Advertisement

Simulator Data Collection Requirements for HRA Studies

  • Anthony J. Spurgin
  • Attila Bareith
  • Zoltan Karsa

Abstract

HRA studies have for long while depended on a combination of expert judgment estimates, Swain Handbook numbers and from accident reports, see [1] for a critique of HRA methods. Simulator data collection sessions have been carried world-wide [2], including the Electric Power Research Institute sponsored Operator Reliability Experiments [3], the simulator studies sponsored by the USNRC [4] and Electricité De France [5]. There has not been a total acceptance of the fact that simulator is the best approximation to the responses of operators during accident situations and the way to ensure that the HRA represents the actual crews responses to accidents. Training departments carryout a series of accident scenarios and these can be used for HRA purposes.

Keywords

Data Collection System Electric Power Research Institute Accident Scenario Human Reliability Total Acceptance 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Spurgin, A.J. and B.O.Y. Lydell, “Critique of Current HRA Methods,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE 7th Conference of Human Factors and Power Plants, September, Scottsdale, Arizona 2002,.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spurgin, A. J., “Developments in the Use of Simulators for Human Reliability and Human Factors Purposes,” IAEA Technical Committee Meeting on Advances in Reliability Analysis and Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Szentendre, Hungary, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spurgin, A.J. et al., “Operator Reliability Experiments using Power Plant Simulators, Vols. 1,2 &3. EPRI NP-6937, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kozinsky, E, J., et al., 1984, “Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions: Final Report,” NUREG/CR-3515, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Villemeur, A., et al, 1986, “A Simulator-Based Evaluation of Operator’s Behaviour by Electricite de France,” International Topical Meeting on Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems, Knoxville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spurgin, A.J., A.Bareith and P.Moieni, 1996, “Computerized Safety Improvement System for Nuclear Power Operator Training,” Joint SCIENTECH and VEIKI Report for Brookhaven Laboratory, NY.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bareith, A., et al, 1999, “Human Reliability Analysis and Human Factors Evaluation in Support of Safety Assessment and Improvement at the Paks NPP,” 4th International Exchange Forum: Safety Analysis of NPPs of the WER and RBMK Type, October, Obinsk, Russian Federation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holy, J., 2000, “NPP Dukovany Data Collection Project,” Czech paper on procedures in JapanGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andresen. G., et al, 2003, “Experiments in the Halden Human Machine Laboratory (HAMMLAB) Investigating Human Reliability Issues,” Towards Convergence of Technical Nuclear Safety Practices in Europe, EUROSAFE, Paris.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spurgin, A.J., 2000, “Experiences with the Decision Tree Method,” Proceedings of 5th International Conference of Prob abilistic Safety Assessment and Management, Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony J. Spurgin
    • 1
  • Attila Bareith
    • 2
  • Zoltan Karsa
    • 2
  1. 1.Independent ConsultantSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.VEIKIBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations