Safety implications of cultural and cognitive issues in nuclear power plant operation.

This research project was designed to investigate cultural and cognitive issues related to the work of nuclear power plant operators during their time on the job in the control room and during simulator training (emergency situations), in order to show how these issues impact on plant safety. The modeling of the operators work deals with the use of operational procedures, the constant changes in the focus of attention and the dynamics of the conflicting activities. The paper focuses on the relationships between the courses of action of the different operators and the constraints imposed by their working environment. It shows that the safety implications of the control room operators' cognitive and cultural issues go far beyond the formal organizational constructs usually implied. Our findings indicate that the competence required for the operators are concerned with developing the possibility of constructing situation awareness, managing conflicts, gaps and time problems created by ongoing task procedures, and dealing with distractions, developing skills for collaborative work.

[1]  David D. Woods,et al.  Visual Momentum: A Concept to Improve the Cognitive Coupling of Person and Computer , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[2]  B. E. Casey A games approach to system interface design , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[3]  David Greathead,et al.  A cognitive approach to safe violations , 2003, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[4]  J. Leplat,et al.  La fiabilité et l'ergonomie: spécificité et complémentarité , 1990 .

[5]  Richard I. Cook,et al.  Nine Steps to Move Forward from Error , 2002, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[6]  W. Godwin Article in Press , 2000 .

[7]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Of maps and scripts—the status of formal constructs in cooperative work , 1997, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[8]  Todd R. La Porte,et al.  Regulatory Compliance and the Ethos of Quality Enhancement: Surprises in Nuclear Power Plant Operations1 , 1995 .

[9]  Gilbert de Terssac,et al.  Autonomie dans le travail , 1994 .

[10]  J. Shaoul Human Error , 1973, Nature.

[11]  René Amalberti Safety in process-control: An operator-centred point of view , 1992 .

[12]  David Woods,et al.  The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management , 1995 .

[13]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[14]  David Mosey Reactor accidents: nuclear safety and the role of institutional failure / David Mosey , 1990 .

[15]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[16]  S. Dekker Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[17]  Melanie J. Norton Expertise and technology, cognition and human‐computer cooperation , 1996 .

[18]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Understanding accidents-from root causes to performance variability , 2002, Proceedings of the IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.

[19]  M. Endsley The role of situation awareness in naturalistic decision making , 1997 .

[20]  Antonio Rizzo,et al.  Handling human error , 1995 .

[21]  Rjoè,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work , 2005 .

[22]  Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho A sociotechnical review of the REDUC's oil pipeline accident occurred in 18-01-2000 in Rio de Janeiro , 2001 .

[23]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .

[24]  Gary Klein,et al.  Naturalistic Decision Making , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[25]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[26]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. , 2000, Ergonomics.

[27]  J R Wilson,et al.  Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. , 2000, Applied ergonomics.

[28]  C. H. Edwards Applied ergonomics. , 1990, Work.