Abstract
Nuclear power plays an important role in the global energy economy, but its safety has been a contentious issue for over 50 years. Based on new designs of nuclear power plants, new methods of assessing risks, and calculations of cost efficiency, proponents of nuclear power see it as safe and necessary, but skeptics do not. How can people be so divided on a fundamental issue like safety? Part of the answer lies in the history of risk assessment’s invention, development, and deployment. The US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) developed a form of risk assessment extensively used today: probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The AEC originally wanted to strategically assure the public of nuclear power’s safety. Controversy greeted PRA’s debut, however, and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, AEC’s successor agency, changed PRA into a tactical tool. Scientific and ethical criticisms, political opposition to nuclear power, and accidents combined to force the transition. In contrast to PRA for nuclear power, other forms of risk assessment successfully entered the regulation of toxic chemicals. The safety of nuclear power still elicits sharp disagreements between opponents and proponents of the technology, which in turn leaves a cloud over the future of the technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
AEC establishes task force to study fuel cooling systems of nuclear power plants, Press Release, October 27, 1966; Harold L. Price to John T. Conway, October 20, 1967; Carroll W. Zabel to Glenn T. Seaborg, February 26, 1968; Glenn T. Seaborg to John O. Pastore, April 27, 1971; all in RG 128—Records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 1946–1977, General Correspondence, Box 566, Folder: E.C.C.S.—Low as Practicable, National Archives (I), Washington, D.C. US Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Information Meeting 486, June 9, 1971, RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 33, 1970–1972, Folder: Industrial Devel & Regulations-6Reg, Hazards Evaluations Vol. 2, National Archives (II), College Park, MD.
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, National Wildlife Federation, and The Sierra Club, Notice of Filing of Petition for Rule Making and Denial of Petition for Rule Making in Light of Pending Rule Making Proceeding, June 29, 1970; Anthony Z. Roisman to The Secretary, Atomic Energy Commission, June 29, 1970; In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 41, September Term, 1970, People’s Counsel Public Service Commission, et al., v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al., October 23, 1970; Public Service Commission of Maryland, Order No. [illegible] re Case No. 6281, 4th November 1970; W. B. McCool, Secretary to the Commission, Note by the Secretary, November 13, 1970; Harold L. Price, Director of Regulation, to Berlin, Roisman, and Keasler, November 25, 1970; all in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–1972 NRC, Folder: Industrial Develop & Regulations 5 Reg. Baltimore Gas & Electric (Calvert Cliffs, Vol. 1 of 2; and Anthony Z. Roisman to U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, November 25, 1970, in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–1972 NRC, Folder: I.D.R. 5 Reg Baltimore Cal Cliffs (handwritten label; spelling uncertain).
James R. Schlesinger, Chairman, to John O. Pastore, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 30, 1971, in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–1972, NRC, Folder: Budget 2 Reg, 1972 and 1973.
G. F. Quinn, Assistant General Manager for Development and Production, Meeting of Joint Board for Fuel Supply and Fuel Transport, February 18, 1971, February 22, 1971, in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–9172 NRC, Folder: Industrial Devel. & Regulation—5 Licenses.
William O. Mills to Glenn T. Seaborg, June 7, 1971; William G. Milliken to James R. Schlesinger, October 4, 1971; H. T. Westcott to James R. Schlesinger, October 11, 1971; and John R. Verani to James R. Schlesinger, November 23, 1971; all in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–1972 NRC, Folder: Industrial Develop & Regulations 5 Reg. Baltimore Gas & Electric (Calvert Cliffs, Vol. 1 of 2. Harold L. Price to Daniel J. Flood, Sep 8, 1971; Harrison A. Williams, Jr., to James R. Schlesinger, September 9, 1971; Harrison A. Williams to Glenn T. Seaborg, June 24, 1971, all in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–9172 NRC, Folder: Industrial Devel & Regulations-6Reg, Hazards Evaluations Vol. 2. Interregional Review Subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee, “Impact of a 12-month delay of new nuclear and fossil-fired steam generating units on the adequacy of electric power supply in the United States, a report,” (National Electric Reliability Council, Research Park, Princeton, New Jersey, February, 1972), 12 pp., in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 35, 1970–1972 NRC, Folder: O M–6–Reg; L. Manning Muntzing to the Commissioners, Status Report on Plants for which Full-Power Operation Is Possible During June, July, and August, 1972, May 12, 1972, in RG 431 Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 30, 1970–1972 NRC, Folder: Industrial Develop & Regulations—5 Licenses.
