Abstract
Worst case analyses of risks become important whenever there are wide ranges of uncertainty surrounding estimated risks of technological applications, especially if environmental and societal impacts can reach catastrophic proportions. Risk may be defined as the possible consequences of a decision option times the probability of consequences materializing and special circumstances that may be involved.Increasingly severe magnitudes of consequences resulting from a technological option are sometimes accompanied by increasingly small probabilities that can reach de minimis, or insignificant, levels. Thus, a dilemma exists for policy development as to what the de minimislevel of probability is for those rare combinations of circumstances that can produce worst case consequences. One possible guide is the probability level of fatal accidents individuals routinely accept in their personal activities. Another is the establishment of safety-cost trade-off criteria that take into account equity considerations of the diverse opportunities for saving lives by the allocation of finite financial resources. On November 29, 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality issued implementing regulations for environmental impact statements (40 CFR 1502.22) requiring a worst case analysis, under certain conditions, and an indication of the probability of its occurrence. Difficulties and controversies in implementing the concept of worst case analysis have led the CEQ to reconsider this requirement (48 FR 36486, August 11, 1983). This paper explores a number of policy issues related to worst case analyses within a spectrum of high-consequence/low-probability events and the establishment of acceptable standards of de minimisrisk. Case material is used comparing the catastrophic risk of nuclear power plants with the chronic and accidental risks of using coal to generate electricity.
Since this paper was presented on October 2, 1984, three important events relevant to the concepts herein presented: (1) the Council on Environmental Quality on April 25, 1986 issue a Final Rule (51 Fed. Reg. 15618) rescinding the requirement for a worst case analysis but still requiring (under certain conditions) the evaluation of impacts with catastrophic consequences having low probabilities; the NRC on June 19, 1986 reached a final decision on a “Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants” (to be announced in the Federal Register) with policy and guidance for the regulatory treatment of severe nuclear accidents of high consequences and low probabilities; and the Chernobyl nuclear accident took place in the Soviet Union on April 26, 1986 with catastrophic consequences whose dimensions are yet to be ascertained. The significance of these events to the concepts of this paper are briefly noted in an Addendum at the end of this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Council on Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act Regulations: Implementation of procedural provisions, 43 Federal Register55978–56007, November 29, 1978; also, 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508.
F. 2d 1475, Environmental Law Reporter, 14, 20061 (1983).
K.L. Rosenbaum, Update: The NEPA worst case analysis regulation, Environmental Law Reporter, 14, 10267 (1984).
Council on Environmental Quality, Proposed guidance memorandum for Federal agency NEPA liasons, Federal Register, 48, 36486 (August 11, 1983 ).
H.L. Friedell, Radiation Protection: Concepts and Tradeoffs, Lecture No. 3, Lauriston S. Taylor Lectures in Radiation Protection and Measurements, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, D.C. 20014 (September 1979).
R. Wilson, Commentary: Risks and their acceptability, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 9, 2, 11–22 (Spring 1984 ).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plant Operation, NUREG-0880, Revision 1, For Comment (May 1983), p. 12
J. Davis, The De Minimis Regulatory Cut-Off Concept, Testimony before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (February 9, 1984 ), 23 pp.
P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications, Proc. R. Soc. London, A 376, 17–34 (1981).
R. Wilson and E. Crouch, Risk/Benefit Analysis( Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1982 ).
M. Spangler, The role of interdisciplinary analysis in bridging the gap between the technical and human sides of risk assessment, Risk Analysis, 2, 2, 101–114 (1982).
C. Starr, R. Rudman, and C. Whipple, Philosophical basis for risk analysis, Annual Review of Energy, vol. 1 (Palo Alto, CA.: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1976 ), pp. 629–662.
C. Hohenemser, R. Kates, and P. Slovic, The nature of technological hazard, Science, 220, 4595, 378–384 (April 1983).
V. Covello, W. Flamm, J. Rodricks, and R. Tardiff, Eds., The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks( New York: Plenum Press, 1983 ).
H. Otway and M. Fishbein, Public Attitudes and Decision Making, RM-77–54 (Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1977 ).
H. Kunruether and J. Linnerooth, Risk Analysis and Decision Processes( New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983 ).
R. Kasperson and J. Kasperson, Determining the Acceptability of Risk: Ethical and Policy Issues CENTED Reprint No. 41 ( Worcester, MA.: Center for Technology, Environment, and Development, Clark University, 1984 ).
M. Douglas and A. Wildaysky, Risk and Culture(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982 ).
M. Spangler, Syndromes of risk and environmental protection: The conflict of individual and societal values, The Environmental Professional, 2, 3 /4, 274–291 (1980).
M. Spangler, An international perspective on equity issues involving involuntary and catastrophic risks of the coal and nuclear fuel options, Journal of Public and International Affairs, 5,1 (Winter 1984, pp. 707–721 ).
