Matjaž Koželj Jožef Stefan Institute
Jamova cesta 39 SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
matjaz.kozelj@ijs.si Vesna Slapar Borišek
Jožef Stefan Institute Jamova cesta 39 SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
vesna.slapar-borisek@ijs.si
ABSTRACT
The term “safety culture” has been in use since the Chernobyl accident. It has been defined and discussed in several IAEA documents related to the safety of nuclear power plants.
The importance of safety culture for general safety, and radiation safety in particular, is understandable to all people involved in operation of nuclear facilities.
Penetration of safety culture into other (non-nuclear) radiation practices and facilities has not been fast or simple. It seems that the radiation protection community has problem with the identification of fundamental elements of safety culture important for radiation safety and methods for improvement. In this contribution, we have tried to explain what safety culture is, and what is radiation protection culture, a term used and recommended by IRPA. We have also listed methods for the improvement of radiation protection culture, and the matrix of traits of positive radiation protection culture. The evolution of radiation protection culture in a specific organisation could be described with stages, which are the result of significant progress in safety.
A common characteristic of organisations outside the nuclear and medical sectors is that they do not have “in-house” expertise about radiation protection. They are dissimilar in many aspects, also in existing safety infrastructure and preparedness to adopt safety culture. For establishing a sound radiation protection culture in this type of organisations, it is important to have a good regulatory infrastructure with clarifying and supporting documents. Support of qualified experts and well-trained and skilled radiation protection officers (in Slovenia: persons responsible for radiation protection) is essential. In Slovenia, the problems obstructing the introduction of radiation protection culture into the general sector are the limited number of qualified experts and non-existent specific training for persons responsible for radiation protection.
1 INTRODUCTION
Use of the term “safety culture” is common among people involved in nuclear technology.
It is a non-technical term that, according to the current IAEA definition [1], describes “The
assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding priority, protection and safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.” The term has been in use for almost three decades now and has deeply penetrated minds and behaviour of people in the nuclear community.
“Safety culture” was introduced in one of the IAEA documents related to an analysis of the Chernobyl accident (the document was published in the year 1986 as INSAG-1 [2]). The term was later expanded in document INSAG-3 related to safety principles for nuclear plants [3]. At the time, it was clear that safety culture is extremely important for nuclear safety, but the meaning of the term was still open to interpretation, and guidance was lacking on how safety culture should be assessed. Therefore, in the year 1991, a special document focused on safety culture INSAG-4 has been prepared to clarify the concept of safety culture in relation to organisations and individuals engaged in nuclear power activities, and to give basis for the judging of safety culture and possibilities for potential improvements [4]. It was probably the first attempt to define what safety culture is and to explain it in practical language.
In the following years, safety culture was discussed in more IAEA documents related to nuclear safety. In the recent IAEA documents safety culture has been addressed as a part of the leadership and management system (Leadership and management for safety, IAEA GSR Part 2 [5]) and requirements for emergency preparedness and response. There is a special safety requirement in IAEA GSR Part 2 for fostering culture for safety for all individuals and that the management system and leadership for safety shall be such as to foster and sustain a strong safety culture.
Implementation of safety culture in nuclear facilities is supported by general and dedicated procedures and involvement of all services and departments. Consequently, safety culture has also influenced radiation protection implementation and practice and has become one of the important keystones of radiation safety in nuclear facilities. Safety culture has been also stated as one of the protection and safety elements of the management system in the current IAEA Basic Safety Standard [1] with the explicit requirement that creating necessary conditions for promoting safety culture is the responsibility of employers, registrants and licensees. In the previous IAEA basic safety standard from the year 1996, the focus was more on infrastructural aspects of safety culture development.
Due to the positive impact on radiation safety, one would expect that safety culture tools and approaches have also penetrated other (non-nuclear) radiation practices and facilities.
However, this holds only partially. For example, safety culture is not explicitly mentioned in the new Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM [6] . In the recent Slovenian Ionising Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act (ZVISJV-1) [7], there is a definition of safety culture and the term is used only in relation to the nuclear and radiation facility management system.
However, in the Rules on the obligations of the person carrying out a radiation practice and person possessing an ionizing radiation source (SV8) [8], care for the safety culture (and good condition of radiation protection) has been specified as one of the key duties of the person responsible for radiation protection.
2 WHAT IS SAFETY CULTURE 2.1 Meaning of the term
We have already given the definition of safety culture that is used (with slight modification) from the very beginning of the use of the term. To clarify the background, we
start from the definition of the term “culture” as can be found in Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus [9]: “The way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time.” In Business English part of the same dictionary, the definition is more workplace oriented: “The ideas and ways of working that are typical for an organization, and that affect how it does business and how its employees behave.”
As we can see, culture is not about physical background, infrastructure, equipment or papers; it is about people’s behaviour, attitudes and relations. In a certain organisation (e.g.
research, manufacturing, industry, service, or health care …) culture penetrates all areas:
management, technology, production, QA&QC, interaction with environment and public, R&D, security, as well as all aspects of safety. Therefore, culture “has many faces” and “speaks many languages” and it is not easy to identify the main elements and characteristics of culture and define criteria by which we can measure particular features.
Safety has also different aspects and meanings. In our context, we limit ourselves to the meaning that relates to radiation risk and thus “safety” means the protection of people and environment against radiation risks, and the safety of facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks [1]. Therefore, safety comprises normal industrial safety, nuclear safety, radiation safety, safety of radioactive waste management and safety in transport of radioactive material. Safety relates to radiation risks under normal operations and also to radiation risks related to incidents and accidents.
Finally, if we compare the definition of safety culture from the Introduction with our explanations, we can conclude that “safety culture” is in fact “culture for safety” or “culture that enhances safety”. That means, that ideas, ways of working and consequently the actions and behaviour of all employees must be appraised and valued against safety criteria and appropriate precautions (or actions) taken to prevent degradation of safety.
2.2 Safety culture vs. radiation protection culture
As we have seen, safety culture has comprehensive meaning and includes different aspects of safety that are characteristic mainly for organisations in nuclear sector. We have also seen that promoting and spreading safety culture was primarily a goal of nuclear-related official bodies and professional organisations.
For professionals in the nuclear sector the complexity of the safety culture background and interdependence of different types of safety is self-evident, but for professionals in other types of organisations (e.g. medical or research institutions, or NDT testing companies) this is not true. They have problems with identification of radiation safety background and balancing of radiation safety requirements with their specific safety requirements and problems. To avoid possible confusion and to support spreading of safety culture also in non-nuclear organisations, the International radiation protection association (IRPA) has prepared the document IRPA Guiding Principles for Establishing a Radiation Protection Culture [10] where the use of term
“radiation protection culture” is recommended instead of more general “safety culture”.
Many professional societies (and experts) have accepted this recommendation, but the expression “safety culture” is still in use, especially between professionals working in the nuclear sector. There is nothing wrong about that, as long as radiation protection culture is seen as the implementation of radiation protection principles inside the framework of safety culture and not some special or specific form of safety.
3 RADIATION PROTECTION CULTURE IMPROVEMENT
The position of IRPA is that embedding radiation protection at a cultural level within organisations is by far the most effective way of achieving the desired performance. In a certain organisation, the principal contributions to culture [10] come from three sources: (1) beliefs, values, and assumptions of the founders of an organization, (2) learning experiences of group members as the organization evolves, and (3) beliefs, values, and assumptions brought in by new members and leaders. Basic ways to impact radiation protection culture are following:
1. Strong leadership focusing on operational radiation protection culture, and modelling, reinforcing and coaching safety behaviours;
2. Educating and training the people involved in radiation protection applications;
3. Creating positive and total awareness about radiation protection at working places;
4. Establishing adequate and proper communication processes among all the people involved in radiation protection applications.
5. Learning from events, incidents and near misses is an important part of culture development.
Organisations and associations involved in development and dissemination of safety culture have identified certain individual and organisational traits that are present in a positive radiation protection culture. A trait is a pattern of thinking, feeling, and behaving that emphasizes safety, particularly in goal-conflicting situations, e.g., production versus safety, schedule versus safety, and cost versus safety. Matrix of traits of a positive safety culture are presented in Table 1. These traits are also considered traits of positive radiation protection culture.
Table 1: Matrix of traits of a positive safety / radiation safety culture [11]
Leadership Safety Values and Actions
Problem Identification and
Resolution Personal Accountability Leaders demonstrate a
commitment to safety in their decisions and behaviours.
Promptly and fully identify, evaluate, and correct safety issues commensurate with
significance.
Take personal responsibility for safety.
Work Processes Continuous Learning Environment for Raising Concerns
Plan, implement, and control work activities so that safety is
maintained.
Seek out opportunities to learn and implement ways to
ensure safety.
Encourage raising safety concerns without fear of retaliation, intimidation, harassment, or discrimination.
Effective Safety Communications
Respectful Work
Environment Questioning Attitude
Maintain a focus on safety. Permeate trust and respect through the organization.
Avoid complacency and continually challenge existing
conditions to identify discrepancies that might result in
inappropriate action.
4 EVOLUTION OF RADIATION PROTECTION CULTURE
There are several possible development stages of radiation protection culture. In general, three main developmental stages can be identified [10]:
Stage 1: Basic compliance system - safety training programs, work conditions, procedures and processes comply with regulations. This is passive compliance. For this stage, it is characteristic that safety is dependent on compliance, equipment design and engineering (technique).
Stage 2: Self-directed safety compliance system – workers ensure regulatory compliance and take personal responsibility for training and other regulatory provisions. This emphasizes active compliance with the regulations. This is an integral approach where competence management and certification are important, control procedures are used, and risk analysis and assessment of safety on systems level are involved.
Stage 3: Behavioural safety system – teaching individuals to scan for hazards, to focus on potential injuries and the safe behaviour(s) that can prevent them, and to act safely. This emphasizes inter-dependence amongst the workforce – looking after each other’s safety. In this stage, the key is (organisational) culture, which is based on personal leadership, responsibility, behaviour, norms, and beliefs.
The objective of any culture development program is to move the organizational and individual behaviours towards the highest stage. The result of this process will be decrease in exposure and number of incidents and accidents. We can see that in Stage 1 safety relies exclusively on external factors (engineered features and compliance with the external regulations) and requires the least amount of involvement and labour, but the results (e.g.
number of incidents/accidents) are modest. Higher stages require more work and involvement but results (e.g. developed procedures and safety culture) could be beneficial also for other aspects of operational safety in the organisation and could prove “not so expensive” and perhaps even cost effective.
5 RADIATION PROTECTION CULTURE IN PRACTICE
As we have mentioned at the beginning, safety culture was first introduced in the nuclear community and is used also for management of radiation safety in nuclear organisations. But radiation safety is not limited to nuclear organisations, and safety culture is not present in all organisations where radiation safety is required. In fact, many organisations outside the nuclear and medical sector use number of radiation sources for different purposes and for them radiation safety is of minor importance until something happen. Legal and operational requirements related to radiation safety can sometimes be, in their opinion, incommensurate with the benefits and present obstacle in their everyday struggle for survival and profit.
A common characteristic of all organisations outside the nuclear and medical sectors is that they do not have “in-house” expertise about radiation protection and have to rely on hired help. They can be divided in two broad groups: a) a general user sector (which we will discuss in more details) and b) a higher education and research sector.
The general user sector is extremely diverse in terms of radiation uses and size, complexity and safety competence of the organisations using radiation sources. Some of these organisations are focused on Quality Assurance (QA) that tends to be associated with a good safety culture, and some have significant amount of lone working with the management
challenges that it brings. Radiation uses in the general user sector are level and thickness gauging, moisture and density gauging, non-destructive testing, analytical X-ray devices (XRD, XRF), baggage and security inspections, tracers, irradiators etc. These uses could be found in construction, manufacturing, food and drink industries, research organisations, at security checkpoints at airports, courts, prisons, etc.
