Energy Secretary Steven Chu, center, tours the Vogtle nuclear power plant last month with executives including Southern Co. President and CEO Thomas Fanning, left. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved plans to build a third and fourth reactor at the site near Waynesboro, Ga. They will be the nation's first new commercial reactors in more than 30 years.

Long before the accident at Fukushima, Japan, the U.S. nuclear power industry faced major headwinds, led by the rising cost of generating kilowatts by smashing atoms. The tsunami and subsequent meltdowns at the Japanese plant made matters worse.

When first developed for commercial use in the 1950s, nuclear power was touted as the energy source of the future that would one day be “too cheap to meter.” But over the past six decades the rising cost of engineering, licensing and building a modern nuclear power plant has proven to be the industry’s undoing in the United States. More recently, a sharp drop in natural gas prices and slowing demand for electricity due to conservation and a weak economy have forced the industry to shelve ambitious plans to build dozens of new plants.

Now, as a handful of utilities press on with plans to build new reactors, they face the prospect of more stringent safety regulations.

“The cost of nuclear is going up,” said Mark Cooper, a researcher at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. “Every time there’s an accident, people take a hard look, and what they discover is that the reactors are not as safe as we thought. And safety is cost.”

The explosions and meltdowns at Fukushima the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami that also crippled  emergency power systems designed to avert a wider disaster. The accident left tens of thousands of people homeless, exposed a larger number to potentially deadly radiation and polluted large sections of nearby farmland and ocean. The cost of cleanup is expected to amount to tens of billions of dollars

Though the accident sparked a fresh review of plant safety around the world, the global response has been mixed. Some developed countries, including Japan and Germany, have moved to reduce their reliance on nuclear power. In developing economies, including China and India, nuclear power construction is proceeding rapidly; more than 60 reactors in 14 countries are under construction or development.

Americans remain ambivalent about the role nuclear power should play in the nation’s energy future. While 58 percent told a Gallup poll shortly after the Fukushima disaster they felt nuclear power is “safe,” they were just about evenly split on the need for nuclear power in the country’s energy mix. Some 46 percent said they believe “nuclear power is necessary to help solve the country’s energy problems,” while 48 percent think the “dangers of nuclear power are too great,” according to the poll. Those results are roughly the same as a similar question Gallup asked a decade earlier.

Long before Japan and Germany put the brakes on nuclear, the American nuclear power industry had been struggling to launch a new wave of construction, known in the industry as the “nuclear renaissance.” In 2005, Congress approved a series of loans guarantees for new plants. New standard designs and safety features promised to lower costs, and regulators said they would streamline the lengthy permitting process. 

The results of those efforts are just now being seen. The first operator to win a license after nearly three decades, Atlanta-based Southern Co., hopes to bring two new reactors at its Vogtle site south of Augusta on line as soon as 2016. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the company's $14 billion plan last month.

But the "renaissance" is expected to be short-lived. The only other pending application is from South Carolina Electric & Gas, which wants to add two reactors to its Summer plant in Jenkinsville, S.C.

Only a handful of other nuclear operators are potential candidates to build new reactors on existing sites. (Even the more ardent proponents concede it’s extremely unlikely a new site would be licensed. Most of the 65 power plants in the U.S. designed to accommodate up to four reactors now house only one or two.)

Future applicants face a number of hurdles that nuclear proponents didn't anticipate, including a deep split within the NRC over Fukushima-related safety concerns. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who cast a lone vote against the Vogtle license, said the company hadn’t promised to make safety changes prompted by the Japan disaster.

"We've given them a license,” Jaczko said shortly after the vote. “They have not given us any commitment they will make these changes in the future." 

But economics have played a much larger role than public opinion in sidelining plans for new nuclear plants. Several major forces are at work, including a slowdown in demand for power that accompanied one of the worst recessions in decades. New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., the nation's second-largest nuclear operator, suspended plans to add reactors to its River Bend plant in Baton Rouge, La., and its Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi.  

"Both of those were economic decisions, because the load growth didn’t come anywhere close to matching the projections that we were dealing with pre-recession," said Randy Douet, head of nuclear business development at Entergy.

