CBS News/ March 14, 2011, 9:59 AM

U.S. nuclear safety in focus after Japan quake

There are 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States, and operators are seeking permission to build at least 20 more.

Central and southern California - a region prone to seismic shocks - is also home to two nuclear power plants.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo County is located right on the Pacific coast, vulnerable not only to earthquakes but also to a tsunami.

California's other nuclear plant, San Onofre near San Clemente in San Diego County, is similarly built on the ocean's edge in earthquake country.

2nd blast, exposed rods at Japan nuclear plant
What is a meltdown?
Japan's nuclear power plant: What went wrong? (Video)
Seismologist: Japan earthquake magnitude "unusual" (Video)
Special coverage: Disaster in Japan

The disaster in Japan is raising some serious safety concerns and questions for some of those facilities.

San Onofre's owner insists there's no reason for the public to worry.

"The science says that we could see about five miles from the plant an earthquake, perhaps equal to a magnitude 6.5, 6.6," said Gil Alexander of Southern California Edison. "So we designed the plant to exceed the maximum threat. It's designed to withstand a 7.0."

But the images of destruction from Japan suggest our best science may fall short when it comes to predicting the destructive power of nature. And experts say Japan's earthquake readiness has always been more rigorous, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

"Nobody's ever prepared for this kind of earthquake, but compared to Japan, probably we're not nearly as prepared as Japan," Tom Heaton, an engineering seismologist at Cal Tech, told Blackstone.

In California, an annual drill called the Great Shake-up simulates a major quake.

Calif. Braces for "The Big One" (Video)

But what happened Friday in Japan gives a sobering new look at what a major earthquake really looks like.

In Japan, the ground shook for 2.5 minutes. The earthquake that hit San Francisco in 1989 lasted just 15 seconds. Bridges and highways collapsed; whole neighborhoods were destroyed.

The collapse of part of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 1989 made it a symbol of the state's vulnerable infrastructure.

Construction of the replacement bridge won't be complete for another two years, but the new bridge includes innovations designed to let it bend and swing and rock in a major earthquake.

That readiness, though, comes at a cost - more than $6 billion.

Now this nuclear power plant has been operating since 1985 and the utility that runs it, Pacific Gas & Electric, insists it is earthquake-safe. But less than three years ago, another fault was discovered just offshore here, and studies are still under way to learn what kind of risk that presents.

Professor Cham Dallas of the University of Georgia told "The Early Show" that the American nuclear industry has "a pretty strong culture of emergency preparedness. They drill all the time.

"We have a lot of checks and balances here. A lot of people in the nuclear power industry will tell you that they're overregulated, but when it comes to safety, that's a good thing," he told anchor Erica Hill.

Dallas said that in Japan's disaster he was surprised that they could not keep emergency backup systems going to keep cooling the reactors. "I thought they were better prepared than, as it turns out, they were," he told Hill.

Dallas was confident that despite the failure in Japan's experience, a similar incident would not happen at a U.S. plant. "We have a lot of exercises here. They exercise these crews all the time, and we have a culture of preparedness here," he said. "It's their background, the way they think, the way they operate. And they drill all the time."

Dallas also stressed that age may be a factor in the partial meltdown in Japan - and may pose a challenge in the United States, where there has not been a new nuclear plant built since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.

Photos: World's worst nuclear accidents

"The Japanese have been bringing on new reactors all the time," Dallas said. "It just so happens it looks like the older ones are the ones where the problems are. Since their older reactors are the average age of our reactors, that is something to think about."

On "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman said that in light of the accident in Japan, there should be a temporary moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants in the United States.

