Nuclear disasters ... what is the problem, the technology or the people?

The mention of nuclear disasters conjures the recent memories of the Three Mile Island incident, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. While watching the movie The China Syndrome, it is easy to fall under the false notion that this was a fictionalized version of these events. The fact of the matter is that the movie predates all of these events. The China Syndrome was released only a mere several weeks before the Three Mile Island incident occurred for which the plot of the movie was shockingly similar to how the actual timeline of the near disaster unfolded (Sarkar, 2022). This only seems likely to have occurred through the production staff having been acutely aware of the current atmosphere surrounding utilities companies priorities at the time. The priority directly influenced the technology and procedures in order to achieve it. Nuclear disasters and near disasters can be categorized as human-caused disasters as there is a belief that mankind can create a failsafe technology that will offset any human error.  In the case of nuclear power, an equilibrium must be maintained between the human or socio element with mechanistic or technical element. If one is given more emphasis over the other than it can create an increased likelihood for a systems failure. A desired harmonious balance for which nuclear energy could be safely achieved would be through the Socio-Technical Theory's concept of joint optimization (Abbas & Michael, 2023). Through the process of trying to prescribe or achieve joint optimization will help identify existing vulnerabilities. 

Throughout The China Syndrome, there are several scenes that deliver the audience the message of the movie. Not long after the near disaster at the Ventana Nuclear Plant, where we become acquainted with Kimberly Wells, Richard Adams, in addition to plant workers Jack Godell and Ted Spindler, is a boardroom meeting where executives of the utility company that own the power plant are discussing the repercussions from the incident and how to move forward. It becomes evident that the executives are concerned with profits as they are talking about potential losses due to the plant not being operational and how this story could jeopardize the construction of the other nuclear plant. They acknowledge that the Nuclear Regulatory Committee will have to conduct an investigation that they hope will be swift. This scene demonstrates the true priorities of the executives as being profits and not the wellbeing of the public.  

Eventually the Nuclear Regulatory Committee begins conducting their investigation into the event by lengthy interviews with the staff, this includes Jack Godell and Ted Spindler. The audience views briefly the questions being asked to a nervous Jack Godell who seemingly is very well educated on the operations of a nuclear reactor. As he concludes his interview he passes a very nervous Spindler who is very inquisitive about how the testimony went as he is the next person to be deposed. When Godell and Spindler see each other next, it is revealed that Godell has extensive experience with nuclear reactors along with a lot of the other control room operators as they were previously apart of the Navy's Nuclear fleet, where Ted Spindler was a 25 year company man. Spindler makes the point that everyone else's interview was 3 hours long, where his was 7 hours. It is clear that the corporation and the NRC are trying to find a convenient scapegoat to pin the blame on deflecting any liability away from the company. This is illustrative of the point that the NRC is collaborating with the corporation that owns the nuclear plant as they have a vested interest in not seeing the company fail.

After the quick conclusion of the NRC investigation, everyone is reiterating what seems to be rehearsed lines about the plants safety, including Jack Godell. However, the quick end to the investigation highlights the priority of the entire industry in trying to return the nuclear plant back to operational status, thus making it profitable again. It is revealed that the lead investigator is using alarmingly outdated information to conduct the investigation and base his findings off of. Otherwise to conduct a full scale investigation would take a significant amount more time. The plant executives give a mandate that the plant needs to be back at full output by a certain time. Through the character of Jack Godell, the audience discovers that nothing was fixed, and that the incident is being labeled as a coincidence that it is implied is unlikely to be repeated. 

Both in reality and throughout the movie, nuclear power has been promoted as the best chance to have sustainable source of energy. It can meet the demand of the publics insatiable appetite for power while not producing much of a harmful byproduct. I am aware that this is if it is done properly under ideal circumstances. I was remorseful while watching the movie because as long as the priorities for utility companies are profit centric rather than being concerned public safety, the use of nuclear power will continue to be dangerous. This ultimately means that under contemporary circumstances, nuclear power is unattainable. The entire industry is centered around being cost cutting and utility maximizing. This is not just isolated to nuclear power as other energy sources are approached with the same level of nonfeasance regarding public safety. Nuclear power is the most consequential as it would have the most devastating and widespread impact if mishandled compared to other energy sources. The China Syndrome was created at the height of the Anti-Nuclear proliferation movement which coincides with the Cold War where the sentiment towards nuclear weapons was also shared with nuclear power. I become frustrated by the fact that this has occurred as nuclear power is the most viable solution to solving the energy problem in the face of climate change, but there is a collective reluctance to invest more time and energy into it. Anti-nuclear proliferation with regards to energy is unfortunate as I do believe safe nuclear energy is attainable.

Socio-Technical Theory or STS revolves around the intimate relationship between social and technical structures. More specifically joint optimization describes the desired outcome from STS, where there is a harmony reached between the social and the technical elements in a given industry. In trying to achieve joint optimization through STS, vulnerabilities can be properly identified. Vulnerabilities can lead a group to emphasize either the social or technical element over the other. Often influencing this emphasis is the result of normative isomorphism (Pershing & Austin, 2015). Normative isomorphism stems values that are prioritized and can ultimately shape the entire atmosphere surrounding an industry. 

In the case of nuclear energy which in The China Syndrome is controlled by private utility corporations, the executives set the values in which the whole operation prioritizes. The values are cost cutting and utility maximizing with public safety taking a distant second. Since public utilities are an essential service, there is a collective recognition to keep these power plants operational. This collective value towards keeping the plants operational whether to keep the operation profitable, or the power grid supplied is illustrative of a deeply nested and complex system. This overwhelming sentiment within public utility companies leads to a normative isomorphism that fixates on the mechanistic technology with finding what the absolute performance capacity is to the point just shy of failure both in output and longevity (Applebaum, 1997).  Employees of utility companies along with regulatory governing bodies are complicit with the values set upon them by the executives. This is far from joint optimization as there is a fixation on the mechanistic technology to be continuously productive at the expense of safety. Joint optimization with nuclear power would be finding a sustainable operational capacity for the plant that would allow actual maintenance work and constant evaluations to occur on a routine basis.