What's the most at-risk U.S. nuclear power plant?

The Indian Point Energy Center is seen from across the Hudson River September 24, 2002 in Buchanan, New York. / Getty

Could it happen here? That's the question on everyone's mind as we watch the nuclear emergency unfold at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. As it turns out, the U.S. government has long been asking the same question.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently provided MSNBC with an updated list of the American plants most at risk of core damage (which can lead to meltdowns and radiation release) in the event of an earthquake. What parts of the country are most at risk? You may be surprised.

Most people would assume California plants, built around the turbulent San Andreas fault line, might be in the most dangerous position. Actually, the most at-risk plant isn't even on the West Coast - it's on the Indian Point Energy Center Hudson River.

Complete coverage: Disaster in Japan

Radiation reality check: Risks and fears

Indian Point, located in Buchanan, N.Y., has the highest risk of core damage in the event of an earthquake, according to NRC estimates reported by MSNBC. At a 1 in 10,000 chance of core breach, that's right on the verge of what the NRC calls "immediate concern regarding adequate protection." 

The East Coast comes off much worse than other parts of the country. The second plant on the list is Pilgrim 1 in Massachusetts. Number three is in Pennsylvania. The only West Coast plant is Diablo Canyon in California at number nine.

What explains it?

The government's list considered how close the plants were to major fault lines and how well they were designed to handle an earthquake. Back in the 1960s and 70s, when most of the plants were built, the government knew about earthquake risks on the West Coast. Those plants were designed to withstand them. But new surveying technology has revealed fault lines in the central and eastern states where plants were not designed for the serious stresses of a large quake.

That's turned the risks upside down. California plants now seem relatively safer, according to the government estimates provided to MSNBC, and East Coast plants, once deemed at low risk, have jumped to the top of the list.

It is important to note the list refers to core damage, not a meltdown. But as the University of Georgia's Cham Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and mass Destruction Defense, explains, "core damage can lead to water loss which can lead to a meltdown."

Testifying before House panel Wednesday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, "The American people should have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japa, but the administration is committed to learning from Japan's experience as we work to continue to strengthen America's nuclear industry. Safety remains at the forefront of our effort to responsibly develop America's energy resources, and we will continue to incorporate the best practices and lessons learned in that process."

Check MSNBC for the full list of 104 plants and their risk profile.

[PourpaixPourpaix]

I think things get skewed in the favor of the person's bias who talks. But at least we should start with the facts, hopefully in the difficult-to-achieve objective sense. Comparing our risks with what happened in Japan is important, but what happened in Japan? The Fukushima reactors were NOT subjected to a magnitude 9 earthquake. Yes, it was a magnitude 9 at the epicenter 120 miles away and 10 miles down. But earthquake energy is quickly dissipated. At the Fukushima nuclear facility, the effective magnitude was 7.

However, the magnitude 9 earthquake caused a very large tsunami, which did not dissipate much energy over the short distance to the Fukushima site.

I think when determining potential damages to USA nuclear sites, this has to be kept in mind. Many of our nuclear sites have a fairly probable potential for a stronger earthquake than that experienced at the Fukushima, and hopefully none are subject to tsunami damage. It is very difficult to separate the risks, but it's a worthy attempt nonetheless, assuming someone can be found who is both qualified and has no ax that gets ground in the process. That is probably more difficult than surviving the Japan tragedy.

A lot has been blamed on the tsunami knocking out the emergency generators that are necessary to keep the reactors cool following the earthquake damage. However, I saw a post by a nuclear consultant, who claimed that USA emergency generators often fail power-up tests. Somewhere between minor unreliabilities to actually breaking up rendering the generators permanently useless. In one test, three generators actually broke after inspectors demanded a test because the power plant operators were too lazy. I've been involved with such generators at non-nuclear facilities ..... you can't depend on them without regular tests.

