SAN CLEMENTE (CBS/AP) — Federal regulators say the San Onofre nuclear generating station near Camp Pendleton is at extremely low risk of a meltdown in an earthquake.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says inspections this year found a few problems at the plant located six miles south of San Juan Capistrano but concluded it is able to cope with the threats of fire and flooding.

Gil Alexander, a spokesman for plant operator Southern California Edison, says Thursday that the plant was found to have
no major deficiencies and is ready to withstand a major earthquake.

Federal regulators inspected all U.S. nuclear plants after the March 11 quake and tsunami in Japan that caused radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear plant, forcing 80,000 people to leave their homes.

(© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (7)
  1. lala63 says:

    Why would we build a nuke plant: 1. in/on sand 2. so close to the ocean? These seem like two bad decisions … but is there really a good reason for having done this?

    1. ABB says:

      Nuclear power plants need water for cooling the apparatus. Building close to the ocean helps with this, plus the plant is not on the sand, it sits on a massive raised concrete platform.

  2. Ewood says:

    Let’s see if not a quake greater than 6.0, or a tsunami and let us not forget liquefaction – SCE wants us to believe the plant will be okay! What idiot issued this statement and what bigger idiot signed his/her name to these findings? Sorry SCE but many of us were not born yesterday!!!

  3. Wynne says:

    For cryin’ out loud, how is this news? Obviously this was posted to keep the fear of nuclear catastrophe on people’s minds. Shame on you, CBS.

  4. Frank says:

    It was put near the ocean for water for cooling.

  5. Frank says:

    Get it MELTDOWN?

  6. Ken Irvin says:

    First off you can’t have an undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of the San Onofre nuclear generating station because there is no subducting plate there. You can’t get the kind of resulting Tsunami without such geography. There is no precident for a 9.0 earthquake or even an 8.0 earthquake as far from a principle plate as that reactor is. A catistrophic earthquake with a significant energy release (6.5+) in that specific spot is a once in 2500 year event. 8+ earthquakes in the area around the location of the Japan quake are likely to happen more often than the appearance of Haileys Comet in Japan. They are not the same risk factors, Seattle is a different story.

    There has to be a comprimise somewhere, either we use nuclear energy, or we block the upstream path for salmon, or we rely on hydrocarbons. A push towards zero emission vehicles only makes the situation worse not better. The number of people that have died or had their lifespans reduced because of nuclear power is far less than the number for any other credible means of generating power.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE