sign in sign up
<<
Home , Nuclear power debate

Risk Analysis Virtual Issue , Weapons and Waste Management: A 40- Retrospective Edited by Michael Greenberg, Joanna Burger, and Karen Lowrie Introduction Our aim with this virtual issue is to provide a compendium of papers that examines the range of risks and benefits of nuclear power, weapons production, waste management, and associated human dimensions of these risks and benefits to society and individuals. Papers cover topics such as the siting of weapons plants and power plants, commercial power production, nuclear wastes, management of stockpiles, repositories, potential accidents, and environmental justice, especially for Native Americans and people of color. These issues have engaged a wide range of social, physical, and biological scientists, as well as managers and regulators interested in risk.

Below we first provide a brief , weapons production, and waste management. We then present papers selected from the 40-year history of Risk Analysis, divided into four parts representing the past four decades. Under each of these, we provide a brief overview of the major issues and summarize the selected papers within the era. Our comments are meant to introduce the papers, which themselves address the key issues and concerns.

The four historical periods are:

1. 1981-1990: Scrutiny of commercial nuclear power , siting and public perception.

2. 1991-2000: Nuclear waste management, Yucca and WIPP

3. 2001-2010: Terrorism, equity challenges, and ambiguity about nuclear power

4. 2011-2020: , underground repositories, and nuclear power post- Fukushima

Brief Historical Context On August 6 and August 9, 1945, the United States dropped nuclear weapons on and Nagasaki to hasten the end of the Second World War. In December 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his famous “Atoms for Peace” speech to the United Nations, intending to facilitate the application of nuclear materials and to peaceful uses, such as generating , digging canals, treating diseases, and increasing agricultural production. Eisenhower’s optimistic perspective was supported by distinguished experts. For example, while meeting with reporters in 1954, Lewis Strauss, chair of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, noted that nuclear energy would be so inexpensive to produce that it would not need to be metered. Touted in the U.S, , the United Kingdom, Germany and other industrialized countries as a way to create wealth and cure poverty, nuclear power promised to be an amazing innovation. In 1979, a few months before the Society for Risk Analysis was created, Oak Ridge scientists Burwell, Ohanian, and Weinberg called for a U.S. siting policy that would accommodate 1000 nuclear power plants (averaging about 1,000 megawatts-electric). Their preference was to cluster ten plants at each site. These were the halcyon days of nuclear power.

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over 400 nuclear power plants have been built worldwide, with over 100 constructed at over 60 sites in the United States. This was an enormous commitment, but not what was anticipated by nuclear power optimists. To achieve energy and economic efficiency, proponents wanted to build reactors in urban areas. In 1957, a New York utility proposed to build a in Ravenswood, located about three miles from the United Nations building in New York City. In the early1970s, the first author and a colleague (Greenberg & Kruekeberg,1974) studied a proposed facility at Newbold Island in the Delaware River about 10 miles from Philadelphia and 4 miles from Trenton, New Jersey. Both proposals were rejected. We testified for five days at official hearings about the proposed Newbold Island site, as well as heard arguments and fielded questions from opponents and neutral participants who made a strong case that should there be an accident it would not be feasible to evacuate the more than 10 million people that lived within 50 miles of the site. The opposition in some communities is also illustrated by successful community protests in Harlem against building a small reactor at Columbia University for teaching purposes.

Before 1980, it was becoming clear that the promises of nuclear power were going to be hard to meet. Accidents were one reason. In 1957, the Windscale reactor in the U.K and the Ozyorsk facilities in the Soviet Union had serious accidents. In 1979, an accident occurred at the Three Mile Island facility near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These foreshadowed more consequential accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima that fueled major concern about the benefits and risk of nuclear power, both of nuclear power plants themselves, and in comparison to other forms of energy generation.

Nuclear waste management was beginning to be viewed as a U.S. national government problem by the early 1980s, illustrated by the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that set forth a national approach to managing the increasing stockpile of nuclear wastes. Nuclear so-called “spent fuel” rods from power plants were accumulating. These rods are more accurately described as “economically spent,“ because they were thermally hot and radioactive, requiring cooling and shielding. Efforts to find a repository for nuclear waste from nuclear weapons and power plants had begun. Yucca Mountain, Nevada was investigated as an underground repository in the 1970s, as was a salt dome near Lyons, Kansas. Progress was limited.

Thus began a period where nuclear weapons plants and nuclear power plants were no longer shrouded in secrecy. Congress and the American people began to examine the risks and benefits of nuclear power and to acknowledge the buildup of nuclear wastes, both from the weapons plants and from commercial facilities. The issues are numerous and varied, and in many respects, relate to larger questions of why and how we examine the use of any technology, its applications, and the range of human dimensions associated with it.

The period of questioning of the safety of the nuclear and chemical wastes stockpiled on the nuclear weapons plants led to the formation of the Environmental Management (EM) Program of the Department of Energy (DOE). Following World War II, the U.S. had created a large complex of 50 major sites, 2.4 million acres, and 20,000 facilities that was largely devoted to weapons research and production (DOE, 1996). The DOE EM program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. EPA have faced the daunting challenges of managing massive amounts of nuclear and chemical wastes, cleaning up lands to productive uses, determining future land uses and future missions, and protecting human health and the environment (DOE, 1996). Many of these issues remain today, with the waste management issue critical to all aspects of this multi-generational challenge.

With this background, we offer 29 papers drawn from the archives of Risk Analysis for inclusion in the virtual issue. We also suggest 38 additional Risk Analysis papers on these topics that are not part of the issue, but could provide a wider examination of some of the issues, and will be useful for graduate students, professionals and others delving into particular topics. Many papers deal with the Department of Energy’s nuclear complex because of the enormous cleanup tasks that remain, some that will likely not be completed in this century (DOE, 2019). But the issues surrounding nuclear stockpiles elsewhere, and the issues concerning commercial nuclear power are present in every country with nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.

The papers in this volume not only provide context for our current thinking about nuclear power, but raise issues related to waste in general, siting of any commercial facilities, climate change, and environmental justice. The backgrounds for each part of the volume are meant not as complete history, but as brief overviews of some of the issues of each period. Each time period could lend itself to a complete volume. Papers are divided into those that are primarily about risk assessment and those that are primarily about risk management. Acknowledgments We thank Professor David Kosson of Vanderbilt University for his constructive suggestions. We appreciate the ongoing financial support and encouragement from the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation through the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FC01- 06EW07053) for our work, as well as Rutgers University. The views are those of the authors and do not represent the funding agencies. References and Suggested Other Sources Brady J. (2019). “This Company Says the Future of Nuclear Energy is Smaller, Cheaper, and Safer.” National Public Radio, May 8.

Burwell C., Ohanian M., & Weinberg M. A (1979). Siting Policy for an Acceptable Nuclear Future. Science, 204, 1043-1051.

Department of Energy (DOE). (1996). Charting the Course: The Future Use Report. Department of Energy, , DC.

Department of Energy (DOE). (2019). Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost Report. DOE/RL-2018-45 (Rev 0). Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Eisenhower D. (1953). Atoms for Peace Speech. December 8. Available at: https://www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech.

Gagarinskii, A. Y. (2012). Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Atomic Energy, 112(4), 307.

Greenberg M. & Krueckeberg D. (1974). Demographic analysis for nuclear power plant siting: a set of computerized models and a suggestion for improving siting practices. Journal of Computers and Operations Research, l, 497-506.

Pew Research Center. (2017). Trust, Facts, and Democracy. Available at: www.people-press. org/2017/10/05/7-global-warming-and-environmental-regulation-personal-environmentalism/. Russell, M. (1997). Toward a Productive Divorce: Separating DOE Cleanups from Transition Assistance. JIEE No. 97-03. Knoxville, Tenn: The Joint Institute for Energy and Environment.

Strauss L. “This Day in Quotes. September 16. Too cheap to meter. The great nuclear quote debate.” Available at: http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/09/too-cheap-to-meter-nuclear- quote-debate.html.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic (UNSCEAR). (2008). Health Effects Due to Radiation from the Chernobyl Accident.

Part 1: 1981-1990, Scrutiny of Commercial Nuclear Power Technology, Siting, and Public Perception When Risk Analysis began to publish in 1981, it attracted commentaries from some of the world’s leading experts. Starr’s paper in the journal’s second issue (1981) tries to establish an acceptable level of risk for a nuclear power plant. Kaplan (1982) who along with John Garrick were pioneers in developing probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plants published papers on the use of fault trees and seismic hazards. Vaurio (1984) used existing data from historical accident events, concluding that safety was increasing. Keeney’s paper (1985) is an early effort to consider attributes of an acceptable nuclear waste repository site. While nuclear power was the focus, Paté-Cornell (1985) reminds us of the reality of nuclear weapons when she examined command and control of U.S. nuclear weapons.

We selected two papers that highlight some public perception issues that arose during the 1980s. Hohenemser (1987) highlights public distrust at the Rocky Flats nuclear site, located within ten miles of downtown Denver, when site management was found to not be following the rules. Kunreuther (1990) assessed public attitudes about siting a repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1986, the Chernobyl event occurred with as yet not fully determined measurements of health and other effects (United Nations, 2008).

Risk Assessment

Kaplan, S. (1982). Matrix theory formalism for event tree analysis: Application to nuclear‐risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 2(1), 9-18.

Keeney, R. L. (1987). An analysis of the portfolio of sites to characterize for selecting a nuclear repository. Risk Analysis, 7(2), 195-218.

Paté‐Cornell, M. E., & Neu, J. E. (1985). Warning systems and defense policy: a reliability model for the command and control of US nuclear forces. Risk Analysis, 5(2), 121-138.

Starr, C. (1981). Risk criteria for nuclear power plants: A pragmatic proposal. Risk Analysis, 1(2), 113-120.

Vaurio, J. K. (1984). Learning from nuclear accident experience. Risk Analysis, 4(2), 103-115.

Risk Management Hohenemser, C. (1987). Public distrust and hazard management success at the rocky flats nuclear weapons plant. Risk Analysis, 7(2), 243-259.

Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., & Slovic, P. (1990). Public attitudes toward siting a high‐level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 10(4), 469-484.

Part 2: 1991-2000, Focus on Nuclear Waste Management, Yucca and WIPP In 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and then the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union split into multiple nations. The was to stop and be replaced with an agreement for fewer nuclear weapons, which meant dismantling thousands of weapons and the means to deliver them to targets.

Also, by the 1990s, existing nuclear power plants were beginning to age and new ones were becoming much more expensive to build. Existing plants continued to produce thermally hot and radioactive fuel roads that needed to be stored. These trends have continued and many nuclear power plants began shutting down in the United States, Japan, and Germany. With a glut of natural gas, oil, and even in the face of climate change, nuclear power, with the exception of China and India, is not seen as a good investment. An increasing number of nuclear proponents are pressing for nuclear plants that are smaller, cheaper and safer (Brady, 2019). Nevertheless, walking away from new power nuclear investments does not solve the waste management challenge for weapons or power plants, which has been increasing.

Risk Analysis became a place to consider options for managing the two growing high level nuclear waste streams from defense waste and nuclear power plants. Ralph Keeney (1994) and Warner North (1999) defined key issues and options, pointing out uncertainties for risk assessors and especially mangers and government officials.

The challenge for managing nuclear waste is exemplified by the Helton et al. (1999) paper about the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The U.S. Congress mandated that the DOE demonstrate that the nuclear waste buried at WIPP would be contained for 10,000 after the site is abandoned in about 100 years, an unprecedented requirement. The risk assessment modelling discussed by Helton et al. is perhaps the most complicated risk assessment ever attempted, as it needs to account for random events that we cannot predict (aleatory uncertainty) and changes that could occur over 10,000 years that we cannot assess because of a lack of knowledge (epistemic uncertainty). The final of the four risk assessment papers in Part 2 focuses on environmental and social justice issues raised by splitting the atom. Frohmberg (2000) reports on studies to measure the exposure of Native Americans associated with fallout from in Nevada.

