Computerized Procedures

  • Svein Nilsen
  • Yeong Cheol Shin
Conference paper


Already in the beginning of the 1980s the HRP drafted their first program proposal to study the application of computers for procedure implementation. At that time, very few utilities (if any) disposed of such operation support tools and computerized procedures were mostly uncovered ground both technically and with respect to their habituation in power plant operation. Over the years, several tools were developed by the HRP based on vanguard software implementation tools. This chapter gives a historical outlook on how these tools have been used, it describes three concrete HAMMLAB studies on computerized procedure topics investigated in HAMMLAB, and it finally describes related studies on computerized procedures done in Korea.


Computerize Procedure Situation Awareness Procedure Automation Procedure System Mental Workload 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Advanced Reactor Research Plan, Revision 1 (2002) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen G, Svengren H, Heimdal JO, Nilsen S, Hulsund JE, Bisio R, Debroise X (2004) Procedure automation: the effect of automated procedure execution on situation awareness and human performance (HWR-759). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  3. Converse S (1995) Evaluation of the computerised procedure manual II (COPMA II) (NUREG/CR-6398). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Endsley MR, Kaber DB (1999) Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42:462–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Endsley MR, Kiris EO (1995) The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors 37:381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hornæs A, Hulsund JE, Végh J, Major C, Horváth C, Lipcsei S, Kapocs G (2001) The EOP visualization module integrated into the PLASMA on-line nuclear power plant safety monitoring and assessment system, nuclear technology, vol 135, AugustGoogle Scholar
  7. Lipner M (1994) Computerized procedures system for emergency procedure execution monitoring. International atomic energy agency technical committee meeting on advanced control and instrumentation systems in nuclear power plants: design. Verification and Validation, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  8. Lipner M, Orendi G (1992) Issues involved with computerizing emergency operating procedures. American Nuclear Society AI91: Frontiers in Innovative Computing for the Nuclear Industry, Jackson, WyomingGoogle Scholar
  9. Nelson WR, Førdestrømmen NT, Holmstrøm CBO, Krogsæter M, Kårstad T, Tunold O (1990) Experimental evaluation of the computerised procedure system COPMA (HWR-277). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Hara J, Higgins J, Stubler W, Kramer J (2000) Computer-based procedure systems: technical basis and human factors review guidance (NUREG/CR-6634). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Pirus D (2002) Computerised operation using formal plant functional breakdown. Proceedings of the enlarged Halden programme group meeting (HPR-358 vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  12. Strand S, Svengren H, Nihlwing C, Kristiansen LI, Andresen G, Meyer B (2007) Task-based displays—prototype extensions and the second user test (HWR-841). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  13. Tasset D (1997) N4 series: assessment of safety of human factor aspects in the computerised control room. Institute for Protection and Nuclear Safety IPSN. Paper presented at the “Human Factor” study days organised by the French nuclear energy society on 3 and 4 December 1997 in ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Tasset D, Labarthe JP (2004) The impact on safety of computerized control room in nuclear power plants: the French experience on human factors with N4 series. In: Proceedings of the HFES 48th annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  15. Végh J, Major Cs, Lipcsei S, Horváth Cs, Hornæs A, Hulsund JE, Kapocs G, Eiler J (2001) Experiences with the PLASMA on-line nuclear power plant safety status monitoring system (HPR-357). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  16. Woods DD (1996) Decomposing automation: apparent simplicity, real complexity. In: Parasuraman R, Moulola M (eds) Automation technology and human performance, ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OECD Halden Reactor ProjectInstitutt for EnergiteknikkHaldenNorway
  2. 2.Nuclear Engineering and Technology Institute, Korea Hydro and Nuclear PowerDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations