"In terms of the impact on the nuclear power industry going forward in the United States, given our safety record in this country, given the robust regulatory infrastructure we have in place, given the defense in depth that governs operations and designs, given the differences between the U.S. and Japan seismologically, I'm not sure that we're going to see a major impact," he said.
The earliest test may come Wednesday, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko are scheduled to testify before two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees. Chu is known to be a big supporter of nuclear technology and has often spoken of it as an international market in which the United States should once again be competitive.
In the U.S., nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the country's electricity. Reactors at a dozen plants are now undergoing permit reviews to continue operating. And there are five reactors under construction, starting with the Tennessee Valley Authority's new $2.5 billion unit that will be first to come online in 2012.
Four more reactors in Georgia and South Carolina are due later this decade, with an additional 16 in permitting stages with construction to be completed after 2020, NEI's Myers said.
Bradford said he welcomed a more stringent review process, particularly with respect to the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear reactors in Southern California. He said that the situation in Japan, where Friday's earthquake and subsequent tsunami threw off the power supply and backup generators to the cooling system, should cause nuclear regulators to "rethink the licensing and design process in ways that are less self-confident about deeming certain events to be impossible."
Nuclear power proponents pushed back Saturday against the idea that the Japanese disaster would have lasting effects here.
"It'd be poor form for anyone to criticize the nuclear industry or pronounce the end of nuclear power because of a natural disaster that's been a national tragedy for the Japanese people, said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"What we're seeing is a classic ready-fire-aim scenario, where various advocacy groups that had positions set before the disaster are now rushing ahead to use the same talking points they'd have used a week ago," said Joshua Freed, director of the Clean Energy Initiative at Third Way.
"It's ridiculous and appalling that less than 48 hours after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan that they're trying to make political hay out of this and turn it into an American political debate," Freed added.
"There's no such thing as a risk-free source of energy," said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center. "Almost every major facet of our energy system has suffered a high-profile catastrophe somewhere in the world in the last 24 months. That may, in combination with high gasoline prices, provide the public pressure to encourage Congress to engage on a complex piece of legislation."
But for all the talk about safety, it has been only one of the issues slowing the development of nuclear power in the United States. Economics is another.
"Except with massive subsidies, there's really nothing one can do to make a whole lot of nuclear plants economic right now," John Rowe, the CEO of Chicago-based Exelon, owner of the nation's largest nuclear fleet, said in an interview with POLITICO last week before the earthquake in Japan.
Rowe noted that a handful of companies operating in certain parts of the U.S. have jumped into the permitting process because of a loan-guarantee program created by the 2005 energy law. "I respect them for doing so. But they wouldn't do it if they were in my market environment," Rowe said. "They may be better off 20 years from now because they have done so. But in my environment, you couldn't afford the first 10. I think patience is a big thing right now."
Darius Dixon contributed to this report.
