Advertisement

Knowledge Transfer to Industry from HAMMLAB Related Research Activities

  • Thorbjørn J. Bjørlo
Conference paper

Abstract

The research within the Man, Technology, Organisation (MTO)-area of the Halden Project has from its start as the computer-control programme in 1967 had strong links to nuclear and non-nuclear industry. The research and development work in the HRP research programme has been directed by the needs expressed by the member organisations, and one major goal has consistently been to transfer the knowledge gained through the HRP research programme to industry in the member countries. An important mechanism for achieving this goal has been the so-called bilateral programme. The Halden agreement gives individual members of the HRP the right to engage Halden staff and utilize the infrastructure at Halden for research assignments of particular interest for the individual members. These research assignments are referred to as the bilateral programme and are carried out by Institutt for energiteknikk (IFE), Halden, the Norwegian signatory to and operator of the Halden Project. The bilateral programme has proved to be a most effective means for transferring the findings and developments within the HRP research programme to practical industrial applications in nuclear and non-nuclear industry. This chapter provides an overview of the driving forces that shaped the research programmes in the MTO-area and the resulting transfer of knowledge and practical applications to the industry from these programmes. The development of the industrial engagement is mostly presented in a chronological manner, connected to the development of the MTO part of the HRP research programmes and the HAMMLAB facilities.

Keywords

Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Alarm System Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operator Support System 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks are given to Andreas Bye for contribution on the integrated system validation work and the impact of the extended teamwork study on the integrated operations work.

