Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Human and organizational factors for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment: Identification and characterization for the Korean case

  • Received : 2018.03.21
  • Accepted : 2018.08.29
  • Published : 2019.02.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since the Fukushima Daiichi accident, there has been an emphasis on the risk resulting from multi-unit accidents. Human reliability analysis (HRA) is one of the important issues in multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment (MUPSA). Hence, there is a need to properly identify all the human and organizational factors relevant to a multi-unit incident scenario in a nuclear power plant (NPP). This study identifies and categorizes the human and organizational factors relevant to a multi-unit incident scenario of NPPs based on a review of relevant literature. These factors are then analyzed to ascertain all possible unit-to-unit interactions that need to be considered in the multi-unit HRA and the pattern of interactions. The human and organizational factors are classified into five categories: organization, work device, task, performance shaping factors, and environmental factors. The identification and classification of these factors will significantly contribute to the development of adequate strategies and guidelines for managing multi-unit accidents. This study is a necessary initial step in developing an effective HRA method for multiple NPP units in a site.

Keywords

References

  1. M. Modarres, T. Zhou, M. Massoud, Advances in multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 157 (2017) 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.005
  2. C.S. Kumar, V. Hassija, K. Velusamy, V. Balasubramaniyan, Integrated risk assessment for multi-unit NPP siteseA comparison, Nucl. Eng. Des. 293 (2015) 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.06.025
  3. International Nuclear Safety Group, A Framework for an Integrated Risk Informed Decision-making Process, INSAG-25, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, 2011.
  4. International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA report on human and organizational factors in nuclear safety in the light of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, in: International Experts Meeting 21-24 May 2013, Vienna, 2014.
  5. A. De Galizia, C. Duval, E. Serdet, P. Weber, C. Simon, B. Iung, Advanced Investigation of HRA methods for the probabilistic assessment of human barriers efficiency in complex systems for a given organizational and environmental context, in: Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, PSA 2015, April 2015, Sun Valley, USA, 2015.
  6. Operational Performance Information System for Nuclear Power Plants [Internet]. Available from: http://opis.kins.re.kr/opis?act=KEOPISMAIN (Accessed January 2018).
  7. S. St Germain, R. Boring, Multi-unit considerations for human reliability analysis, in: Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Topical Conference on Human Reliability, Munich, Germany, June 7-9, 2017.
  8. S. Schroer, M. Modarres, An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 117 (2013) 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.005
  9. M. Modarres, Multi-unit plant risks and implications of the quantitative health objectives, in: Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, PSA 2015, April 2015 Sun Valley, USA, 2015.
  10. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, in: Summary Report of International Workshop on Multi-unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment, CNSC, Ottawa, Canada, November 17-20, 2014.
  11. T.D.L. Duy, D. Vasseur, E. Serdet, Probabilistic Safety Assessment of twin-unit nuclear sites: methodological elements, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 (2016) 250-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.014
  12. Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, Radiation Emergency Plan, KHNP, 2015 [in Korean], Rev.3.
  13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities Final Report, 1981. NUREG-0696.
  14. Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, Wolsong Unit 1 Stress Test Final Report, KHNP, 2015 [in Korean].
  15. Nuclear Energy Institute, Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) Implementation Guide, 2012. NEI 12-06 Draft Rev.0.
  16. M.D. Muhlheim, R.T. Wood, Design Strategies and Evaluation for Sharing Systems at Multi-unit Plants Phase I, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007 (ORNL/LTR/INERI-BRAZIL/06-01).
  17. B. Kirwan, L.K. Ainsworth, A Guide to Task Analysis, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 1992 pp.408.
  18. KNS Fukushima Commission, Fukushima Daiichi Accident Analysis Final Report, Korea Nuclear Society, 2013.
  19. TEPCO, Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report, Tokyo Electric Power Company Inc., June 20, 2012.
  20. D.N. Hogg, K. Folleso, F.S. Volden, B. Torralba, SACRI: a Measure of Situation Awareness for use in the evaluation of nuclear power plant control room systems providing information about the current process state, in: Proceedings of the IAEA Specialist Meeting on Advanced Information Methods and Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Power Plants Control Rooms, Halden, Norway, 13-15 Sept, 1994, pp. 166-174.
  21. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, A Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, 1983. NUREG/CR-1278.
  22. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method, NUREG/CR-6883, 2005. INL/EXT-05-00509.
  23. S. Ewing, D. Mandelli, K. Savchenko, R.L. Boring, Determination of a generic human error probability distribution, Part 2: a Dynamic SPAR-H example application, in: Proceedings of the 2017 Summer American Nuclear Society Conference, San Francisco, United States, June 2017.
  24. B. Kirwan, A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 1994, pp. 215-222.
  25. B.S. Dhillon, Human Reliability, Error, and Human Factors in Power Generation, Springer, 2014.
  26. R.L. Boring, C.D. Griffith, J.C. Joe, The measure of human error: direct and indirect performance shaping factors, in: Proceedings of the Joint 8th IEEE HFPP/13th HPRCT Conference, 2007, pp. 170-176.
  27. D. Gertman, H. Blackman, J. Marble, The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method, U.S. NRC, 2005. NUREG/CR-6883.
  28. J.C. Williams, HEART - a proposed method for assessing and reducing human error, in: Ninth Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium, NEC, Birmingham, AEA technology, Culcheth, Warrington, June 1986.
  29. E. Hollnagel, Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method CREAM, Elsevier, 1998.
  30. B. Kirwan, The development of a nuclear chemical plant human reliability management approach: HRMS and JHEDI, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 56 (2) (1997) 107-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00006-9
  31. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Technical Basis and Implementation Guidelines for a Technique for Human Event Analysis, 2000. NUREG-1624, Rev.1.
  32. P.M. Salmon, N.A. Stanton, D. Ladva, D.P. Jenkins, G.H. Walker, L. Rafferty, Measuring Situation Awareness during Command and Control Activity: a Comparison of Measures Study, Human Factors Integration Defense Technology Centre, September 2007 (HFIDTC/2/1.2.5/3) Version 2/25.
  33. M.R. Endsley, Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems, Hum. Factors 37 (1) (1995) 32-64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

Cited by

  1. Inter-relationships between performance shaping factors for human reliability analysis of nuclear power plants vol.52, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.07.004
  2. Multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment: A comprehensive survey vol.213, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107782