When it comes to safety culture, each organisation in the general user sector is different from others, even if they belong to the same type. Generally, organisations could be categorised as one of the following types:
− Well-established and effective safety infrastructure and culture to plug into;
− Safety structure and culture is there, but variable effectiveness: may rely on individuals rather than corporate driver;
− Organisation may not recognise benefits of having a safety culture: depends on the influence of a few enlightened people;
− Compliance with advice, but no real understanding or commitment;
− Compliance only in wording.
5.1 Factors influencing radiation safety culture in the general user sector
For organisations in the general user sector, good regulatory infrastructure is key to setting context in which safety culture can be developed and maintained. In some countries, supporting documents like Codes of Practice or Regulatory Guides are issued. In Slovenia, unfortunately, legislation is not supported with this type of documents and the interpretation is within the competencies of the authorities. Also important is regulatory presence in the form of inspections, advice and ultimately prosecution. It has been known that regular inspections have a positive effect on safety and management acceptance of radiation safety importance.
The second important factor are radiation protection experts who should normally support operational radiation protection in organisation. In Slovenia, we have authorised radiation protection experts, and their role is focussed on radiation protection assessment during the licencing process (a special document “Assessment of the radiation protection” is prepared and submitted to authorities), regular assessment of radiation conditions through personal dosimetry and, at least once per three years, with measurement of radiation conditions at workplace.
In the Assessment of the radiation protection the radiation conditions are evaluated, the doses during normal work and possible incidents or accidents estimated, requirements for protection stated and basic protection measures for use of sources are listed. Dose optimisation approach for the particular source should also be described, and possible incidents or accidents in the organisation described. Although this document is prepared for licencing purpose, it could be very useful for the management, radiation protection officers (in Slovenia persons responsible for radiation protection) and radiation workers since it could serve as a source of basic guidance for radiation protection culture and general safety development.
Unfortunately, the number of authorised radiation protection experts in Slovenia is small and there is a limited possibility for support during regular work and communication with the management. The person responsible for radiation protection should perform this role. The person is appointed by the management and, according to Slovenian legislation, shall ensure the implementation and planning of radiation protection measures and cooperate with the competent ministries in the matters of radiation protection. As we have already mentioned
previously, care for the safety culture (and good conditions of radiation protection) has been specified as one of the key duties of the person responsible for radiation protection. The list of tasks is added for clarification in [8], but the list contains regular tasks related to fulfilling legal requirements imposed by licence and relevant rules. Therefore, training and skills of persons responsible for radiation protection are crucial in getting things done at a practical level, and in fostering a radiation safety culture. They need to be proactive in engaging with the workforce and promoting good ways of working. Unfortunately, training of persons responsible for radiation protection has been recently limited to the basic training for radiation workers.
The workers actually using sources are clearly important and must have the opportunity to engage with the person responsible for radiation protection and management on maintaining and improving safety and efficiency, which is often interlinked. Ongoing attention should be given to the programmes of training and informing of all workers and to the internal systems of communication on safety.
Finally, we should be aware that the safety culture (and consequently radiation protection culture) is influenced also through interaction with other organisations and their safety culture.
These are users and clients, suppliers of equipment, maintenance personnel, peers from professional and industrial associations, and sometimes Trade Unions.
5.2 How to improve radiation safety culture in general sector
Improving radiation safety culture could prove extremely demanding if it is isolated from general safety culture. Therefore, the approach must be general, and must activate management and all workers, building a general safety culture. We have already listed general methods for improving radiation safety culture that are also effective in the general sector:
− Training and education of people involved in radiation practice;
− Creating positive and total awareness of radiation protection in workplaces, establishing adequate and effective communication process among all people involved and responsible for practice;
− Building capacity to learn from accidents/incidents, near misses and use it for continual improvement; and
− Learning from other sectors and industries.
