Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제44권6호
  • /
  • Pages.653-662
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

EVALUATION OF SAMG EFFECTIVENESS IN VIEW OF GROUP DECISION

  • 투고 : 2010.08.24
  • 심사 : 2011.09.28
  • 발행 : 2012.08.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

We evaluate the technical and organizational aspects of the severe accident management guideline (SAMG), focusing on the decision-making process in the technical support center (TSC). From the technical aspects, we conclude that the present SAMG is a good tool that can assist the TSC in efficiently managing probable severe accidents. However, we suggest that the clear separation of the emergency operating procedure (EOP) and SAMG, which shifts plant control from the main control room (MCR) to the TSC, might not be an effective framework from an organizational perspective. Studies on organizational behavior demonstrate that a group decision made under a risky situation might be polarized in either a risky or cautious way. We recognize that we cannot be free from the polarization effect since the current SAMG recommends that the TSC evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of strategies to be implemented and choose the best one based on a group decision process. Illustrative examples of accident management under risky conditions are recapitulated from previous studies of the authors and we propose that the SAMG should be more proceduralized to remove this polarization from the decision-making process.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. WOG (Westinghouse Owners Group), "Severe Accident Management Guidance," MUHP-2310, (1994).
  2. KHNP(Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power), "Severe Accident Management Guidelines for Ulchin units 1&2" ,(2007).
  3. Suh, N.D., "Regulatory Assessment of Severe Accident Management Guideline for Kori-1 NPP," ICAPP2007-7028, (2007).
  4. Song, J.H, Suh, N.D., 2009. "An evolution of molten core cooling strategies," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 239, 1338-1344, (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.02.010
  5. Huh, C.W, Suh, N.D, and Park, G.C., "Optimum RCS Depressurization strategy for effective severe accident management of station black out accident," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 239, 2521-2529, (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.07.028
  6. Festinger. L., "A theory of social comparison processes", Human Relations, 7. 117-140 , (1954). https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
  7. Barnlund, D.C., A comparative study of individual, majority, and group judgment, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 55-60 (1959) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040823
  8. Stoner, J.A., "A comparison of Individual and Group Decisions involving Risk," Master's Thesis, Sloan School of Management, MIT, USA (1961).
  9. Stoner, J.A, "Risky and Cautious Shifts in Group Decisions: The influence of widely held values," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4, 442-459 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90069-3
  10. Myers, D.G., and Lamm, H..,"The group Polarization Phenomena," Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602
  11. Bonner, et al., The Effects of Member Expertise on Group Decision Making and Performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88,719-736 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00010-9
  12. Foryth, D. R.., Group Dynamics, 4th ed. Belmont, California, Thomson Higher Education (2006).
  13. Hanson, D., et al., "Depressurization as an accident management strategy to minimize the consequences of direct containment heating," NUREG/CR-5447, USNRC (2000).
  14. Zhang, K.et al, 2008. "Evaluation of intentional depressurization strategy in Chinese 600 MWe PWR NPP," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 238, 1720-1727 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.01.003
  15. KHNP(Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power), "Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Ulchin Units 1&2" ,(2005).
  16. Farmer, M.T., Lompersky, S., Kilsdonk, D. J., Aeschlimann, R. W., 2005. OECD MCCI Project Final report. OECD/MCCI-2005-TR06.