Julien Etienne’s Post

This new book on the regulator-regulatee relationship in safety-critical systems, open access and sponsored by FonCSI, is based on a seminar gathering prominent academics in this field. They were selected and invited by a working group to which I participed. I also had the honor of writing the introduction. Here is the abstract of this introduction: The regulator–regulatee relationship in the context of safety-critical systems is under constant evolution. It changes with epochs. Our current epoch is one faced with increasingly global challenges. It has not always been so, but increasingly is. In this introduction, the presentation of the chapters of this book is preceded by a historical perspective which situates the advent of many important regulatory innovations and trends (e.g., polycentric, smart, meta, or risk-based regulations). These innovations and trends are variously interpreted, from either practical, critical, or more neutral angles. This introduction explains the rationales of these different points of view. Next, an example of regulation of hazardous organisations in France is shortly described to illustrate the trends discussed. It provides a short empirical case study. The chapters of the book are then summarised, covering a diversity of related themes, from polycentric to responsive regulations, through an attention to social interactions to the game-changing reality of global warming. https://lnkd.in/eC8m5FRD

Historically, concerns about regulatory capture and regulatory efficacy have driven many scholars' and policymakers' attention to the relationships between regulators and those they regulate. In a new paper, I explain that these fundamental concerns begin with how regulations themselves are designed: "The way rules are written—their design and content—establishes the foundation for the regulator–regulatee relationship by defining the regulator’s expectations for the regulatee and by shaping the demands placed on the regulator for information and oversight." Regulatory design must therefore be informed by an understanding of the industry being regulated: the firms' interests, their capacities, and the competitive pressures they confront. Ultimately, "sound rule design depends on more than just fitting a design to a risk or other problem; it also depends on fitting the design to the regulators and regulatees. Some regulatees—often because of their size—may need to be told exactly what to do. Others may have the capacity or well-earned trust to act responsibly under more flexible rules. Furthermore, regulators themselves will need to possess different capabilities for monitoring and enforcing rules depending on their design." I elaborate on these issues in my contribution to a just-published volume put together by amazingly talented folks at the French research foundation, FonCSI, or the Foundation for an Industrial Safety Culture. The volume emanates from a pragmatically focused but intellectually enriching conference organized by FonCSI which involved an range of extraordinary leaders from the world of regulatory scholarship and practice. I learned there about how "work domain analysis" developed by human factors safety engineers dovetails with my own earlier work on regulatory design, which itself influenced a major framework developed in a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on safety regulation for high-hazard industries (https://lnkd.in/eVXSDBBU). My chapter in the FonCSI volume--which includes a brief discussion of work domain analysis for interested regulators and regulatory scholars--can be downloaded at: https://lnkd.in/eBiSPsRr Eric Marsden's post below points to the entire volume at the publisher's website. Highly recommended.

Last chance to submit an abstract. the deadline for the abstracts was just extended till 15 March. Are you working on safety assessment for SMRs? Please submit your abstracts for Track 8 and see you in October in Vienna! 💡

Great Headline Guardian on Nuclear fission. https://lnkd.in/g8sMZtpR Fission is moving towards obsolescence at an accelerated pace, as it is "out of step, out of time, out of place," and merely a temporary industry globally. Commercial fusion electrical energy generation is a promising and innovative method of producing sustainable and clean energy. By 2028, Helion is expected to start producing electricity from its first fusion commercial power plant, which will provide electricity to Microsoft. The plant will produce at least 50 MWe after an initial ramp-up period. https://lnkd.in/gY9J3MQY If you want nuclear energy, opt for the cleaner and safer option of FUSION. Now see what news is happening in the Fusion industry in the world. https://lnkd.in/g9hMBD7a As fission trebles, fission fuel shortage in 100 or 80 years is increasingly real, as stated in recent UN documents and linked below. https://lnkd.in/gze5rwpr

Academia allows me to share my articles through posts/comments on LinkedIn (from time to time, when I can). It contributes, hopefully, to create a bridge between practice and theory. In this post, I explain shortly the categories that I created to classify my articles on academia (beyond the book section). It is divided in 3 categories: 1.     Pioneers, authors, and legacies in safety (e.g., Perrow, Turner, Reason, Rasmussen, Hopkins… etc) 2.     Concepts, ideas, and theories in safety (e.g., high-reliability organisations, new view, safety culture, swiss cheese…) 3.     Cases, narratives, and stories in safety (e.g., accident investigation, daily operations, sociotechnical assessment…) There is a strong connection between them of course but this structure shows: 1.     The importance of knowing authors in the field 2.     The need for careful analysis (and developments) of concepts 3.     The centrality of case studies I hope this provides a resource for safety professionals to develop their intellectual and practical identity. It is something which I believe could be further strengthened. https://lnkd.in/gbpBG8x

Looking for a pre-holiday read? ICYMI: Check out our assessment of how the flurry of Supreme Court decisions that have dropped over the last few days could impact nuclear regulation. ⚛️💡🚀

Positive backing for more nuclear - good news! The newsletter has a bit more info about the recent consultations as well as other juicy energy and infrastructure updates.

Safety: A final rule to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement the NRC uses when considering applications to renew operating reactor licenses will soon end up issued. #HSE #EHS #processsafety #industrialsafety https://bit.ly/4ayBywW

Safety: The feds are looking for public comment on the environmental topics the NRC should consider in reviewing an application renewal for the Clinton reactor. #HSE #EHS #processsafety #industrialsafety https://bit.ly/44lvPJq

Our latest monthly NSIP newsletter is now available. We cover our thoughts on the Government's new Nuclear Roadmap, a couple of DCO consent decisions, acceptance of a re-submitted DCO application and a brief round-up of other matters we found interesting from the infrastructure planning sector. If you'd like to receive this directly into your inbox when published each month, please subscribe to our blog using the link below. Catherine Howard Charlotte Dyer Natasha Hyde #infrastructure #infrastructureprojects #planning