Meehan is a geotechnical engineer who participated in several controversial nuclear plant projects in California, including Bodega Head, Malibu, and Diablo Canyon. Though the book discusses all of those projects, its unifying narrative centers around the six year long effort to renew the license for the GE Test Reactor at Vallecitos.
That reactor, first licensed in 1957, was issued a 20-year operating license; it was a test reactor, not a power reactor.
Aside: The 5 MWe GE Test Reactor at Vallecitos initially operated as a power producing facility. In 1963, GE decided to stop producing electricity with the plant, apparently for economic reasons. The NRC issued a possession only license. Later, the company recognized an opportunity to supply medical isotopes and reactivated the license. This history might provide a useful precedent for operating license recovery. End Aside.
In 1976, just before its license renewal was due, some enterprising geologists discovered a discontinuity in the ground a few hundred meters from the plant. The plant, which was supplying about 50% of the medical isotopes used in the US was issued a “Show Cause” order that required proof that it was adequately safe before it could continue operating.
That process required six years of research, arguments, reports, and hearings. By the time it was over, GE had lost its isotope market to Canadian suppliers.
As both observer and participant in the acrimonious discussions, Meehan developed an understanding that reason and education were not the cure that some believed they should be. He recognized that science was almost as adversarial a profession as law, especially when it came to what he called an “historical science” like geology.
He recognized that there were certain facts that could be discovered, but there were as many interpretations of those facts as there were scientists involved in the discussion. He saw how fruitless it became to attempt to resolve disputes by involving more scientists or more research; all that did was to expand the controversy at great expense.
In the preface to his book, Meehan freely admitted that his company enjoyed increasing revenues associated with geologic controversies.
By the early 1970s we were heavily involved in consulting work for the utilities, assisting them in evaluating geologic hazards at proposed (or existing) nuclear power plant sites. It seemed that throughout much of the western United States, what might appear to the traditional utility engineer as immovable bedrock wasn’t immovable after all.
…
Suddenly, the spotlight searched for geologists. And there we were. We became experts on finding and evaluating these geologic faults. We tried to stick to our original standards. Truth. Honesty. Good science. Good engineering. We explored the ground by digging miles of trenches, inspecting the earth inch by inch. We were terrestrial pathologists looking for cancer cells in the bones of the earth. We spun theories about various flaws that we encountered tin the geological fabric. We testified in Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings.
(p. xi)
He also made it clear that he was not a disinterested historian or bystander in the controversies he documents and attempts to explain.
The innocent reader should be warned that this book is a participant’s account and in that sense can be accused of lacking objectivity, whatever that may be. But let the readers who are concerned with my objectivity be assert that my aim is not to convert them to a pro- or antinuclear point of view, for I am indifferent to that question. My objective is more ambitious; I aim to raise a more fundamental issue. That is, in what ways can honesty and objectivity among scientific experts actually exist?
I’ll probably come back to provide additional information related to Meehan’s work, but there is one passage that stands out as something that needs to be logged now as a smoking gun. The below quote begins on page 41.
To those geologists who believed the site unsuitable, Yerkes and Wentworth from the USGS and Barclay Kamb from Cal Tech, the site could be accurately described as being “within a fault zone.” As Kamb described it: “The disturbed zone at Malibu passes directly beneath the proposed reactor installation… In relation to the possible range of exposure to fault hazards in southern California, the Malibu site ranks as among the more hazardous possible.”
These words were music to the ears of the Malibu landowners who had banded together to oppose the project. One of them, former Richfield Oil president Frank Morgan, arranged a gala picnic on the site, nominally sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Geologist members, having been treated to beer and steaks were led to inspect some open trenches, then invited to sign a petition stating that the site was unsafe for a nuclear power plant. A hundred or so signatures were collected. To the utility geologists making detailed studies of the trenches, this beery performance was a disgrace to geological professionalism. Fifteen years later, casual mention of the AAPG picnic incident could still evoke a passionate condemnation of the lack of professionalism of petroleum geologists from one of the geologists who had been involved on Los Angeles Department of water and Power’s behalf. Suspicions still linger that the whole affair was a plot on the part of the oil companies to destroy nuclear power.
(Emphasis added.)
Meehan and Douglas Hamilton, his partner, developed their geologic/geotechnical consulting company partly based on the attention gained in helping to determine the cause of the Baldwin Hills reservoir collapse. They published an influential article the April 23, 1971 issue of Science titled Ground Rupture in Baldwin Hills: Injection of fluids into the ground for oil recovery and waste disposal triggers surface faulting.
The History Channel produced a video documenting the tragic event, which occurred on December 14, 1963.
