Microsoft Word - 3.Indicators for Monitoring of the Safety Culture of Nuclear Power Plants

Indicators for Monitoring of the Safety Culture of Nuclear Power Plants Tong Il Jang, Yong Hee Lee, Sa Kil Kim, Yeon Ju Oh Division of I&C and Human Factors, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, 305-353 ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study is to develop safety culture monitoring indicators to provide the public with information of the safety culture state of nuclear power plants. Background: Recently, there have been many events and accidents related to the nuclear power plants, as a result the reliability of nuclear industry has decreased than ever before. And the cause of those things turned out problem of safety culture of nuclear power plants and then concerning of the public on the nuclear industry is very high. Thus, it is required to provide information related to the safety culture of nuclear power plants as the form of indicators to monitor the current state of that. Method: Many of documents published by nuclear domain s such as, US,, and have contents about safety culture elements, attributes, and principles. In this study, in order to derive safety culture indicators from them they were considered as safety culture indicators and reviewed. Including the aviation and the railway industry, 11 documents were reviewed and analyzed. 9 items selected from the Policy Statements of the US were defined as the classification criterion. Results: From 11 documents, 107 items were derived as safety culture indicators candidates and those were grouped according to the 9 criteria. Conclusion: In this study, various documents related to the safety culture indicators were reviewed and indicator candidate items were selected and categorized by 9 classification criteria. The current state of this study is early stage, so in the near future more intensive study will be performed to develop the final indicator set. Application: The safety culture monitoring indicator set can be provided public, government, regulatory body, NGO, and so on. Keywords: Safety Culture, Safety Culture Indicators, Safety Culture Monitoring, Safety Culture Policy Statement, Nuclear Power Plants 1. Introduction 2011년도에발생하였던후쿠시마사고및 2012년도국내의고리 1호기소내전원상실 (Station Black Out : SBO) 사건등원자력관련사건들이발생하면서원자력산업에대한국민적관심이매우높아지고있는상황이다. 더욱이최근에는원전과관련된각종비리들이밝혀지고언론에서큰이슈로다루기시작하면서원전에대한국민적신뢰도는매우저하되어있고, 이모든사안의원인이된것으로파악되고있는원전의안전문화에대한대중의관심은그어느때보다높아져있다. 정부에서는이처럼저하된원전산업의국민적신뢰도를회복하고원전안전문화를강화하기위하여다양한노력을경주하고있으며, 그방법의일환으로원전안전문화의현황과관련된정보를공개하는원전안전문화모니터링시스템을개발하고 있다. 그러나원자력산업은매우다양하고전문적인기술이집약된산업이기때문에그특성을일반대중이이해하기에는여전히장벽이높다. 그렇기때문에국민의불특정다수가볼수있는원전안전문화모니터링시스템은일반대중들도이해가용이한정보를표시하는것이중요한요건이다. 본연구에서는 및국내외원전관련전문기관들이제시하고있는원전안전문화지표및특성들을검토하고, 이들중정보로서제시되어야하는지표들을도출 (indicators) 하고자하였다. 2. Method 원전의안전문화에대한현재상태를나타낼수있는

