This paper evaluates the implicit safety culture (ISC) and the dissemination among staff in a nuclear power plant. The Schein’s cultural hierarchy theory was adopted to compare implicit aspects of different organizational cultures, and to explore the application of both explicit and implicit cultures, to define the ISC of a nuclear plant and to summarize its characteristics. The dissemination system and the mechanism of the ISC was scrutinized based on dynamic and superimposing effects, which are regarded as a unity of opposites. A differential dynamic model of the ISC dissemination of the nuclear power plant was established by this study. Results of the model indicated that the ISC could be disseminated freely within the power plant when the dissemination was at an unstable equilibrium point. However, the ISC would not disseminate effectively and might disappear gradually in the power plant when the dissemination was at an asymptotic equilibrium point. The application of ISC is a crucial issue to improve the safety and benefit of the management of the nuclear power plant, including measures such as intensifying the collaboration and communication of departments, and setting a special department for the ISC dissemination and some incentive protocols in the nuclear power plant.
AouichaWTliliMASahliJDhiabM BChelbiSMtiraouiALatiriH SAjmiTZediniCRejebM BMallouliM. Exploring patient safety culture in emergency departments: a Tunisian perspective. Int Emerg Nurs2021; 54: 100941.
2.
YaoMFangYTangWZhouJ. Study on safety behaviour planning theory and control strategies for coal chemical workers. Saf Sci2020; 128: 104726.
3.
XueYFanYXieX. Relation between senior managers’ safety leadership and safety behaviour in the Chinese petrochemical industry. J Loss Prev Process Industries2020; 65: 104142.
4.
WangBWuC. Safety culture development, research, and implementation in China: an overview. Prog Nucl Energ2019; 110: 289–300.
5.
WangYXiaLPanJZongH. Application of factor restructuring analysis in enterprise safety culture evaluation. Phys Proced2012; 24: 1642–1648.
6.
MerigóJMMirandaJModakNMBoustrasGSottaC. Forty years of safety science: a bibliometric overview. Saf Sci2019; 115: 66–88.
7.
Al-HemoudAGenaidyAShellRGunnMDShoafC. Towards a model of safety climate measurement. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2004; 10(4): 303–318.
8.
ParkJJeongBChaeY. Machine learning algorithms for predicting occupants’ behaviour in the manual control of windows for cross-ventilation in homes. Indoor Built Environ. Online First, epubl ahead of print 3 June, 2020, DOI: 10.1177/1420326X20927070
9.
BunkerABärnighausenTWoodwardABullenC. Housing structure and occupant behaviour to increase the environmental and health co-benefits of housing: insights from expert interviews in New Zealand. Indoor Built Environ2020; 30(4): 535–553.
10.
KhoshbakhtMBairdGRasheedEO. The influence of work group size and space sharing on the perceived productivity, overall comfort and health of occupants in commercial and academic buildings. Indoor Built Environ2020; 30(5): 692–710.
ZengMWangSDuanJSunJZhongPZhangY. Review of nuclear power development in China: environment analysis, historical stages, development status, problems and countermeasures. Renew Sustainable Energ Rev2016; 59: 1369–1383.
13.
MartinPGTomkinsonNGScottTB. The future of nuclear security: commitments and actions-power generation and stewardship in the 21st century. Energy Policy2017; 110: 325–330.
14.
TrajanoJCI. A policy analysis of nuclear safety culture and security culture in East Asia: examining best practices and challenges. Nucl Eng Technol2019; 51(6): 1696–1707.
15.
ZhaoYCaoYShiXLiHShiQZhangZ. How China’s electricity generation sector can achieve its carbon intensity reduction targets?Sci Total Environ2020; 706: 135689.
16.
PetersonHT. Summary report on the post-accident review meeting on the Chernobyl accident: International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-1 (STI/PUB/ 740), Vienna, IAEA, 1986. 260 Austrian Schillings. J Environ Radioactivity1987; 5(5): 403–404.
17.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). The 1986 Chornobyl nuclear power plant accident, https://www.iaea.org/topics/chornobyl (accessed 6 August 2021).
WarrenJHJr. Safety culture monitoring: A management approach for assessing nuclear safety culture health performance utilizing multiple-criteria decision analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. Norfolk, Virginia: Old Dominion University, 2015.
20.
WertJ. Organizational and nuclear safety culture. Paper presented at the American Nuclear Society, Washington, D.C, 2003.
21.
WilpertBItoigawaN (eds). Safety culture in nuclear power operations. London, England: Taylor & Francis, 2001.
22.
CorcoranWR. Safety culture: Back to the basics. In: 2007 IEEE 8th Human Factors and Power Plants and HPRCT 13 Annual Meeting. Monterey: California, 26-31 August 2007, pp. 218–224. DOI: 10.1109/HFPP.4413209
23.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Key Practical Issues in Strengthening Safety Culture. Report INSAG-15. Vienna: Austria: IAEA, 2002.
24.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Human Performance Reference Manual. Report INPO 06-003. Atlanta, GA: INPO, 2006.
25.
PerinC. Shouldering risks: The culture of control in the nuclear power industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
26.
ChiuCYMorrisMWHongYYMenonT. Motivated cultural cognition: the impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. J Pers Soc Psychol2000; 78(2): 247–259.
27.
BreugelmansS. The relationship between individual and culture. In: Van de VijverFChasiotisABreugelmansS (eds) Fundamental Questions in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011, pp. 135–162.
28.
MorrowSLKovesGKBarnesVE. Exploring the relationship between safety culture and safety performance in U.S. nuclear power operations. Saf Sci2014; 69: 37–47.
29.
BerglundJ. After Fukushima: safety culture and fostering critical thinking. Saf Sci2020; 124: 104613.
30.
SchulmanPR. Organizational structure and safety culture: conceptual and practical challenges. Saf Sci2020; 126: 104669.
31.
AvnetMS. A network-based approach to organizational culture and learning in system safety. Proced Comput Sci2015; 44: 588–598.
32.
KangLWuCLiaoXWangB. Safety performance and technology heterogeneity in China’s provincial construction industry. Saf Sci2020; 121: 83–92.
33.
KangLWuC. Evaluating the safety performance of China’s provincial construction industries from 2009 to 2017. J Civil Eng Manage2020; 26(5): 435–446.
34.
CooperMD. The safety culture constructtheory and practice. In: GilbertCJournéBLarocheH. (eds) Safety cultures, safety models springer briefs in applied sciences and technology. Cham: Springer; 2018.
35.
ZhangLLiuJZouY. Framework of performance shaping factors for human reliability analysis of digitized nuclear power plants. In: LongSDhillonB.S. (eds) Man-machine-environment system engineering. MMESE 2020 lecture notes in electrical engineering. Singapore: Springer; 2020, p. 645.
36.
BudnitzRJRognerHHShihab-EldinA. Expansion of nuclear power technology to new countries - SMRs, safety culture issues, and the need for an improved international safety regime. Energy Policy2018; 119: 535–544.
37.
WilliamsLG. Overview of International nuclear safety regulation and licensing. In: GreenspanE (ed) Encyclopedia of nuclear energy. Elsevier, 2021, pp. 188–206.
38.
LomonacoGMainardiEMarkovaTMazziniG. Approaching nuclear safety culture in fission and fusion technology. Appl Sci2021; 11: 4511, doi:10.3390/app11104511, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104511.
39.
AntariksawanARKhairulKUmbaraHKristutiEPurnomoB. Conducting nuclear security culture self assessments in nuclear research facilities using the IAEA methodology. Int J Nucl Security2018; 4(1): 1–13.
40.
ScheinEH. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed.New York: The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series Wiley, 2004.
41.
TsaiY. Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Serv Res2011; 11: 98.
42.
AllanGA. Enterprise culture–its meaning and implications for education and training. J Eur Ind Train1987; 11(2): 2–38.
43.
RatilainenHSalminenSZwetslootGPerttulaPStarrenASteijnWPahkinKDrupsteenLPuroVRäsänenTAaltonenMBerkersFKalakoskiV. Kalakoski V l, The value of safety and safety as a value. SAF€RA Technical Report 573259. Helsinki: Safera, 2016, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.15582.84805.
44.
International Atomic Energy Agency. The chernobyl accident: updating of INSAG-1. INSAG-7: A report by the International nuclear safety advisory group. Vienna, 1992.
45.
ArnettDBWittmannCMHansenJD. A process model of tacit knowledge transfer between sales and marketing. Ind Marketing Manage2021; 93: 259–269.
46.
ZhaoYWangGBaoZPanQ. A game between enterprise and employees about the tacit knowledge transfer and sharing. Phys Proced2012; 24: 1789–1795.
47.
MohajanHK. Sharing of tacit knowledge in organizations: a review. Am J Comput Sci Eng2016; 3(2): 6–19.
