”

In his report Peck also states that the NRC is supposed to be committed to a “standard of safety” and “safety means avoiding undue risk or providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.”

PG&E’s response? Apply to extend the licenses

Meanwhile, PG&E has not only been insisting that its Diablo Canyon plants are safe, despite the earthquake threat, but has filed with the NRC to extend the 40 year licenses given for their operations another 20 years – to 2044 for Diablo Canyon 1 and to 2045 for Diablo Canyon 2.

An analysis done in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC, titled ‘Calculations for Reactor Accident Consequences 2‘, evaluated the impacts of a meltdown with “breach of containment” at every nuclear plant in the US – what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants as a result of an earthquake.

For the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, it projected 10,000 “peak early fatalities” for each of the plants and $155 billion in property damages for Diablo Canyon 1 and $158 billion for Diablo Canyon 2 – in 1980 dollars.

 

 

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and the author of ‘Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power’ and host of the nationally-aired TV program ‘EnviroCloseup‘.

 

 




383231

Earthquake risk makes California’s Diablo Canyon a Fukushima in waiting Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As aftershocks of the 6.0 Napa earthquake that occurred Sunday in California continued, the Associated Press revealed a secret government report pointing to major earthquake vulnerabilities at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants which are a little more than 200 miles away and sitting amid a webwork of earthquake faults.

It’s apparent to any visitor to the stretch of California where the two Diablo Canyon plants are sited that it is geologically hot. A major tourist feature of the area: hot spas.

“Welcome to the Avila Hot Springs”, declares the website of one, noting how “historic Avila Hot Springs” was “discovered in 1907 by at the time unlucky oil drillers and established” as a “popular visitor-serving natural artesian mineral hot springs.”

Nevertheless, Pacific Gas & Electric had no problem in 1965 picking the area along the California coast, north of Avila Beach, as a location for two nuclear plants.

Geology rocks!

It was known that the San Andreas Fault was inland 45 miles away. But in 1971, with construction already under way, oil company geologists discovered another earthquake fault – the Hosgri Fault, just three miles out in the Pacific from the plant site and linked to the San Andreas Fault.

In 2008 yet another fault was discovered, the Shoreline Fault – just 650 yards from the Diablo Canyon plants.

The Shoreline Fault, and concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, are integral to a 42-page report written by Dr. Michael Peck.

For five years Peck was the lead inspector on-site for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Diablo Canyon. He’s still with the NRC, a trainer at its Technical Training Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Peck’s report was obtained by the Associated Press, which has done excellent journalism in recent years investigating the dangers of nuclear power, and they issued their story on Monday. In the report

Peck writes: “The new seismic information resulted in a condition outside of the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis. Continued reactor operation outside the bounds of the NRC approved safety analyses challenges the presumption of nuclear safety.”

“The Shoreline [Fault] Scenario results in SSC [acronym in the nuclear field for Structures, Systems and Components] seismic stress beyond the plant SSE [Safe Shutdown Earthquake] qualification basis. Exposure to higher levels of stress results in an increase[d] likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs. The change also increases the likelihood of a malfunction of SSCs important to safety…”

A ‘reasonable assurance of safety’?

Peck notes that the “prevailing” NRC staff view is that “potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have a ‘reasonable assurance of safety’.”

He disagrees, noting that the NRC staff “also failed to address the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults”, faults that the Shoreline Fault are seen as potentially interacting with, and that “new seismic information” concludes that “these faults were also capable of producing ground motions.”

In addition, “The prevailing staff view that ‘operability’ may be demonstrated independent of existing facility design basis and safety analyses requirements establishes a new industry precedent. Power reactor licensees may apply this precedent to other nonconforming and unanalyzed conditions.”

“What’s striking about Peck’s analysis”, says AP, “is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant’s mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.”

It continues: “Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon – the state’s last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California – as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting.

“In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco … and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.”

Nuclear secrecy

Calling the Peck report “explosive”, the environmental group Friends of the Earth this week described it as having been “kept secret for a year.”

According to Damon Moglen, senior strategy advisor at Friends of the Earth, “Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before it’s too late. We agree with him that Diablo Canyon is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately.”

“Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the industry’s profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians.”

“Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely.”

Can Diablo Canyon survive an earthquake?

Michael Mariotte, president of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, commented Monday that in “plain English” what Peck’s report acknowledges is:

“The NRC does not know whether Diablo Canyon could survive an earthquake, within the realm of the possible, at any of the faults around Diablo Canyon. And the reactors should shut down until the NRC does know one way or the other.

“Of course, if the reactors cannot survive a postulated earthquake, the obvious conclusion is that they must close permanently. The question is whether the NRC will ever act on Peck’s recommendation or whether the agency will continue to sit on it until after the next earthquake.”

Mariotte adds: “The irony is that this should have been the big news a year ago; Peck wrote his recommendation – in the form of a formal Differing Professional Opionion – in July 2013. And the NRC still hasn’t taken action or even responded to it.”

In his report Peck also states that the NRC is supposed to be committed to a “standard of safety” and “safety means avoiding undue risk or providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection for the public.”

PG&E’s response? Apply to extend the licenses

Meanwhile, PG&E has not only been insisting that its Diablo Canyon plants are safe, despite the earthquake threat, but has filed with the NRC to extend the 40 year licenses given for their operations another 20 years – to 2044 for Diablo Canyon 1 and to 2045 for Diablo Canyon 2.

An analysis done in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC, titled ‘Calculations for Reactor Accident Consequences 2‘, evaluated the impacts of a meltdown with “breach of containment” at every nuclear plant in the US – what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants as a result of an earthquake.

For the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, it projected 10,000 “peak early fatalities” for each of the plants and $155 billion in property damages for Diablo Canyon 1 and $158 billion for Diablo Canyon 2 – in 1980 dollars.

 

 

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and the author of ‘Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power’ and host of the nationally-aired TV program ‘EnviroCloseup‘.

 

 




383231