M. Spangler, “Heuristic Opinion and Preference Evaluation Research for Assessing Technological Options-A User’s View,” in Technology Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Risk Analysis, Eds., V. covello, J. Mumpower, P. Stallen, and V. Uppuluri, NATO Advanced Study Institute (Heidelberg, W. Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1985 ).
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 185: 1124–31 (1974).
M. Spangler, A critique of methods in the quantification of risks, costs and benefits in the societal choice of energy options, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 10, 3 /4, 119–151 (1983).
J. Kemeny, Ed., The Need for Change: The Legacy of TMI. Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, Washington, D.C. (October 1979).
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, An Approach to Quantitative Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0739, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (October 1980).
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium FuelCycle, EPA 520/4–76–016, Vol. 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, D.C. (November 1976), p. 51.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058 (January 1983).
E. Siddall, Risk, Fear and Public Safety, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (April 1981), pp. 39–43.
C. Comar, Risk: A pragmatic de minimisapproach, Science, 203, 4378 (January 26, 1979 ).
R. Wilson, Letter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding his comments on the proposed policy on safety goals for nuclear power plants (45 FR 71023), May 17, 1982.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Policy on Future Reactor Designs: Decisions on Severe Accident Issues in Nuclear Power Plant Regulations, Draft NUREG-1070, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (April 18, 1984 ).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): Status Report and Guidance for Regulatory Application, Draft NUREG-1050, For Comment (February 1984).
E. Pochin, Nuclear Radiation: Risks and Benefits( Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1983 ).
National Academy of Sciences, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, BEIR III, National Academy of Sciences (July 1980).
C. Marraro, Regulating food additives and contaminants, Quantitative Risk Assessment in Regulation, L. Lave, Ed. ( Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1982 ), pp. 213–231.
Monsanto, et al., v. Kennedy (FDA), 613 F 2nd 947 (DC Circuit), 1979.
P. Gottschalk, E. Hofer, A. Jahns, W. Werner, Regarding PRA and safety goals in nuclear power plant safety issues in the Federal Republic of Germany, A paper published by the Gesselschaft f*r Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, K*ln 1, Federal Republic of Germany (July 1984).
G. Cunningham, The de minimisconcept in radiation protection, An invited paper delivered at the 1983 Annual Meeting of the Nuclear Safety Research Association of Japan, Tokyo (June 16, 1983 ).
Cunningham, op. cit., pp. 11–12.
R. Gotchy, Health Effects Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fuel CycleAlternatives, NUREG-0332, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, D.C. (September, 1977 ).
J. Bolten, P. Morrison, and K. Solomon;, Risk-Cost Assessment Methodology for Toxic Pollutantsfrom Fossil Fuel Power Plants, Rand Corporation Report R-2993-EPRI (June 1983).
B. Ames, Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens: oxygen radicals and degenerative diseases, Science, 221, 4617, 1256–1264 (September 23, 1983 ).
G. Blonston, Prevention: The time to beat cancer is before you get it, Science 84, 5, 7, 36–39 (September 1984).
M. Spangler, Invited comments on CEQ Advance Notice of Propose Rulemaking on 40 CFR 1502. 22-Incomplete or Unavailable Information, Letter to A, Alan Hill, January 31, 1985.
A. Weinberg, Science and trans-science, Minerva, x, 2 (April 1972), pp. 209–222.
A Weinberg, Science and its limits: the regulators’ dilemma. A paper presented at the National Academy of Engineering Symposium on Hazards: Technology and Fairness, Washington, D.C., June 3–4, 1985.
M. Spangler, Trans-scientific issues in risk-cost-benefit analysis of energy options, a paper presented at a workshop on Risk Tradeoffs with New Energy Technologies, American Association of Engineering Societies, Washington, D.C. October 10, 1985.
S. Diamond, Chernobyl design found to include new safety plans, New York Times, May 19, 1986.
J. Mathews, Chernobyl may affect 100,000, Washington Post (May 19, 1986), p. A-1.
American Medical Association, Risks of Nuclear Energy and Low-Level Ionizing Radiation, A report of the AMA Advisory Panel to the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association, Washington, D.C. (1981).
H. Kato and W. Schull, Cancer Mortality Among Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950–78, Part I, Life Span Study Report No. 9, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, A cooperative Japan-United States Research Organization (July 1982).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Spangler, M.B. (1987). Policy Issues Related to Worst Case Risk Analyses and the Establishment of Acceptable Standards of De Minimis Risk. In: Covello, V.T., Lave, L.B., Moghissi, A., Uppuluri, V.R.R. (eds) Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making. Advances in Risk Analysis, vol 4. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5317-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5317-1_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5319-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5317-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive