Our atom plants safe, U.S. and Europe regulators say

VIENNA | Mon Apr 4, 2011 5:55pm EDT

VIENNA (Reuters) - Nuclear power plants in the United States and Europe are safe, regulators said on Monday, promising to look at ways to strengthen safety further in the wake of Japan's atomic disaster.

Japan is battling to stabilize a nuclear power plant after a huge earthquake and tsunami devastated it three weeks ago. Radioactivity from the stricken site has contaminated land, air and sea and forced a review of atomic power plants worldwide.

"Back in the United States, because of similarities in the design and because of the possibility for natural disasters of this type in the United States, we ask questions about our own facilities and our own approach to regulation," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko said.

"Let me say firmly that we believe right now plants in the United States are safe. We believe we have a very strong program in place to ensure that safety," he told reporters.

He was making his remarks after the opening of a two-week conference of nuclear regulators from 72 countries in Vienna hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Although scheduled before the earthquake, the conference to review the 1996 Convention on Nuclear Safety is focusing on the need to strengthen measures in light of Japan's emergency.

European leaders want to subject reactors to "stress tests" to guard against crises like the one at the Fukushima plant. Some countries have raised the possibility of closing any of Europe's 143 reactors that fail them.

Andrej Stritar, head of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) which is helping to prepare the tests, said the tests would not ask whether Europe's nuclear power plants were safe.

"That is maybe how these stress tests are misunderstood ... The proper question is, how do we make them even safer? So they are safe today, because otherwise they wouldn't be licensed, they wouldn't be allowed to operate."

(Reporting by Sylvia Westall and Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Louise Ireland)
U.S.
Japan
Natural Disasters
Nuclear Power
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (9)
BUDDYB wrote:
So, was not fukushima daichi licensed also. I have read the same warnings about west coast power plants that were made two years ago about fuhushima.

Apr 04, 2011 8:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JEYF wrote:
Right our EPA can not even take care of a minor oil leak (BP) in Gulf of Mexico how are they going to handle a nuclear meltdown caused by terrorists designed to keep people away?

Heck they can not even keep our children safe from toxic chemicals around ship channels and chemical plants around the country. One area the children have a 50 percent greater chance of getting cancer and they don’t even believe there is a danger there.

These are people who have no idea what they are doing and do not understand how to fix anything.

Apr 05, 2011 10:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mdlund wrote:
More criticality is needed in this reporting. 40 year old Mark I reactors with 40 year old metal fatigued and corroded torus’ should not be within current safety standards. The Mark II was a dramatic design improvement. Alas, the Mark II has been substantially out-paced by newer implements. There are a number of Mark I reactors in the US which, while boiling, bubbling and troubling, are obsolete inspite of their location off the subduction zones and well inland.

Apr 05, 2011 10:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
See All Comments »