James T. Ramey, Licensing and environmental considerations in atomic power development: a checklist, to Atomic Industrial Forum Workshop on Power Reactor Licensing, Glen Cove, NY, June 30, 1969, 18 pp., released July 10, 1969, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Archives, James T. Ramey (#193) Personal Papers, Series 1. Writings, 1956–1973, Box 2, File: 1969: June–August.
Saul Levine to Edward J. Bauser, July 28, 1971, RG 128—Records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 1946–1977, General Correspondence, Box 629, Folder: Reactor Safety, National Archives (I), Washington, D.C.; Saul Levine to Edward J. Bauser, July 29, 1971, RG 128—Records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 1946–1977, General Correspondence, Box 566, Folder: E.C.C.S.—Low as Practicable, National Archives (I), Washington, D.C.; and Saul Levine to Edward J. Bauser, August 13, 1971, RG 128—Records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 1946–1977,General Correspondence, Box 629, Folder: Reactor Safety Comprehensive Study, National Archives (I), Washington, D.C. Quote is from memo of August 13. All memos were prepared on letterhead of the Joint Committee, not AEC, which suggests that Levine spent a few weeks at the Joint Committee.
John O. Pastore to James R. Schlesinger, Oct 7–1971; James R. Schlesinger to John O. Pastore, October 14, 1971; RG 128—Records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 1946–1977, General Correspondence, Box 629, Folder: Reactor Safety Comprehensive Study, National Archives (I), Washington, D.C.
Saul Levine, Testimony to Science and Technology Committee, New Hampshire House of Representatives, February 10, 1982, in Norman Rasmussen Papers, MC 542, Box 2, folder 3, Levine, Saul, 1981–1985, MIT Archives, Cambridge, MA. Norman C. Rasmussen, Resume, January 22, 1981, Norman Rasmussen Papers, MC 542, MIT Archives, Box 2, Folder 2, Levine, Saul, 1979–1981.
The numerical guidelines for maximum exposure came from 10CFR100.11. The figure of 25 rem was at the time considered by the National Committee on Radiation Protection to be a “once in a lifetime accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers, which may be disregarded in the determination of their radiation exposure status.” The figure of 300 rem for thyroid exposure was not further explained in either 10CFR100 or in WASH-1250.
Stephen H. Hanauer to Trevor Griffiths, May 8, 1969, Public Documents Room, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD, Microform address: 41799:074–41799:075; Peter A. Morris to A. Philip Bray, July 28, 1969, Public Documents Room, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD, Microform address: 41724:139–41724:139.
W. B. McCool to Peter A. Morris and John A. Harris, SECY-R-463, May 22, 1972; W. B. McCool to File, Study of Risks Due to Accidents–Nuclear Power Reactors, SECY-R 432, May 15, 1972; Norman C. Rasmussen and Manson Benedict to Stephen Hanauer, March 17, 1972; all in RG 431, Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Regulatory Program General Correspondence Files, 1956–1972, Box 33, 1970–1972 NRC, Folder: Industrial Devel & Regulations-6Reg, Hazards Evaluations, Volume 4, National Archives (II), College Park, MD; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Main Report, Chapter 1, 1; Executive Summary, 5.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, Chapter 1, 6–7.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, Table 5–4, 83, Table 5–6, 84, Table 6–6, 114, Executive Summary, Table 1–1, 3.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, Chapter 7, 131, 139.
Morris K. Udall to Marcus A. Rowden, March 14, 1977, Marcus A. Rowden to Morris K. Udall, June 17, 1977, in Victor Gilinsky Papers, Folder: Reactor Safety—Research & Policy, Risk Assessment Program, 1977 June–Nov., Box 315, Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
John G. Davis to [Directors of Regional Offices of NRC], March 24, 1975, and April 3, 1975, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/bulletins/1975/bl75004.html and http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/bulletins/1975/bl75004a.html, 8 May 2011; US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Fire of 1975 and the History of NRC Fire Regulations (Washington, D.C.: 2009), 1–8, NUREG/BR-0361; Nuclear Information and Resource Services “Safety deficiencies at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Complex,” June, 2007, 1–2, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/brownsferryfactsheet.pdf, 8 May 2011; M. Ragheb and Jim Kolodziej, “Browns Ferry Fire,” January 11, 2011, 1–7, https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20457%20CSE%20462%20Safety%20Analysis%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20Systems/Browns%20Ferry%20Fire.pdf, 8 May 2011.
