By the end of last Thursday, State Senator Sam Blakeslee was fit to be tied. After subjecting Troy Pruett, a high-ranking administrator with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to an hour on the hot seat, Blakeslee couldn’t get Pruett to concede that, where seismic safety of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was concerned, the NRC had put the cart dangerously before the horse. Blakeslee is a conservative Republican who happens to have a PhD in the geology of California’s offshore earthquake faults. His district happens to include Diablo Canyon’s twin towers.
While Blakeslee took pains to say he’s not saying the plant is unsafe per se, he did say the safety procedures were decidedly inadequate. He accused Pruett and the NRC of viewing the seismic safety issues surrounding the plant “through rose-colored glasses.” Even in light of Japan’s recent nuclear catastrophe, Blakeslee charged, the NRC was operating “according to business as usual.” Blakeslee focused most of his remarks on the critical scientific information that still remains unknown about the new fault line discovered 300 yards off the coast from Diablo Canyon in 2008. Blakeslee repeatedly challenged Pruett on how the NRC could plan to release a safety report on Diablo Canyon this June — as part of the plant’s relicensing application — long before new seismic studies on the “Shoreline Fault” could be conducted. The high-impact back-and-forth between Blakeslee and Pruett came during an informational hearing held by the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, chaired by Senator Alex Padilla.
While Blakeslee became surly and, on occasion, sarcastic, Pruett quietly repeated that Diablo Canyon was operating safely and assured the committee members that the plant was engineered to absorb far greater ground acceleration than the longer-known and better-understood Hosgri Fault — or the Shoreline Fault — could unleash. And if new information came to light, he said, casting doubt that Diablo Canyon could be safely operated, the NRC would take “immediate action.” Pruett stressed that Diablo Canyon was required by its permit to continuously update the NRC on new seismic information, and that such information should not be shoehorned into a relicensing permit application. In the past year alone, he said, the NRC dispatched two full-time inspectors, who logged in 8,200 hours ensuring plant safety.
Blakeslee countered that in light of Japan’s nuclear nightmare, extraordinary measures should be taken to ensure the NRC had all the relevant information before decreeing the plant is sufficiently safe to be relicensed. In an interview afterward, he said the relicensing process enjoyed a quasi-judicial status that would force the NRC to focus more rigorously on the question of seismic safety. The burden of proof, he contended, for submitting safety concerns outside of the relicensing process was “substantially more difficult.” Even so, Blakeslee conceded, the NRC has never rejected or suspended the relicensing application of any nuclear operator.
Blakeslee charged that the NRC, to a dangerous degree, relied upon the nuclear-power-plant operator for information regarding the safety of that plant. He faulted a report issued this January by geologists hired by PG&E — which owns Diablo Canyon — stating that the seismic capacity of the new fault, 6.5, falls well below the 7.5 magnitude for which the plant was built. Blakeslee objected that, absent high-tech 3-d seismic studies, which have yet to be conducted, it’s impossible to know exactly where the new fault is located, how far down it goes, and whether it connects to other faults in the area, like the Hosgri Fault. If it did, he suggested, the magnitude of the quake Shoreline could generate could exceed PG&E’s predictions. And the NRC, he stated, lacks the geologic experts needed to conduct an independent analysis. “TEPCO made similar assertions about the offshore fault system,” Blakeslee said about the owners of the now imperiled nuclear reactors at Fukushima. But in 2007, a TEPCO reactor was seriously damaged because of an earthquake registering twice what company geologists said could be expected from a fault line 18 kilometers away. The recent Japanese quake registered 9.0, even though, he said, experts had stated the offshore geology was capable of nothing more than a 7.9.
Blakeslee has been pressing for the new seismic studies for the past six years; three years ago, the Legislature passed a bill calling for such studies. The California Energy Commission has likewise weighed in. But after all that — and a “Chernobyl-level nuclear accident” — he complained, “We still can’t get the NRC’s attention.” Joining Blakeslee in demanding that the NRC suspend PG&E’s relicensing application are Congressmember Lois Capps and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. PG&E has rejected calls for suspension but has asked the NRC to hold off making a final recommendation, pending results of the newest seismic studies. The operating licenses for Diablo Canyon don’t expire for 13 years. It typically takes 22-30 months to process such an application.
