INL’s Human Reliability Analysis Data Collection Based on the SHEEP Framework
This presentation introduces INL's human reliability analysis data collection studies.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “human reliability analysis”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The HUNTER Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis Tool: Development of a Module for Performance Shaping Factors
The Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) is a framework to support dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) in communication with a variety of methods and tools. This paper explores how we developed one of the HUNTER modules: namely, the Individual module for evaluating performance shaping factors (PSFs). A PSF is any factor that influences human performance (e.g., workload or complexity). In the existing HRA, they are used to highlight human errors and adjust error probabilities. We consider the eight PSFs suggested in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-HRA (SPAR-H) method, a representative HRA method widely used in the nuclear field. To support our dynamic modeling using the eight SPAR-H PSFs, we reviewed the human performance literature and developed data-based mathematical models to rate and quantify PSFs in the context of dynamic HRA. We also designed the Individual module to consist of two functions: (1) the PSF qualification function for automatically or manually evaluating PSF levels, and (2) the PSF quantification function for dynamically or statically determining PSF multiplier values and integrating them to adjust human error probabilities (HEPs). How each function works in regard to the SPAR-H PSFs, and how the PSFs serve to adjust the HEPs, were investigated via literature review and are discussed in this paper.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
A framework to collect human reliability analysis data for nuclear power plants using a simplified simulator and student operators
Data scarcity in human reliability analysis (HRA) has been a major challenge in the quantification process. Many institutes have collected HRA data through experiments using full-scope simulators with actual operators. Nevertheless, there are still some limitations to relying solely on full-scope studies. This paper aims to propose how full-scope data collection studies can be supported through the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). The SHEEP framework was developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to collect HRA data through a simplified simulator and student operators. This paper introduces the major tasks in the SHEEP framework, with a particular focus on differences that arise due to participant type (i.e., student vs. actual operator), based on experiments using a simplified simulator (i.e., the Rancor Microworld). This paper also describes whether the data collected via this approach could support a representative full-scope data collection study (i.e., the HuREX study) based on the experimental data.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
SNL Human Reliability Analysis (Capstone Final Report)
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) requested a measure of possible human error for each state verification method for a safety mechanism performed at partnering production agencies. A team of three human factors individuals were tasked with conducting observations during site visits of both production agencies in order to complete a Human Reliability Analysis (HRA). A HRA will be used because it provides both qualitative and quantitative reports of human error. This report is the first phase of that effort, which will describe the methods which occur at one of the production agencies.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
A framework to implement human reliability analysis during early design stages of advanced reactors
Nuclear power plants require human actions throughout their lifecycle from design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. However, for advanced reactors (e.g., Generation IV), the reliance on human intervention in safety-related actions is expected to be reduced or completely replaced by automated actions. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Standard for Advanced Non-LWR Nuclear Power Plants requires that the impacts of all operator actions are captured and incorporated in the risk of the modeled plant. Moreover, the Modernization of Technical Requirements for Licensing Advanced Reactors requires human reliability analysis (HRA) to be included throughout all design and PRA development stages. However, due to the lack of details during the early design stages, HRA is often postponed until the design is mature enough. Conducting HRA in later design stages, though it may be adequate in capturing pre-, at-, and post-initiators comes short of informing the design itself in the iterative design lifecycle. Hence, this paper presents a framework to include HRA during the design's early stages, pre-conceptual or conceptual. The proposed framework provides a process for the