"We simply located all the nuclear plants in the United States, which then allows an insurer to quickly determine what the risk is, what the population is around these nuclear plants, what the policies are around these plants, and what the proximity is," says Norman. "All of that information is something we allow customers to do with the various risk data sets that are available."

The map above shows the nuclear power plants in the continental United States (yellow dots), fault lines (red lines), and fault zones (red outlined areas) as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Two of the bigger fault zones include the Gulf Coast zone that includes eastern Texas, southern Mississippi, southeast Alabama, and all of Louisiana, and what is known as the New Madrid zone in the Midwest, which includes parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

Fault zones are areas in which the USGS says there is a lot of fault activity, but Norman points out that the USGS doesn't know the exact locations of the faults in those particular zones.

"They know there is a lot of activity, but they have not identified specific fault lines," he says. "These are areas where there is some history of seismic activity. It's infrequent, but it's huge. That's why everyone is concerned about New Madrid. There's a good probability that [an earthquake] there will be significant when it happens."

The map above shows there are four nuclear sites in the Texas area that are clearly within the fault activity zones, and there are several plants in California and in the state of Washington where nuclear reactors are located in the fault area, says Norman.

Of major concern is the fact that of the 104 nuclear power plants in this country, there are 13 that are within 30 miles of a fault in the United States, reports Norman. In addition, 23 plants are also within 30 miles of a recorded earthquake—including three in California, two in Louisiana, four in Pennsylvania, two in New York, two in New Jersey, and two in Tennessee. One of these reactors is within the Washington, D.C. area as well.

"Overall we're seeing about 63.3 million people living within 30 miles of these nuclear plants based on the latest census data," says Norman.

Could we see a repeat of what happened in Japan with an earthquake triggering a tsunami that threatens a nuclear power plant? Certainly it is possible in California, but Norman doesn't believe it is that far-fetched in the Gulf states as well.

"You can get a tidal wave if there is an earthquake," says Norman. "If it's coastal it is going to send a tidal wave. That's the way it is. To carry it further, the Cuba area is a subduction zone—a high earthquake threat area. If an earthquake occurs in that area, there are going to be tidal waves that roll to Florida and through the whole Gulf Coast area, as well."

An additional problem that Norman believes insurers need to study is biological and chemical contamination scenarios.

"It's not just nuclear power that is a threat," says Norman. "There are biological and chemical threats in the United States."

This map shows there are 9,071 in this country that are located within 10 miles of a recorded earthquake. In addition, 16,763 of these sites (the area in yellow) are located within five miles of a fault (red lines) or a fault zone (outlined in red).

"Looking at the east and northeast [portions of the U.S.], it's overwhelming," says Norman. "These are dioxin sites, heavy metals, and minerals. These are contaminants that will kill people slowly or quickly. If some of these [toxins] get loose due to an earthquake or some disaster, there are going to be some major airborne issues."

Norman points out that it is expensive to relocate these contaminants to less populated areas, but he points out that where there's population is where you are going to find these materials.

"You might think it should be in the less-populated areas, but it is population driven," he says. "You can only carry this stuff so far or it will cost too much money."

The insurance industry can take some comfort in the fact that the Price-Anderson Act, which was passed by Congress in 1957, offers a disaster fund. The first tier covers the first $375 million in damages—a figure that could easily be surpassed by what took place in Japan—with the second tier, an industry self-insurance program, covering $12.6 billion in damages. These figures were updated when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the Price-Anderson Act to Dec. 31, 2025.

"I think because of the fact that we've got a nuclear insurance act, insurers probably think they're OK in terms of being covered for this," says Bill Sinn, strategic industry and marketing director for Pitney Bowes Business Insight. "But I think insurers need to look at not only nuclear threats but also other chemical and biological threats. I think they'll find there is some correlative impact of being in close proximity to these plants. Reinsurers are looking hard at nuclear proximity for property and casualty. In order to reduce some of the reinsurance rates, companies are taking a look at proximity to nuclear plants."

Having a governmental and a self-insurance pool for nuclear accidents is good for insurers, but the devastation in Japan makes Norman ponder the possibilities.

"There are all these chemical storage units and factories, and you wonder how close they are being analyzed in terms of risk factors and loss mitigation," he says. "Reinsurers should be looking at that more closely. It's one thing to have regulations for nuclear sites and making sure they are adhered to, but it's another thing when you have some 79,000 chemical and biological hazard sites. What's the risk of a catastrophe coming through and affecting those sites?"

(Maps courtesy of Pitney Bowes Business Insight.)