Abstract:

To try and compensate margin loss due to increased regulatory pressure, nuclear industry has massively turned towards Lean. However, Lean is highly contested in the field, as a polar opposite to nuclear safety. Our thesis first showed that the oppositions are not between doctrines of Lean and nuclear safety, but between practical implementations: Lean turning away from industrial excellence to focus exclusively on human or economic resource cuts while nuclear safety focuses mainly on human and technical means. We carried out a qualitative analysis of recent nuclear safety authorities’ demands, and a first quantitative cost assessment of these demands; this analysis shows a recent drift in France’s nuclear safety, from a ‘’proportionate’’ vision, which considers human operators as an asset, to favor a strict inflation of resources and technical barriers. Our work then concretely analyzed the implementation of Lean in all industrial sectors of La Hague plant. Via guided interviews and quantified data, it was possible to compare the cross influence of the two approaches (safety and performance), as well as their acceptance and dissemination within field teams. This study has shown that the two approaches are indeed compatible as long as they are applied by qualified and trained teams to whom management gives meaning and a real awareness of safety risks. It also shows that safety design margins are an important prerequisite for any ulterior Lean success. Finally, we have illustrated, with two case studies, how to apply such a Lean approach not only to obtain tangible safety and economic gains, but also to gain the consent of the Safety Authority by entering into a virtuous circle – trust/new deployments/success/trust.

Jury members:

Keywords: Lean, Industrial Performance, Nuclear Safety, Independant Administrative Authorities, Risk Management, Project Management