These four risk assessment papers are followed by four well known nuclear risk management papers. Slovic’s (1991) study of the public’s reaction to DOE’s effort to open the Yucca Mountain repository deserves the label “classic.” Greenberg et al. (1999) provided an early glimpse of the economic consequences of accelerating remediation at DOE’s major sites, observing that several of the local economies had become dependent on DOE’s economic investments and that DOE faced a moral dilemma in regard to closing or keeping these sites open, or providing an alternative economic base for these regions. (For more on this topic, we suggest economist Milton Russell’s 1997 paper that recommends a divorce between the DOE’s cleanup and economic booster functions in the Additional Papers section.) Stepping back from these data-driven studies, Shrader-Frechette (2000) and Ahearne (2000) focus on the intergenerational consequences of nuclear power, weapons and waste.

Risk Assessment

Frohmberg, E., Goble, R., Sanchez, V., & Quigley, D. (2000). The assessment of radiation exposures in Native American communities from nuclear weapons testing in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 101-112.

Helton, J. C., Anderson, D. R., Jow, H. N., Marietta, M. G., & Basabilvazo, G. (1999). Performance assessment in support of the 1996 compliance certification application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Risk Analysis, 19(5), 959-986.

Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1994). Managing nuclear waste from power plants. Risk Analysis, 14(1), 107-130.

North, D. W. (1999). A perspective on nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 751-758.

Risk Management Ahearne, J. F. (2000). Intergenerational issues regarding nuclear power, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 763-770.

Greenberg, M., Solitare, L., Frisch, M., & Lowrie, K. (1999). Economic impact of accelerated cleanup on regions surrounding the US DOE's major nuclear weapons sites. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 635-647.

Shrader‐Frechette, K. (2000). Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra‐and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 771-778.

Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., & Gesell, G. (1991). Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high‐level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 11(4), 683-696.

Part 3: 2001-2010, Terrorism, Equity Challenges, and Ambiguity about Nuclear Power The first decade of the new millennium brought multiple risk-related challenges. In 2002, the stock market crashed, followed by bursting of the dot.com bubble and then the housing mortgage bubble later in the decade. The swine flu epidemic struck in 2009, and hurricanes Rita and Katrina lashed large areas. With regard to nuclear-related issues, nuclear weapons proliferation became an issue as India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and others developed or tried to develop nuclear arsenals, and there were fears that part of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal would be used by other nations and terrorists. In the pages of Risk Analysis, authors highlighted the increasing concern about terrorism and nuclear materials and also brought equity issues to our attention. Lawrence Wein (2006) developed an approach to efficiently detect nuclear materials shipped in storage containers, and later that decade (2010) he analyzed shelter-in-place as a response to a terrorist-initiated nuclear detonation.

Native-Americans have been outspoken about exposure to nuclear weapons tests and waste sites. The United States tested nuclear weapons in Amchitka Island. Local residents who depend upon the sea did not trust the Department of Energy’s assertions that their seafood supply was not contaminated. There were major differences in perceptions and values between the Aleuts and mainland Americans as a whole regarding the value attached to ecosystems (Burger and Gochfeld, 2008; 2009). These studies illustrated the need and importance of using teams of scientists that included local Native peoples, to gather data and explore relationships between the physical, biological and human health risks in complex ecosystems exposed to radioactive materials.

The first decade of the 21st century brought a renewed interest in nuclear power from several governments and industry. Stephen Whitfield (2009) examined a broad range of public opinion polls, concluding that many people did not trust the technology nor its proponents, and despite the call for a second wave of nuclear power plants, considerable opposition and mistrust existed. Morton (2009) reported on the United Kingdom’s effort to move forward on a process for managing nuclear waste. His report is positive and optimistic. However, across the globe, on-the-ground progress rarely matched promising reports.

Risk Assessment Wein, L. M., Wilkins, A. H., Baveja, M., & Flynn, S. E. (2006). Preventing the importation of illicit nuclear materials in shipping containers. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1377-1393.

Wein, L. M., Choi, Y., & Denuit, S. (2010). Analyzing evacuation versus shelter‐in‐place strategies after a terrorist nuclear detonation. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1315-1327. Risk Management

Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Pletnikoff, K., Snigaroff, R., Snigaroff, D., & Stamm, T. (2008). Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1261-1272. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2009). Changes in Aleut Concerns Following the Stakeholder‐Driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment. Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1156-1169.

Morton, A., Airoldi, M., & Phillips, L. D. (2009). Nuclear risk management on stage: a decision analysis perspective on the UK's Committee on Management. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 764-779.

Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425-437.

Part 4: 2011-2020, Climate Change, Underground Repositories and Nuclear Power post-Fukushima

During this period, the climate change--nuclear power debate became a focal issue for political debate. Before the close of the decade, fewer people denied the reality of climate change (Pew, 2017). While nuclear power was presented as an option to fossil fuels, and some continue to advocate for smaller modular nuclear power plants (Brady, 2019), the fires and explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plant complex in Japan in 2011 severely impacted local communities and the ecosystem, raised fears of global spread of , and undermined the potential for comeback of nuclear power. Germany has moved to close its remaining nuclear facilities, Japan lost capacity and is revisiting governance of its nuclear facilities. The United States has closed multiple plants and several states are paying utilities to keep their plants competitive with natural gas. Even France, the strongest supporter, is counting less on nuclear power as part of its energy future. However, some believe, or at least hope, that nuclear power can provide a reliable source until solar, wind and other options can take over and less energy- intensive technologies can be deployed.

One reality is that nuclear power and defense wastes continue to accumulate and WIPP is currently the only operating nuclear underground repository, albeit with several accidents that caused the site to cease operations for three years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to reopen. Furthermore, the U.S. and signed an agreement to dispose of surplus plutonim, and although Russia pulled out, they may re-engage, and meanwhile the U.S. is searching for a disposal site for 34 metric of this remarkably fissionable element.

Part 4 features risk governance and public perception papers. We begin with Wheatley (2017) and Blanco’s (2017) efforts to find trends in nuclear power plant event reports. Wheatley identified a long-term trend toward fewer costly accidents. Chernobyl and Fukushima are the exceptions, and they are responsible for the vast majority of the accident-related costs. Using U.S. data from 1985-1998, Blanco studied the impact of probabilistic risk assessment on safety, concluding that there were fewer safety-related disruptions and the PRA requirement contributed to this improvement by requiring owners/operators to be more aware of their systems.

Six of the selected papers are about risk management: three about nuclear power and three about nuclear waste. As one of a number of Fukushima studies, Nagamatsu et al. (2020) observed that government and the nuclear utility were concentrating on decontaminating to convince people to return to area of the event. The author found that other important considerations needed to be addressed, including damage of their property, and personal preferences, constraints, and demographics. Visschers (2013) surveyed a Swiss population before and after Fukushima. Preference for nuclear power declined, and notably trust in the technology and its proponents was undermined by the serious event. Sampling Finnish residents in order to determine the relationship between nuclear power and climate change, Vainio (2017) observed that respondents were trying to balance the risks of nuclear power against the benefit of nuclear power reducing fossil fuel emissions.

Risk management solutions for high-level nuclear waste management remained a daunting challenge for the Department of Energy. Warner North (2013) has spent a great deal of time studying and participating in efforts to manage high-level nuclear waste. Reflecting on the January 2012 Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon, 2012), North offers additional ideas on how to break the log jam that has kept hazardous nuclear waste in locations that are far more vulnerable than an underground repository. Jenkins-Smith (2011) discusses one of the few successes, the slow reversal of opinion in New Mexico from opposition to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to support, which has been accompanied by concerted federal government efforts to negotiate and work with the State of New Mexico.

Governance continues to be a challenge. For example, Greenberg et al (2019) were asked by the U.S. Congress to assess the extent to which the U.S. Department of Energy focuses its multi-billion-dollar annual remediation budget on human health risk. The committee, including multiple members of SRA, found that public health was the most prominent priority, but previous legally mandated agreements, regulatory requirements, maintaining infrastructure, environmental justice, and commitments to continue projects already started made it difficult to focus directly on human health. The report was supported by some governors and attacked by others, and about half of the recommendations were implemented by government.