Lieberman: "Put the brakes" on new nuke plants

There are currently no nuclear plants under construction, although applications for licenses to operate plants are under consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
31 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
G0DB0DY says:
Nobel Peace Prize nominations welcomed. http://www.facebook.com/G0DB0DY#!/photo.php?fbid=190777817624664&set=t.100000773415655&type=1&theater
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
RedWings_ninety_one says:
Build them away from people. Also, federally regulate them like the FDA does to meat. Run backup system checks/tests every week to insure that it does work properly. Have a plan to properly dispose (or at least temporarily store) the uranium if a crisis were to happen in the US to prevent a meltdown.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gzuckier says:
At least 20 years ago it was pointed out that although the risk of a true nuclear explosion at a power reactor was low, and although the amount of total radioactivity in a "backpack"/tactical nuclear bomb was low, the combination of such a bomb exploding in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant would spread the enormous amount of radioactive fuel in the plant over a huge area, covering several states. And of course, it is impossible to physically "harden" a nuclear power plant against that kind of damage. Those who argue that American nuclear plants do not face the same geological risk as the Japanese plants did are not getting the point that is being forcibly made for us.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bobnjersey says:
[... industry officials in U.S. say they're prepared for natural disasters... "So we designed the plant to exceed the maximum threat. It's designed to withstand a 7.0." ]
-----------------------------------------------------
ahhh ... max of 7.0 ... and this is the perceived maximum threat?

have they registered this limit w/ mother nature and the great tectonic plate god yet?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
BeezerGeezer says:
The game of "Radioactive Roulette" continues. We in the U.S of A. have been pretty lucky so far. Unfortunately Japan's luck has gone south. Are we next? Mr. Alexander of Southern Califronia Edison's comment about the San Onofre plant being designed to hold up under earthquakes only answers half the question. What he left unaddressed is how well the plant will hold up after being submerged by a tsunami. After all, San Onofre is just a few feet above the beach. Granted the containment vessels will probably be left standing but doubt the control room with all the electrical equipment will function well after being submerged in sea water. I wonder how long the operators can hold thier breath! Building nuclear power plants is a risky business. Building them along faults is very foolish. But to build and operate them along the coasts is pure lunacy. Just ask the Japanese.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
JRC_903 says:
This tragedy in Japan should be used to update our baselines for the probabilities of various things happening. For instance, depending on the exact risk factor for earthquakes certain N plants should either be upgraded (if possible) or replaced if necessary. The NRC (Nuclear rallying agency) has pre-approved what is called the "standard design" for a new generation of advance boiling water reactors.. ABWR... If we could just breing ourselves to realize that like it or not-- we need power that does not depend on hydro-carbon fuels. We need to commit to building at least 100 new reactors during the next 30/40 years--- replacing and supplementing those already in service. I am an independent who usually sees conservatives type as too eager to ignore the environment just to fatten their backside. But ironically, with the latest advances-- nuclear power is the least harmful choice we have. Now--don't tell the red-necks else they will be against it. But----in my humble opinion, N power is our ONLY salvation.
reply
JavMD replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
salvation from what, spent fuel rods in concrete caskets sitting out on the ground at over 100 sites in the USA.

Without proper protection from goofy terrorists for years ahead, I am AGAINSt MORE nuclear plants ESPECIALLY near fault zones and oceans.

Trying learning from history so as not to repeat it
G0DB0DY replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Nobel Peace Prize nominations welcomed.
Earthquake Modifications.
http://www.facebook.com/G0DB0DY#!/photo.php?fbid=190777817624664&set=t.100000773415655&type=1&theater
linkicon reporticon emailicon
knownukes says:
Jeez: I thought we took care of this whole "nuclear disaster" scenario, back in the 1970s & 1980s! As an old-timer, I remember there were enormous protests, trying to shut down Diablo Canyon & Trojan & Rocky Flats &... &...(In fact, I was just reading an Art Buchwald vignette about "the scruffies" vs. "the nukes" at Diablo Canyon. It's deja vu all over again!...) Back in those days, we foolish young kids were worried about getting blown off the earth by the US vs Russia Cold War Showdown (sometimes called "The Nuclear Arms Race"). But then the Cold War "ended," & the 1980s "scruffies" became 1990s "yuppies." And yuppies were worried about getting enough "juice" to fuel their LA lifestyles. And nobody worried about those old nuclear warheads (the US & Russia still have about 20,000, between 'em...& then there's Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, China...). Or what would happen to those "safe, clean, economical" nuclear plants if The Big California Earthquake hit.