removal of operator actions that do not contribute to the risk and the identification of all key operator actions that are critical to the safety of the design. The results of this framework are then used to inform the design of those safety-related operator actions to update the design further. Then, using information from the updated design, this framework can be reapplied to investigate the impact of the design update on human reliability. The PRA model of the X-energy's pre-conceptual Xe-100 high-temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed reactor (HTGR-PB) design is used to demonstrate the approach. In the pre-conceptual Xe-100 PRA model, also called Phase 0 PRA model, human actions were considered an integral part of analyzing the plant response to different initiating events. Hence, in this paper, all possible human actions in the Xe-100 PRA model are identified, analyzed, and removed to emulate a design relying only on the available automated control systems. The preliminary results of this assessment show how safe the Xe-100 design is even without crediting any human actions. The results also list necessary sequences in which operator actions are critical to the risk profile of the design.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Human reliability analysis studies from simulator experiments using Bayesian inference
Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) of complex facilities is performed to arrive at the risk posed by them. PSA also accounts for the contribution of the human errors towards the overall risk through Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) in terms of Human Error Probability (HEP). Human operators are part of the system and do not work in isolation. Their performance is influenced by the context in which the actions are performed. As a result, quantification of HEP requires operator performance data under the given context. Some good sources of operator performance data are plant‘s operation data, simulator data and expert judgement. The plant operation data pertaining to HRA is generally sparse. In this situation, a full scope plant simulator provides a good alternative for operator performance data generation. Many of the currently practiced HRA methods have been developed by combining the empirical evidence with expert judgement and contain a lot of uncertainty in their estimates. Bayesian inference is suitable for updating the prior HRA estimates with the simulator evidence to obtain the posterior HEP. Here, posterior HEP has been calculated for postulated accident scenarios in advanced reactor (first of its kind) at design stage, using plant simulator.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation for Representative Human Reliability Analysis Methods
The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) is the regulatory expert organization established by the Korean government to strengthen the nation’s technical capabilities relating to nuclear safety regulation. KINS oversees the technical aspects of nuclear safety regulation, including safety reviews, inspections, education, and safety research—all conducted based on technical knowledge and accumulated regulatory experience. In 2023, KINS requested that Idaho National Laboratory (INL) validates representative human reliability analysis (HRA) methods used throughout the world, thus affording KINS with a basis for determining an HRA method adequate for its domestic regulatory purposes. The present paper mainly examines INL’s efforts in this regard. The resulting INL study covered four representative HRA methods widely used by nuclear utilities and regulatory institutes. These methods were qualitatively evaluated by applying specific evaluation criteria and determining how well each method reflected critical HRA issues. For this assessment, INL benchmarked the Halden International HRA Empirical Study. Using the Halden empirical data, along with information on human failure events (HFEs), the present study employed the selected HRA methods to estimate human error probabilities (HEPs) for the HFEs. It also performed statistical analyses to compare the HEPs predicted via the HRA methods against those from the Halden empirical data.
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Bayesian And Human Reliability Analysis (hra)-aided Method For The Reliability Analysis Of Software (bahamas)
The purpose of the BAHAMAS code is to provide a simplified process for performing quantitative evaluations of software reliability. The Bayesian and Human Reliability Analysis (HRA)-Aided method for the Reliability Analysis of software (BAHAMAS) was developed specifically to perform quantification under limited data conditions, i.e., when limited testing or operational data are available, such as during early development stages. BAHAMAS essentially examines the quality of a software development life cycle to determine the probability of specific types of software failure. BAHAMAS will have modules to support user input for detailed and simplified analyses. The user interface will also support software common cause failure analysis.
