Sizewell B pp 182-233 | Cite as

Safety and Public Trust

  • Timothy O’Riordan
  • Ray Kemp
  • Michael Purdue


This exchange between Mr Brooke and Stephen Reed, Mayor of Harrisburg Pennsylvania, the community most immediately affected by the notorious TMI incident encapsulates the motivations behind much of the examination before the Sizewell B Inquiry with regard to the safety aspects of the CEGB’s application. The Inspector and his Assessors knew that the Inquiry could not examine the safety case in depth (261, 99A). They had neither the resources nor the expertise to do that. In any case, the public inquiry is not designed to undertake such a task, which is the function of the statutory licensing proceedings. The Generating Board itself only chose to present what it called the ‘highlights’ of its mammoth documentation on safety aspects in its Statement of Case and Proofs of Evidence. The totality of the safety case ran to 26 volumes and over three hundred supporting documents. Yet these were for only one stage, the pre-construction safety review, of what is essentially a continuing and evolving process (CEGB, P.10, 3).


Safety Assessment Acceptable Risk Stable Crack Growth Reactor Pressure Vessel Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Advisory Committee on Major Hazards (1977) First Report ( HMSO, London).Google Scholar
  2. Advisory Committee on the Safety and Nuclear Installations (1981) Pressure Vessel Integrity. Health and Safety Executive ( HMSO, London).Google Scholar
  3. Ashby, E. (1978) Reconciling Man with the Environment ( Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  4. Beral, V., Inskipp, H., Frazer, P., Booth, M., Coleman, D. and Rose, G. (1985) ‘Mortality of Employees of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’, British Medical Journal, vol. 291, pp. 440–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannell, W. (1987) ‘Probabilistic Reliability Analysis, Quantitative Safety Goals, and Nuclear Licensing in the United Kingdom’, Risk Analysis, vol. 6 (3), pp. 311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, A. (1985) Personal communication, 5 December, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, A. V. and Prichard, D. K. (1980) ‘Comparative Risks of Electricity Production Systems: a Critical Survey of the Literature’, Health and Safety Executive Research Paper 11 ( HMSO, London ).Google Scholar
  8. Council for Science and Society (1977) The Acceptability of Risks ( Barry Rose, London).Google Scholar
  9. Douglas, M. (1986) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences ( Russell Sage Foundation, Chicago).Google Scholar
  10. Energy Committee (1981) The Government’s Statement in the New Nuclear Power Programme. HC, Paper 181 I I ( HMSO, London ).Google Scholar
  11. Etemad, M. (1980) ‘Evidence to Energy Committee’, HC Paper 397 iii, pp. 125–32.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, R. A. D. (1981) Comparative Risks of Electricity Generating Fuel Systems in the UK. ( Peter Peregrinus, Stevenage).Google Scholar
  13. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L. and Keeney, R. (1981) Acceptable Risk ( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  14. Fremlin, J. H. (1985) Power Production: What are the Risks? ( Adam Hilger, Bristol and Boston).Google Scholar
  15. Gittus, J. H. (1982) Degraded Core Analysis. Report of a UKAEA Committee. NDR-610(S) (UKAEA, Risley, Cheshire).Google Scholar
  16. Holdern, J. P., Anderson, K., Gleik, P. H., Mintzer, I., Morris, G. and Smith, K. R. (1979) Risk of Renewable Energy Sources: A Critique of the Inhaber Report. ERG 79–3. Energy and Resources Group (University of California, Berkeley, California ).Google Scholar
  17. Inhaber, H. (1978) Risks of Energy Production. Atomic Energy Control Board. AECB-1119. Rev. 1 ( Ottawa, Canada ).Google Scholar
  18. International Commission of Radiological Protection (1977) Cost Benefit Analysis in the Optimisation of Radiological Protection. Prb. 27 ( Pergamon, Oxford ).Google Scholar
  19. Ireland, F. (1973) ‘Best Practicable Means: an Interpretation’, Annual Report of the Chief Inspector ( HMSO, London ) pp. 8–15.Google Scholar
  20. Joksimovich, V. (1984) ‘A Review of Plant Specific PRAs’, Risk Analysis, vol. 4 (4), pp. 255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones-Lee, M. (1985) ‘The Value of Life and Safety: a Survey of Recent Developments’, The Geneva Papers on Risk Insurance, vol. 10 (No. 36) pp. 141–73.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, G. N. et al. (1982) ‘Degraded Core Accidents for the Sizewell PWR: A Sensitivity Analysis of the Radiological Consequences’ (NRPB, Chilton, Oxon).Google Scholar
  23. Kneese, A. V., Ben-David, S. and Schultz, W. D. (1982) ‘The Ethical Foundations of Benefit Cost Analysis’, in D. MacLean and R. G. Brown (eds), Energy and the Future ( Rowman and Littefield, Towota, NJ ) pp. 59–74.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, T. R. and Brown, J. (1986) ‘Research on Public Attitudes Towards Nuclear Power and Waste Management’, in Environment Committee, Radioactive Waste, HC Paper 191 II (HMSO, London) pp. 536–40.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, T. R., Brown, J. and Henderson, J. (1984) The Public’s Attitude Towards Nuclear Power in the Southwest, Atom, vol. 336, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar
  26. Levine, S. and Rasmussen, N. C. (1984) ‘Nuclear Plant PRA: How Far Has It Come?’, Risk Analysis, vol. 4 (4), pp. 247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, W. (Chmn) (1978) An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR Pressure Vessels. First Report (UKAEA, Risley, Cheshire).Google Scholar
  28. Marshall, W. (Chmn) (1982) An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR Pressure Vessels. Second Report (UKAEA, Risley, Cheshire).Google Scholar
  29. National Nuclear Corporation (1982) Degraded Core Analysis: An Assessment (NNC, Knutsford, Cheshire).Google Scholar
  30. National Radiological Protection Board (1981a) ‘Cost Benefit Analysis in Optimising the Radiological Protection of the Public’, ASP.4 ( HMSO, London).Google Scholar
  31. National Radiological Protection Board (1981b) Methodology for Assessing Radiological Consequences (NRPB, Chilton, Oxon).Google Scholar
  32. National Radiological Protection Board (1986) ‘Cost Benefit Analysis on the Optimisation of Radiological Protection’, ASP 9 ( NRPB, Chilton, Oxon ).Google Scholar
  33. Nelkin, D. (1985) The Language of Risk: Conflicting Perspectives on Occupational Health (Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, California).Google Scholar
  34. Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (1979) Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Power Reactors ( HMSO, London).Google Scholar
  35. Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (1982). Sizewell B: A Review of the Administrative Safety Report. Health and Safety Executive ( HMSO, London).Google Scholar
  36. Openshaw, S. and Craft, J. (1987) ‘Children, Radiation, Cancer and the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant’, in D. Pepper and A. Blowers (eds), Nuclear Energy and the State ( Croom Helm, London ) pp. 244–71.Google Scholar
  37. O’Riordan, T. (1987) ‘The Public and Matters Nuclear’, Nuclear Technology International, pp. 257–64.Google Scholar
  38. O’Riordan, T., Kemp, R. and Purdue, H. M. (1987) ‘On Weighing Gains and Investments at the Margin of Risk Regulation’, Risk Analysis, vol. 7 (3), pp. 361–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quick, J. (1987) ‘Training Technical Staff for Nuclear Power Stations’, Atom, vol. 363, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  40. Radioactive Waste Management Committee (1984) Fifth Annual Report ( HMSO, London).Google Scholar
  41. Redgrave, T. (1982) Health and Safety in Factories ( Butterworth Shaw and Sons, London).Google Scholar
  42. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1976) Nuclear Power and the Environment, Cmnd 6618 ( HMSO, London ).Google Scholar
  43. Royal Society Study Group (1983) Risk Assessment ( The Royal Society, London).Google Scholar
  44. Short, R. S. (1985) ‘The Social Fabric at Risk: Towards a Social Transformation of Risk Analysis’, American Sociological Review, vol. 49, pp. 711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1985) Science Policy, Ethics and Economic Methodology(D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht).Google Scholar
  46. Smith, P. G. and Douglas, A. J. (1986) ‘Mortality of Workers at the Sellafield Plant of British Nuclear Fuels’, British Medical Journal, vol. 293, pp. 845–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spears, R. O., Eiser, J. R. and van der Pligt, J. (1986) ‘Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Alternatives as Portrayed in Local Press Coverage’, Environment in Planning A, vol. 18(12), pp. 1629–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Starr, C. (1985) ‘Risk Management, Assessment and Acceptability’, Risk Analysis, vol. 5 (2), pp. 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van der Pligt, J. (1985) ‘Public Attitudes to Nuclear Energy: Attitudes and Salience’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 5 (1), pp. 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vesely, W. E. and Rasmuson, D. M. (1984) ‘Uncertainties in Probabilistic Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, vol. 4 (4), pp. 213–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Westinghouse Corporation (1982) Sizewell B Probabilistic Safety Study ( Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh).Google Scholar
  52. Williams, R. (1980) Nuclear Power Decisions: British Policy 1953–1978 ( Croom Helm, London ).Google Scholar
  53. Worledge, D. H., Chu, B. B. and Wau, I. B. (1984). ‘Nuclear Plant Systems Analysis Research at EPRI’, Risk Analysis, vol. 4 (4), pp. 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Timothy O’Riordan, Ray Kemp and Michael Purdue 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy O’Riordan
    • 1
  • Ray Kemp
    • 1
  • Michael Purdue
    • 1
  1. 1.University of East AngliaUK

Personalised recommendations