Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-rdph2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-31T04:30:16.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“Worst Cases” Reimagined in a Post-COVID Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Abstract

We argue that the post-Fukushima nuclear safety debates in the United States and Europe fundamentally altered the definition of nuclear safety. In the United States, the industry effectively took control by strengthening technical measures as the solution to nuclear safety concerns. In France, technical solutions were part of the process, but they were less dominant than in the United States and were overshadowed by larger organizational shuffles. The European Union, in contrast, engaged in a drawn-out debate over the very definition of nuclear safety, resulting in a stress test initiative that, while cumbersome and frustrating to many, included truly deliberative elements and ultimately revealed just how precarious the definitions of control and nuclear safety were.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ASN. (2014) ASN requires EDF to comply with additional requirements for implementation of the “hardened safety core” [Online]. ASN. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
ASN. (2020) Face à l’épidémie de Covid 19, l’ASN adapte son mode de fonctionnement tout en maintenant son niveau d’exigence dans le contrôle des installations nucléaires [Online]. ASN. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
Blavette, G. (2014) Plan national de réponse accident nucléaire, Une réponse inadaptée et autoritaire (National plan of response to nuclear accidents, an inadequate response) [Online]. Mediapart. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
CRIIRAD. (2020) COVID-19 et sûreté nucléaire, faut-il s’inquiéter? [Online]. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
European Union. (2014) Directive 2014/87/Euratom [Online]. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
European Nuclear Safety Regulator’s Group. (2011) Declaration of ENSREG, Annex I [Online]. Accessed: June 4, 2021.Google Scholar
Jamet, P. (2012) European Union Response to Fukushima —European Stress Tests and Peer Review. Lecture at the 38th MPA-Seminar, Stuttgart, Germany. [Online] Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
Kreps, G. A. and Lovegren Bosworth, S. (1993) ‘Disaster, Organizing, and Role Enactment: A Structural Approach’, American Journal of Sociology, 99(2), pp. 428463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, E. (2016) Preventing an American Fukushima. Limited Progress after Japan’s Nuclear Power Plant Disaster [Online]. Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
Mendonca, D., Beroggi, G. E. and Wallace, W. A. (2001) ‘Decision Support for Improvisation During Emergency Response Operations’, International Journal of Emergency Management, 1(1), p. 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2011) INPO Chief Proposes Global Nuclear Response Group [Online]. Nuclear Energy Institute. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
Nuclear Energy Institute, Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, and Electric Power Research Institute. (2011) The Way Forward: U.S. Industry Leadership in Response to Events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant [Online]. Accessed: August 24, 2021.Google Scholar
Organization Science. (1998) ‘Introductory Essay—Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis’, Organization Science, 9(5), pp. 543555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paris Normandie. (2021) Un exercice grandeur nature de sécurité nucléaire sur le site de Paluel [Online]. Paris Normandie. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
Perin, C. (1998) ‘Operating as Experimenting: Synthesizing Engineering and Scientific Values in Nuclear Power Production’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 23(1), pp. 98128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French Government. (2014) Plan National de Réponse Accident Nucléaire ou Radiologique Majeur [Online]. French Government. Accessed: June 5, 2021.Google Scholar
Saraç-Lesavre, B. (2017) ‘Self-Assessment and the European Self: The Contentious Harmonization of European Nuclear Safety’, Science and Democracy Network. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Saraç-Lesavre, B. and Laurent, B. (2019) ‘Stress-Testing Europe: Normalizing the Post- Fukushima Crisis’, Minerva, 57, pp. 239260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şimşek, P., Gündüz, A. (2021) ‘Double Disaster: Pandemic and Earthquake’, Erciyes Med J, 43(2), pp. 209210.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ed. Dahl, F. (2011) Austria wants European nuclear “stress test”- radio [Online]. Reuters. Accessed: June 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Weick, K. (1993) ‘The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), pp. 628652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. and Obstfeld, D. (1999) ‘Organizing for High Reliability: Processes of Collective Mindfulness’, In: Sutton, R. and Staw, M. Barry, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Wendland, A.-V. (2020) ‘Systemrelevant’ [Online]. Salonkolumnisten. Accessed: June 7, 2021.Google Scholar