Sonja D. Schmid, Ph.D., works as an assistant professor of STS (science and technology studies) at Virginia Tech. Her expertise includes history of technology, social studies of risk, and energy policy with a concentration on nuclear industry and proliferation. Dr. Schmid appears to have an extensive list of publications following the Fukushima incident, including a book on the development of the Soviet Nuclear industry (MIT 2015).
Emergency response is literally the main focus of the entire article. While it seems to be only a short chapter in a much larger collection of similar essays, the report fully analyzes past and present responses to nuclear emergencies. Moreover, Dr. Schmid builds a case for how future emergencies should be handled by an international team built on expertise. This includes expertise of nuclear energy, disaster response, and nuclear policy/regulation. While she refrains from commenting fully on whether the response mounted for Fukushima can be classified as "good" or "bad", her assertions indicates a need to shift focus from preventing emergencies to how nations respond to nuclear emergencies.
The shift in thought from prevention to response is well supported as a necessary move. This can obviously be seen by the occurrence of these accidents despite adequate regulation. Nuclear energy is a promising, but dangerous thing, and can quickly become disastrous despite efforts to maintain control. This was seen in the accident at Fukushima, following the earthquake and resulting tsunami in the region. Despite preparation for such an event and the existence of backup generators and batteries, responders were rendered useless in the efforts as they could not access the area. This is where the need for a prepared system of nuclear response is needed. Historically, such emergency response groups have been poorly resourced and short-lived, such as the Soviet Spetsatom developed after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. This group, which focused on preserving lessons learned and developing response systems, was absorbed by a larger ministry with the goal of integrated disaster response.
Additionally, the author cites a number of factors that played a role in creating the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster, such as “environmental, social, and technical systems” that, due to their complexity and separate protocol, resulted in lack or preparedness for the disaster. Following the disaster, the response efforts were delayed by this lack of preparation, and the media called out TEPCO and the Japanese government for this. STS analysis is important in this aftermath as much as in the creation of the initial plan. By utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, the media (and the people) can be heard and used to reform existing policies, or create new ones. This establishes a continuously evolving system of response that can adapt and take into account many different view of disaster relief.
I did an initial google search of “international emergency response team” and found an article from IAEA about the establishment of RANET. This network was made operational by Finland, Mexico, Sri Lanka, and the US in 2008. I found this interesting as, aside from the US, none of these countries were what I thought of in terms of nuclear energy production. Upon further research, I learned that Mexico has two reactors supporting 4% of their electricity and Finland has four reactors providing 30% of the total electricity. At the time of the article, Sri Lanka had no future in nuclear power, but in 2015 signed a deal with India to jointly create a new power plant.
Much of the data gathered by Dr. Schmid comes from reports occuring in the aftermath of Fukushima. Additionally, Dr. Schmid appears to use multiple reviews of past nuclear emergencies and protocols. She uses these articles, international statements, policies, and current treaties to build her argument.
The main arguments brought up in this article are the shift in thought from nuclear disaster prevention to disaster response and the importance of the STS community in providing input for policy. From these arguments, another is proposed in the form of the need for an international nuclear disaster response team.
The author likely read through the referenced articles to find where they could be appropriately cited, and then conducted first hand interviews with select people (as mentioned in the notes) to put the information into context. Together, the multiple forms of media allow for a well-rounded point of view in writing the article, with various angles being well-represented throughout.
"The deputy chief of Russia's nuclear operator, Rosatom's Nikolai Spassky, suggested that international law should force countries operation nuclear plants to abide by international safety standards. This proposal amounts to a recognition of the international character of the nuclear energy industry, but it remains unclear as to who would enforce such rules and how-- as of this writing, no international agency has such powers." Schmid, 199
"What knowledge should nuclear safety be based upon, where the science is still contested? And how useful is the notion of transparency in a context where the operation of nuclear power plants is considered an "inalienable right", as the text of probably today's single most important nuclear treaty states (IAEA 1970)? Nuclear specialists around the world are still discussing the existing emergency response organizations and the reasons they ultimately failed." Schmid, 200
"Anthropologists who have studied nuclear workplaces consistently find that the 'culture of control' (that is, attempts to regulate every last action of the operating staff) is too rigid to account for all imaginable situations." Schmid, 201
The author, Sonja D Schmid, is an assistant professor at Virginia Tech. She specializes in knowledge of the nuclear industries in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. She uses this knowledge to analyze energy policy and nonproliferation efforts. She is well versed in disaster response, having interviewed a number of members from the Soviet nuclear industry, using their first-hand accounts of the response efforts in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster to guide her.
1) Current INPO activities and chain of command, an organization that seems to be morphing from a quiet regulator of US nuclear industry to a proponent for international organization.
2) Further research into Three Mile Island incident, which is widely recognized as being a significantly smaller nuclear emergency. Yet, the aftermath of the incident highlighted tensions between public information, environmental concerns, and the need for more nuclear regulation.
3) France is noted by Dr. Schmid as being an international leader in nuclear power, a major surprise to me. I chose to explore this topic more, to see whether this has had any impact on French culture and environmental regulation.