Skip to main content
Don’t miss our
best deal ever
offer ends july 23
save over $160
Sale ends in
$6
for
6 months
Don’t miss our
best deal ever
$6
for 6 months
save over $160
// //

The U.S. nuclear power reactors facing the highest risks of a meltdown from earthquakes are not in tremor-prone California, but states including South Carolina and Missouri, an analysis of government data published on Thursday said.

The chances of an earthquake leading to meltdowns are small, but the results would be grave. A tsunami generated by a 2011 earthquake led to the meltdowns of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan, causing radiation releases and mass evacuations.

The U.S. reactor facing the highest risk is Duke Energy Corp’s H.B. Robinson near Hartsville, South Carolina, according to the analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Story continues below advertisement

Robinson faces a one in 7,700 chance annually that a quake would cause a meltdown, said the analysis, based on Duke’s estimates submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). That risk is five times higher than for each of PG&E Corp’s two Diablo Canyon reactors, the only ones left in California. Those reactors are scheduled to be shut in 2024 and 2025.

The three reactors at a Duke plant called Oconee in Seneca, South Carolina, face a one in 17,500 chance of a meltdown annually, according to the analysis.

All Duke nuclear plants are in compliance with NRC requirements for earthquakes, and the company has bolstered structures, systems and components, said Mary Kathryn Green, a company spokeswoman.

Ameren Corp’s Callaway reactor in Fulton, Missouri faces a one in 13,800 chance of a meltdown annually, the analysis said. Barry Cox, the site vice president at Callaway, said the plant invests millions of dollars on protections against earthquakes and other natural disasters.

Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who wrote the analysis, said that the NRC should not approve license renewals for Duke’s reactors unless the company does more to guard against risks.

The NRC is satisfied that Duke has made “binding commitments” to install permanent fixes at Robinson and “seismic risk insights could be useful in future license renewal reviews,” said spokesman Scott Burnell.

Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies