Discovery That Indian Point Nuke Is Most Exposed To Quake Risk Prompts Reuters To Release An Evacuation Map

Tyler Durden's picture

According to a recent report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the California Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant  (built in proximity to the San Andreas fault) which everyone always points to as the biggest earthquake risk in the US, is actually ranked 9th in the US in terms of earthquake risk (we somehow really doubt this). The top one? The same we wrote about yesterday as having had a leaking seal for the past 18 years according to the Union of Concerned Scientists - Indian Point in Buchanan, NY. Of course its proximity to New York City has immediately stirred cries of concern from the world's most banksterous city and demands for a shutdown by Andrew Cuomo. It has also prompted Reuters to release an evacuation map of the surroundings should "something" go wrong with Indian Point, an event which will likely only further instill a sense of soothing calmness and a "tranquility effect" in the New Yorker community.

From Reuters:

New data shows the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City was the nation's most vulnerable to an earthquake.

That has stirred concerns about protecting the city's eight million residents in the event of a disaster.

The plant sits about 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of New York City, inside a 50-mile radius that U.S. authorities have recommended be evacuated around the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

And here is the map:

As to how New York could be the next Fukushima, here is the original report from MSNBC:

What are the odds that a nuclear emergency like the one at Fukushima Dai-ichi could happen in the central or eastern United States? They'd have to be astronomical, right? As a pro-nuclear commenter on put it this weekend, "There's a power plant just like these in Omaha. If it gets hit by a tsunami...."

It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance that the core could be damaged by an earthquake, exposing the public to radiation. No tsunami required. 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.

And it turns out that the nuclear reactor in the United States with the highest risk of core damage from a quake is not the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors tucked between the California coastline and the San Andreas Fault.

It's not the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, a four-hour drive down the Pacific coast at San Clemente, surrounded by fault lines on land and under the ocean.

It's not on the Pacific Coast at all. It's on the Hudson River.

One in 10,000
The reactor with the highest risk rating is 24 miles north of New York City, in the village of Buchanan, N.Y., at the Indian Point Energy Center. There, on the east bank of the Hudson, Indian Point nuclear reactor No. 3 has the highest risk of earthquake damage in the country, according to new NRC risk estimates provided to

A ranking of the 104 nuclear reactors is shown at the bottom of this article, listing the NRC estimate of risk of catastrophic failure caused by earthquake.

The chance of a core damage from a quake at Indian Point 3 is estimated at 1 in 10,000 each year. Under NRC guidelines, that's right on the verge of requiring "immediate concern regarding adequate protection" of the public. The two reactors at Indian Point generate up to one-third of the electricity for New York City. The second reactor, Indian Point 2, doesn't rate as risky, with 1 chance in 30,303 each year.

The plant with the second highest risk? It's in Massachusetts. Third? Pennsylvania. Then Tennessee, Pennsylvania again, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. Only then does California's Diablo Canyon appear on the list, followed by Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.

The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.
Advertise | AdChoices

Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake.

Other plants in the East, South and Midwest, where the design standards may have been lower because the earthquake risk was thought to be minimal, now find themselves at the top of the NRC's danger list.

The chance of serious damage from a quake ranges from Indian Point's 1 chance in 10,000 each year, a relatively higher risk, to the Callaway nuclear plant in Fulton, Mo., where the NRC set the lowest risk, 1 chance in 500,000 each year.

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AN0NYM0US's picture

It's that Tsunami up the Hudson that would concern me

the mad hatter's picture

scare monger scare monger scare monger


jizz in my pants.


serious guys, what will we do when we deplete fossil fuels?

metastar's picture

Can't let a good crisis go to waste now can we?

tmosley's picture

Same thing they did when they ran out of charcoal and whale oil.

Figure something out:

Seer's picture

Huh?  I think that (nearly) pure (sweet crude) is just slightly a step up from charcoal and whale oil.  Tar sands represents a DIGRESSION from this trend!

"The Penn State separation method uses very little energy and water"

Ha ha!  "very little."  How fucking much?  Enough to off-set the "very little" amount of energy that gets extracted?

Ruffcut's picture

Run an extension cord from the sun.

privet's picture

> serious guys, what will we do when we deplete fossil fuels?



Seer's picture

Still waiting for the flying cars that we were promised (back in the 1950s).

Energy is nothing without physical resources.  Go park your ass up on the sun and see if you can survive on just energy alone...  Look around and see how the world's resources are holding up.  Yeah, I was once a HUGE proponent of fusion, that is, until I looked at the BIG picture.  I'm grown up now, I no longer fall for these tricks...

Racer's picture

More nuclear bombs on major fault lines? What??!!!!

Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Line of the day (so far):


world's most banksterous city


DaveyJones's picture

On a positive note, if we ever enforced the law, they'd be easy to round up

SilverRhino's picture

Wow, what a wonderful way to start a panic in the Northeast.  

knukles's picture

Who, whoI ask, is the fucking genius at Reuters, a "News Agency" who decided in the middle of global discomfort bordering upon panic in many areas (actually, bordering, my ass, more like the Book of Revelations unfolding in real time) decided to pull this stunt?

Any bet it's another "never let a good panic go to waste" to be followed by the (drum roll) "solution", a larger, more centralized, controlled global government so's everything'll be taken care of and nobody'll have to worry any longer.

Damn good thing that nobody gets out of here alive.

nonclaim's picture

Reuters was swallowed by Thomson a few years back and I thought it would get better with a respectable name in front (Thomson Reuters). But alas...

Alienated Serf's picture

no panic.  i live 20 min away.  it has been well known to all area residents for a very long time that the place is a disaster. 

viiolations reported every other day.

Seer's picture

So, as a pesron with actual first-hand knowledge/experience, would you feel better about there being more free-market operations (less govt regulations)?

Alienated Serf's picture

I am not as dogmatically libertarian/anti-statist as some.  With regards to issues like nuclear safety I am more then happy to have plenty of government oversight.

I do not think nuclear powerplants are viable as purely free market enterprises.  For example, its not a good idea to count on the fact that one plant will blow and a city gets irradiated to say "gee, that design sux, lets not buy a plant from that company again."

Like it or not, some regulation is needed.


Ident 7777 economy's picture

An overly simplistic situation was proposed upon which a policy decision is then based ... in that light, I think a re-evaluation of motor-transit, rail transit and air transit are ll in order ... in this country, even in Japan, which annually claim greater numbers of victims?

logically possible's picture

Is this nuclear power plant anywhere near a town named Springfield?



Arch Duke Ferdinand's picture

Today, most American citizens wouldn't mind seeing Wall Street and all its Bankers get washed away by a Tsunami.

Bearster's picture

In the rush to destroy property rights, let's be sure to grant unlimited and arbitrary powers to smart and honest men like politicians!  I am sure Cuomo is more honest than Spitzer...

Seer's picture

You really think that the rich elites are going to loose THEIR property rights?  Ha ha!

Long live the plutocracy! (but hey, we all want to be just like them, which is how they keep their game alive)

trav7777's picture



JFC...let's shut them ALL down and just burn more coal and oil.

and because of "greenhouse gases" let's stop doing that and just get "clean and renewable" energy from...somewhere.  Unicorns?

TheGreatPonzi's picture

I agree with trav. 

An extraordinary following of events has been transformed into an anti-nuclear worldwide mass hysteria. 

It's like calling for the end of aviation when a Boeing 747 crashes... 

Even in Central Europe, where there's never been a single seism since the Neolithic, politicians and medias are calling for the end of nuclear plants. This is fucking ridiculous. 

Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Until the 6 reactors are stable and there is a real time video stream of what the hell is going on in Fukushima and the EPA actually publishes the realtime radiation data from RADNET, why not be a bit skeptical?  Conspiracy?  Probably not, but enough evidence to be comfortable? Absolutely not.

Haywood Jablowme's picture

SOLUTION: Seeing how the USSofA is the world's most obese nation, time to string grids of manually operated treadmills and stairclimbers together and tie em' into the grid.

Make sure the treadmills and stairclimbers are all built in the USSofA.  Jobs galore, everyone gets fit including Big Bertha in the corner, increased self confidence for all, and a clean source of energy. 




Seer's picture

Much closer to reality than perhaps most would like to admit...

bob_dabolina's picture

I'm pro nuclear like a mother fucker. However, I am against stupidity.

How could you build a plant like that in that area. How could you store soooo many fuel rods in and around the upper level of the facilities...plutonium and mox for that matter?

Did they not fucking think?

The ring of fire is a great place to build nuclear power plants and we can even store the fuel on top! Earthquakes are so common in fact they are practically part of oour daily lives but there should be no risk in doing this!!! And let's not build one, let's do 6 and build them right next to eachother. did the thinking go? was it something like that?

Those plants (and the ones in California) should be held at far greater standards then a plant in say New York. I mean, this is common sense.

trav7777's picture

I'm anti-nuclear.  Well, at least anti lightwater reactors.  That's because they really suck for this application.  Too big, too complex, far too expensive and unreliable.  They are superior for military propulsion applications, but that's it.

