Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Graded approach to determine the frequency and difficulty of safety culture attributes: The F-D matrix

  • Ahn, Jeeyea (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Min, Byung Joo (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Lee, Seung Jun (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2021.06.25
  • Accepted : 2021.12.20
  • Published : 2022.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The importance of safety culture has been emphasized to achieve a high level of safety. In this light, a systematic method to more properly deal with safety culture is necessary. Here, a decision-making tool that can apply a graded approach to the analysis of safety culture is proposed, called the F-D matrix, which determines the frequency and the difficulty of safety culture attributes recently defined by the IAEA. A hierarchical model of difficulty contributors was developed as a scoring standard, and its elements were weighted via expert evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process. The frequency of the attributes was derived by analyzing reported events from nuclear power plants in the Republic of Korea. Period-by-period comparisons with the F-D matrix can show trends in the change of the maturity level of an organization's safety culture and help to evaluate the effectiveness of previously implemented measures. In the evaluating the difficulty of the attributes in the recently developed harmonized safety culture model, the difficulties of Trending, Benchmarking, Resilience, and Documentation and Procedures were found to be relatively high, while the difficulties of Conflicts are Resolved, Ownership, Collaboration, and Respect is Evident were found to be relatively low. A case study was conducted with an analysis period of 10 years to attempt to reflect the many changes in safety culture that have been made following the Fukushima accident in March 2011. As a result of comparing two periods following the Fukushima accident, the overall frequency decreased by about 40%, providing evidence for the effects of the various improvements and measures taken following the increased emphasis on safety culture. The proposed F-D matrix provides a new analytical perspective and enables an in-depth analysis of safety culture.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Nuclear Safety Research Program through the Korea Foundation Of Nuclear Safety (KoFONS) using a financial resource granted by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) of the Republic of Korea (No. 2003011).