Those economic headwinds had been building long before the 2007-09 recession.

After an original construction boom that lasted more than a decade, the economics of building nuclear power plants began to short-circuit in the late 1970s. Widespread public safety concerns after high-profile disasters at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine severely curtailed construction of new plants.

But it was economic catastrophe, typified by the Shoreham plant on Long Island, that dealt a final blow. Plagued by cost overruns and local opposition, the $6 billion project was shut down before it produced a single watt.

Other projects were canceled as costs skyrocketed. For those projects that continued, soaring interest rates added to cost overruns. By the end of the 1980s, the nuclear power industry was buried under a pile of debt.

In the 1990s, deregulation created another headache for nuclear power builders. Lower-cost “merchant power” plants undercut nuclear operators with cheaper rates, making it harder to recoup the billions needed to build a nuclear plant. Today financing a new plant is all but impossible without a state utility regulator’s permission to recapture capital costs from future rates.

More recently nuclear industry executives hoped a carbon tax would help level the playing field by forcing operators of fossil fuel plants to raise their rates. Because nuclear plants emit virtually no carbon into the atmosphere, that would have given them a huge economic advantage over plants that burn oil, coal and natural gas.

But government efforts to reduce greenhouse gases have cooled substantially. Worse, the playing field has tilted even further against nuclear as natural gas prices have plunged 70 percent from peak 2008 levels.

Though the short-term economics aren’t favorable, nuclear proponents argue that alternatives like wind and solar power will never provide the “baseload” power required to meet demand. And as the economy recovers, conservation and efficiency gains from new technology will only go so far in offsetting demand growth, said Leslie Kass, senior director of business policy and fuel supply, at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

“For every efficiency measure, there’s another iPad in my house,” she said. “The technology that we love now that is coming into our lives is more energy-intensive. When refrigerators become more energy efficient, people want two.”

With new construction largely off the table, nuclear power companies have sought to boost the output of existing plants. The average nuclear plant is now online and producing electricity 90 percent of the time, up from an average of 55 percent in 1980. They’ve also added capacity by “uprating” the maximum output with bigger generators and more powerful turbines.

And it turns out nuclear plants have a longer life span than many originally assumed. Plant licenses originally were granted for 40 years, based on the standard accounting payback schedule used for conventional power plants when the first commercial reactors were built in the late 1950s. Now as those original 40-year licenses expire, nuclear plant owners are applying for — and getting — 20-year extensions from the NRC.

Of the 104 U.S. reactors currently in operations, 71 have won approval to operate for another 20 years; another 15 have applied for an extension and 17 more are expected to apply for 20-year renewals.

Japanese regulators approved a 10-year extension of the aging Fukushima plant just weeks before the 2011 accident. 

Do you think the U.S. should be building more nuclear plants? Tell us on Facebook.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Monday afternoon that it was investigating the "unplanned radiation exposures" of three workers on April 3, a week earlier, at the Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville, Neb.

The NRC said it did not believe the exposure exceeded its limits.

"Workers removed a long tube contaminated with highly radioactive material through the bottom of the reactor vessel, rather than through the top as is usually done, triggering radiation alarms," the NRC reported. "The workers set the tube down and immediately left the area."

The Cooper plant has a single boiling-water reactor of General Electric design. (GE is a part owner of NBCUniversal, which owns half of msnbc.com.)

Here's a map of the plant, which is about 25 miles from Nebraska City, Neb., and south of Omaha.

The full release from the NRC:

NRC SENDS SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the Cooper Nuclear Station to review the circumstances surrounding a maintenance procedure that led to unplanned radiation exposures to three workers. The plant, located near Brownville, Neb., is operated by the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD).

Inspectors, who began their work Monday, will look at the circumstances and decision-making by NPPD officials that led to the exposures, review the licensee’s response to the event, calculate the exposures the workers received and review corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence.

