Managing Risk and Crisis: The Cases of Mayak, Chernobyl, and Kursk. Autumnschool, Tartu September 20, 2013 Dr. Julia Gerlach (FU Berlin)

Transcription

1 Managing Risk and Crisis: The Cases of Mayak, Chernobyl, and Kursk Autumnschool, Tartu September 20, 2013 Dr. Julia Gerlach (FU Berlin)

2 Our goal is to evaluate risk and crisis management (> nuclear energy) (1) making sense of risk, risk governance (especially communication), and the nexus of risk and society; (2) analyzing three cases of crises; (3) concluding by using the conceptual framework of risk, etc.

3 Mayak, Chernobyl, Kursk 1957 ff. (1) What do you see? (2) Please contextualize! 1986 ff ff.

4 Energy Risk Crisis Risk Crisis Energy risk & crisis management

5 Risk Multiple conceptions of risk, no widely accepted definition Two approaches Economical/technical: focus on probability and quantity Social/political: focus on the impact on human beings/society and quality No real risk, no objective risk, but multiple risk perceptions that can be affected by sensational occurrences or dramatic events

6 Risk Risk is the potential or probability of loss resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction (Slovic 2001) Risk is an uncertain (positive or negative) consequence of an event or an activity with respect to something that humans value (Renn 2007)

7 Risk Risk is dependent on human decisions, unlike catastrophe (Luhmann 1991) The antonym of risk is (the social fiction of) security/safety (Luhmann 1991) Decision (Political) decision-making and communication Risk governance Risk Future Uncertainity

8 Risk Governance Identification Evaluation Appraisal Assessment Management Monitoring Decision-Making Implementation Internal External Communication Knowledge Challenge: Complexity Uncertainty Ambiguity

9 Risk Communication get the numbers right tell them the numbers explain the numbers show them that they accepted similar risks in the past show them that it s a good deal form them treat them nice make them partners (Fischhoff 1995)

10 Risk Communication Good risk communication is delivering the relevant information (no paralysis by analysis (Renn 2007)) balancing science and politics between promoting and protecting (Sjöberg 1999) transparent accountable sustainable

11 Risk and Society (1) Thus the question of how misfortunes are explained and handled contains a significant critical potential critical not in the sense of an appeal to reject the society that finds itself exposed to such misfortunes, but critical in the sense of a heightened, not self-evident capacity to draw distinctions. We are dealing with the other side of the normal form and it is only by referring to the other side of the normal form that it can be recognized as a form. (Luhmann 1991)

12 Risk and Society (2) In risk societies, the consequences and successes of modernization become an issue with the speed and radicalism of processes of modernization. [ ] Under such conditions, a new moral climate of politics develops in which cultural and hence nationally varying, evaluations play a central role and arguments for and against real or possible consequences of technical and economic decisions are publicly conducted. In this process, the functions of science and technology also change. Over the past two centuries, the judgment of scientists has replaced tradition in Western societies. Paradoxically, however, the more science and technology permeate and transform life on a global scale, the less this expert authority is taken as a given. In discourses concerning risk, in which questions of normative (self-)limitation also arise, the mass media, parliaments, social movements, governments, philosophers, lawyers, writers, etc., are winning the right to make decisions. (Beck 2009)

13 Nuclear Energy and Risk Nuclear energy is obviously risky but it serves a number of strategical goals, such as increasing the number of sources of energy decreasing energy dependency guaranteeing energy supply meeting cutting edge in science Cost? Benefit!

14 Mayak (Chelyabinsk) film:

15 Mayak (Chelyabinsk) Assessment Dumping ~ 76 million m 3 of radioactive water into Techa river ( ) Explosion of a poorly maintained storage tank, releasing t of high-level radioactive waste (1957) radiation estimated higher than Chernobyl number of direct/indirect victims unknown contamination of the Techa river 250 km + x contamination of land of 8 x 110 km 2 15

16 Mayak (Chelyabinsk) Management (ad hoc) Exterminating harvest, slaughtering cattle Banning (water from the river, agriculture, cattle) Evacuating ~ people one week after Communication No public information at all Uncovering in 1976, 1979 (Sh. Medvedev) Informing IAEO in

17 Mayak (Chelyabinsk) Lesson learned? Management Mayak still employs ~ people ~ people still live in the contaminated area Invalidity pension for some people No sufficient health care Communication Something happens look at the ongoing evacuation. 17

18 Chernobyl film:

19 Chernobyl Assessment Explosions and fire in the core of one reactor that disperses radioactive fuel and core materials into the atmosphere (1986) number of direct/indirect victims unknown ~ km² significantly contaminated

20 Chernobyl Management (ad hoc) Immediate set-up of a state commission for investigating the accident Immediate evacuation of ~ people of the nearby town of Pripyat and surrounding villages Setting an exclusion zone (30 km) Shortening May 1 celebrations in Kiev Liquidation process, sarcophagus, etc. (cost bankrupted USSR virtually)

21 Chernobyl Communication April 26, 1986, 1:23 A.M.: Explosion April 28, 1986: USSR admits that something happened (after initial evidence from Sweden) May 6, 1986: Press conference in Moscow > USSR May 14, 1986: TV address by Gorbachev Acceleration of glasnost (~ openness, esp. for the field of press) after its confirmation as party policy in March 1986

22 Kursk film:

23 Kursk Assessment Sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea during military exercise (2000) Death of 118 crew members Amount of radiation unclear

24 Kursk Management (ad hoc) Failing of the initial rescue operation: Despite international offers for assistance, international rescue teams were involved four days after the accident Setting-up two commissions for investigation Communication 2 days after: Statement by the Navy 4 days after: Statement by Putin (vacations) 11 days after: Meeting Putin/members of the families

25 Kursk Lessons learned? Management no Navy reform no dismissal/withdrawl from office compensation for families: apartment, US$ + electricity for free, etc. Communication awarding the Order of Courage to all of the crew and the title Hero of the Russian Federation to the submarine's captain Putin s attendance at the memorial/funeral ceremony

26 Comparison Assessment Management Communication Mayak Chernobyl Kursk Nature as a factory: maintenance (-) sustainability (-) Inappropriate and in detail top secret secrecy valued higher than human life Crisis alien to the system/ anti-risk and anti-crisis world view: concealing reframing, no communication until 1989 Maintenance (?) Maintenance (?) Political management up to a point from Moscow, attempts to deal with Chernobyl technically Delayed communication under international pressure, up to a point, facing the crisis Denial of foreign assistance; politics vs. military Delayed political communication, facing the crisis, then even emotional support