References

  1. Y.-H. Lee, A revisit to the recent human error events in nuclear power plants focused to the organizational and safety culture, J. Ergonom. Soc. Korea 32 (1) (2013) 117-124. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2013.32.1.117
  2. Y. G. Kim, H. J. Jeong, and J. J. Park, "Consideration of Safety Culture through Analysis of Causes of Incidents/cases in the Nuclear Power Plant Industry.".
  3. Y.-H. Lee, Current status and issues of nuclear safety culture, J. Ergonom. Soc. Korea 35 (4) (2016) 247-261, 08/31. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2016.35.4.247
  4. E. Novatsis, Chapter 18 - safety culture and behavior, in: J. Edmonds (Ed.), Human Factors in the Chemical and Process Industries, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 311-334.
  5. IAEA, Fundamental Safety Principles, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2006.
  6. IAEA, Leadership and Management for Safety, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2016.
  7. IAEA, IAEA Safety Glossary: Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection, 2007 Edition, 2007.
  8. IAEA, Application of the Management System for Facilities and Activities, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2006.
  9. M. Fleming, Safety Culture Maturity Model, HSE, 2001.
  10. P. Foster, S. Hoult, The safety journey: using a safety maturity model for safety planning and assurance in the UK coal mining industry, Minerals 3 (1) (2013) 59-72. https://doi.org/10.3390/min3010059
  11. B. Bernard, A safety culture maturity matrix for nuclear regulatory bodies, Saf. Now. 4 (4) (2018) 44.
  12. IAEA, Safety Assessment for Facilities and Activities, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2016.
  13. IAEA, Summary Report on the Post-accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 1986.
  14. IAEA, Safety Culture, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, 1991. Vienna.
  15. S. Cox, T. Cox, The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example, Work. Stress 5 (2) (1991) 93-106, 1991/04/01. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379108257007
  16. N.F. Pidgeon, Safety culture and risk management in organizations, J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 22 (1) (1991) 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221009
  17. HSC, ACSNI Study Group on Human Factors. 3rd Report: Organising For Safety, 0 11 882104 0, Health and Safety Commission, London, 1993.
  18. M.D. Cooper, Towards a model of safety culture, Saf. Sci. 36 (2) (Nov, 2000) 111-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00035-7
  19. INPO, Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, 2004.
  20. WANO, in: Traits of a Healthy Nuclear Safety Culture, W. A. o. N. Operators, 2013.
  21. IAEA, A Harmonized Safety Culture Model - IAEA Working Document, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020.
  22. E.S. Geller, Ten principles for achieving a total safety culture, Prof. Saf. 39 (9) (Sep 1994) 18.
  23. T. Lee, Perceptions, attitudes and behaviour: the vital elements of a safety culture, Health Saf. 10 (1996) 1-15.
  24. G. Grote, C. Kunzler, Diagnosis of safety culture in safety management audits, Saf. Sci. 34 (1) (2000) 131-150, 2000/02/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00010-2
  25. A.R. Hale, J. Hovden, Management and culture: the third age of safety. A review of approaches to organizational aspects of safety, health and environment, Occup. Injury: Risk Prevent. Intervent. (1998) 129-165.
  26. T. Lee, K. Harrison, Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations, Saf. Sci. 34 (1-3) (2000) 61-97. Feb-Apr. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00007-2
  27. N. McDonald, S. Corrigan, C. Daly, S. Cromie, Safety management systems and safety culture in aircraft maintenance organisations, Saf. Sci. 34 (1) (2000) 151-176, 2000/02/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00011-4
  28. L. Ostrom, C. Wilhelmsen, B. Kaplan, Assessing safety culture, Nucl. Saf. 34 (2) (Apr-Jun, 1993) 163-172.
  29. A.I. Glendon, D.K. Litherland, Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction, Saf. Sci. 39 (3) (2001) 157-188, 2001/12/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00006-6
  30. A.M. Williamson, A.-M. Feyer, D. Cairns, D. Biancotti, The development of a measure of safety climate: the role of safety perceptions and attitudes, Saf. Sci. 25 (1) (1997) 15-27, 1997/02/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00020-9
  31. S.M. Han, S.M. Lee, H.B. Yim, P.H. Seong, Development of Nuclear Safety Culture evaluation method for an operation team based on the probabilistic approach, Ann. Nucl. Energy 111 (Jan, 2018) 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.07.018
  32. Y.G. Kim, S.M. Lee, P.H. Seong, A methodology for a quantitative assessment of safety culture in NPPs based on Bayesian networks, Ann. Nucl. Energy 102 (2017) 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.08.023
  33. Y.G. Kim, A.R. Kim, J.H. Kim, P.H. Seong, Approach for safety culture evaluation under accident situation at NPPs; an exploratory study using case studies, Ann. Nucl. Energy 121 (Nov, 2018) 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.07.028
  34. S. Garcia-Herrero, M.A. Mariscal, J.M. Gutierrez, A. Toca-Otero, Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant, Saf. Sci. 53 (2013) 82-95, 2013/03/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.09.004
  35. Y. Kim, J. Park, W. Jung, A quantitative measure of fitness for duty and work processes for human reliability analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 167 (2017) 595-601, 2017/11/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.07.012
  36. D.P. Fang, H.J. Wu, Development of a safety culture interaction (SCI) model for construction projects, Saf. Sci. 57 (Aug, 2013) 138-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.003
  37. K. Han, Y. Lee, and M. Jae, "A Methodology for Safety Culture Index Assessment Using Minimal Cut Sets.".
  38. A.D. Swain, H.E. Guttmann, Handbook of Human-Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Final report, Sandia National Labs., 1983.
  39. A.D. Swain, et al., Accident Sequence Evaluation Program: Human Reliability Analysis Procedure, Sandia National Labs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1987.
  40. G. Parry, B. Lydell, A. Spurgin, P. Moieni, A. Beare, An Approach to the Analysis of Operator Actions in Probabilistic Risk Assessment, 1992. EPRI Report TR-100259.
  41. M. Barriere, D. Bley, S. Cooper, J. Forester, A. Kolaczkowski, W. Luckas, G. Parry, A. Ramey-Smith, C. Thompson, D. Whitehead, Technical basis and implementation guidelines for a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA), NUREG-1624, Rev 1 (2000) 2000.
  42. J. Bell, J. Holroyd, Review of human reliability assessment methods, Health Saf. Lab. 78 (2009).
  43. J.A. G.v. Avermaete, NOTECHS: Non-technical Skill Evaluation in JAR-FCL, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, 1998.
  44. T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process : Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill International Book Co., New York; London, 1980.
  45. T.L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J. Math. Psychol. 15 (3) (1977) 234-281, 1977/06/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  46. P.T. Harker, L.G. Vargas, The theory of ratio scale estimation: saaty's analytic hierarchy process, Manag. Sci. 33 (11) (1987) 1383-1403. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1383
  47. F.A. Lootsma, Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 40 (1) (1989) 109-116, 1989/05/05/. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(89)90278-6
  48. D.Z. Ma, X, 9/9 - 9/1 Scale method of AHP, in: 2nd Int. Symposium on AHP, Pittsburgh, 1991, pp. 197-202.
  49. F.J. Dodd, H.A. Donegan, Comparison of prioritization techniques using interhierarchy mappings, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 46 (4) (1995) 492-498. https://doi.org/10.2307/2584596
  50. A.A. Salo, R.P. Hamlainen, On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process, J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 6 (6) (1997) 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6<309::AID-MCDA163>3.0.CO;2-2
  51. A. Ishizaka, A. Labib, Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11) (2011) 14336-14345, 2011/10/01/.
  52. J. Franek, A. Kresta, Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP, Procedia Econ. Fin. 12 (2014) 164-173, 2014/01/01/. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00332-3
  53. IAEA, INES: the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User's Manual, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2013.