The location of the plant, next to the ocean, placed it in greater danger from the tsunami. Had the plant been located up higher, above the centuries-old tsunami warning stones, then there maybe would have been a different outcome.
My understanding is that the plant was built seaside to make use of the ocean water for cooling. There are definitely alternatives to this, but in the cost analysis, how many other tradeoffs re: the expediency and safety of nuclear technology are we making that are going to prove to have been in the wrong direction? What is the failure cost going to be?
