Abstract

Human reliability analysis is a method, which evaluates the human error probabilities of human failure events, which may arise when human actions are required in operation of the considered facility or system. The objective of the work is to show the contribution of human failure events in probabilistic safety assessment with focus on comparison of this contribution over the different plant operating states. The method integrates the diagnosis and action part, which are evaluated for all steps, which are needed for modeling of the human action under investigation considering the parameters, which impact the human failure probability and which are obtained from database. The results show that the risk contribution of human failure events is notably higher in low power and shutdown states than in full power operation. The results show that the human factor in shutdown plant states is the most important risk contributor regarding the contribution to the core damage frequency and regarding the risk reduction worth and risk achievement worth. Only at some plant operating states, some other groups of equipment show larger risk achievement worth than group of human failure events.

References

References
1.
Kumamoto
,
H.
, and
Henley
,
E. J.
,
1996
,
Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientists
,
IEEE Press
,
New York
.
2.
Čepin
,
M.
,
2011
,
Assessment of Power System Reliability
,
Springer-Verlag
,
London
.
3.
NRC
,
1983
, “
Handbook on HRA with Emphasis on NPP Applications
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG-CR/1278.
4.
NRC
,
2005
, “
The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-6883
.https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6883/cr6883.pdf
5.
US NRC
,
1987
, “
Accident Sequence Evaluation Program: Human Reliability Analysis Procedure
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-4772
.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c70a/fb8553929bea007658744d92d5abd67b137d.pdf
6.
Čepin
,
M.
,
2008
, “
DEPEND-HRA—A Method for Consideration of Dependency in Human Reliability Analysis
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
93
(
10
), pp.
1452
1460
.10.1016/j.ress.2007.10.004
7.
Čepin
,
M.
,
2008
, “
Importance of Human Contribution Within the Human Reliability Analysis (IJS-HRA)
,”
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.
,
21
(
3
), pp.
268
276
.10.1016/j.jlp.2007.04.012
8.
Prošek
,
A.
, and
Čepin
,
M.
,
2008
, “
Success Criteria Time Windows of Operator Actions Using RELAP5/MOD3.3 Within Human Reliability Analysis
,”
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.
,
21
(
3
), pp.
260
267
.10.1016/j.jlp.2007.06.010
9.
US NRC
,
2005
, “
Good Practices for Implementing Human Reliability Analysis (HRA)
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG-1792
.https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1792/
10.
US NRC
,
2006
, “
Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG-1842
.https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0632/ML063200058.pdf
11.
Grobbelaar
,
J. F.
,
Julius
,
J. A.
, and
Rahn
,
F.
,
2005
, “
Analysis of Dependent Human Failure Events Using the EPRI HRA Calculator
,”
Proceedings of the ANS Topical Meetings on Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA05)
, San Francisco, CA, Sept. 11–15, p.
66
.
12.
NRC
,
2006
, “
Human Event Repository and Analysis (HERA) System: Overview
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG/CR-6903.
13.
Whaley
,
A. M.
,
Boring
,
R. L.
,
Blackman
,
H. S.
,
McCabe
,
P. H.
, and
Hallbert
,
B. P.
,
2007
, “
Lessons Learned From Dependency Usage in HERA: Implications for THERP-Related HRA Methods
,”
Joint Eighth IEEE HFPP/13th HPRCT
, Monterey, CA, Aug. 26–31, pp.
322
327
.
14.
Kim
,
A. R.
,
Park
,
J.
,
Kim
,
Y.
,
Kim
,
J.
, and
Seong
,
P. H.
,
2017
, “
Quantification of Performance Shaping Factors (PSFs)' Weightings for Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) of Low Power and Shutdown (LPSD) Operations
,”
Ann. Nucl. Energy
,
101
, pp.
375
382
.10.1016/j.anucene.2016.11.009
15.
Čepin
,
M.
, and
He
,
X.
,
2006
, “
Development of a Method for Consideration of Dependence Between Human Failure Events
,”
Safety and Reliability for Managing Risk: Proceedings of the European and Reliability Conference 2006 (ESREL 2006)
,
Estoril, Portugal
,
Sept. 18–22
, pp.
285
291
.
16.
Mosleh
,
A.
, and
Chang
,
Y. H.
,
2004
, “
Model-Based Human Reliability Analysis: Prospects and Requirements
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
83
(
2
), pp.
241
253
.10.1016/j.ress.2003.09.014
17.
Reer
,
B.
,
Dang
,
V. N.
, and
Hirschberg
,
S.
,
2004
, “
The CESA Method and Its Applications in a Plant-Specific Pilot Study on Errors of Commission
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
83
(
2
), pp.
187
205
.10.1016/j.ress.2003.09.010
18.
Podofillini
,
L.
,
Dang
,
V. N.
,
Nusbaumer
,
O.
, and
Dres
,
D.
,
2013
, “
A Pilot Study for Errors of Commission for a Boiling Water Reactor Using the CESA Method
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
109
, pp.
86
98
.10.1016/j.ress.2012.08.012
19.
Borgonovo
,
E.
, and
Apostolakis
,
G. E.
,
2001
, “
A New Importance Measure for Risk-Informed Decision Making
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
72
(
2
), pp.
193
212
.10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00108-3
20.
Vaurio
,
J.
,
2011
, “
Importance Measures in Risk-Informed Decision Making: Ranking, Optimisation and Configuration Control
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
96
(
11
), pp.
1426
1436
.10.1016/j.ress.2011.06.012
21.
Vaurio
,
J.
,
2016
, “
Importances of Components and Events in Non-Coherent Systems and Risk Models
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
147
, pp.
117
122
.10.1016/j.ress.2015.11.007
22.
Čepin
,
M.
,
2005
, “
Analysis of Truncation Limit in Probabilistic Safety Assessment
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
87
(
3
), pp.
395
403
.10.1016/j.ress.2004.06.009
23.
US NRC
,
1995
, “
Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents During Low Power and Shutdown Operations at Surry Unit 1
,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-6144
.https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1815/ML18151A227.pdf
24.
Čepin
,
M.
,
2018
, “
Application of Shutdown Probabilistic Safety Assessment
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
178
, pp.
147
155
.10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.012
You do not currently have access to this content.