But I too, have opinions ...... and I think that if we are not smart enough to keep nuclear power plants out of tsunami zones, we are probably not smart enough to have the things in the first place. Does coal do us any better? I don't know ..... all the coal slag and airborne particulates can't be doing us any good. I guess we wait for the day that we grow enough morals and ethics to objectively study such things.

[PourpaixPourpaix]

Wow, the name of the Japanese facility in trouble, the one in Okuma that's all over the news...... CBS has already declared the name of the facility is an obscenity!!!!! Starts with F, followed U, then K, then A, then SHIMA. Changed all to *********** in my post. Now there's an opinion I can agree with!

[omnibus66]

I just love all these simple solutions to complex problems. Before you go willy nilly shutting down all the nuclear powered generators, you had better have something to replace them. Putting millions of households and businesses in the dark, on top of pushing gas prices to $8.00 - $10.00 per gallon would spell complete financial collapse of the entire country. Any other bright ideas?

[dougy2233]

It is no secrete that New York City could, in a quick moment, easily be in the same terrible situation that has cast a frightening nuclear pall of doom around the entire Tokyo area. Like the reactors at Fukushima, the multiple reactors at Indian Point Nuclear Facility also stores its deadly radioactive waste on site in an unprotected steel building. New York's Indian Point active reactors were built in 1962 and sit at the intersection of two active seismic plates capable of producing an event that are could exceed 6.2 on the Richter Scale according to recent studies done at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. This fact was unknown at the date of their construction. Entergy, the company that owns and operates Indian Point, has applied for renewal to extend operations, just like Tokyo Electric recently did at Fukushima.

Perhaps more troubling, Indian Point is a sitting duck a mere 25 miles from the worst terror attack ever to take place on American soil. Entergy has an excellent and effective public relations campaign; pumping vast amounts of money to placate both politicians and populace. Even environmental organizations like nearby Historic Hudson Valley have accepted hundreds of thousands in Entergy donations. Look at the agony in Japan - their largest cosmopolitan city on the brink of poisoning. Look at the parallels right here in our region. Would it not be better to take our heads out of the sand and quickly decommission this obsolete and hellacious threat in an orderly way? The sacrifice would be small in comparison to the potential consequences. Murphy's law, if it can it will.

[random_radar]

In the event of a nuclear disaster, I am sure the government already has a handbook of excuses and assurances ready for the press conference. We called that preparedness.

[JavMD]

wow, china suspends licensing of new plants, Germany shuts down their old ones,

NRC here takes wait and see approach, hope its not wait and see an earthquake and wave

[erasmus111]

"...hope its not wait and see an earthquake and wave"


I'm thinking maybe it is.

[erasmus111]

"Could it happen here?"


Of course it could happen!

[enlightenu]

This article is either incomplete or this is a totally illogical claim to make. They are implying that the east coast plants are built with absolutely zero, absolutely no seismic protection? The only earthquakes on the east coast a very minor. There isn't a fault line within 2000 miles, and that fault is spreading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg

[nfission]

There is no way the government can guarantee our safety from a nuclear threat form power plants. Nuclear power is extremely volatile if a problem occurs. And when they lie to us it only makes matters worse.

[JavMD]

I am watching the Senate hearings with the NRC, I am so disappointed that the Senators have no balls to demand the NRC shut down the old ocean nuke plants considering a 9 hit Japan. Shame Senator Boxer

[sjc_1]

They decommissioned one of the three reactors at San Onofre, California right on the coast that was brought online in 1968, but they still have two large reactors there brought online in the early 80s. They are about the same age as the two reactors at Diablo Canyon right on the coast. 25 years old may not be a lot, but once they get near 40 years old we might consider decommissioning.

[ajvw]

sjc-1...It's taken awhile but there is finally something we agree on. I actually think we should close all the nuclear plants that are located within (somebody smarter than me can do the study) miles of a major fault line. Build a bunch of them in Nebraska; that's what the power grid is for.

[JavMD]

agree ajvw,

sad the senate is at the edge of safety, but lack the balls to demand the NRC temporarily shutdown the ocean, high risk zone plants