CWA vs SWIFT in a nuclear decommissioning case study

Guy H Walker, Pauline Thompson, Mhairi Cooper

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

A requirement arose during decommissioning work at a UK Magnox Nuclear Power Station to identify the hazards involved in removing High Dose Rate Items from a Cartridge Cooling Pond. The power station has shifted from an operational phase in its life-cycle to a decommissioning phase, and as such the risks, and procedures to deal with them, have become more novel and uncertain. This raises an important question. Are the hazard identification methods that have proven useful in one phase of the system lifecycle just as useful in another, and if not, could CWA be useful? An opportunity arose at this site to put this question to a direct test. Two methods were used, one practitioner focussed and in widespread use during the plant’s operational phase (the Structured What-If method) the other was CWA. This Chapter presents the outcomes of applying both methods to a real-world hazard identification task and the views of practitioners having done so.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCognitive work analysis
Subtitle of host publicationApplications, extensions and future directions,
EditorsNeville Stanton, Paul Salmon, Guy Walker, Daniel Jenkins
PublisherCRC Press
Pages363-386
Number of pages24
ISBN (Print)9781472443922
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'CWA vs SWIFT in a nuclear decommissioning case study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Walker, G. H., Thompson, P., & Cooper, M. (Accepted/In press). CWA vs SWIFT in a nuclear decommissioning case study. In N. Stanton, P. Salmon, G. Walker, & D. Jenkins (Eds.), Cognitive work analysis: Applications, extensions and future directions, (pp. 363-386). CRC Press.