One more thought occurred to me after reading Meehan’s book about how fractious geologic debates engulfed numerous nuclear power plant projects.
The Baldwin Dam failure was one of the seminal events that stimulated the interest in catastrophic consequences of not paying proper attention to geology in construction. That event focused attention on the impact of oil and gas extraction on fault movement.
Somehow, by the late 1970s the issue of how oil and gas extraction affects geologic stability and puts its neighbors at risk was submerged in all of the attention paid to the allegations that nuclear plants were too weak to be constructed in a geologically active area.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
11 Comments
“…….nuclear plant projects in California, including Bodega Head, Malibu, and Diablo Canyon”
Malibu??? Where the heck was that plant? I grew up in that area, and am unaware there was such a plant.
The Corral Canyon Nuclear Power Plant was never built.
Neither was Bodega Head. Both were nuclear power plant projects, they just never came to fruition.
I’m becoming increasingly aware of the many ways in which the industry itself has been its own worst enemy. And this does not involve the fossil industry. (Not saying that it’s not also true that the fossil industry has been working to hold back nuclear!)
Many in our industry seem to have bought into the notion that nuclear is somehow special and that therefore nothing less than perfection is good enough for this one industry, Either some misguided sense of professional pride or a real misconception that the potential consequences are uniquely high. At a minimum, there is resignation to the fact that “that’s just how things are done” in our industry (not thinking much about how it got that way).
This may be the reason that our industry largely just accepts whatever burdens NRC or politicians place on it, whereas the fossil industry almost always sues (or has their bought-off politicians wage a political war) when any significant regulations, no matter how desperately needed or warranted, are attempted (e.g., regulations on coal pollution and/or soot, CO2 reductions, or fracking regulations).
Anyway, another insidious factor is companies that make money off of the incredible (unnecessary) regulations and burdens that are placed on our industry. They seem to have no fear that they may actually kill off the host industry, or sense that if we (instead) had several times as many plants that they could still make more money.
The geology companies Rod discusses above are one example of this, but other examples throughout our industry of companies making money off of the industry having to comply with extreme regulations and requirements. These include endless, needlessly rigorous analyses, needlessly expensive safety measures, attaining extremely low dose levels (to workers or the public), absurdly strict cleanup requirements, and measures to contain or process materials that should be just free released into the environment. Another example is national lab scientists, who hype “problems” with nuclear so that they receive funding to work on “solutions”.
Despite the fact that these requirements/measures, and associated (needless) expenses, are tragically indefensible, companies do not question them, but instead say that they can find ways to perform those tasks (for a fee).
Perhaps I’m being too hard on these companies. Perhaps it’s not their job to question the requirements, or get involved with the politics. But these companies, and the people who work in them, represent a large fraction of our industry. And it seems clear that this whole segment of the industry is doing nothing to question excessive requirements. Indeed, to the extent that they speak at all, their voice may lean towards keeping or promulgating requirements, since they stand to make money. The only people on the other side are plant owners themselves, and they don’t seem to be fighting too hard…. All of this must have some political impact over the long run.
The real tragedy is that since these companies, labs, etc.. are within the industry, politicians tend to view them as the “pro-nuclear” side. They are the ones that have politicians ear to a large extent. Those entities are the ones that represent our side, despite the fact that their interests often do NOT coincide with the interests of nuclear power (i.e., increased use of nuclear). When it comes to increased requirements, it could be that the voices of this “pro-nuclear side” will line up with what the anti-nukes are saying. At a minimum, they won’t fight against new requirements all that much.
Perhaps Rod could start another “smoking gun” series. In this case, it’s not the fossil fuel industry trying to hold back nuclear, but examples of nuclear-related companies (or labs) trying to make a buck off of excessive nuclear requirements. Just a suggestion……
@ Jim Hopf
Nuclear is special and unique. So we in the industry are constantly reminded.
I agree whole heartedly in your words above and would add that until the industry, the NRC, and the politicians embrace the FACT that we do NOT live in a risk free world, our chosen field, at least in this nation, will continue to decline.
Well we can complain about the “special” treatment all we want, and bemoan the misunderstanding that the public has about the effects of tiny radiation doses, but the fact remains that the public at large does believe radiation is special. Just look at the situation in Japan – fifty some reactors shut down now going on four years. In what other industry do you see a response like that?
I think I spot a fundamentally flawed premise of some of those involved in the story related by this book?
“Geologist members, having been treated to beer and steaks were led to inspect some open trenches, then invited to sign a petition stating that the site was unsafe for a nuclear power plant. A hundred or so signatures were collected.”
So, it seems to me that geologists should be consulted for expert opinion on the likelihood of frequency of occurence and magnitude of earthquakes happening at a potential site, However, it is not within the scope of expertise and competence for a geologist to determine if a site is suitable for a particular use, such as a nuclear power plant.