References

  1. Aase K, Skjerve AB, Rosness R (2005) Why good luck has a reason: mindful practices in offshore oil and gas drilling. In: Paper presented at the 6th international conference on organizational learning and knowledge, OLK6, The Passion for Learning and Knowing, University of Trento, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Advanced plant operation by displayed information and automation (A-PODIA). http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/business/reactor/pdf/a-podia.pdf
  3. Baker S, Marshall E, Reiersen C, Smith L, Gaudio PJ Jr (1988) The experimental evaluation of the success path monitoring system–results and conclusions (HWR-224). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  4. Balzard SC, Gibby SK (1997) Implementation of the core surveillance system SCORPIO at Duke Power Company. ANS topical meeting on advances in nuclear fuel management II. Myrtle Beach, South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  5. Barmsnes KA, Hornæs A, Jakobsen Ø, Storkås R (1991a) Picasso-3 functional specification (HWR-278). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  6. Barmsnes KA, Hornæs A, Jakobsen Ø, Storkås R (1991b) Picasso-3 system design (HWR-288). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg Ø, Bodal T, Porsmyr J, Ådlandsvik KA (1997) SCORPIO—core monitoring system for PWRs. operational experiences and new developments, ANS topical meeting on advances in nuclear fuel management II. Myrtle Beach, South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  8. Berglund L, Fantoni P, Kaarstad M, Lindström M, Meyer G, Olsén J, Sørenssen A (1995) The use of CAMS during a safety exercise at the Swedish nuclear inspectorate (HWR-423). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  9. Bisio R, Hulsund JE, Nilsen S (2001) COPMA-III: a tool for developing effective computerized procedure systems (HWR-644). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjørlo TJ, Grumbach R, Josefsson R, Solberg KO (1970) Digital control of the Halden boiling water reactor by a concept based on modern control theory. Nucl Sci Eng 39:231–240Google Scholar
  11. Bjørlo TJ, Carlsen H, Kristing K (1982) Simulator for platform A of North Sea Block 34/10. In: Paper at the annual meeting of the Scandinavian simulation society (SIMS 82), Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Braarud PØ, Skraaning G (2006) Insights from a benchmark integrated system validation of a modernized NPP control room: performance measurements and the comparison to the benchmark system (IFE/HR/E-2006/029). American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Controls, and Human Machine Interface Technology, 5, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  13. Braarud PØ, Skraaning Jr G (2007) Insights from benchmark integrated system validation of a modernized NPP control room: performance measurement and the comparison to the benchmark (HPR-367 Paper C1.10, vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  14. Braseth et al (2008) Icon for a display screen of an industrial control system. United States Patent D569,870Google Scholar
  15. Drøivoldsmo A, Reigstad M, Shimoda H, Louka MN, Helgar S, Gustavsen M, Nystad E (2002a) Use of radiation maps in augmented reality (HWR-717). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  16. Drøivoldsmo A, Johnsen T, Louka MN, Reigstad M (2002b) Using wearable equipment for an augmented presentation of radiation. In: Paper presented at the EPRI wireless conference, Orlando, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Drøivoldsmo A, Kvamme JL, Nystad E, Lunde-Hanssen LS, Larsen R, Berge-Leversen T (2007) Integrated operations and insights on functional analysis techniques. In: Proceedings of HRP research 8th IEEE conference on human factors and power plants and 13th annual conference on human performance/root cause/training/operating experience/self assessment, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Fantoni PF, Figedy S, Racz A (1998) PEANO, a toolbox for real-time process signal validation and estimation (HWR-515). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  19. Green M, Hornæs A, Hulsund JE, Vegh J, Cs Major, Lipcsei S, Borbély S (2001) Usability studies of the plant safety monitoring and assessment system, PLASMA (HWR-645). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunnarsson T, Farbrot JE (2004) The control room upgrade in the Oskarshamn 1 Modernisation Project (HPR-363 Paper C2.1, vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallbert B, Sebok A, Morisseau D (2000) A study of control room staffing levels for advanced reactors. NUREG/IA-0137. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Harmon DL (1984) Critical function monitoring system algorithm development. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 31(1):862–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harmon DL (1992) Nuplex 80+: an evolutionary approach to meeting ALWR requirements. Conference Record for 1992 IEEE Fifth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, pp 31–38, ISBN 0-7803-0888-3Google Scholar
  24. Harmon DL, Starr TM (1992) Alarm and status processing and display in the Nuplex 80+ advanced control complex. Conference Record for 1992 IEEE Fifth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, pp 332–337, ISBN 0-7803-0888-3Google Scholar
  25. Haugset K, Jørgensen US, van Nes J, Solie ÅS (1980) The core surveillance system SCORPIO: motivation and project status (HPR-255). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  26. Haukenes H, Veland Ø, Seim LÅ, Førdestrømmen NT (2001) Petro-HAMMLAB overview displays: design–design rationale, experiences (HPR-357 Paper C2.16). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  27. Hol JØ, Øhra G (1980) Development of guidelines and recommendations for colour display based information presentation systems (HPR-263). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollnagel E, Hunt G, Marshall E (1984) The experimental validation of the critical function monitoring system. Executive summary (HPR-312). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmström CBO, Jacobsson L, Henriksson M (1993) Validation of the post-trip disturbance analysis system SAS II at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Sweden (HWR-329). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  30. Holst B, Nystad E (2007) Oil & gas offshore/onshore integrated operations—introducing the Brage 2010+ project. In: Proceedings of HRP research 8th IEEE conference on human factors and power plants and 13th annual conference on human performance/root cause/training/operating experience/self assessment, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. Hornæs A, Pettersen F, Pettersen G, Storkås R (1990) Picasso—An advanced graphic user interface management system for real-time applications (HWR-271). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  32. Hulsund JE, Jung Y, Nilsen S (1999) COPMA-III-Intelligent handling of existing procedures (HWR-579). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  33. Iguchi Y, Rindahl G (2002) An application of virtual reality technology to a nuclear decommissioning process (HPR-358 Paper C5.7, vol 2). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  34. Ionov A (2007) Experience from the Kola Nuclear Power Plant Safety Improvement Program which has been carried out under Assistance of the Government of Norway (HPR-367 Paper C5.13). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  35. Karlsson T, Meyer BD, Jokstad H, Farbrot JE, Hulsund JE (2002) The alarm system for the HAMBO BWR simulator (HWR-702). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  36. Kemeny JG, (Chairman) (1979) President’s commission: the need for change: the legacy of TMI. US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  37. Lebedev V, Mitrofanov S, Slonimsky V, Aliev A, Borsky Y, Malkin S, Rakitin I, Schukin A, Gramotkin I, Bilik A, Medintsov V, Kuchynsky V, Illichov A, Bratteli J, Edvardsen ST, Johnsen T, Louka M, Mark NK, Meyer G, Rekvin S, Øwre F (2007) VR technology used in planning, training, and presentation of operations, maintenance and decommissioning at ChNPP and LNPP RBMKs (HPR-367, Paper C3.3, vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  38. Lund PC, Mathisen KW, Nedrelid O, Slora BR (1996) MOCOM-odel-based condition monitoring system for plant maintenance optimisation (HWR-463). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  39. Marshall E, Hollnagel E, Tuominen L (1983) The experimental validation of the critical function monitoring system. The training programme (HPR-303). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  40. Nystad E, Sebok A, Meyer G (2004) Validation of radiation dose estimation in VRdose: comparing estimated radiation doses with observed radiation doses (HWR-735). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  41. Nystad E, Olsen A, Pirus D (2006) A test of wearable computer equipment for process plant personnel (HWR-802). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  42. O'Hara J, Stubler W, Higgins J, Brown W (1995) Integrated system validation: methodology and review criteria. NUREG/CR-6393. US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Hara JM, Higgins JC, Persensky JJ, Lewis PM, Bongarra JP (2004) Human factors engineering program review model (NUREG-0711, Revision 2). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Feb. 2004Google Scholar
  44. Pettersen F, Olsen T (1977) Considerations for design of a modular operator communication module (HPR-214 Paper no. 4). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  45. Porsmyr J, Bjørlo TJ, Hansen KT, Pytkin Y, Antufiev V, Iazikov M, Kautto A, Manninen T, Rinttilä E, Larsen E (2001) Kola SPDS—a safety parameter display system for the Kola Nuclear Power Plant (HPR-357 Paper 32)Google Scholar
  46. Porsmyr J, Bjørlo TJ, Hansen KT, Netchaev S, Pytkin Y, Panin S (2005) The safety parameter display system (SPDS) at Kola NPP: integration with the full-scope simulator and plans for training the plant personnel (HPR-365 Paper C2.12, vol 1)Google Scholar
  47. Randem HO, Jokstad H, Linden T, Kvilesjø HØ, Rekvin S, Hornæs A (2005) ProcSee–the picasso successor (HWR-799). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  48. Rindahl G et al (2002) Virtual reality technology and nuclear decommissioning. In: Proceeding of the international conference on safe decommissioning for nuclear activities, IAEA, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  49. Roverso D (1998) Aladdin: a neural model for event classification in dynamic processes (HWR-516). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  50. Skjerve AB (2008) The use of mindful safety practices at Norwegian petroleum installations. Saf Sci 46:1002–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skjerve AB, Ludvigsen J, Neset T (2002) Identification of qualifications for Train-Dispatcher Trainees. Chapter in the Book: Human Factors in Transportation, Communication, Health, and the Workplace, Shaker Publishing, ISBN 90-423-0206-2Google Scholar
  52. Skjerve ABM, Rosness R, Aase K, Hauge S, Hovden J (2004) Human and organizational contributions to safety defences in offshore oil production. In: Spitzer C, Schmocker U, Dang VN (eds) Probabilistic safety assessment and management, vol 4. Springer-Verlag, Gateshead, pp 2060–2066Google Scholar
  53. Skjerve ABM, Strand S, Skraaning G Jr, Nihlwing C (2005) The extended teamwork 2004/2005 exploratory study. Preliminary results (HWR-812). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  54. Skjerve ABM, Nihlwing C, Nystad E (2008) Lessons learned from the extended teamwork study (HWR-867). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  55. Slonimsky V, Mitrofanov S, Razumov I, Lebedev V, Aliev A, Rakitin I, Borsky Y, Kalinin D, Schukin A, Privalova D, Lyalyueva S, Bratteli J, Johnsen T, Mark NK, Øwre F, Olsen A, Louka M (2005) Simulator and procedure training system based on VR used in safety critical training at Russian NPPs (HPR-365, Paper C1.9, vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  56. Stokke E (1981) New experimental control room test facility (HPR-282). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  57. Stokke E, Pettersen F (1983) NORS—the full scope research simulator (HPR-301). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  58. Stokke R, Augustin J, Falmyr O (1980) Simulation facility for operator performance experiments (HPR-256). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  59. Stokke E, Solie ÅS, Sundling CV, Pehrsen M, Kristiansen P, Leikkonen I (1987) Oseberg training simulator (HWR-214). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  60. Sunde S, Banati J, García R, Carrasco JA, Fernandez Illobre L (2002) Progress in monitoring and optimisation of thermal performance—TEMPO (HWR-688). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  61. Sundling CV, Arnesen K (1985) CAMPS—computer system applying microprocessor structures for process presentation and control (HWR-146). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  62. Svengren H, Meyer BD (2005) Outage information system (HWR-794). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  63. Veland Ø, Kaarstad M, Seim LÅ, Førdestrømmen NT (2001) Useful and usable alarm systems: recommended properties (HWR-679). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  64. Welch R, Braseth AO, Veland Ø (2004) Information rich display design (HPR-363, Paper C2.6, vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  65. Øwre F, Nilsen S, Meyer BD (1991) Experience gained from developing the SAS II system for Forsmark Unit 2 (HWR-283). OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OECD Halden Reactor ProjectInstitutt for EnergiteknikkHaldenNorway

Personalised recommendations