Risk Assessment

Blanco, C. C., Caro, F., & Corbett, C. J. (2019). Managing Safety‐Related Disruptions: Evidence from the US Nuclear Power Industry. Risk Analysis, 39(10), 2197-2213.

Wheatley, S., Sovacool, B., & Sornette, D. (2017). Of disasters and dragon kings: a statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents and accidents. Risk Analysis, 37(1), 99-115. Risk Management Greenberg, M. R., Apostolakis, G., Fields, T., Goldstein, B. D., Kosson, D., Krahn, S., ... & Stewart, R. (2019). Advancing risk‐informed decision making in managing defense nuclear waste in the United States: opportunities and challenges for risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 39(2), 375-388.

Jenkins‐Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Nowlin, M. C., & DeLozier, G. (2011). Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis, 31(4), 629-644.

Nagamatsu, S., Rose, A., & Eyer, J. (2020). Return Migration and Decontamination After the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster. Risk Analysis, 40(4), 800-817.

North, D. W. (2013). Can Sisyphus Succeed? Getting US High‐Level Nuclear Waste into a Geological Repository. Risk Analysis, 33(1), 2-14.

Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R., & Varho, V. (2017). Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: trust in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power. Risk Analysis, 37(3), 557-569. Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333-347.

Additional Papers from Risk Analysis Part 1: 1981-1990: Scrutiny of Commercial Nuclear Power Technology, Siting, and Public Perception

We suggest ten additional risk assessment and management papers that focus on probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), legal and other mechanisms to manage the risk of nuclear power.

Risk Assessment Cannell, W. (1987). Probabilistic reliability analysis, quantitative safety goals, and nuclear licensing in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 7(3), 311-319.

Daniels, T. A., & Canady, K. S. (1984). A nuclear utility's views on the use of probabilistic risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 4(4), 281-286.

Hora, S. C., & Iman, R. L. (1990). Bayesian Modeling of Initiating Event Frequencies at Nuclear Power Plants 1. Risk Analysis, 10(1), 103-109.

Kaplan, S., Perla, H. F., & Bley, D. C. (1983). A methodology for seismic risk analysis of nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 3(3), 169-180.

Levine, S., & Rasmussen, N. C. (1984). Nuclear plant PRA: How far has it come?. Risk Analysis, 4(4), 247-254.

Siu, N., & Apostolakis, G. (1986). Modeling the Detection Rates of Fires in Nuclear Plants: Development and Application of a Methodology for Treating Imprecise Evidence 1. Risk Analysis, 6(1), 43-59. Risk Management Bier, V. M. (1988). The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety goal policy: A critical review. Risk Analysis, 8(4), 563-568.

Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1990). Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Analysis, 10(3), 393-399.

Merkhofer, M. W., & Keeney, R. L. (1987). A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 7(2), 173-194.

Solomon, K. A. (1983). How Unique Are the Price–Anderson Limitations on Nuclear Accident Liability?. Risk Analysis, 3(1), 51-62.

Part 2: 1991-2000: Focus on Nuclear Waste Management, Yucca and WIPP We suggest ten papers that highlight PRA’s, uncertainties about proposed sites, and offer some international case studies.

Risk Assessment

Ballard, K. R., & Kuhn, R. G. (1996). Developing and testing a facility location model for Canadian waste. Risk Analysis, 16(6), 821-832. Kollas, J. G. (1993). The health impact of major nuclear accidents: the case of Greece. Risk Analysis, 13(5), 503-508..

Múnera, H. A., Canal, M. B., & Muñoz, M. (1997). Risk associated with transportation of under demanding security constraints: The Colombian experience. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 381-389.

Paula, H. M., Guthrie, V. H., & Campbell, D. J. (1992). Scheduling Updates of Probabilistic Risk Assessments: The Arkansas Nuclear One‐Unit 1 Experience. Risk Analysis, 12(2), 239-244.