Wake up, yuppies! The Cold War ain't over, yet! And nuclear power plants are still a disaster waiting to happen! It's sort of embarrassing, though, now that Stewart ("Whole Earth Cat.") Brand is pro-nuke! And Senator Joe ("Nukes to Israel") Lieberman is calling for a moratorium on nuclear power! Sure brings back the good old days, though... Remember "You Are The Crown of Creation"? Really blows yer mind, don't it?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Philbert_123 says:
So what is your backup plan for replacing 20% of the US electricity generated by these plant? That would be about 5 hours of blackouts per day until a replacement energy source can be found to replace this 20%. You need a realistic transition plan before you can just say shut them all down right now.
reply
JavMD replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
i wonder if the people in northern japan would mind a rolling blackout now? well at least 10,000 won't have a chance to vote on that.

Idiot. its the ocean based, near quakes that need immediate shutdown. and that is nowhere near 20% of US electricity. The California plants need shutdown NOW. Indian Point is upriver 30 miles, should be ok, what quake would distube that. Perry Nuclear power plant is on lake erie, no quake over 5 there. etc etc...

You're playing with data, its not the statistics that lie, its the statistians ! we are NOT talking all the nuke plants, try San Onofre etc. Radiation measured 100 miles away on the US Aircraft carrier approaching JAPAN ! Wake up.. its a melt down !
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sechalfant says:
Why can't we build smaller nuclear power plants that aren't so dangerous? I like nuclear power because it doesn't produce air pollution.
reply
JavMD replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sechalfant... hello? try worrying about NUKE RADIATION Releases... thats the yellow and 'purple' colors NOT ...Green
not_fooled_by_Righties replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
They do produce plutonium which is worse than air pollution.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
JavMD says:
what are they waiting for? the actual quake to hit California?

San Onofre is built to withstand how much? 7.0 and quakes are easily OVER that !

Why are they 'taking' a chance with human lives? Those PLANTs should be shutdown as they do a REVIEW to ensure a 8.8 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami wave will NOT do what is happening in Japan !

Can you even begin to imagine this in California? San Onofre right beside a beach... waves going in 6 miles...

radiation monitored as far as 100 miles by the US Aircraft carrier (in Japan !)...

WHY IS NOT THE NRC, and OBAMA shutting those plants down until they PROVE beyond more than reasonable DOUBT that they could NOT CAUSE A CASTROPHE !

WHY DOES EACH NUKE DISASTER WORST THAN THE LAST ? ! 3 mile, then Chernoboyl now JAPAN. EACH Industry and Government saying ..oh it won't happen to ours, ours is better ... THEN IT UNFOLDS right in front of our eyes !

SHUT THOSE PLANTS DOWN UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE... what are they waiting for? THE ACTUAL EARTHQUAKE TO HIT?

CALCULATE OUT ! HAITI, CHILE, NEW ZEaland, japan ! its obvious.... we don't need a 'rocket' scientist to tell us... WE ARE NEXT ! how many warnings do we NEED????????/

OBAMA.... HELLO????? NRC.... do your JOB... read www.nrc.gov. PROTECT !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
reply
Philbert_123 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
So say we do shut the plants down, what is the plan to deal with the 20% reduction in electricity? That would mean rolling blackouts for about 4 hours per day for everyone for years. Tell me that would be accepted?
JavMD replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
louiville, laugh.. fruit fly... ignorant.

San Onofre is built and design for a 7 quake. 8's are happening all around the world. Would it not be prudent to shut it down to analyze if this plant could truly withstand an 8 and wave?


Three Mile Island wasn't suppose to happen by design nor Chernoboyl, now not the Japan Nukes too...

You're on drugs called cool-aid and ignorance not to see the common sense.

But lets react to disasters... Look how long Millstone 1 stayed on line before they wise up and shut it down. Do you know anything on nukes? and the NRC changed their 'moto' to protect.. shortly after that when they were just as much at fault for allowing it to happen.
u
See all 4 Replies
See all 31 Comments
Scroll Left Scroll Right