10 Riskiest Nuclear Power Plants in America

As we watch the continuing catastrophe in Japan unfold with no clear expectations of the outcome, one thing is for certain: The safety of nuclear power has become a hot topic of conversation. While some countries are shutting down plants, many other are reevaluating the safety of theirs and strategizing over future plans.

In the U.S. we have 104 nuclear reactors. What are the chances that any of them could be home to an emergency like that at Fukushima Dai-ichi? The west coast would seem most at risk, given the busy San Andreas Fault. But an MSNBC analysis of data from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) places the odds of an earthquake disabling the core of reactor elsewhere.

The NRC has calculated the odds of a quake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant and has determined that for the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there is a 1 in 74,176 chance each year that the core could be damaged by an earthquake badly enough to leak radiation. As MSNBC puts it, that’s 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145. The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.

In the ranking one would expect the top spot to go to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors nestled in between the Pacific coastline and the San Andreas Fault; or the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, amidst fault lines on land and under the ocean. But no and no. Nuclear power plants built on the California coastline have a lower risk of damage from earthquakes than those in other areas because they were designed and built with earthquakes in mind.

Meanwhile, plants in the East, South and Midwest, where earthquake risk wasn’t as highly considered in the design, now find themselves at the top of the NRC’s risk list. Why? Because geologists have learned a lot about the dangers of earthquakes in these areas. New faults have been found, and new computer models have changed predictions for how earthquakes may occur. According to MSNBC, the latest estimates are drawn from the 2008 maps of the U.S. Geological Survey. Of special note, the USGS said, was an allowance for waves of large earthquakes in the New Madrid fault area roughly centered on the Missouri Bootheel, as well as inclusion of offshore faults near Charleston, S.C., and new data from the mountains of East Tennessee.

The ratings, number 1 being the riskiest, are fascinating in that they also include the increase of risk (when available) based on how the USGS data changed from 1989 to 2008.

1 of 11

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Zack D.

4:44PM PDT on Apr 17, 2012

http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/nnn.html Check out updated nuclear news now

send a green star

Hartson D.

9:59AM PDT on Mar 11, 2012

Sandy K is right on. There is also the construction defects that were okayed by the NRC during construction. I worked inside three plants NOT on this list and I can turn your hair grey with defect problems that I found, as a Quality Control Nuclear Inspector.

Sandy K.

5:14AM PST on Jan 8, 2012

This report only takes into account earthquakes. There's no mention of design flaws (Fukushima a boiling water reactor has a number of them and saw different attempts to correct even as they were being constructed), floods (Iowa has seen 2 500-year floods in about 15 years), tornadoes (had they really taken into account the kind Joplan saw last year when these were built?), terrorism (many reactors in the US like the one at Fukushima have extremely volatile spent fuel rods packed way too close together in pools of water high in the air with minimal protection) and the big one - corporate corner cutting on maintenance. This last one is the most ominous and the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 set a limit on the liability of nuclear plants if they blow radiation all over. As no insurance company would touch the liability, the government needed to step in with taxpayer backing so as to promote perhaps the most dangerous experiment of our lifetimes.
There hasn't been a commercial nuclear facility built in since 1977 for good reason and they aren't just economic.
Oh, and if you think you're safe because a nuke near you isn't on the list, consider that Greece took more radioactive fallout than many points in between it and Chernobyl, about 1,000 miles away.
Don't get me started on evacuation plans or spent fuel storage....

Caroline W.

5:39PM PDT on Aug 29, 2011

I would have thought we would have learnt something from Japan. I would, personally, like to see all nuclear plants shut down. Coal might have a lot of problems, but NONE of those problems are nearly as dangerous as reactors are. I feel like we are all sitting on top of landmines. One wrong move, and BOOM....!

Morgan G.

8:45AM PDT on Aug 27, 2011

Interesting that in spite of getting a major portion of its electricity from nuclear sources, none of the Illinois reactors are listed here. They must be doing pretty well.

jane r.

7:38AM PDT on Jun 6, 2011

Scary

Charles W.

9:06AM PDT on May 30, 2011

@Paul D: "If Fukishima had a safe place to store there spent fuel the damage would have been reduced by more than half."

The problem is, Paul, that a safe place to store spent nuclear fuel does NOT actually exist. We now know that Yucca Mountain isn't such a place, with over 30 geological faults discovered within 50 miles of the facilities:

http://www.sric.org/voices/2001/v2n1/yuccaproblems.html

If we had actually spent the tens of $billions to move our nuclear waste there, all it would take is ONE earthquake to release some or all of it into our environment catastrophically. There are cheaper, and far less dangerous, ways to fill our energy needs. Russian Roulette may be an emotionally exhiliarating game, but it is far to dangerous for any sane person to play.

Paul D.

7:40PM PDT on May 29, 2011

This is to Steven,
I don't know with whom you are talking. Everyone I know who has respect for science and the scientific process when faced with a scientific report that disagrees with our beliefs or the science that we have learned. I examine it.
1st I look at who commisioned the report. Then I try to determine if the science is valid. If the science is beyond my understanding I ask others who are more knowledgeable than I. Then I look at the peer reviews.
If all of that is undeniable then I am bound to change my mind. That is my approach and the approach of all the people that I respect.
On the issue of Nuclear power plants I have worked in power plants in the Hudson Valley from the Jersey shore to Poughkeepsie I was in on the building of 2 of the plants at Indian Pt. I have been in them for maintenance and repair more times than I care to count.
I believe in nuclear power. However I am not so foolish as to think there are no dangers. We must be aware of the dangers and build to minimize them. We need to hope for the best and plan for the worst.
We need to build and ready for use facilities like Yucca Mtn. We must get past the NIMBY attitudes so that we can transport this material to those facilities.
If Fukishima had a safe place to store there spent fuel the damage would have been reduced by more than half.
~;^}>