The incident occurred on April 3, when workers removed a long tube contaminated with highly radioactive material through the bottom of the reactor vessel, rather than through the top as is usually done, triggering radiation alarms. The workers set the tube down and immediately left the area. The licensee does not believe the workers received radiation exposures in excess of NRC limits.

“We want to understand why normal work practices were not followed, resulting in unplanned radiation exposures to three workers,” said Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins. “We want to take a look at the decision-making that contributed to this event.”

The team consisting of two NRC inspectors, began work Monday and will probably spend several days at the plant. They will write an inspection report on their findings within 45 days of the end of the inspection that will be made publicly available.

The Japanese nuclear emergency has, of course, raised interest in nuclear power in the United States. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public records staff says it is "experiencing a larger than normal volume" of requests for public records under the federal Freedom of Information Act. To put it mildly, perhaps.

"Due to the high volume of FOIA requests received as a result of the unexpected events in Japan, response times to requests may be longer than normal," the NRC staff says on its FOIA request page.

At msnbc.com we continue to pursue several reporting angles on this story. Here are the FOIA requests that we've filed with the NRC. We'll let you know what we find.

• The daily calendar for each of the NRC commissioners for the past year. PDF file.
• Any letters or memos documenting exemptions to NRC regulations at a nuclear facility. PDF file.
• The NRC personnel roster showing the full name of each employee, date hired, job title, division and branch, and rate of pay. PDF file.
• Any e-mail or electronic messages sent or received during the week after the Japan earthquake by any of the senior staff of the NRC. We have 45 people on our list. PDF files here and here.
• Any e-mail or electronic messages sent or received during the two weeks after the quake by the 22 key NRC staff involved in seismic issues. PDF file.

What records would you like to see from the NRC? If you're an industry insider with knowledge of a particular situation, what document would you like to see us request?

Post a comment here, or use the links below to send us your document suggestions.

Three U.S. senators on Thursday called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to answer for the safety and emergency preparedness at all nuclear facilities in the United States.

As msnbc.com reported on Wednesday, the NRC has raised its earthquake damage estimates for the nation's 104 commercial nuclear power plants, particularly for those in the eastern and central states, where seismologists say the earthquake risk is higher than previously thought. The estimates by the NRC were provided to msnbc.com, which ranked the reactors by risk.

The letters from the senators are reprinted below. The first is from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. The second, focused on California's nuclear power plants, is from Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Both were addressed to Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the NRC, which regulates nuclear power plants.

"We call on the NRC," Boxer and Feinstein wrote, "to conduct a comprehensive investigation of all nuclear facilities in the United States to assess their capacity to withstand catastrophic natural or man-made disasters including scenarios that may be considered remote like the recent events in Japan. These domestic nuclear reactors must be fully evaluated to ensure that they are as safe and resilient as possible, that worst case scenarios are examined and addressed, and that personnel training and equipment for emergency responses are in place and up-to-date. Special and immediate attention should be given to those U.S. nuclear reactors that share similar characteristics as the failing reactors in Japan, including similar designs or located near a coastline or seismic fault line."

Tom Curry of msnbc.com reports on Congressional reaction to Jaczko's testimony on Wednesday: No move yet in Congress to curb nuclear initiatives.

And President Obama said Thursday he has asked nuclear regulators for a comprehensive review of the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants.

The letter from Sens. Boxer and Carper:

Dear Chairman Jaczko:

The loss of life and physical damage that Japan sustained in last week's devastating earthquake and subsequent destructive tsunami is catastrophic and heartbreaking. Our thoughts and prayers, as well as those of the American people, go out to all citizens of Japan and especially to the families of the thousands of disaster victims.

As this tragedy continues to unfold, we encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other U.S. agencies to continue to coordinate fully with the Japanese government to assess the status of public safety in light of the reactors' failures and to provide all technical assistance required.

The earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan are chilling reminders that we are all vulnerable to unexpected disasters, whether they are an act of nature or a terrorist attack. While we cannot predict with any certainty when or where the next major disaster will occur, we know that adequate preparation and response planning are absolutely vital to minimize injury, death, and destruction when it does happen.