Where Blakelee was hot, committee chair Alex Padilla was cool in his questioning. Padilla focused on problems with the state’s other nuclear power plant, also along the coast, at San Onofre. When Padilla pressed Pruett for specific concerns the NRC had with San Onofre, Pruett described them as “Tier 1 safety concerns,” like not tightening down a bolt according to specifications. Padilla responded, noting that San Onofre employees had falsified certain records for five years, that the plant’s backup diesel generators had failed, and that wiring problems may have rendered the plant’s backup energy system inoperative for at least five years. “These are Tier 1?” he asked. Pruett answered that his remarks had been intended to apply only to the plant’s performance in 2010.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Anyone who thinks Nuke power is safe probably has little or no empathy towards humans, so how could they possibly care what happens? Nuke power was developed for bombs, it continues to operate because of power elites who care nothing about the environment or the health of humans. How many millions will develop cancer because of the current Nuke screw up but will have no recourse because incubation will be many years. Myopia is not an option here.
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2011 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if Blakeslee (or contactjohn, for that matter) have any scientific or engineering knowledge that would allow them to judge the safety of Diablo Canyon or any other nuclear facility. I suggest they both compare the number of people killed in auto accidents with the number killed in nuclear accidents.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2011 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why wait to get the data JL? E know cobras are dangerous, we could compare the data of cobra deaths to car accidents.
I applaud Blakeslee for doing the right thing, and he has the knowledge being a scientist specializing in the seismology of our area.
EZK (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2011 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The argument that "Nuke power was developed for bombs" is ridiculous. Wikipedia even has an article that talks specifically about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use...
Nuclear power is an extremely efficient method to produce energy. A baseball bat can be an extremely efficient tool to beat the snot out of somebody else, but it is understood that that is not its intended purpose.
With that said, it's extremely important to operate these reactors with the highest possible degree of safety, and I'm all for doing extra checks when new data requires us to. This is a good opportunity to make some changes (if necessary) to the existing reactors which have both aged considerably since they were first built.
Falsified safety reports are NOT ok - we ought to be holding the plant operators responsible for this neglect and demanding regular, thorough, safety checks. If the complexes aren't up to an appropriate level of safety, tear them down or retrofit them so they are. There is no cost too high to protect us from catastrophic failure. At the end of the day, I'm sure that there are plenty of nuclear engineering grad students interested in implementing safer designs in place of these old plants which have survived for several decades without incident.
SBGuy224 (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2011 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
>In the past year alone, he said, the NRC dispatched two
>full-time inspectors, who logged in 8,200 hours ensuring plant
>safety.
Lets assume 240 working days per year with 8h per day and two inspectors ... = 3840h!
locke (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2011 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blakeslee is right about the NRC.
This 5 member board comes from within the nuclear industry and has no one regulating their screw-up's. The one thing we need to de-commision right away is the NRC itself. This failed commission needs replacing by an independent board of people who live in the area where the nuclear power plant exists. Each nuclear plant in the U.S. needs a local review board. 5 bureaucrats from D.C. should not have the elitist power to decide what is safe for 36,900,000 Californians. We have no rights to protect our health and safety with the current dysfuntional system. Lois Capps and Congress need to change this broken system.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2011 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congress is a broken system. Who really runs/owns the place? A year after the BP blowout, no new changes, regulations, independent study reports blowout preventers don't work, and they are handing out new permits!??!!><:( Corruption to the highest degree. PG&E has agents in government too, taking large 'donations'. To some we are just numbers to be made profit off of and subsidies generated from. Remember the congressman apologizing to BP? The NRC pays two inspectors for 8200 hours of work in a year? That comes to 11+ hours per guy working 365 days. Seems to me we cannot trust any of these corporations, I mean people.
spacey (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2011 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If nuke power were so safe and reliable, why cannot the industry get private insurance?
The market has spoken.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2011 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes we need to let China and India take world leadership of this useful technology so that Americans can be reduced to slavish dependency, fighting over bench realignment and open container tickets as the Communist Party of China plans the next dozen Nuclear Power Plants, coal plants and wind turbine/solar panel industrial manufacturing facilities and hundreds of thousands of Chinese engineers graduate annually. Meanwhile American high schools have become defunct shooting galleries for crack dealer drive by's and Johnny can't read, write or add. But we need "empathy" because, see, Johnny's parents are cross addicted to pot, Marlboro's, booze, pill popping Oxycotin and poor dears must have their coke/smack/speed too. And so we can borrow money from the Chinese. Republicans are making sure that our national bond ratings sink so low that even if we wanted to build nuclear, or solar or wind or NG or oil, we would not be able to afford the necessary capital anyway...of course, millions will die from premature lymphomas and sarcomas and carcinomas from coal-fired pollution, global warming and yes even nuclear radiation from nuclear power plants in countries like Mexico and Venezuala and Columbia and Pakistan and Uganda where at least they don't have crazed anti nuclears gumming up the works - the local governments simply "disappear" protesters. But by golly SLOMFP et al will do all they can to shut down nuclear power in the good ol' USA - after all we, can buy power from the People's Republic of Nowheresville with whatever purchasing power the dollar may have left....
eyewitness (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2011 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)