S. Levine, “Safety goals for nuclear power plants,” draft, 6/4/80, in Norman Rasmussen papers, MC 542, MIT Archives, Box 2, Folder 2, Levine, Saul, 1979–1981; Milton S. Plesset to John F. Ahearne, October 31, 1980, in Norman Rasmussen Papers, MC 542, MIT Archives, Box 2, Folder 28, Pate, Zack T., 1979–1989; Joseph M. Hendrie to Commissioners Gilinsky, Bradford, Ahearne, June 9, 1981, in Norman C. Rasmussen Papers, MC 542, MIT Archives, Box 1, Folder 48, Hendrie, Joseph M., 1981–1983.
10 CFR 50: (a) (1) (ii) (D) (1); 10 CFR 50:34 (a) (1) (ii); 51 FR 30028, August 21, 1986; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition—Severe Accidents,” (NUREG-0800, Chapter 19), http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/ch19/, 17 January 2013.
In contrast to Perrow and others who rejected the concept of safety based on comparable probabilities, these natural scientists accepted the concept but criticized the numerical values of past calculations.
One reactor operating for 1 year = “one reactor-year.” Ten reactors working for 10 years each = 100 reactor-years. Calculation of reactor-years entails adding together the number of years of operation of each reactor in the world. The World Nuclear Association, a trade association for the nuclear power industry, currently lists 435 operable reactors worldwide. With a total world experience of 14,400 reactor-years, each operable reactor has worked an average of about 33.1 years. Many reactors have operated for a longer periods, and many for shorter.
The accident at Chernobyl, a reactor in the former USSR and now Ukraine, happened in 1986, after the main events with PRA developed in this article. PRA as developed in the USA did not include RBMK reactor designs like Chernobyl. American nuclear engineers, after the Chernobyl catastrophe, immediately pointed to the RBMK’s positive void coefficient and the Soviet decision not to put a containment building around the reactor. No PRA was needed to identify these two features as serious safety problems. In addition, irregularities in operating procedures and a lax safety culture also contributed. Chernobyl proved that bad accidents really could be catastrophic, but that story had no direct relationship to the history of PRA in the USA.
References
Agwa A, Leheta H, Salem A, Sadiq R (2013) Fate of drilling waste discharges and ecological risk assessment in the Egyptian Red Sea: an aquivalence-based fuzzy analysis. Stoch Env Res Risk A 27(1):169–181
Albert RE, Train RE, Anderson E (1977) Rationale developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the assessment of carcinogenic risks, 58 (5):1537–1541
Balogh B (1991) Chain reaction: expert debate and public participation in American commercial nuclear power. Cambridge University Press, New York
Barry PJ (1970) The siting and safety of civilian nuclear power plants, CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, June
Beck CK (1966) Current trends & perspectives in reactor location and safety requirements. Nucl Saf 8:12–16
Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, London
Bethe H et al (1975) No alternative to nuclear power, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March): 4–5
Bradford PA (2013) How to close the US nuclear industry: do nothing. Bull At Sci 69:12–21
Burnham (1974) “Inquiry on impact of A-power urged,” New York Times, November 17
Burnham D (1975a) “Fire raises issue of safe reactors,” New York Times, March 26
Burnham D (1975b) “Hope for cheap power from atom is fading,” New York Times, November 16
Burnham D (1976) 3 engineers quit G.E. reactor division and volunteer in antinuclear movement, New York Times, February 3
Bupp IC, Darian J (1981) The failed promise of nuclear power: the story of light water. Basic Books, New York
Carlisle RP (1997) Probabilistic risk assessment in nuclear reactors: engineering success, public relations failure. Technol Cult 38:920–941
Carson R (1962) Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
Carter LJ (1976) Nuclear initiative: Californians vote “no”, but legislature acts. Science 192(1317):1319
Cochran TB, McKinzie MG (2011) Global implications of the Fukushima disaster for nuclear power, paper delivered to World Federation of Scientists’ International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Sicily, August 19 – 25, http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_11102801a.pdf, 18 January 2013
Cohn SM (1997) Too cheap to meter: an economic and philosophical analysis of the nuclear dream. State University of New York Press, Albany
Cohrssen JH, Covello VT (1989) Risk analysis: a guide to principles and methods for analyzing health and environmental risks. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington
Culver HN (1966) Effect of engineered safeguards on reactor siting. Nucl Saf 7:342–346
Del Sesto SL (1979) Science, politics, and controversy: civilian nuclear power in the United States, 1946–1974. Westview Press, Boulder
Development and Resources Corporation (1969) New York City’s power supply. Development and Resources Corporation, New York