As the Committee with oversight responsibilities on nuclear safety, we believe it is important to assist Japan to ensure that this nuclear disaster is contained as quickly and effectively as possible. For the long term, the multiple simultaneous failures of backup coolant systems at nuclear reactors in Japan are a clear warning that we must step up efforts to ensure that every precaution is taken to safeguard the American people from a similar incident at a U.S. nuclear facility.

Therefore, we call on the NRC to conduct a comprehensive investigation of all nuclear facilities in the United States to assess their capacity to withstand catastrophic natural or man-made disasters including scenarios that may be considered remote like the recent events in Japan. These domestic nuclear reactors must be fully evaluated to ensure that they are as safe and resilient as possible, that worst case scenarios are examined and addressed, and that personnel training and equipment for emergency responses are in place and up-to-date. Special and immediate attention should be given to those U.S. nuclear reactors that share similar characteristics as the failing reactors in Japan, including similar designs or located near a coastline or seismic fault line.

In addition to updating the EPW Committee on a regular basis, we also request that the NRC supply information to the committee as soon as possible regarding the following issues:

1. Please identify all U.S. nuclear facilities subject to significant seismic activity and/or tsunamis.

2. U.S. nuclear power plants are designed to be safe based on historical data of the area's maximum credible threat (including earthquakes and tsunamis). What extra safety features does the NRC currently require for facilities that have a credible threat of an earthquake and/or tsunami? In light of the recent events in Japan, we would also like the NRC to re-examine the assumptions used to determine the maximum credible threat and suggest additional options that could provide a greater margin for safety at plants nationwide that might be subject to challenges similar to those currently being seen in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami.

3. Which U.S. nuclear power plants share similar design features with the affected Japanese reactor facilities? Do these facilities have design vulnerabilities that should be addressed to ensure their cooling systems do not fail when confronted by stresses including those similar to what we have seen in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami?

4. How comprehensive is the radiation monitoring system in Japan? Would the U.S. take a similar monitoring approach if a serious accident were to occur here? What increased risk is associated with exposure to mixed oxide fuel?

5. Given what has happened at the Japanese facilities, please describe how the NRC currently ensures the safety of spent fuel pools at U.S. facilities and identify additional steps the NRC could take to better address the vulnerabilities of spent fuel pools at plants in the U.S.

6. Has the NRC modeled what could happen if the U.S. had multiple nuclear accidents simultaneously? If so, how would the NRC respond to such a disaster?

Safety is always our number one priority, and therefore it is vital that the NRC immediately evaluate the risks posed to nuclear reactors in the United States. We look forward to working with you to ensure that the nuclear energy industry and NRC regulators are adequately prepared to prevent accidents and to fully address the risks of serious events in the future.

Sincerely yours,

Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works
Tom Carper, Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

The letter from Sens. Boxer and Feinstein:

Dear Chairman Jaczko:

The unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan has raised questions about the safety of nuclear power plants here in the U.S. As Senators from California, we are particularly interested in the safety of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, located in San Clemente, and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, both of which are near earthquake faults.

Roughly 424,000 live within 50 miles of the Diablo Canyon and 7.4 million live within 50 miles of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Although many safety measures have been taken to address potential hazards associated with these facilities, we need to ensure that the risk is fully evaluated.

For example, a 2008 California Energy Commission report presented very clear warnings of potential threats at both of these plants. This report found that the San Onofre plant could experience "larger and more frequent earthquakes" than the maximum 7.0 magnitude earthquake predicted when the plant was designed. It is our understanding that the NRC has not taken action to address these warnings in the report. It is also our understanding that the 2008 report found that there is an additional fault near the Diablo Canyon plant that should be taken into consideration as part of NRC's relicensing process. We want to know if the NRC will address all of the threats, including seismic threats, described in the 2008 report at these facilities.

Therefore we ask that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) perform a thorough inspection at these two plants to evaluate their safety and emergency preparedness plans.

In addition, we ask the NRC to answer the questions below regarding plant design and operations, type of reactor, and preparedness to withstand an earthquake or tsunami and other potential threats.

