Advertisement

An Unsafe Act Autodetection Methodology in Nuclear Power Plant Operations

  • Jeeyea Ahn
  • Jae Min Kim
  • Seung Jun Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 850)

Abstract

Nowadays, automation has been generalized with artificial intelligences in many areas. In nuclear power plants, some features which have simple logics in nuclear power plants such as reactor trip and engineered safety features (ESFs) actuation have been automated, whereas, other components have not been automated yet, so human operators are still necessary to control the reactor in emergency or abnormal situations. However, there exists a risk of human errors since human operators are involved in nuclear power operations. That is because, human error may contribute to the risk of severe accidents. To reduce those human errors, moreover, to draw to extend the portion of automation in nuclear power plants, a framework which automatically detects Unsafe Acts (UAs) which are occurred in advanced main control rooms of nuclear power plants has been introduced. Human operators are supposed to operate nuclear power plants by following operating procedures. However, in real operational situation, they violate operating procedures sometimes to achieve the goal (to keep the plant integrity) based on their own experiences and their know-hows. Critical safety functions (CSFs) can disentangle whether an operator’s action will adversely affect plant integrity. Thus, the UA autodetection system considers both procedure violation and CSFs violation to find out errors made by human operator.

Keywords

Unsafe act Autodetection Nuclear power plant operation 

References

  1. 1.
    Yang, C.-W., Yang, L.-C., Cheng, T.-C., Jou, Y.-T., Chiou, S.-W.: Assessing mental workload and situation awareness in the evaluation of computerized procedures in the main control room. Nuclear Eng. Des. 250, 713–719 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Min, D., Chun, Y.-H., Kim, B.: An evaluation of computerized procedure system in nuclear power plant. IFAC Proc. 34(16), 519–524 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. NRC: Technical Basis and Implementation Guidelines for a Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA), NUREG-1624 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    William, R.C., Nancy, J.P., James, F.C., Michael, T.C., Walter, M.G.: The critical safety functions and plant operation. Nuclear Technol. 55(3), 690–712 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.13182/nt81-a32814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. NRC: TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report, NUREG-0585 (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwqn, K.-C., Park, J.-C., Jung, C.-H., Lee, J.-S., Kim, J.-Y.: Compact nuclear simulator and its upgrade plan. Training simulators in nuclear power plants: experience, programme design and assessment methodology. In: Proceedings of a specialists’ meeting, p. 227. International Atomic Energy Agency (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, Y., Park, J., Jung, W.: A classification scheme of erroneous behaviors for human error probability estimations based on simulator data. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Safety 163, 1–13 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ulsan National Institute of Science and TechnologyUlsanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations