Development of Behavior Markers for Emergency Response Training

  • Masaru HikonoEmail author
  • Yuko Matsui
  • Mari Iwasaki
  • Miduho Morita
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)


Regarding the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, various reports have stated that many human factor-related challenges were involved in the emergency response at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In consideration of this, we developed an emergency response exercise curriculum (taikan exercise) for site leaders that can be completed quickly on-site. This exercise requires players to react in real time to various interruptions made by controllers. Since the players’ behaviors cannot be observed in real time from outside, however, observers must replay hours of video recordings, so the results usually cannot be reviewed immediately after the exercise.

Therefore, this study aimed to develop behavior markers that can be easily observed in real time from outside. Four researchers (including one with on-site work experience) watched videos of the exercise (same scenario) conducted by eight teams and wrote down the players’ behaviors which they recognized as good non-technical skills (NTSs). The recorded behaviors were organized by the four researchers and the extracted behavior markers were grouped into six categories. Lower-level items (elements) of each category were also indicated. From results of a previous study it was argued that behavior observation and evaluation by observers has several constraints, but developing markers tailored to the workplace under such constraints would enable the provision of tools for better observation. In the future for improvement, the identified behavior markers will need to be tested in actual emergency exercises.


Emergency training Behavior markers Non-technical skills 


  1. 1.
    Frischknecht A (2005) A changing world: challenges to nuclear operators and regulators. In: Itoigawa N, Wilpert B, Fahlbruch B (eds) Emerging demands for the safety of nuclear power operations - challenge and response. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 5–15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (2012) Final report. Media land, Tokyo. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    TEPCO (2012) Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report.
  4. 4.
    Atomic Energy Society of Japan (2014) Investigation committee on the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP final report. Maruzen, Tokyo. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (2011) INPO 11-005 special report on the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power StationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukui-Shinbun Co., Ltd. (2016) Has the safety of the power plant increased? Fukui-Shinbun, 19 January 2016 morning edition, p 1. (in Japanese)
  7. 7.
    Hikono M, Sakuda H, Matsui Y, Goto M, Kanayama M (2016) Learning non-technical skill lessons from testimony given in the investigation of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations. J Inst Nucl Saf Syst 23:153–159. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabinet Secretariat (2014) Interview records of the investigation committee on the accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations. (in Japanese)
  9. 9.
    Flin R, O’Connor P, Crichton M (2008) Safety at the sharp end. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Workshop of table-top exercise (2011) Guidebook of the table-top exercise. Naigai Publishing Co. Ltd., Tokyo. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hikono M, Matsui Y, Kanayama M (2017) Development of emergency response training program for on-site commanders (1). In: Proceedings of international congress on advances in nuclear power plants: 17382 (CDROM)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matsui Y, Hikono M, Iwasaki M, Morita M (2017) Development of emergency response training program for on-site commanders (2). In: Proceedings of international congress on advances in nuclear power plants: 17437 (CDROM)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flin R (2010) Chapter 6 - CRM (non-technical) skills - applications for and beyond the flight deck. In: Kanki BG, Helmreich RL, Anca J (eds) Crew resource management, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 181–202.
  14. 14.
    Madigan R, Golightly D, Madders R (2015) Rail industry requirements around non-technical skills. In: Sharples S, Shorrock S, Waterson P (eds) Contemporary ergonomics and human factors. International conference on ergonomics & human factors 2015. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Daventry, pp 474–481Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yim HB, Kim AR, Seong PH (2013) Development of a quantitative evaluation method for non-technical skills preparedness of operation teams in nuclear power plants to deal with emergency conditions. Nucl Eng Des 255:212–225.
  16. 16.
    Bracco F, Masini M, Tonetti GD, Brogioni F, Amidani A, Monichino S, Maltoni A, Dato A, Grattarola C, Cordone M, Torre G, Launo C, Chiorri1 C, Celleno D (2017) Adaptation of non-technical skills behavioural markers for delivery room simulation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17:89.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc.MihamaJapan
  2. 2.Inter Quest Inc.KyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations