Development of risk assessment for nuclear power: insights from history Article First Online: 23 August 2014 DOI :
10.1007/s13412-014-0186-8
Cite this article as: Perkins, J.H. J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4: 273. doi:10.1007/s13412-014-0186-8 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.
Keywords Nuclear power Probabilistic risk assessment Risk assessment Safety History
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
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, London
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Carlisle RP (1997) Probabilistic risk assessment in nuclear reactors: engineering success, public relations failure. Technol Cult 38:920–941
CrossRef Google Scholar Carson R (1962) Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
Google Scholar Carter LJ (1976) Nuclear initiative: Californians vote “no”, but legislature acts. Science 192(1317):1319
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Cohrssen JH, Covello VT (1989) Risk analysis: a guide to principles and methods for analyzing health and environmental risks. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington
Google Scholar Culver HN (1966) Effect of engineered safeguards on reactor siting. Nucl Saf 7:342–346
Google Scholar Del Sesto SL (1979) Science, politics, and controversy: civilian nuclear power in the United States, 1946–1974. Westview Press, Boulder
Google Scholar Development and Resources Corporation (1969) New York City’s power supply. Development and Resources Corporation, New York
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation (1974) A time to choose: America’s energy future. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Farmer FR (1975) Advances in the reliability assessment of reactor systems. Atom 230:218–226
Google Scholar Federal Power Commission (1969) A review of consolidated Edison Company 1969 power supply problems and ten-year expansion plans. Federal Power Commission, Washington
Google Scholar Gillette R (1972a) Nuclear safety (I): the roots of dissent. Science 177:771–776
CrossRef Google Scholar Gillette R (1972b) Nuclear safety (II): the years of delay. Science 177:867–871
CrossRef Google Scholar Gillette R (1972c) Nuclear safety (III): critics charge conflicts of interest. Science 177:970–975
CrossRef Google Scholar Gillette R (1972d) Nuclear safety (IV): barriers to communication. Science 177:1080–1082
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Hassl DF (1965) Advanced concepts in fault tree analysis, System Safety Symposium. Boeing Company and University of Washington, Seattle
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Johnson JW (1986) Insuring against disaster: the nuclear industry on trial. Mercer University Press, Macon
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Kendall HW (2000) A distant light: scientists and public policy. AIP Press, New York
CrossRef Google Scholar Kendall HW, Nadis SJ (eds) (1980) Energy strategies: toward a solar future: a report of the union of concerned scientists. Ballinger Pub. Co., Cambridge
Google Scholar Levine S, Rasmussen NC (1984) Nuclear plant PRA: how far has it come? Risk Anal 4:247–254
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Lewis RS (1972) From Seaborg to Schlesinger: a bird watcher on the AEC. Bull At Sci 28:44–45
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Lovins AB (2011) Reinventing fire: bold business solutions for the new energy era. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT
Google Scholar Lutts RH (1985) Chemical fallout: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, radioactive fallout, and the environmental movement. Environ Rev 9:210–225
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Mazuzan GT, Walker JS (1984) Controlling the atom: the beginnings of nuclear regulation. University of California Press, Berkeley
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Means AB (1965) Fault tree analysis: the study of unlikely events in complex systems, system safety symposium. Boeing Company and University of Washington, Seattle
Google Scholar Mulvihill RJ (1966) A probabilistic methodology for the safety analysis of nuclear power reactors, SAN-570-2. Planning Research Corporation, Los Angeles
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Nelkin D (1971) Nuclear power and its critics: the Cayuga Lake controversy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Pope D (1990) “We can wait. We should wait.” Eugene’s nuclear power controversy, 1968–1970. Pac Hist Rev 59(3):349–373
Google Scholar Porter TM (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Rolph ES (1979) Nuclear power and the public safety: a study in regulation. Lexington Books D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley
Google Scholar 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
CrossRef Google Scholar Sovacool BK (2011) Contesting the future of nuclear power: a critical global assessment of atomic energy. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore
CrossRef Google Scholar Starr C (1969) Social benefits versus technological risk. Science 165:1232–1238
CrossRef Google Scholar Sterling A (1998) Risk at a turning point? J Risk Res 1:97–109
CrossRef Google Scholar Stone R (2013) Pandora’s Promise. CNN Films, Atlanta
Google Scholar Teller E, Latter AL (1958) Our nuclear future: facts dangers and opportunities. Criterion Books, New York
Google Scholar Umlauf JL (1965) Case history/minuteman/for weapon safety system, system safety symposium. Boeing Company and University of Washington, Seattle
Google Scholar U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1957) Theoretical possibilities and consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants, WASH-740. Government Printing Office, Washington
Google Scholar U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1962) Civilian nuclear power: a report to the President, 1962. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar U.S. Congress House (1976) Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy & Environment, Hearings, Reactor Safety Study (Rasmussen Report). Government Printing Office, Washington
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar U.S. Congress House (1979) Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy & the Environment, Hearings, Reactor Safety Study review. Government Printing Office, Washington
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1976) Hearings, investigation of charges relating to nuclear reactor safety. Government Printing Office, Washington
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975b) Final report of Reactor Safety Study completed. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, October 10, Press Release
Google Scholar U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1982) Safety goals for nuclear power plants: a discussion paper, NUREG-0880. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington
Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar Walker JS (1992) Containing the atom: nuclear regulation in a changing environment, 1963–1971. University of California Press, Berkeley
Google Scholar Walker JS (2000) Permissible dose: a history of radiation protection in the twentieth century. University of California Press, Berkeley
CrossRef Google Scholar Wargo J (1996) Our children’s toxic legacy: how science and law fail to protect us from pesticides. Yale University Press, New Haven
Google Scholar Wellock TR (2012) Engineering uncertainty and bureaucratic crisis at the Atomic Energy Commission, 1964–1973. Technol Cult 53:846–884
CrossRef Google Scholar 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
Google Scholar © Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences Inc. 2014
Authors and Affiliations 1. Member of the Faculty Emeritus The Evergreen State College Kensington USA