Addressing “beyond control”: nuclear safety goals in the age of risk governance

References

• Árvai, J. 2014. “The End of Risk Communication as We Know It.” Journal of Risk Research 17 (10): 1245–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.919519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2010. Risk Management and Risk Governance. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2020. “Some Foundational Issues Related to Risk Governance and Different Types of Risks.” Journal of Risk Research 23 (9): 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babcicky, P., and S. Seebauer. 2021. “People, Not Just Places: Expanding Physical and Social Vulnerability Indices by Psychological Indicators.” Journal of Flood Risk Management 14 (4): e12752. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becu, N., M. Amalric, B. Anselme, E. Beck, X. Bertin, E. Delay, N. Long, N. Marilleau, C. Pignon-Mussaud, and F. Rousseaux. 2017. “Participatory Simulation to Foster Social Learning on Coastal Flooding Prevention.” Environmental Modelling & Software 98: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, P. L. 1998. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Boholm, Å., H. Corvellec, and M. Karlsson. 2012. “The Practice of Risk Governance: Lessons from the Field.” Journal of Risk Research 15 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.587886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridel, A. 2023. “Fixing Subjects, Fixing Outcomes: Civic Epistemologies and Epistemic Agency in Participatory Governance of Climate Risk.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 48 (4): 938–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211066136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brink, E., and C. Wamsler. 2018. “Collaborative Governance for Climate Change Adaptation: Mapping Citizen–Municipality Interactions.” Environmental Policy and Governance 28 (2): 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevallier, A., H. Balti, S. Gourguet, C. Macher, Y. J. Shin, and F. Moullec. 2024. “Stakeholder Engagement in Participatory Research in French Marine and Freshwater Social-Ecological Systems: A Systematic Map Protocol.” Ecological Solutions and Evidence 5 (1): e12304. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12304.
   Google Scholar
• Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley. 2003. “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards*”. Social Science Quarterly 84 (2): 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derakhshan, Sahar, Christopher T. Emrich, and Susan L. Cutter. 2022. “Degree and Direction of Overlap between Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience Measurements.” PloS One 17 (10): e0275975. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doorn, N. 2017. “Resilience Indicators: Opportunities for Including Distributive Justice Concerns in Disaster Management.” Journal of Risk Research 20 (6): 711–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1100662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drucker, P. F. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Dubreuil, G. H., G. Bengtsson, P. H. Bourrelier, R. Foster, S. Gadbois, and G. N. Kelly. 2002. “A Report of TRUSTNET on Risk Governance–Lessons Learned.” Journal of Risk Research 5 (1): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870110039916.
   Google Scholar
• Edvardsson, K., and S. O. Hansson. 2005. “When is a Goal Rational?” Social Choice and Welfare 24 (2): 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-003-0309-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrante, F., and S. Lewis. 2021. “Technical Evaluation of the Margins between Established Risk Goals and Health Objectives for Nuclear Power Plants.” Nuclear Technology 207 (3): 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2020.1775451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits.” Policy Sciences 9 (2): 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grote, G. 2015. “Promoting Safety by Increasing Uncertainty – Implications for Risk Management.” Safety Science 71: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grote, G. 2020. “Safety and Autonomy: A Contradiction Forever?” Safety Science 127: 104709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, A. R., and J. Hovden. 1998. “Management and Culture: The Third Age of Safety.” In Occupational Injury: Risk, Prevention and Intervention, edited by A. M. Feyer, and A. Williamson, 129–166. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Hasegawa, Arifumi, Koichi Tanigawa, Akira Ohtsuru, Hirooki Yabe, Masaharu Maeda, Jun Shigemura, Tetsuya Ohira, et al. 2015. “Health Effects of Radiation and Other Health Problems in the Aftermath of Nuclear Accidents, with an Emphasis on Fukushima.” Lancet (London, England). 386 (9992): 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61106-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, S., and A. Oliver-Smith. 2002. Catastrophe and Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster. Santa Fe, NM: James Currey Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hügel, Stephan, and Anna R. Davies. 2020. “Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change 11 (4): e645. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 1993. “Defining Initiating Events for Purposes of Probabilistic Safety Assessment.” IAEA-TECDOC 719.
   Google Scholar
• IAEA. 1996. “Defence in Depth in Nuclear Safety.” INSAG-10.
   Google Scholar
• IAEA. 2006. “Fundamental Safety Principles.” IAEA Safety Fundamental Series No. SF-1.
   Google Scholar
• IAEA. 2015. The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General
   Google Scholar
• IAEA. 2019. “Hierarchical Structure of Safety Goals for Nuclear Installations.” IAEA-TECDOC 1874.
   Google Scholar
• IAEA. 2020. “Considerations on Performing Integrated Risk Informed Decision Making.” IAEA-TECDOC 1909.
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• IRGC (International Risk Governance Center). 2017. Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Vol. 2017. rev. version. Lausanne: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
   Google Scholar
• IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). 2005. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards and Integrative Approach. Geneva: IRGC.
   Google Scholar
• Juraku, K., and S. Sugawara. 2021. “Structural Ignorance of Expertise in Nuclear Safety Controversies: Case Analysis of Post-Fukushima Japan.” Nuclear Technology 207 (9): 1423–1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2021.1908075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kainuma, H. 2015. Hajimeteno Fukushima-gaku. Tokyo: East Press. (in Japanese).
   Google Scholar
• Kane, R. 2011. “Introduction: The Contours of Contemporary Free-Will Debates (Part 2).” In The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, edited by R. Kane. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J., S. Juhola, and M. Landauer. 2017. “Local Authorities and the Engagement of Private Actors in Climate Change Adaptation.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35 (6): 1055–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16680819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinke, A., and O. Renn. 2012. “Adaptive and Integrative Governance on Risk and Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk Research 15 (3): 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.636838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinke, Andreas, and Ortwin Renn. 2021. “The Coming of Age of Risk Governance.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 41 (3): 544–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krausmann, E., A. M. Cruz, and E. Salzano. 2017. Natech Risk Assessment and Management: Reducing the Risk of Natural-Hazard Impact on Hazardous Installations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Kuroda, Y., T. Tsuji, H. Yoshino, and M. Kato. 2019. “Reconstruction of Onagawa Town and Nuclear Power Plant.” In Reconstruction from Disaster, Reflective and Critical Analysis for Sustainable Society. Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Chapter 8 (in Japanese).
   Google Scholar
• Landström, C., S. J. Whatmore, S. N. Lane, N. A. Odoni, N. Ward, and S. Bradley. 2011. “Coproducing Flood Risk Knowledge: Redistributing Expertise in Critical ‘Participatory Modelling.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 43 (7): 1617–1633. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1999. “On Recalling ANT.” In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by J. Law, and J. Hassard, 15–25. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Leveson, N. G. 1995. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Locke, E. A. 1968. “Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3 (2): 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. 1996. Modern Society Shocked by its Risks. Social sciences research centre occasional Paper 17. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
   Google Scholar
• Mees, H. L. P., C. J. Uittenbroek, D. L. T. Hegger, and P. P. J. Driessen. 2019. “From Citizen Participation to Government Participation: An Exploration of the Roles of Local Governments in Community Initiatives for Climate Change Adaptation in The Netherlands.” Environmental Policy and Governance 29 (3): 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morita, Tomohiro, Shuhei Nomura, Masaharu Tsubokura, Claire Leppold, Stuart Gilmour, Sae Ochi, Akihiko Ozaki, et al. 2017. “Excess Mortality Due to Indirect Health Effects of the 2011 Triple Disaster in Fukushima, Japan: A Retrospective Observational Study.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71 (10): 974–980. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NAIIC (The National Diet of Japan, Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission). 2012. The Official Report of Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.
   Google Scholar
• NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2022. “Understanding the Societal Challenge Facing Nuclear Power.” In Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington DC.: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). 2009. Probabilistic Risk Criteria and Safety Goals. Nuclear Energy Agency. CSNI/R(2009)16. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• NEA. 2011. The Structure and Application of High Level Safety Goals. MDEP technical report. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• NEA. 2014. Control, Oversight and Related Terms in the International Guidance on Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: A Review of Definitions and Use. RWM/RF(2014)2. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan. 2006. “The Report on Performance Objectives of Commercial Light-Water Nuclear Facilities.” In Report of the Special Committee on the Safety Goals. Tokyo: The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Olwig, K. R. 2019. The Meanings of Landscape: Essays on Place, Space, Environment and Justice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Papathoma-Köhle, M., G. Cristofari, M. Wenk, and S. Fuchs. 2019. “The Importance of Indicator Weights for Vulnerability Indices and Implications for Decision Making in Disaster Management.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 36: 101103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pence, Justin, Ian Miller, Tatsuya Sakurahara, James Whitacre, Seyed Reihani, Ernie Kee, and Zahra Mohaghegh. 2019. “GIS-Based Integration of Social Vulnerability and Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Advance Emergency Preparedness, Planning, and Response for Severe Nuclear Power Plant Accidents.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 39 (6): 1262–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polleri, Maxime. 2020. “Post-Political Uncertainties: Governing Nuclear Controversies in Post-Fukushima Japan.” Social Studies of Science 50 (4): 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719889405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, T. M. 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press: Prinston.
   Google Scholar
• Poumadère, M., C. Mays, G. Pfeifle, and A. T. Vafeidis. 2008. “Worst Case Scenario as Stakeholder Decision Support: A 5- to 6- m Sea Level Rise in the Rhone Delta, France.” Climatic Change 91 (1–2): 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9446-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchard, S. B. 2012. “An Envirotechnical Disaster: Nature, Technology, and Politics at Fukushima.” Environmental History 17 (2): 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/ems021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reconstruction Agency of Japan. 2024. The Number of Related-Death to the Great East Japan Earthquake: As of December 31, 2023. (in Japanese).
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. 2021. “New Challenges for Risk Analysis: Systemic Risks.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (1): 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1779787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickover, H. G. 1983. An Assessment of the GPU Nuclear Corporation Organization and Senior Management and Its Competence to Operate TMI-1
   Google Scholar
• Rød, J. K., T. Opach, and T. S. Neset. 2014. “Three Core Activities toward a Relevant Integrated Vulnerability Assessment: Validate, Visualize, and Negotiate.” Journal of Risk Research 18 (7): 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.923027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossignol, Nicolas, Pierre Delvenne, and Catrinel Turcanu. 2015. “Rethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 35 (1): 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossignol, N., C. Turcanu, C. Fallon, and C. Zwetkoff. 2017. “How Are You Vulnerable?’ Using Participation for Vulnerability Analysis in Emergency Planning.” Journal of Risk Research 20 (9): 1095–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.961522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagan, S. D. 1993. Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schulman, P., and E. Roe. 2018. “Extending Reliability Analysis across Time and Scope.” In Organizing for Reliability, edited by R. Ramanujam, and K. Roberts, 194–215. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schweizer, P. J. 2021. “Systemic Risks – Concepts and Challenges for Risk Governance.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (1): 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1687574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. 1987. “Perception of Risk.” Science (New York, N.Y.). 236 (4799): 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Society for Risk Analysis. 2018. Society Risk Analysis Glossary.
   Google Scholar
• Spielman, S. E., J. Tuccillo, D. C. Folch, A. Schweikert, R. Davies, N. Wood, and E. Tate. 2020. “Evaluating Social Vulnerability Indicators: Criteria and Their Application to the Social Vulnerability Index.” Natural Hazards 100 (1): 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03820-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugawara, S. 2021. “Deconstructing the Frames of Acceptable Risks: A Critical Perspective on Nuclear Safety Goals.” Japanese Journal for Science, Technology & Society” 30: 3–33.
   Google Scholar
• Sugawara, S. 2023a. “Towards ‘Extended’ Safety Goals (Conceptual Exploration of Safety Goals for Microreactors).” Mechanical Engineering Journal 11 (2): 23–00375. https://doi.org/10.1299/mej.23-00375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugawara, S. 2023b. “Ensuring a Prudent Combination of Risk Insights and a Defense-In-Depth Philosophy through a Reinterpretation of Hierarchical Safety Goals.” Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 60 (7): 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2022.2142310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugawara, S., and T. Inamura. 2016. “Development and Application of Nuclear Safety Goals in Japan: Lessons Learnt from the Case of 2003 Draft Safety Goals.” Report of the Central Research Institute of Electric PowerIndustry (CRIEPI). Y15056. Tokyo: CRIEPI. (in Japanese)
   Google Scholar
• Tavares, Alexandre Oliveira, and Pedro Pinto dos Santos. 2014. “Re-Scaling Risk Governance Using Local Appraisal and Community Involvement.” Journal of Risk Research 17 (7): 923–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.822915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). 2022. “Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes”: Volume II.” Scientific Annex B. New York: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• USNRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1981. “Nureg/CP-0018.” Workshop on Frameworks for Developing a Safety Goal, Held at Palo Alto, CA, Apr 1–3, 1981.
   Google Scholar
• USNRC. 1983. “Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plant Operation.” NUREG-0880. 1st revision for Comment.
   Google Scholar
• USNRC. 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants.” Policy statement 51 FR: 30028.
   Google Scholar
• USNRC. 2018. “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.” Regulatory Guide 1.174. 3rd revision.
   Google Scholar
• USNRC. 2021. “Defense in Depth. NRC Glossary”. Accessed Oct 21, 2023. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/defense-in-depth.html.
   Google Scholar
• van Aalst, M. K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton. 2008. “Community Level Adaptation to Climate Change: The Potential Role of Participatory Community Risk Assessment.” Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Asselt, M. B. A., and O. Renn. 2011. “Risk Governance.” Journal of Risk Research 14 (4): 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.553730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. 2006. “Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 31 (3): 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. 2011. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wellock, T. R. 2021. Safe Enough: A History of Nuclear Power and Accident Risk. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilpert, B., and B. Fahlbruch. 1999. “Safety Related Interventions in Interorganizational Fields.” In Safety Management: The Challenge of Organisational Change, edited by A. R. Hale, and M. Baram. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wisner, B., J. C. Gaillard, and I. Kelman. (eds.). 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004.
   Google Scholar