Plant Design and Operations

1. What changes to the design or operation of these facilities have improved safety at the plants since they began operating in the mid-1980s?

2. What emergency notification systems have been installed at California nuclear power plants? Has there ever been a lapse of these systems during previous earthquakes or emergencies?

3. What safety measures are in place to ensure continued power to California reactors in the event of an extended power failure?

Type of Reactor

1. What are the differences and similarities between the reactors being used in California (pressurized water reactors) and those in Japan (boiling water reactors), as well as the facilities used to house the reactors, including the standards to which they were built and their ability to withstand natural and manmade disasters?

Earthquakes and Tsunamis

1. We have been told that both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are designed to withstand the maximum credible threat at both plants, which we understand to be much less than the 9.0 earthquake that hit Japan. What assumptions have you made about the ability of both plants to withstand an earthquake or tsunami? Given the disaster in Japan, what are our options to provide these plants with a greater margin for safety?

2. Have new faults been discovered near Diablo Canyon or San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station since those plants began operations? If so, how have the plants been modified to account for the increased risk of an earthquake? How will the NRC consider information on ways to address risks posed by faults near these plants that is produced pursuant to state law or recommendations by state agencies during the NRC relicensing process?

3. What are the evacuation plans for both plants in the event of an emergency? We understand that Highway 1 is the main route out of San Luis Obispo, what is the plan for evacuation of the nearby population if an earthquake takes out portions of the highway and a nuclear emergency occurs simultaneously?

4. What is the NRC's role in monitoring radiation in the event of a nuclear accident both here and abroad? What is the role of EPA and other federal agencies?

5. What monitoring systems currently are in place to track potential impacts on the U.S., including California, associated with the events in Japan?

6. Which federal agency is leading the monitoring effort and which agencies have responsibility for assessing human health impacts? What impacts have occurred to date on the health or environment of the U.S. or are currently projected or modeled in connection with the events in Japan?

7. What contingency plans are in place to ensure that the American public is notified in the event that hazardous materials associated with the events in Japan pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?

The NRC was created in the mid-1970s specifically to ensure the protection of public health and safety with regard to civilian nuclear power. The Commission plays an essential role ensuring that we learn from nuclear accidents and near misses. We hope you agree that we must identify whatever lessons are to be learned from the disaster in Japan in order to make facilities in the United States as safe as possible.

We look forward to working with you to ensure the safety of our nation's nuclear power plants and to make the changes necessary to ensure a nuclear tragedy does not occur in this country.

Sincerely,

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies

Mike Groll / AP

"We are going to check into it ... immediately," said Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered a safety review of the Indian Point nuclear plant just up the Hudson River from New York City, after one of its reactors ranked first for risk of damage from an earthquake in a study published Wednesday.

Update: The state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, on Friday made a similar request, insisting that relicensing of the plant take into account its seismic risk. His statement is here.

The report by msnbc.com was based on damage estimates for 104 commercial nuclear power plants from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that supervises the industry. The highest risk of damage from an earthquake, according to the NRC's data, was at Indian Point's reactor No. 3, which the NRC said had a 1 in 10,000 chance each year of damage to its radioactive core from an earthquake. The plant lies near the Ramapo Fault zone.

"We are going to check into it ... immediately," Cuomo, the state's new Democratic governor and former attorney general, told WNBC TV in New York. "This plant in this proximity to New York City was never a good risk. But this is new information we are going to pursue."

Cuomo told WNBC that he discussed the issue with leaders of the state Senate and General Assembly in a closed-door session on Wednesday. It was not immediately clear what sort of review Cuomo plans, or who would conduct it.

Mike Segar / Reuters

Indian Point Energy Center sits on the east bank of the Hudson River, 24 miles from New York City. It provides up to one-third of the electricity for the city and suburban Westchester County.

The NRC data had been published in August showing an increased risk of earthquakes at power plants in the central and eastern United States, and this week the NRC provided additional data to msnbc.com for the few plants in the western states, allowing msnbc.com to rank the plants by risk. The NRC public affairs staff stressed to all callers on Wednesday that it had not done the rankings, but it did not question the accuracy of the data.