The opinions of geologists should factor into the decision making process of nuclear engineers and the NRC in determining what design(s) would be suitable for a site given the possibility of an earthquake. It’s entirely possible (and I believe, someone correct me if I’m wrong, the NRC REQUIRES this of all nuclear plants ) for a nuclear plant to be designed to safely withstand earthquakes of a particular magnitude (and history has borne out that nuclear plants have routinely survived earthquakes).
So, the whole premise of geologists signing a petition that a site isn’t suitable for a nuclear plant, to me, seems flawed?
The role played by the oil & gas industry & AAPG recounted by Meehan is ironic given that today’s mounting controversy, and one which I think will have some legs, is the role that increased hydraulic fracturing (actually the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells) plays in inducing and propagating earthquakes along known fault lines, something that has been know and documented in the scientific literature at least since the late 50s & 60s. Compelling studies of the situation in OK have been published in the past few years notably by the USGS and the ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics at U of OK (PDF).
“Within the central and eastern United States, the number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years. Between the years 1973–2008, there was an average of 21 earthquakes of magnitude three and larger in the central and eastern United States. This rate jumped to an average of 99 M3+ earthquakes per year in 2009–2013, and the rate continues to rise. In 2014, alone, there were 659 M3 and larger earthquakes.”
Imagine for a moment if the locations of NPPs could somehow be linked to dramatic (factor of >1000) increases in earthquakes, some of which damaged buildings e.g. M5.6 Prague, Oklahoma. How much would the news media take notice? Courts? Regulatory agencies?
Senator Barbara Boxer is the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Yesterday, she provided an example of the way that committee chairmen can abuse their power, ignore rules, and tread in areas where they have no knowledge or understanding. Fortunately, the existing members of the NRC are reasonably strong individuals who politely…
Natural Gas Watch has published a fascinating interview with Josh Fox, the creator of the often mentioned documentary about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) titled Gasland. Fox is well into the production cycle for a sequel titled Gasland II; he described the difference between filming the first movie as an unknown documentarian and making…
On Sunday, February 21, I gathered a group of well experienced nuclear professionals to talk about the impact of President Obama’s February 16, 2010 speech announcing loan guarantees for Southern Company to build two additional units at its Vogtle Nuclear Station. Margaret Harding, Kelly Taylor, John Wheeler from This Week in Nuclear, Dan Yurman from…
On November 23, 2009 — close to six years ago — the Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a license renewal application for Diablo Canyon units 1 and 2. That renewal application continues its excruciatingly slow journey through obstacles that continue to be invented by people who are opposed to the use of nuclear energy….
On Sunday, March 20, a group of pro nuclear energy communicators gathered to chat about the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station following a devastating earthquake and tsunami that put the entire station into a blackout condition. As predicted at the very beginning of the casualty, there have been no releases of radioactive…
Sometime between June 24, 2015 and January 21, 2016, a building remodeling project in Steamboat Springs, CO resulted in the loss of 7.5 curies of tritium. A reasonable guess is that the container holding the tritium was tossed into a construction debris dumpster and carted off to a local landfill. The incident was reported to…
“…….nuclear plant projects in California, including Bodega Head, Malibu, and Diablo Canyon”
Malibu??? Where the heck was that plant? I grew up in that area, and am unaware there was such a plant.
The Corral Canyon Nuclear Power Plant was never built.
Neither was Bodega Head. Both were nuclear power plant projects, they just never came to fruition.
I’m becoming increasingly aware of the many ways in which the industry itself has been its own worst enemy. And this does not involve the fossil industry. (Not saying that it’s not also true that the fossil industry has been working to hold back nuclear!)
Many in our industry seem to have bought into the notion that nuclear is somehow special and that therefore nothing less than perfection is good enough for this one industry, Either some misguided sense of professional pride or a real misconception that the potential consequences are uniquely high. At a minimum, there is resignation to the fact that “that’s just how things are done” in our industry (not thinking much about how it got that way).
This may be the reason that our industry largely just accepts whatever burdens NRC or politicians place on it, whereas the fossil industry almost always sues (or has their bought-off politicians wage a political war) when any significant regulations, no matter how desperately needed or warranted, are attempted (e.g., regulations on coal pollution and/or soot, CO2 reductions, or fracking regulations).
Anyway, another insidious factor is companies that make money off of the incredible (unnecessary) regulations and burdens that are placed on our industry. They seem to have no fear that they may actually kill off the host industry, or sense that if we (instead) had several times as many plants that they could still make more money.