Development and Resources Corporation (1977) The risks of nuclear power reactors: a review of the NRC Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/015). Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge
Egan M (2007) Barry Commoner and the science of survival: the remaking of American environmentalism. MIT Press, Cambridge
Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation (1974) A time to choose: America’s energy future. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge
Farmer FR (1967) Siting criteria—a new approach, in International Atomic Energy Agency, Containment and Siting of Nuclear Power Plants, Proceedings of a Symposium on the Containment and Siting of Nuclear Power Plants, 3 – 7 April 19. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
Farmer FR (1975) Advances in the reliability assessment of reactor systems. Atom 230:218–226
Federal Power Commission (1969) A review of consolidated Edison Company 1969 power supply problems and ten-year expansion plans. Federal Power Commission, Washington
Gillette R (1972a) Nuclear safety (I): the roots of dissent. Science 177:771–776
Gillette R (1972b) Nuclear safety (II): the years of delay. Science 177:867–871
Gillette R (1972c) Nuclear safety (III): critics charge conflicts of interest. Science 177:970–975
Gillette R (1972d) Nuclear safety (IV): barriers to communication. Science 177:1080–1082
Gwynne P, Bishop J Jr, (1975) “Incident at Browns Ferry,” Newsweek, October 20
Hamblin JD (2012) Fukushima and the motifs of nuclear history. Environ Hist 17:285–299
Hassl DF (1965) Advanced concepts in fault tree analysis, System Safety Symposium. Boeing Company and University of Washington, Seattle
International Energy Agency (2013) Electricity information, 2013. International Energy Agency, Paris, Part III, Table 1.2, percent calculated by author
Jacobson MZ et al (2013) Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight. Energy Policy 57:585–601
Johnson JW (1986) Insuring against disaster: the nuclear industry on trial. Mercer University Press, Macon
Keller W, Modarres M (2005) A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment development and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the late Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 89:271–285
Kendall HW (2000) A distant light: scientists and public policy. AIP Press, New York
Kendall HW, Nadis SJ (eds) (1980) Energy strategies: toward a solar future: a report of the union of concerned scientists. Ballinger Pub. Co., Cambridge
Levine S, Rasmussen NC (1984) Nuclear plant PRA: how far has it come? Risk Anal 4:247–254
Levine S, Stetson F (1982) How PRA is being used in the USA. Nucl Eng Int: June, 35–38
Lewis HW et al (1975) Report to the American Physical Society. Rev Mod Phys 47(Supplement 1):S1–S124, Summer
Lewis RS (1972) From Seaborg to Schlesinger: a bird watcher on the AEC. Bull At Sci 28:44–45
Lin BB, Yong BK, Matthew I, Chi-Hsiang W, Sorada T, Xiaoming W (2014) Assessing inundation damage and timing of adaptation: sea level rise and the complexities of land use in coastal communities. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 19(5):551–568
Lovins AB (2011) Reinventing fire: bold business solutions for the new energy era. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT
Lutts RH (1985) Chemical fallout: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, radioactive fallout, and the environmental movement. Environ Rev 9:210–225
Lyons RD (1974) A.E.C. study finds hazards of reactors very slight, New York Times, August 21
Mazuzan GT (1986) “Very risky business”: a power reactor for New York City. Technol Cult 27(2):262–284
Mazuzan GT, Walker JS (1984) Controlling the atom: the beginnings of nuclear regulation. University of California Press, Berkeley
McKenzie LM, Witter RZ, Newman LS, Adgate JL (2012) Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. Sci Total Environ 424:79–87
Means AB (1965) Fault tree analysis: the study of unlikely events in complex systems, system safety symposium. Boeing Company and University of Washington, Seattle
Mulvihill RJ (1966) A probabilistic methodology for the safety analysis of nuclear power reactors, SAN-570-2. Planning Research Corporation, Los Angeles
Nader R (1974) “Agenda for Critical Mass 74, conference on nuclear power,” CSHL Archives Repository, Reference JDW/2/2/1259/2, accessed June 25, 2014, http://libgallery.cshl.edu/items/show/45990
National Research Council (2009) America’s energy future. National Academies Press, Washington
Nelkin D (1971) Nuclear power and its critics: the Cayuga Lake controversy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
New York Times (1984) Obituary, “Saul Levine dies at 61; nuclear safety expert,” October 28
Novick S (1968) The careless atom. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
Nuclear Energy Agency (2009) Nuclear fuel behaviour in loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions, NEA-No. 6846. Oganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/reports/2009/nea6846_LOCA.pdf, accessed 18 February 2012
Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New York
Pope D (1990) “We can wait. We should wait.” Eugene’s nuclear power controversy, 1968–1970. Pac Hist Rev 59(3):349–373
Porter TM (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Randall PE (1989) Hampton: a century of town and beach, 1888 – 1988. Peter E. Randall Publisher, Hampton. Found at http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/hampton/history/randall/chap18/randall18_4.htm, 30 June 2008
Rasmussen NC (1972) Nuclear reactor safety—an opinion, Nuclear News, January, 35–40
Richter B (2010) Beyond smoke and mirrors: climate change and energy in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, New York
Risk Assessment Review Group (1978) Risk assessment review group report to the U.S. nuclear regulatory commission, NUREG/CR-0400. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington
Rolph ES (1979) Nuclear power and the public safety: a study in regulation. Lexington Books D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington
Schils N (2011) “Abalone Alliance campaign against Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, California, 1976 – 1984,” Global Nonviolent Action Database, 2011, 1 – 7, http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/abalone-alliance-campaigns-against-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-california-1976-1984, 29 February 2012
Shrader-Frechette KS (1983) Nuclear power and public policy: the social and ethical problems of fission technology, 2nd edn. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht
Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley
Soeder DJ, Sharma S, Pekney N, Hopkinson L, Dilmore R, Kutchko B, Stewart B, Carter K, Hakala A, Capo R (2014) An approach for assessing engineering risk from shale gas wells in the United States. Int J Coal Geol 126:4–19
Sovacool BK (2011) Contesting the future of nuclear power: a critical global assessment of atomic energy. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore
Starr C (1969) Social benefits versus technological risk. Science 165:1232–1238
Sterling A (1998) Risk at a turning point? J Risk Res 1:97–109
Stone R (2013) Pandora’s Promise. CNN Films, Atlanta
Teller E, Latter AL (1958) Our nuclear future: facts dangers and opportunities. Criterion Books, New York
Umlauf JL (1965) Case history/minuteman/for weapon safety system, system safety symposium. Boeing Company and University of Washington, Seattle
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1957) Theoretical possibilities and consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants, WASH-740. Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1962) Civilian nuclear power: a report to the President, 1962. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1973) The safety of nuclear power reactors (light water-cooled) and related facilities, WASH-1250. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1974) Risks to public from nuclear power plants very small, study concludes. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, August 20, Press Release
U.S. Congress House (1976) Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy & Environment, Hearings, Reactor Safety Study (Rasmussen Report). Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Congress, House (1977) Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Observations on the Reactor Safety Study: a report, Committee Print No. 1. Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Congress House (1979) Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy & the Environment, Hearings, Reactor Safety Study review. Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Congress House (1986) Committee on science and technology, subcommittee on energy and energy research and production, legislative inquiry on the Price-Anderson Act. Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1963) Hearings, development, growth, and state of the atomic energy industry, part i. Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1976) Hearings, investigation of charges relating to nuclear reactor safety. Government Printing Office, Washington
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975a) Reactor Safety Study: an assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, NUREG-75/014. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975b) Final report of Reactor Safety Study completed. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, October 10, Press Release
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1982) Safety goals for nuclear power plants: a discussion paper, NUREG-0880. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington
Walker JS (1990) Reactor at the fault: the Bodega Bay nuclear plant controversy, 1958–1964: a case study in the politics of technology. Pac Hist Rev 59(3):323–348
Walker JS (1992) Containing the atom: nuclear regulation in a changing environment, 1963–1971. University of California Press, Berkeley