How could they store all those rods there?  Well, they have nowhere else to put them.  Worldwide anti-nuclear hysteria has prevented any kind of permanent solution so the can just kept getting kicked.

Look at Yucca Mountain.

They build tall buildings in earthquake zones, bud...the engineering is not insoluble.

People simply don't understand nuclear power or its risks.  Now fucking CNN is running "neighborhood nuke plant" OMFG.  This won't end well.

Shut them all down and run on unicorns.  BY NO MEANS have the adult conversation with people that they can't have electricity without power plants.

bob_dabolina's picture

Tall buildings and nuclear power plants are not analagous.

I have seen estimates range from 100,000 deaths related to Chernobyl up to a million by good reliable sources. In my opinion this disaster will be worse.

That is a power that needs to be harnessed with the strictest standards possible. This Fukushima looks like it was 50% negligence, 50% tsunami. Thats how I view it at least

trav7777's picture

Chernobyl wasn't an earthquake...

focus on what you intend to say, then speak.

I've seen estimates that billions died; I don't put much stock in insane estimates.

bob_dabolina's picture

No Chernobyl was human idiocy, an equivalent catastrophy.

And you have seen estimates that billions died? Site your sources you hyperbole slinging prick. Notice I said good/reliable not some bullshit.

tmosley's picture

Throw in enough regulations that basically shut down any and all movement of the fuel, and refuse to allow fuel reprocessing, and that is EXACTLY what you get.  They knew it was dangerous, but the government made it impossible to act any other way.

trav7777's picture

not to swerve the topic, but how's that oil peak mitigation lookin now, huh?

It may grate on the doomers here, but for there to be a chance for lights to stay on going forward, governments are going to have to bury Fukushima data and truth because the public can't HANDLE adult decisions anymore.

They expect everything for free and no risks whatsoever.  Cake plus eat.

ColonelCooper's picture

^What he said^

Where the Hell did my cake go?

Seer's picture

I'm pretty much in agreement with you except in placing more emphasis on something that is also not sustainable.

What people don't want to accept are the REAL costs for stuff.  They think that it's all the fault of "regulations" (yeah, you try and live next door to a poorly mis-managed nuke plant like there's not a worry in the world), which really are no more than attempts (yeah, mostly futile due to the lobby power of those with MONEY- WHO TYPICALLY ARE _NOT_ ENVIRONMENTALISTS!) at keeping the robber barons from externalizing their costs on heaps of dead bodies.

Again, the entire system is predicated on growth.  At what point does anyone think that it's a good time to back away from the cliff?  Could this not be such a time?  Naw!  Fuck future generations, let's just party until we glow!

DaveyJones's picture

you're right, when a boeing crashes, it poisons everything within thirty miles for years

Cleverbot's picture

That is why the sky is blue, not why the steel is cold.

Confused's picture

I'm skeptical about coal for a few reasons, but this one in particular bothers me most.

Arch Duke Ferdinand's picture

 ""I'm skeptical about coal for a few reasons, but this one in particular bothers me most.""

I agree Confused 

"Nat Rothschild is leading a $3 billion takeover that will create the biggest exporter of coal to China.

Rothschild is leveraging his name, more than a decade of hedge-fund experience and a network that reads like a Who’s Who of commodities. He’s friends with Ivan Glasenberg, head of the biggest commodity trader Glencore International AG; advises Russian aluminum billionaire Oleg Deripaska; and is on the board of Peter Munk’s Barrick Gold Corp., the largest gold miner."

...f*ck big business and the politicians in their pockets....Rothschild et al don't need more money or power...but they are turning our planet into a hell hole. 

...We need pitchforks and assasinations of the a$$holes in power....forget world trade...Protectionism is what we need.

...and if we didn't need Oil, this world would be a happier and more pleasant place to live.

Mad Max's picture

Another vote for trav.

Our major alternatives are the far greater pollution coal brings, or going back to the 18th century.

trav7777's picture

just a couple of weeks ago, in response to Peak Oil, people said oh no big deal, we'll just build nuclear plants out the yin yang.

Worried yet, deniers?

The adult conversation is coming and the compromises can no longer be put off.

butchee's picture

San Andreas is the patron saint of the denial mechanism.

tmosley's picture

Exactly.  There is no such thing as technical progress.  Anyone who says there is is a "denier".  We ran out of whale oil a hundred years ago, and my home has been dark ever since.

trav7777's picture

So all we need to do is find 10T bbl of something even better than oil.

Good luck with that bro!