The NRC emphasized that it believes the risk is low of damage to a nuclear power plant from an earthquake.

"Operating nuclear power plants are safe," the NRC said when it reported the new risk estimates. Every plant is designed with a margin of safety beyond the strongest earthquake anticipated in that area, the NRC says, but the new data on earthquakes show that the margin of safety has been reduced.

The full ranking of 104 nuclear power plants is here.

The Indian Point plant, which has two active reactors, provides up to one-third of the electric power for New York City and suburban Westchester County, N.Y. The plant's second reactor had a lower risk of major damage from a quake, according to the NRC, estimated at 1 in 30,303 each year, still about twice the risk of the typical nuclear power plant.  The plant is 24 miles from New York City. Statewide, New York has six commercial nuclear reactors at four plants.

The plant's license is up for renewal. Cuomo, when he was attorney general, said the plant should be closed. In 2007 he called the plant "a catastrophe waiting to happen."

A spokesman for EntergyCorp., the New Orleans company that operates Indian Point, dismissed the possibility of it having troubles like the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan.

"I say only if a tsunami could make its way … up New York Harbor and the Hudson River, somehow avoid New York City, and drench our plant,” Jim Streets, director of communications at Entergy Nuclear Northeast, told CBS New York on Wednesday. “It just doesn’t seem very realistic to me.”

The NRC study based its damage estimates on U.S. Geological Survey data for earthquakes, as well as each plant's type of design and construction.

The study was also mentioned at Wednesday's U.S. Senate hearing on nuclear power. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked the NRC chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, about the report. He said he wasn't aware of it, but assured senators that there is no reason for concern.

Related: Alex Johnson of msnbc.com has an article about the licensing battle at another Entergy plant, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass.

Two days after the earthquake and tsunami pushed Japan into a nuclear emergency, the leading trade and lobbying group for the worldwide nuclear power industry has outlined its position on the future of nuclear energy: “When we fully understand the facts surrounding the event in Japan, we will use those insights to make nuclear energy even safer.”

The Nuclear Energy Institute posted 19 questions and answers on Sunday, apparently intended to reassure the public, the financial markets and legislators that "public support for nuclear power should not decline dramatically.”

Kim Kyung-Hoon / Reuters

An official in protective gear scans for signs of radiation on a man from the evacuation area near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Koriyama, Japan, on Saturday.

Highlights:

• "It is premature to draw conclusions from the tragedy in Japan about the U.S. nuclear energy program. Japan is facing what literally can be considered a ‘worst case’ disaster and, so far, even the most seriously damaged of its 54 reactors has not released radiation at levels that would harm the public. That is a testament to their rugged design and construction, and the effectiveness of their employees and the industry’s emergency preparedness planning.”

• “The U.S. nuclear industry, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the World Association of Nuclear Operators and other expert organizations in the United States and around the world will conduct detailed reviews of the accident, identify lessons learned (both in terms of plant operation and design), and we will incorporate those lessons learned into the design and operation of U.S. nuclear power plants.”

• “The nuclear energy industry believes that existing seismic design criteria are adequate. Every U.S. nuclear power plant has an in-depth seismic analysis and is designed and constructed to withstand the maximum projected earthquake that could occur in its area without any breach of safety systems. Each reactor is built to withstand the maximum site-specific earthquake by utilizing reinforced concrete and other specialized materials.″

• “Given the safety record in this country, the robust regulatory infrastructure, the defense in depth that governs operations and designs, and the seismological differences between the U.S. and Japan, we believe that public support for nuclear power should not decline dramatically. The events at Fukushima Daiichi show that nuclear power’s defense-in-depth approach to safety is appropriate and strong. Despite one of the largest earthquakes in world history, with accompanying tsunamis, fires and aftershocks — multiple disasters compounded one on top of the other — the primary containments at reactors near the epicenter have not been breached and the radioactive release has been minimal and controlled. This event will show that even under very severe circumstances, nuclear power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters.″

The statement by the NEI confirmed msnbc.com's report on Sunday that 23 of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States are similar to those at Fukushima: General Electric-designed boiling-water reactors with the GE Mark I containment design.  As that report describes, General Electric is a parent company of msnbc.com through GE's 49 percent stake in NBCUniversal. NBCUniversal and Microsoft are equal partners in msnbc.com.