Wang, Congjian (0000000207789927)↗
Tailoring a Human Reliability Analysis to Your Industry Needs
Companies at risk of accidents caused by human error that result in catastrophic consequences include: airline industry mishaps, medical malpractice, medication mistakes, aerospace failures, major oil spills, transportation mishaps, power production failures and manufacturing facility incidents. Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) is used to analyze the inherent risk of human behavior or actions introducing errors into the operation of a system or process. These assessments can be used to identify where errors are most likely to arise and the potential risks involved if they do occur. Using the basic concepts of HRA, an evolving group of methodologies are used to meet various industry needs. Determining which methodology or combination of techniques will provide a quality human reliability assessment is a key element to developing effective strategies for understanding and dealing with risks caused by human errors. There are a number of concerns and difficulties in "tailoring" a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) for different industries. Although a variety of HRA methodologies are available to analyze human error events, determining the most appropriate tools to provide the most useful results can depend on industry specific cultures and requirements. Methodology selection may be based on a variety of factors that include: 1) how people act and react in different industries, 2) expectations based on industry standards, 3) factors that influence how the human errors could occur such as tasks, tools, environment, workplace, support, training and procedure, 4) type and availability of data, 5) how the industry views risk & reliability, and 6) types of emergencies, contingencies and routine tasks. Other considerations for methodology selection should be based on what information is needed from the assessment. If the principal concern is determination of the primary risk factors contributing to the potential human error, a more detailed analysis method may be employed versus a requirement to provide a numerical value as part of a probabilistic risk assessment. Industries involved with humans operating large equipment or transport systems (ex. railroads or airlines) would have more need to address the man machine interface than medical workers administering medications. Human error occurs in every industry; in most cases the consequences are relatively benign and occasionally beneficial. In cases where the results can have disastrous consequences, the use of Human Reliability techniques to identify and classify the risk of human errors allows a company more opportunities to mitigate or eliminate these types of risks and prevent costly tragedies.
DeMott, D. L.↗
Briefing Human Reliability Analysis Tasks in the KINS-INL Project
Under the SPP with Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) (SPP No. 24SP91), INL research team has a plan to visit KINS on December 3, 2024 and have a project meeting with KINS in-person. INL researchers will give this presentation about what we have done on Task 2 under the contract as below. Task 2: Support KINS in the treatment of human actions. INL efforts consist of: Provide technical expertise on recovery analysis based on INL’s methods or recent research Provide technical expertise on dependency analysis based on INL’s methods or recent research Provide technical expertise on analyzing the effects of HSI degradation on operator actions
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Human Reliability Analysis: An Overview
Human/process error is potentially a large contributor to failures of aerospace systems. For some systems, such as the space shuttle main engine, large amounts of data are available, and accurate failure rates can be determined empirically. For such systems, the human error is implicit in the empirical failure rate and does not need to be quantified separately. However, for other systems, such as the solid rocket boosters, large amounts of data are not available and the failure rates must be determined by more theoretical means. When empirical data is lacking, structural models and engineering judgment must be employed. In this case, the human/process error must be modeled explicitly. An extensive literature review was performed to determine what methods already exist for modeling human error for aerospace systems. No methods that apply directly were found, although there are a number of methods that have been developed specifically for the nuclear power industry that could probably be modified for space applications. The results of the literature review are presented, as well as recommendations for future research.
Navard, Sharon E.↗
Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis Using the EMRALD Dynamic Risk Assessment Tool
Not Available
Park, Jooyoung↗
Overview of Human Reliability Analysis Research at Idaho National Laboratory
Introducing following HRA topics to visitors from Naval Nuclear Labs. - Dynamic HRA Method and Software (LWRS) - HRA Data Collection (LWRS) - HRA Consultation (KINS) - HRA for Advanced Nuclear Reactors (Hobby) - HRA for Non-Nuclear Industries (BEES)
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
A Prognostic Launch Vehicle Probability of Failure Assessment Methodology for Conceptual Systems Predicated on Human Causal Factors
Create an improved method to calculate reliability of a conceptual launch vehicle system prior to fabrication by using historic data of actual root causes of failures. While failures have unique "proximate causes", there are typically a finite amount of common "root causes". Heretofore launch vehicle reliability evaluation typically hardware-centric statistical analyses, while most root causes of failures are been shown to be human-centric. A method based on human-centric root causes can be used to quantify reliability assessments and focus proposed actions to mitigate problems. Existing methods have been optimistic in their projections of launch vehicle reliability compared to actuals. Hypothesis: reliability of a conceptual launch vehicle can be more accurately evaluated based on a rational, probabilistic approach using past failure assessment teams' findings predicated on human-centric causes."Human Reliability Analysis Methods Selection Guidance for NASA"Chandler F.T., et al., NASA HQ/OSMA study group, July 2006. Outside HRA experts from academia, other federal labs, and the private sector. 50 system reliability methods considered, fourteen selected for further study, four finally selected as best suited for human spaceflight. Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) + Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) enabled incorporating effects and probabilities of human errors. While four down-selected methods deemed appropriate for failure assessment, it did not appear that these methods could be concisely applied to perform major system-wide assessment of probability of failure of a conceptual design without becoming unwieldy."Engineering a Safer World", Detailed, comprehensive study external to NASA Leveson N. G., MIT, 2011.Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP). All-encompassing accident model based on systems theory analyzed accidents after they occurred and created approaches to prevent occurrence in developing systems not focused on failure prevention per se, but rather reducing hazards by influencing human behavior through use of constraints, hierarchical control structures, and process models to improve system safetySystem Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) addresses predictive part of problem (a "hazard analysis"). Includes all causal factors identified in STAMP: "...design errors, software flaws, component interaction accidents, cognitively complex human decision-making errors, and social organizational and management factors contributing to accidents" can guide design process rather than require it to exist before-hand did not appear capable of concise application for system-wide assessment of probability of failure of a conceptual design without becoming unwieldy.
Williams, Craig H.↗
Solutions for Enhanced Legacy Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tools and Methodologies: Improving Efficiency of Model Development and Processing via Innovative Human Reliability Dependency Analysis
Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) are integral to nuclear power plant (NPP) operations, having tremendously benefitted the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet for decades. Insights obtained from the models have provided perspectives on a variety of applications, both at the plant and for the regulator. While these models are very useful, they are now being asked to represent and analyze aspects of the plant that were never envisioned by the initial PRA practitioners. Furthermore, heightened demands on the PRA models have led to increased computing power requirements. Additionally, as the complexity of the PRA models increased, the difficulty experienced by non-PRA experts in trying to understand these models, grasp the insights they provide, and effectively use that information has become problematic. The need for research to address key issues regarding PRA tools and methods has never been greater. Although the nuclear power industry has largely been well-served by these tools and methods, the underlying science is dated, remaining mostly unchanged for over two decades. Three areas were identified as most beneficial to address to maintain and improve the usefulness of the current practice legacy PRA tools: improved quantification speed, increased ability to efficiently model multi-hazard models, and improved modeling human action dependency in PRA. This report is focused on the third critical area, improvements in dependency analysis of human actions conducted as part of a typical human reliability assessment.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Simulator Data Analysis to Inform Digitalized Environment Impacts on Human Reliability
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has developed a human reliability analysis (HRA) method, termed the Integrated Human Event Analysis System for Event and Condition Assessment (IDHEAS-ECA), in order to estimate human error probabilities (HEPs) in risk-informed regulatory applications. To update the quantification part of IDHEAS-ECA, the NRC required human performance and error data from fully digitalized main control rooms (MCRs); therefore, it requested that Idaho National Laboratory (INL) revisit previous data collection studies and investigate how the following three factors impact human reliability: self-checking, peer-checking, and automation. The HRA data collection studies revisited were the Human Reliability Data Extraction (HuREX) project, developed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), and the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP), developed by INL. HuREX is a representative HRA data collection study that collects human reliability data from full-scope simulators staffed by licensed operators. SHEEP, on the other hand, has been proposed to complement such full-scope studies by collecting data via simplified simulators staffed by non-licensed student operators. In the HuREX study, KAERI collected HRA data from fully digitalized MCRs for the Advanced Power Reactor (APR)–1400. The SHEEP data were obtained from simplified simulators that partially mimicked the features of digitalized MCRs. The present report mainly discusses how the impacts of the aforementioned three factors on human errors were derived from these two data collection studies.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