Rechard, R. P., Tierney, M. S., Sanchez, L. C., & Martell, M. A. (1997). Bounding estimates for critical events when directly disposing highly enriched spent nuclear fuel in unsaturated tuff. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 19-35.

Risk Management

Hine, D. W., Summers, C., Prystupa, M., & McKenzie‐Richer, A. (1997). Public opposition to a proposed nuclear waste repository in : An investigation of cultural and economic effects. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 293-302.

Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Bassett Jr, G. W. (1994). Perceived Risk and Uncertainty of Nuclear Waste: Differences Among Science, Business, and Environmental Group Members 1. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 851-856.

Maharik, M., & Fischhoff, B. (1992). The risks of using nuclear energy sources in space: some lay activists’ perceptions. Risk Analysis, 12(3), 383-392.

Metz, W. C., & Clark, D. E. (1997). The effect of decisions about spent nuclear fuel storage on residential property values. Risk Analysis, 17(5), 571-582.

Sjöberg, L. & Drottz-Sjoberg, B-M. (1991). Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees. Risk Analysis, 11(4), 607-618.

Part 3: 2001-2010, Terrorism and Equity Challenges Five papers are suggested that discuss performance assessment at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, nuclear-related terrorism, risk perception about nuclear testing and nuclear power.

Risk Assessment

Atkinson, M. P., Cao, Z., & Wein, L. M. (2008). Optimal stopping analysis of a radiation detection system to protect cities from a nuclear terrorist attack. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 353-371.

Mon, K. G., Bullard, B. E., Mehta, S., & Lee, J. H. (2004). Waste package performance evaluations for the proposed high‐level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 425-436. Risk Management De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2010). Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1363-1373. Purvis‐Roberts, K. L., Werner, C. A., & Frank, I. (2007). Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 291-302.

Taebi, B., & Kadak, A. C. (2010). Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: Equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1341-1362.

Part 4: 2011-2020: Climate Change, Underground Repositories and Nuclear power post-Fukushima We suggest 13 papers for follow-up. More than half directly emanate from the Fukushima events. The others include reviews of new designs for nuclear power plants, and the climate change-nuclear power connections.

Risk Assessment Baum, S. D. (2019). Risk–Risk Tradeoff Analysis of Nuclear Explosives for Asteroid Deflection. Risk Analysis, 39(11), 2427-2442.

Denning, R., & Mubayi, V. (2017). Insights into the societal risk of nuclear power plant accidents. Risk Analysis, 37(1), 160-172.

Siegel, J., Gilmore, E. A., Gallagher, N., & Fetter, S. (2018). An expert elicitation of the proliferation resistance of using small modular reactors (SMR) for the expansion of civilian nuclear systems. Risk Analysis, 38(2), 242-254.

Tosoni, E., Salo, A., & Zio, E. (2018). Scenario analysis for the safety assessment of nuclear waste repositories: A critical review. Risk Analysis, 38(4), 755-776. Risk Management

Besley, J. C., & Oh, S. H. (2014). The impact of accident attention, ideology, and environmentalism on American attitudes toward nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 949-964.

De Groot, J. I., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 307-317.

Ford, M. J., Abdulla, A., & Morgan, M. G. (2017). Evaluating the cost, safety, and proliferation risks of small floating nuclear reactors. Risk Analysis, 37(11), 2191-2211.

Greenberg, M., & Truelove, H. B. (2011). Energy choices and risk beliefs: is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Analysis, 31(5), 819-831.

Hung, H. C., & Wang, T. W. (2011). Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: the case of the second nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Risk Analysis, 31(4), 668-683.

Keller, C., Visschers, V., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 32(3), 464-477.

Perko, T., Van Gorp, B., Turcanu, C., Thijssen, P., & Carle, B. (2013). Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: a closer look at information reception. Risk Analysis, 33(11), 1987-2001. Tsujikawa, N., Tsuchida, S., & Shiotani, T. (2016). Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Analysis, 36(1), 98-113.

Yamane, F., Ohgaki, H., & Asano, K. (2011). Nuclear Power‐Related Facilities and Neighboring Land Price: A Case Study on the Mutsu‐Ogawara Region, Japan. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1969- 1994.