Walker JS (2000) Permissible dose: a history of radiation protection in the twentieth century. University of California Press, Berkeley
Wargo J (1996) Our children’s toxic legacy: how science and law fail to protect us from pesticides. Yale University Press, New Haven
Wellock TR (2012) Engineering uncertainty and bureaucratic crisis at the Atomic Energy Commission, 1964–1973. Technol Cult 53:846–884
Wynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London
Acknowledgments
I’m very grateful for helpful comments received from a number of people on drafts of this paper: Peter Bradford, Robert J. Budnitz, George Irwin, Natalie Kopytko, Cheri Lucas Jennings, Chris Jones, Carolyn Merchant, Ralph Murphy, Laura Nader, Richard Muller, Barbara Bridgman Perkins, Kathleen Saul, and anonymous reviewers. I also thank the staff at the National Archives in Washington, DC, and College Park, MD; the Public Documents Room of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, MD; the MIT Archives in Cambridge, MA; the John F Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston, MA; and the Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. I thank Susan Jenkins, Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, for support of my efforts in energy education. None of these people are accountable for the views expressed here, and I remain responsible for all errors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Chronology of important events
Date | Event |
1946 | US Atomic Energy Commission established by Atomic Energy Act |
1954 | Atomic Energy Act revisions opened nuclear energy to private companies |
March 1957 | AEC released Theoretical possibilities and consequences, WASH-740 |
September 1957 | Price-Anderson Act indemnified nuclear power plants from liability |
December 1957 | First commercial US nuclear power plant opened at Shippingport, PA |
1962 | AEC released Civilian nuclear power: a report to the President |
1962 | Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring intensified environmental concerns |
1950s – 1970s | Local opposition to nuclear power projects thwarted and delayed them |
1969 | AEC Commissioners defended nuclear power |
1969 | Studies indicated New York City had inadequate electricity generation |
1969 | Critics blocked nuclear power plant on Lake Cayuga: thermal pollution |
1969 | Chauncey Starr proposed new safety concept based on risk |
April 1971 | AEC concluded ECCSs were not as reliable as previously thought |
June 1971 | AEC released new, interim criteria for ECCSs |
July 1971 | Court ruled AEC must comply with National Environmental Policy Act |
August 1971 | AEC engineer Saul Levine recommended to Congress a new safety study |
October 1971 | Senator John Pastore recommended a new study be done by AEC |
May 1972 | AEC appointed Rasmussen to head Reactor Safety Study |
July 1973 | AEC released WASH-1250, The safety of nuclear power reactors |
1974 | Ford Foundation released A time to choose |
August 1974 | AEC released draft of WASH-1400, Reactor Safety Study |
November 1974 | Ralph Nader held first national conference to oppose nuclear power |
January 1975 | US Nuclear Regulatory Commission replaced AEC |
March 1975 | 32 prominent scientists said nuclear power was essential and worth risks |
March 1975 | Fire disabled emergency equipment, Browns Ferry nuclear plant |
Summer 1975 | First Lewis report criticized Reactor Safety Study |
October 1975 | NRC released final draft of Reactor Safety Study |
February 1976 | Three engineers resigned from General Electric over safety issues |
February 1976 | Engineer resigned from NRC over safety issues |
March 1976 | Joint Committee on Atomic Energy held hearings on resignations |
June 1976 | CA voters rejected curb on nuclear power but stiffer conditions followed |
June 1976 | US House Subcommittee held hearings on Reactor Safety Study |
March 1977 | US House Subcommittee report criticized Reactor Safety Study |
June 1977 | NRC appointed Lewis to head second study of Reactor Safety Study |
August 1977 | Union of Concerned Scientists criticized Reactor Safety Study |
August 1977 | Hundreds arrested for sit-in at California nuclear power plant |
1978 | Second Lewis report praised and criticized Reactor Safety Study |
January 1979 | NRC withdrew support of Executive Summary of Reactor Safety Study |
March 1979 | Accident destroyed nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island |
1980s–present | US Nuclear Regulatory Commission made PRA a tactical tool |
1984 | Charles Perrow’s Normal Accidents proposed alternatives to PRA |
April 1986 | Catastrophic explosion at Chernobyl contaminated huge area |
March 2011 | Catastrophic explosions at Fukushima contaminated huge area |
1980s–present | Continued debates on safety clouded future of nuclear power |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perkins, J.H. Development of risk assessment for nuclear power: insights from history. J Environ Stud Sci 4, 273–287 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0186-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0186-8