The geology companies Rod discusses above are one example of this, but other examples throughout our industry of companies making money off of the industry having to comply with extreme regulations and requirements. These include endless, needlessly rigorous analyses, needlessly expensive safety measures, attaining extremely low dose levels (to workers or the public), absurdly strict cleanup requirements, and measures to contain or process materials that should be just free released into the environment. Another example is national lab scientists, who hype “problems” with nuclear so that they receive funding to work on “solutions”.
Despite the fact that these requirements/measures, and associated (needless) expenses, are tragically indefensible, companies do not question them, but instead say that they can find ways to perform those tasks (for a fee).
Perhaps I’m being too hard on these companies. Perhaps it’s not their job to question the requirements, or get involved with the politics. But these companies, and the people who work in them, represent a large fraction of our industry. And it seems clear that this whole segment of the industry is doing nothing to question excessive requirements. Indeed, to the extent that they speak at all, their voice may lean towards keeping or promulgating requirements, since they stand to make money. The only people on the other side are plant owners themselves, and they don’t seem to be fighting too hard…. All of this must have some political impact over the long run.
The real tragedy is that since these companies, labs, etc.. are within the industry, politicians tend to view them as the “pro-nuclear” side. They are the ones that have politicians ear to a large extent. Those entities are the ones that represent our side, despite the fact that their interests often do NOT coincide with the interests of nuclear power (i.e., increased use of nuclear). When it comes to increased requirements, it could be that the voices of this “pro-nuclear side” will line up with what the anti-nukes are saying. At a minimum, they won’t fight against new requirements all that much.
Perhaps Rod could start another “smoking gun” series. In this case, it’s not the fossil fuel industry trying to hold back nuclear, but examples of nuclear-related companies (or labs) trying to make a buck off of excessive nuclear requirements. Just a suggestion……
@ Jim Hopf
Nuclear is special and unique. So we in the industry are constantly reminded.
I agree whole heartedly in your words above and would add that until the industry, the NRC, and the politicians embrace the FACT that we do NOT live in a risk free world, our chosen field, at least in this nation, will continue to decline.
Well we can complain about the “special” treatment all we want, and bemoan the misunderstanding that the public has about the effects of tiny radiation doses, but the fact remains that the public at large does believe radiation is special. Just look at the situation in Japan – fifty some reactors shut down now going on four years. In what other industry do you see a response like that?
I think I spot a fundamentally flawed premise of some of those involved in the story related by this book?
“Geologist members, having been treated to beer and steaks were led to inspect some open trenches, then invited to sign a petition stating that the site was unsafe for a nuclear power plant. A hundred or so signatures were collected.”
So, it seems to me that geologists should be consulted for expert opinion on the likelihood of frequency of occurence and magnitude of earthquakes happening at a potential site, However, it is not within the scope of expertise and competence for a geologist to determine if a site is suitable for a particular use, such as a nuclear power plant.
The opinions of geologists should factor into the decision making process of nuclear engineers and the NRC in determining what design(s) would be suitable for a site given the possibility of an earthquake. It’s entirely possible (and I believe, someone correct me if I’m wrong, the NRC REQUIRES this of all nuclear plants ) for a nuclear plant to be designed to safely withstand earthquakes of a particular magnitude (and history has borne out that nuclear plants have routinely survived earthquakes).
So, the whole premise of geologists signing a petition that a site isn’t suitable for a nuclear plant, to me, seems flawed?
The role played by the oil & gas industry & AAPG recounted by Meehan is ironic given that today’s mounting controversy, and one which I think will have some legs, is the role that increased hydraulic fracturing (actually the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells) plays in inducing and propagating earthquakes along known fault lines, something that has been know and documented in the scientific literature at least since the late 50s & 60s. Compelling studies of the situation in OK have been published in the past few years notably by the USGS and the ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics at U of OK (PDF).
Imagine for a moment if the locations of NPPs could somehow be linked to dramatic (factor of >1000) increases in earthquakes, some of which damaged buildings e.g. M5.6 Prague, Oklahoma. How much would the news media take notice? Courts? Regulatory agencies?
@Aaron Rizzio
Another ironic facet of the use of geologic risk as a way to discredit nuclear power plant projects starting in the 1960s is the fact that the impact of oil and gas extraction on surface geologic stability was becoming apparent at about the same time. As noted in the post, Meehan and Hamilton, his partner, published an influential article the April 23, 1971 issue of Science titled Ground Rupture in Baldwin Hills: Injection of fluids into the ground for oil recovery and waste disposal triggers surface faulting.
Could fracking (lubrication) be used to remove ground instability?
It looks like California hasn’t got enough water to do that.
http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-05/groundwater-depletion-is-destabilizing-the-san-andreas-fault-and-increasing-earthquake-risk