지표는여러원자력관련기관의문헌에서다양한형태로제시되고있다. 예를들어 US-(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 는 2005년도에안전문화를해결하기위하여원자로감시프로세스 (ROP : Reactor Oversight Process) 를향상시키기위한공개회의를실시하였는데, 안전문화웹페이지 (Safety Culture Web Page) 에있는피드백양식의안전문화속성테이블초안에대한제안 / 의견을관계자들에게문의하였다. 안전문화특성테이블 (Safety Culture Attribute Table) 은특성 (Attribute), 요소 (Elements), 잠재적인검사정보 (Potential Inspection Information), 잠재적조치 (Potential Measures) 등크게 4가지로구성되어있다. 이중안전문화요소는 4가지상위항목으로구분되어있으며, 이는다시하부에 16개항목으로구성된체계를가지고있다. 또한, 는 2012년도에총 9개항목으로구성된안전문화정책선언 (policy statement) 을발표한바있다. 미국의원전운영자협회인 (Institute of Nuclear Power Operation) 의안전문화자문단에서는 2004년 8개의안전문화주요원칙 (principle) 및 56개의속성 (attributes) 을선정하였다. 그후 2011년도에기존 8개의원칙하에 10 개의특성 (trait) 을새롭게정의하여제시하였다. 국내에서는 (Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety) 에서 2003년도에 6개로구성된안전문화지표 (indicator) 를제시하였으나이후에추가적으로관련연구가진행되지못한것으로파악된다. 위에서제시한예들은주로안전문화의평가를위하여사용되었던속성및특성들이다. 본연구에서는평가가아닌모니터링 (monitoring) 를위한지표가요구되므로, 위에서제시한항목들을기반으로별도의지표를개발하고자하였다. 이를위하여지표도출을위한팀을구성하고 Figure 1과같은절차에따라원전안전문화모니터링을위한지표를개발하고자하였다. 먼저팀구성에는인간공학, 산업공학, 경영학원자력공학등총 5명의관련전문가가참여하였다. 관련된국내외문헌검토에서는,,, 등안전문화평가에활용되는안전문화속성, 특성, 요소등에대하여제시하고있는문서들을검토하였다. 철도및항공산업을포함하여총 11개의국내외관련문헌을검토하였다. 문헌검토를통하여각문헌에서사용된안전문화속성, 특성, 요소들을도출하였다. 각문헌에서기술된내용들이각각의목적등에따라구분하고있는방법에차이가있으므로이를통합하기위한기준이필요하다. 본연구에서는비교적최근에개발되었고, 국제적으로신뢰를얻고있는미국의규제기관 US-의정책선언에서제시한 9개항목을기준으로결정하였다. 9개의항목에대한내용은아래와같다. (1) Leadership safety values and actions (2) Problem identification and resolution (3) Personal accountability (4) Work processes (5) Continuous learning (6) Environment for raising concerns (7) Effective safety communication (8) Respectful work environment (9) Questioning attitude 각문헌에서도출된속성, 특성, 요소에대하여 의정책선언 9개항목에해당하는것들을분류하여 9개로그룹화하였으며, 분류되지않는항목들을별도의추가항목으로분류하였다. 현재분류하는단계까지연구가진행된상태이다. 추후, 분류된항목들을다시한번각그룹내에서분류가가능한항목들을구분하고, 통합하는과정을거쳐지표목록을도출할예정이다. 지표목록들에대하여지표화할수있는방안을개발하고, 최종지표를개발할예정이다. Figure 1. A process for the development of safety culture monitoring indicators. 3. Results 위에서언급하였던검토대상문헌총 11개에서도출된안전문화속성, 특성, 요소를정리하면항목수는 Table 1 과같다. 총 107개가도출되었으며, 항공및철도분야를제외한나머지는모두원자력분야의문서에서도출된항

목들이다. 이항목들을 US-의정책선언 (policy statement) 에서구분한 9개항목을기준으로분류하였다. 9 개각항목그룹별로구분한후 9개특정그룹에분류하기가용이하지않은항목들은별도의추가적인항목으로분류하였다. 각항목그룹별로구분된항목들을기관별로분석한결과는아래와같다. Table 1. Number of items according to each. number of items 17 (safety performance indicators) 11 US- 15 US-(Policy Statement) 9 10 6 24 5 railway industry(domestic) 5 5 total 107 3.1 Leadership safety values and actions 리더십안전가치및행동은 리더는의사결정및행동에있어안전에대한그들의책임을드러내야한다. 를의미하는것으로 11개의항목이이에해당하며, 각기관별항목은 Table 2와같다. Table 2. Items of leadership safety values and actions of each. Leadership safety values and actions Decision-making Selection of managers Attitudes of managers Field supervision by management Top management commitment to safety Management leadership/oversight Role of managers Responsibility of Management involvement Safety leadership 3.2 Problem identification and resolution 문제의확인및해결은 안전에잠재적으로영향을주는현안은즉각확인되어야하고, 충분히평가되고, 즉각조치가취해져야한다. 를의미한다. 이에대한항목은 8 개이며, 각기관별항목은 Table 3 과같다. Table 3. Items of problem identification and resolution of each. Problem identification and resolution Review of safety performance Research input to safety analyses Alternative process(ap) for raising concerns (i.e. alternative to the corrective action program(cap) or line management Problem identification and resolution(pi&r)/(cap) Effectiveness of improvement of safety performance and production review Finding problems and fixing them corrective work orders issued _SPI 3.3 Personal accountability 개인의책임은 모든직원및개인은안전에대한개인적책임을져야한다. 를의미하며, 이에해당하는항목수는 12개이고, 각기관별항목은 Table 4와같다. Table 4. Items of personal accountability of each. Participation of personnel Personal accountability Definition of responsibility Attitudes of individuals Responsibility and incentive program Roles/responsibilities/accountabilities Recognizing employee's efforts Compliance with regs and procedures Compliance with procedures, rules and licensing requirements _SPI Attitude towards procedures, policies and rules _SPI Reward and punishment system Mind of safety responsibility railway industry(domestic) 3.4 Work processes 업무프로세스는 업무행위에대한계획및조정프로세스가이행되어안전이유지되어야한다. 라는의미를가지고있으며, 이에해당하는항목수는 9개이며, 각기관별항목은 Table 5와같다.

Table 5. Items of work process of each. Safety conscious work environment policy Work control conduct of work(maintenance, operations, radiation protection, and engineering) Excellency of the conduct of the field work Appropriateness of the self control of personnel Appreciation of risks Proceduralization Proper resource allocation Working conditions (pressure/workload/stress) 3.5 Continuous learning 지속적교육이라는것은 안전을확보하는방안을학습 할수있는기회를강구하고이행해야한다. 를의미한다. 이에해당하는항목수는 16개이며, 각기관별항목은 Table 6과같다. Table 6. Items of continuous learning of each. Continuous learning Training Internal and external operating experiences Self-assessment process Continuous learning environment Completeness of education and training Organizational learning Initial and continuing training Self-assessment Organizational knowledge Operator preparedness _SPI Self-assessment _SPI Operating experience feedback _SPI Learning culture Change management and self diagnosis railway industry(domestic) Learning culture railway industry(domestic) 3.6 Environment for raising concerns Table 7. Items of environment for raising concerns of each. Environment for Raising Concerns Willingness to raise concerns Preventing and detecting retaliation Attitudes against blame Table 8. Items of environment for raising concerns of each. Effective Safety Communication Openness and communications Exchanges of info with other plants Relationship between managers and employees Harmonious communication Reporting system Two-way communication Communication between stakeholders railway industry(domestic) 3.8 Respectful work environment 종사자상호존중하는업무환경은 종사자상호신뢰와존경이조직에스며있어야한다. 를의미하며, 의문서에만 정책선언과동일한항목이포함되어있다. 3.9 Questioning attitude 의문을갖는태도란 종사자개인은만족하는태도를피해야하고, 오류혹은부적절한행위를야기할수도있는결함들을확인하기위하여지속적으로현재의조건및행위들에대하여의심하고이의를제기해야한다. 를의미한다. 및 문서에하나씩포함되어있다. 4. Conclusions 우려를제기할수있는환경이란 종사자가동료들과의관계에대한두려움, 위협, 괴로움또는차별이없이안전과관련된문제및우려를자유롭게제기할수있는환경이유지되어야한다. 를의미한다. 이에해당하는항목은 4개이고각기관별항목은 Table 7과같다. 3.7 Effective safety communication 효과적인안전의사소통이란 의사소통은안전에초점을유지해야한다. 를의미한다. 이에해당하는항목수는 8개이며, 각기관별항목은 Table 8과같다. 본연구에서는최근사회적관심이고조되고있는원전의안전특히, 안전문화를모니터링할수있는지표를개발하고자하였다. 원전안전문화모니터링지표는일반대중이나정부, 규제기관또는 NGO 등을대상으로현재국내원전의안전문화상태를지표형태로정보를제공하여모니터링할수있도록하기위한것이다. 지표개발을위하여별도의팀을구성하고내부적으로정의한절차에따라업무를수행하고있다. 현재까지는연구초기단계로서국내혹은국외의원자력관련기관들에서발행된지표와관련된문서들을검토하여지표항목들을도출하고유

사한특성들끼리그룹화한상태이다. 추후, 이러한항목들에대하여상세분류및통합, 지표화방안도출등의과정을거쳐최종지표목록을도출하고, 위에서언급한정보제공대상자별로분류된지표를개발할예정이다. Acknowledgements This work was funded by grants from Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (Development of a public monitoring system and competence enhancement technologies for strengthen Korean safety culture in nuclear s, Grant # 2013T100200058). References Choi, Y.S. et al., Safety Culture Indicators for NPP : international Trends and Development Status in Korea, Proceedings of the Spring Conference on Korea Nuclear Society, 2004., Operational Safety Performance Indicators for Nuclear Power Plants, -TECDOC-1141, 2000., Reference report for Safety Culture Assessment Review Team (SCART) - SCART Guidelines-Services Series No.16, 2008., ASCOT Guidelines Revised 1996 Edition - TECDOC - 860, 1996., Traits of a Healthy Nuclear Safety Culture, 12-012, 2012, Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture, 2004. INSAG, Safety Culture, Safety Series No.75 - INSAG 4, International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, 1991. Lee, K.J. et al., Development of Aviation Safety Culture Indicators and Study of Application Method, Korea Transportation Safety Authority, 2008. US, 76 FR 34773 - Final Safety Culture Policy Statement, Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114, 2011. US, Safety Culture Attributes Table, Summary of the Public Meeting on s Safety Culture Initiative, 2005. NPP Yong-Hee Lee : yhlee@kaeri.re.kr Highest degree: MS, Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University. Position title: Principal Researcher, Division of I&C and Human Factors, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Areas of interest: Cognitive System Engineering, System Safety, Human Error, Interface Design Sa Kil Kim: sakilkim@kaeri.re.kr Highest degree: Ph.D., Department of Industrial Engineering, Kyung Hee University Position title: Senior Researcher, I&C and Human Factors Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute Areas of interest: Human Factors in Nuclear Power Plant, System Safety, Team Performance Yeon Ju Oh: ohyj@kaeri.re.kr Highest degree: PhD, Department of Industrial Engineering, Dong Eui University Position title: Researcher, Division of I&C and Human Factors, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) Areas of interest: Human Error, Biomechanics, WMSDs Author listings Tong Il Jang: tijang@kaeri.re.kr Highest degree: PhD, Department of Safety Engineering, Chungbuk National University Position title: Senior Researcher, Division of I&C and Human Factors, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) Areas of interest: Human Errors, System Safety, Human Performance in