DOE OSTI2017
In almost all major nuclear power plants (NPP) events include a significant human error component. As an example, in Fukushima Daiichi (2011) nuclear meltdown, the human actions related to the high-pressure injection cooling strongly affected accident evolution. Furthermore, in the Three Mile Island accident (1979) (which was initiated by a stuck open valve and thus was triggered a loss of coolant accident) the unit operators made decisions based upon false assumptions that contributed negatively to the accident. Given these premises, the ability to accurately model human interactions with plant evolution and, in particular, dynamically calculate human error probability (HEP) plays a major role in a probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). Human reliability analysis (HRA) identifies and models the causes of human errors, and quantifies HEP by applying different methodologies. HRA methods identify errors and reflect on the understanding of error-prone people and systems. There are a number of HRA methods available that assist in identifying the vulnerabilities in the system and provide guidance in determining the HEP. HEP is the probability of a human failure event (HFE), and quantification of HEPs under various situations is utilized in PRA of large complex systems. One of the more prominent HRA methods is the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) method that was developed to estimate HEPs for the use in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) PRA models employed in U.S. NPPs. SPAR-H is implemented in U.S. NPPs by regulators at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to determine the HEP based on expert estimation through the use of calculation worksheets. In SPAR-H, the nominal HEPs (NHEPs) are multiplied by performance shaping factors (PSF) multiplier values to obtain the overall error probability. PSFs encompass the human components, individual characteristics, their environment, and aspects of the task. With PSFs, the goal is to capture all factors that can affect human performance. In SPAR-H there are eight PSFs used, each having respective levels corresponding to multipliers: Available Time, Stress/Stressors, Complexity, Experience/Training, Procedures, Ergonomics/Human Machine Interface, Fitness for Duty, and Work Processes. The PSF multipliers indicate enhanced, nominal, or degraded human performance. The SPAR-H method estimates the HEP through multiplying a NHEP with PSFs. Hence, SPAR-H is a traditional HRA method that assesses human performance at a fixed, or static, point in time. In a dynamic HRA framework, human performance is assessed on a continuous time basis. SPAR-H can be used within a dynamic PRA framework through the use of simulation and stochastic models. The goal of dynamic HRA is to build a more realistic model of the human-system interaction to enhance calculation of reliability, risk and safety analysis. The progression of events in dynamic SPAR-H considers that some PSFs may experience gradual change, while other change can be sudden due to individualistic differences or rapid plant status changes. The PSF changes are caused by contextual changes in the scenario. For example, as more time passes, the realization that a task should be completed sooner may cause the operator more stress. In another example, a sudden relay of information about sickness of a family member may alter the operator's general stress level and fitness for duty. Each PSF has a different dynamic nature; PSFs like stress and complexity change more quickly over the course of a task than experience and training. While the experience of an operator changes over the course of attaining the objective, the amount that this added experience changes the HEP is very minimal. In contrast, the stress, complexity, and procedures PSFs may change quite a bit over the course of task completion.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