The full statement by the NEI is here. The Washington group says it represents nearly 350 nuclear power companies in 19 countries.

If you have information to share with a reporter about the design and operation of nuclear reactors, use the links below. And the discussion forum below is open.

Here are two related reports from Reuters: Analysis: Nuclear renaissance could fizzle after Japan quake, and Japan nuclear woes cast shadow over U.S. energy policy.

An anti-nuclear group in Japan said Saturday that it had warned of just the kind of emergency occurring at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.

"This could and should have been predicted," said a statement from spokesman Philip White of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center.

"It was predicted by scientists and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) such as CNIC. We warned that Japan's nuclear power plants could be subjected to much stronger earthquakes and much bigger tsunamis than they were designed to withstand."

The full statement is below. Note that the group uses the word "meltdown" to describe the situation at the Fukushima plant, although the International Atomic Energy Agency and Japanese officials are not using such provocative language.

Greenpeace also took the opportunity to call for a ban on nuclear plant construction. Its full statement is below.

For more on the seismic preparedness of nuclear facilities, see the previous post, 2007 Japan quake was a 'wake-up call' on nuclear safety.

The CNIC statement:

The Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) is deeply concerned for the health and safety of the people affected by the earthquakes and tsunamis that have struck Japan over the last two days. We are particularly concerned for the people in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, including workers who are trying to minimize the scope of the disaster.

Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is in a state of meltdown. A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan said wouldn't happen is in progress. It is occurring as a result of an earthquake that they said would not happen.

This could and should have been predicted. It was predicted by scientists and NGOs such as CNIC. We warned that Japan's nuclear power plants could be subjected to much stronger earthquakes and much bigger tsunamis than they were designed to withstand.

Besides the question about how this accident will unfold, the big question now is, will the government and the nuclear industry acknowledge its mistakes and change track?

Last December the Japanese government began a review of its nuclear energy policy. The review was commenced in the spirit of essentially confirming the existing policy. That approach is no longer viable. The direction of the policy review must be completely reversed. It must be redirected towards developing a policy of phasing out nuclear energy as smoothly and swiftly as possible.

The Greenpeace statement:

Reacting to reports that radioactive materials including the isotope Cesium-137 have been released from the Fukushima power plant, and that increased levels of radiation have been detected in the immediate vicinity, Jan Beranek, Head of Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign said:

“Our thoughts continue to be with the Japanese people as they face the threat of a nuclear disaster, following already devastating earthquake and tsunami. The authorities must focus on keeping people safe, and avoiding any further releases of radioactivity."

“The evolving situation at Fukushima remains far from clear, but what we do know is that contamination from the release of Cesium-137 poses a significant health risk to anyone exposed. Cesium-137 has been one if the isotopes causing the greatest health impacts following the Chernobyl disaster, because it can remain in the environment and food chain for 300 years.”

“Fukushima remains under threat of a serious reactor meltdown; this would potentially create an iodine cloud, which could spread high radiation levels to both the environment and population over many tens of kilometres. By simply communicating to local populations the importance of staying indoors, the government could limit potential radiation doses from this cloud by a factor 2 to 5.”

“How many more warnings do we before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors, yet Japan is currently in the middle of a potentially devastating nuclear crisis. Once again, we are reminded of the inherent risks of nuclear power, which will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster.”

“Greenpeace is calling for the phase out of existing reactors, and no construction of new commercial nuclear reactors. Governments should invest in renewable energy resources that are not only environmentally sound but also affordable and reliable."

A 2007 earthquake that spilled radioactive material into the Sea of Japan was a "wake-up call that reverberated around the globe," according to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

About 20 percent of the world's nuclear reactors are in areas of significant seismic activity, according to the IAEA.

