In regulating nuclear power plant safety for earthquakes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission usually focuses on California plants, but on Sept. 14 it considered strengthening nuclear facilities a lot closer to its home territory in the Mid-Atlantic. In that light, commissioners appeared united in agreeing that while regulators can learn lessons from earthquakes--both locally and in Japan, where nuclear meltdowns occurred this year as a result of seismic activity--that all nuclear power plant requirements should be localized. Focusing on the 5.8 earthquake in Virginia last month near the North Anna nuclear plant, U.S. Geological Survey earthquake hazards program coordinator Bill Leith said seismic tools on the Eastern Seaboard are “probably not accurate; off up to 20 percent.” Leith also noted in addition to the lack of instrumentation, the only current way to guage the severity of a quake is from the nuclear plant owner itself. “It’s like a state trooper having a driver assess his own speed,” he said. Updated seismic instrumentation nationwide would help increase safety and spend funds more accurately, added Leith. “It’s a huge [safety] risk to underestimate the risk. It’s a huge cost to overestimate risks.” Just as seismic activity is site-specific, so should regulations imposed to increase safety at specific nuclear facilities, according to an update on “lessons learned” from the Japanese meltdowns. “Success” in applying those lessons “has to be appropriate for the site,” said Eric Leeds, NRC director, office of regulation. Commissioner George Apostolakis underscored a regional regulatory approach. “You can’t impose the same requirements to Palo Verde as you do to San Onofre.”