Bobad-

We are both correct.

The building with housed the reactor containment vessel for Unit 1 was blown apart by a hydrogen gas explosion, leaving its frame exposed to the sunshine, while the site operators claim that the containment vessel has not been breached. Sorry if I was not being clear.

The video is more expressive as you can clearly see the initial shock wave of the explosion followed by smoke.

Now I was only aware of Vermont Yankee as a similar reactor to the ones at Fukushima. But there are actually some 23 nuclear reactors in the States similar in design to the ones that are melting down at the Fukushima complex. Here's the summary and assessment from NIRS:

General Electric Mark I Reactors in the United States

The Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor that exploded on Saturday, March 12, 2011, was a General Electric Mark I reactor. This design has been criticized by nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for decades as being susceptible to explosion and containment failure.

As early as 1972, Dr. Stephen Hanuaer, an Atomic Energy Commission safety official, recommended that the pressure suppression system be discontinued and any further designs not be accepted for construction permits. Shortly thereafter, three General Electric nuclear engineers publicly resigned their prestigious positions citing dangerous shortcomings in the GE design.

An NRC analysis of the potential failure of the Mark I under accident conditions concluded in a 1985 report that Mark I failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely. In 1986, Harold Denton, then the NRC's top safety official, told an industry trade group that the "Mark I containment, especially being smaller with lower design pressure, in spite of the suppression pool, if you look at the WASH 1400 safety study, you'll find something like a 90% probability of that containment
failing."

For more information, see: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm

Reactor   Location Size   Year operation began
Browns Ferry 1* Decatur, AL 1065 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 2* Decatur, AL 1118 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 3* Decatur, AL 1114 MW 1976
Brunswick 1* Southport, NC 938 MW 1976
Brunswick 2* Southport, NC 900 MW 1974
Cooper*   Nebraska City, NE 760 MW 1974
Dresden 2* Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Dresden 3* Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Duane Arnold* Cedar Rapids, IA 581 MW 1974
Hatch 1* Baxley, GA 876 MW 1974
Hatch 2* Baxley, GA 883 MW 1978
Fermi 2   Monroe, MI 1122 MW 1985
Hope Creek** Hancocks Bridge, NJ 1061 MW 1986
Fitzpatrick* Oswego, NY 852 MW 1974
Monticello* Monticello, MN 572 MW 1971
Nine Mile Point 1* Oswego, NY 621 MW 1974
Oyster Creek* Toms River, NJ 619 MW 1971
Peach Bottom 2* Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1973
Peach Bottom 3* Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1974
Pilgrim** Plymouth, MA 685 MW 1972
Quad Cities 1* Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Quad Cities 2* Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Vermont Yankee* Vernon, VT 620 MW 1973

*has received 20-year license extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
**20-year license renewal extension is under review by Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Of course it's doubtful whether the NRC ever took into consideration a tsunami compromising the emergency back-up system.

Charley Noble