Atom and the Fault

Atom and Fault coverI came across a fascinating little book by Richard Meehan titled The Atom and the Fault: Experts, Earthquakes and Nuclear Power. It was published in 1984 by MIT University Press.

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.

API’s view of America’s Energy Future

On January 7, 2014 — one of the coldest days in the past 20 years in Washington DC — Jack N. Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API), provided his organization’s view of the State of American Energy 2014. He stressed the importance of American energy production to our national prosperity and […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #216 – Just the Fracks, Ma’am

Greg Kozera is the President of the Virginia Oil and Gas Association and the author of a recently-released book titled Just the Fracks, Ma’am: The Truth About Hydrofracking and the Next Great American Boom. I heard about the book from his publicist, News & Experts. Here is an excerpt from the communication I received. Hi […]

Read more »

Nader’s nuclear blind spot

Climate change discussion by politicians. Brought to you by BP.

A March 12, 2014 Democracy Now! segment featuring an interview with Ralph Nader was advertised as a report about the recent US Senate climate change talkathon. Nermeen Shaikh, the show co-host, moved rapidly from a discussion about the Senate actions to draw attention to climate change to asking Nader a leading question about nuclear energy. […]

Read more »

ExxonMobil, XTO, and climate change strategy

On January 24, 2014, the The Society of Environmental Journalists and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program presented a panel discussion titled The Year Ahead in Environment and Energy. I found out about it via this tweet from Andy Revkin: Video: Enviro journalists on Keystone, gas boom, western drought, much more at […]

Read more »

GE CTO describes his company’s focus on oil and gas technology

Bill Loveless from Platts Energy Week recently interviewed Mark Little, GE’s chief technology officer, about the company’s interests in the oil and gas extraction sector. Loveless and Little discussed GE’s planned investments into an Oklahoma-based research center that will be the first GE technology development laboratory that is focused on a single business sector. Mark […]

Read more »

Are natural gas suppliers purposely overproducing?

On December 27, 2013, Matt Wald published a piece in the New York Times titled New Energy Struggles on Its Way to Markets that points to the predictable consequences of having too many energy options chasing too few customers. When there is excess supply compared to demand, prices tend to fall rather dramatically. Falling prices […]

Read more »

I want a nuclear plant in my backyard. So do some of my neighbors

  Watch more video from the CNN channel on Frequency   Though I sometimes suffer from the blues, I am not crazy — I swear. Even though I am just a guy who often blogs in my PJs, I’m also pretty sure that I am not a nobody. In fact, none of us are nobodies, […]

Read more »

Are natural gas companies purposely overproducing to build market share and deter competition?

John Horgan and I had another conversation on about nuclear energy. He asked a lot of good questions; I hope that you find my responses worth considering. In the above embedded video segment, we talked about the causes of low natural gas prices in the US. I explained how I believe that the situation […]

Read more »

Talk of electric power grid demise is wrong

Someday, America is going to return to logic and reality. We may be making some progress as shown by the fact that there are an increasing number of people who no longer watch TV or trust the TV talking heads in the entertainment business called “television news.” However, we still have our issues. One irrational […]

Read more »

Arnie Gundersen does not like nuclear plants that provide several hundred high paying jobs

In an interview that shows what kind of “nuclear industry executive” he was, Arnie Gundersen explains to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! that even though nuclear fuel costs are far lower than fuel costs for gas or coal plants, the need to employ hundreds of trained, dedicated professionals is a severe disadvantage. He was the […]

Read more »

Oil exploration in Southwest Florida

I’m not sure how many people realize that there is a history of oil production in Southwest Florida. Though I grew up in Florida and have been studying energy issues for many years, I first heard of the Sunniland Trend this morning. Apparently, there is a “massive, onshore oil reserve” that stretches from Ft. Myers […]

Read more »