Some of these methods could be built with “in-house” resources and knowledge, but not all. The process could be less time consuming and more effective if some outside help would be available. For example, support from experienced radiation protection experts (not necessary authorised!) could be beneficial if only the additional knowledge and skills related to safety culture would be available to them through some organised channel or personal exchange. This is where the involvement of professional radiation protection association would be beneficial, but unfortunately, the professional radiation association in Slovenia is not motivated for that activity at the moment.
The internet could be a source of relevant information for building and supporting radiation protection culture. Since all documents related to safety and radiation protection culture from IAEA, EC, IRPA and professional organisations are freely available, the problem could be a huge number of references. There is even accessible base on accidents and incidents (www.othea.net) founded by French organisation CEPN [12] and supported by a number of European professional organisations who have joint interest in sharing feedback and experience
from radiological incidents, in order to improve the protection of persons working with similar radiation sources. There are also other database available online.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The term “safety culture” has been extensively in use since the Chernobyl accident and has deeply penetrated the minds and behaviour of people in nuclear community.
In nuclear facilities, safety culture relates to different types of safety. Considering the complexity of these problems, it is a problem for professionals in other types of organisations to resolve and apply safety culture elements and methods related to radiation safety.
IRPA has recommended the use of “radiation protection culture” for safety culture elements related to radiation safety. Some confusion exists on this subject, and it should be clearly stated that radiation protection culture is not different from safety culture.
Key elements for radiation protection culture improvement are strong leadership, education and training, awareness about radiation protection, communication, and learning from the experience.
The three stages of evolution of radiation protection culture are: basic compliance, active compliance and culture.
Organisations outside the nuclear and medical sectors are different in many aspects. They don’t have “in house” expertise about radiation protection and have to rely on hired help.
Safety culture in the general sector is influenced by regulatory infrastructure and presence, radiation protection experts, and radiation protection officers. In Slovenia, the number of experts is too small to be directly involved in operational radiation protection, but the document “Assessment of radiation protection” is a very useful tool for safety culture development.
Persons responsible for radiation protection are key individuals for development and promotion of radiation protection culture in organisations. Therefore, training and skills of the persons are crucial in getting things done at a practical level.
Considering the limited possibility for training of persons responsible for radiation protection in Slovenia, it is to be expected that radiation protection culture in most organisations shall not be able to exceed stage 2 – active compliance.
REFERENCES
[1] EC, FAO, IAEA, ILO, OECD/NEA, PAHO, UNEP, WHO, Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards, Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3, IAEA, Vienna (2014).
[2] D. Infield, Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident: Safety Series No 75–INSAG–1, Phys. Bull., vol. 38, pp. 230–230, 1987.
[3] I. Nuclear Safety Advisory Group and I. Atomic Energy Agency, Basic safety principles for nuclear power plants, 75-INSAG-3, Rev. 1 / a report by International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, SERBIULA Sist. Libr. 20, 2018.
[4] IAEA, Safety Culture, A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group - SAFETY SERIES No. 75-INSAG-4, Vienna, 1991.
[5] IAEA, Leadership and Management for Safety - IAEA Safety Standards Series No.
GSR Part 2, Vienna 2016.
[6] Council Directive of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for
protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, Official Journal of the European Union L-13 of 17/01/2014.
[7] Ionising Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act (ZVISJV-1), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 76/2016.
[8] Rules on the obligations of the person carrying out a radiation practice and person possessing an ionizing radiation source, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 43/2018.
[9] Culture Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [Online]. Available:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture. [Accessed: 01-Sep-2018].
[10] International Radiation Protection Association, IRPA Guiding Principles for Establishing a Radiation Protection Culture [Online]. Available:
http://www.irpa.net/docs/IRPA%20Guiding%20Principles%20on%20RP%20Culture%
20(2014).pdf. [Accessed: 01-Sep-2018].
[11] Health Physics Society, Position Statement of the Health Physics Society PS026-0:
Radiation Safety Culture, Health Phys., vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 634–646, Feb. 2012.
[12] Home - CEPN. [Online]. Available: https://cepn.asso.fr/en/. [Accessed: 01-Sep-2018].