The agency set up an International Seismic Safety Centre after the 2007 quake at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in central Japan. Four reactors at the plant shut down automatically, but water that contained radioactive material was spilled, "though without an adverse effect on human health or the environment," the IAEA reported. The plant was about 11 miles from the epicenter of that quake, magnitude 6.6.

The tremors in that 2007 earthquake were two and one-half times the levels that the plant had been designed for, the IAEA found, but the reactor did withstand the quake. An inspection by IAEA found no significant damage to the plant.

"There has been a misconception since the early days of nuclear power," the IAEA reported, "that human error or mechanical failure, in other words risk factors within the plant itself, are the most significant variables regarding possible radiological release to the environment. In fact, the greatest threat to a plant´s operation may lie outside its walls. Nuclear power plants all over the world are exposed to natural hazards, such as hurricanes, floods, fires, tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes. With safety always a key concern, engineers, safety specialists and architects also have to take extreme natural forces into consideration."

In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that all nuclear power plants are designed to take into account historical data on earthquakes and other dangers at each location, plus a "margin for error." A 2008 study by the NRC found that the risk of hazards from seismic activity had increased, but was "still small." A summary is here.

Nuclear industry groups say that nuclear reactors have proven they can withstand earthquakes. They point to the 2009 earthquake at Japan's Hamaoka plant, where two reactors shut down automatically without damage, and were restarted safely. Seismic regulations for new plants were strengthened in Japan after the 2007 quake. Industry makes these points:

• Japanese, and most other, nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earth movement, to shut down safely.
• In 1995, the closest nuclear power plants, some 110 km north of Kobe, were unaffected by the severe Kobe-Osaka earthquake, but in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings. 
• In 1999, three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during the devastating Taiwan earthquake, and were restarted two days later.

The anti-nuclear power group Beyond Nuclear put out a statement with the most dire forecast for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant northeast of Tokyo: "Given the large quantity of irradiated nuclear fuel in the pool, the radioactivity release could be worse than the Chernobyl nuclear reactor catastrophe of 25 years ago."

A citizens group opposing nuclear power in Japan, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, has its own arguments online.

After the 2007 quake the IAEA began testing a monitoring system for nuclear plants after earthquakes and tsunamis. Participating countries included the United States, Japan, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Pakistan and Turkey.

The Japanese utility company, TEPCO, is providing updates on the nuclear reactor. (Scroll down that page to "press releases.") At midday Eastern time, it reported, "Currently, there is a possibility of a release of radioactive materials due to decrease in reactor water level. Therefore, the national government has instructed evacuation for those local residents within 3km radius of the periphery and indoor standby for those local residents between 3km and 10km radius of the periphery."

Here are other resources on the topic of nuclear reactors and earthquakes. These open in a new browser window.

• The IAEA summary of its seismic efforts.
• The IAEA's International Seismic Safety Centre.
• IAEA conference and follow-up with lessons learned from the 2007 quake.
• The Nuclear Safety Review for 2009.
• Industry view from the World Nuclear Association.
• The latest on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant from msnbc.com and NBC News.

The TEPCO nuclear plants have had other problems. This info comes from a June 2010 report from Nuclear Energy Insider:

In late June, the Tokyo government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) announced that nearly half of Japan’s commercial reactors had problems that needed to be addressed and further inspections were deemed necessary.

NISA’s report noted that none of the reactors, "…had a problem that is not 'tolerable,”’ and that the majority of the country’s reactors got a passing grade.

But, the report did cast doubt over Japan’s nuclear safety record.

A particular problem seems to exist with the reactors operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO) — 14 of their 17 reactors were considered to need additional inspections, with the No. 1 to 4 reactors of the Fukushima Prefecture No. 2 plant considered to have had ‘‘significant’’ problems following the mistaken discharge of radioactive materials into the sea through a drainage pipe that came to light in October 2009.

The Fukushima reactors have suffered a host of problems including in January 1989, when an impeller blade on one of the reactor coolant pumps in Unit 3 broke at a weld forcing a reactor shut down while in 2006 Fukushima’s Unit 1 was shuttered following leaking irradiated water.