Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Professionals' beliefs about nuclear safety - An interview study in the nordic nuclear branch
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
2012 (English)In: 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012, PSAM11 ESREL 2012: Volume 8, 2012, 6533-6541 p.Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The aim of the study was to characterize the definitions of nuclear safety among technical and safety professionals in the Nordic nuclear industry. Secondly, the aim was to inspect the relation between the definition of nuclear safety and the kind of indicators the respondents would use to evaluate nuclear safety in a power plant. The study illustrated that there was no shared definition of nuclear safety among the Nordic nuclear safety community. The definitions formed six groups: safety as limiting the consequences of radiation, safety as process control, safety as a way of working, safety as a mindset, safety as adherence to standards, and unclear or circular argument. These safety definitions had no direct relationship to the evaluation focus the respondents favoured. Four major evaluation foci were identified: 1) focus on organizational practices and processes, 2) focus on technical and structural safety, 3) focus on operating experience and 4) focus on plant management. In order to integrate the many aspects of risk and safety found among professionals, it seems essential to develop at least some sort of basic model which people can agree upon. Indicators discovered in this study can be one starting point in formulating such a model.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. 6533-6541 p.
Keyword [en]
Human and organization factors, Nuclear safety, Safety assessment, Safety management
National Category
Philosophy Physical Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-118407Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84873170641ISBN: 978-162276436-5 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-118407DiVA: diva2:606326
Conference
11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012, PSAM11 ESREL 2012, 25 June 2012 through 29 June 2012, Helsinki
Note

QC 20130219

Available from: 2013-02-19 Created: 2013-02-18 Last updated: 2013-02-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Scopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rollenhagen, Carl
By organisation
Philosophy
PhilosophyPhysical Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 59 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf