Sample size bounding and context ranking as approaches to the HRA data problem

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 265-274

  Reer, Bernhard ^a  

^a PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUTE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Data analysis; Error forcing context; Errors of commission; Gibbs sampling; Human reliability analysis; Operating experience

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; DATA REDUCTION; DATABASE SYSTEMS; ERROR ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL PLANTS; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; PLANT SHUTDOWNS; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY THEORY;

ERROR FORCING CONTEXTS (EFC); RESOURCE LIMITATIONS;

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

EID: 0348042918     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2003.09.016     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Mosneron-Dupin F. Is probabilistic human reliability assessment possible? In: Working material. Probabilistic safety analysis and human reliability analysis. Proceedings of a Meeting Held in Paris; November 1994. IAEA-PC-3580, App. 1, Topic 6. Reproduced by International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna; 1996.
2. Dougherty E.M. Jr. Context and human reliability analysis. Reliab Engng Syst Safety. 41:1993;25-47.
3. Gertman D.I., Blackmann H.S., Haney L.N., Seidler K.S., Hahn H.A. INTENT: A method for estimating human error probabilities for decision based errors. Reliab Engng Syst Safety. 35:1992;127-136.
4. Mosneron-Dupin F., Reer B., Heslinga G., Sträter O., Gerdes V., Saliou G., Ullwer W. Human-centered modeling in human reliability analysis: some trends based on case studies. Reliab Engng Syst Safety. 58:1997;249-274.
5. Technical basis and implementation for a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA). NUREG-1624, Rev. 1. 2000;US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
6. Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). 1998;Elsevier, Oxford.
7. Le Bot P., Cara F., Bieder C. A second generation HRA method: what it does and doesn't do. Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, PSA'99, Washington DC, August 22-26. vol. II:1999;. p. 852-60.
8. Pyy P. Contribution from Finland. Framework for analyzing commission errors. In: Errors of Commission in Probabilistic Safety Assessment. NEA/CSNI/R(2000)17. OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris; 2000. p. 57-69.
9. Dang VN, Reer B, Hirschberg S. Analysing errors of commission: identification and first assessment for a Swiss plant. In: Building the New HRA: errors of commission - from research to application, OECD NEA Workshop, Rockville, MD, USA, May 7-9. OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris; 2001.
10. Beare A.N., Dorris R.E., Kozinsky E.J. Response times of nuclear power plant operations: comparison of field and simulator data. Edward R.E. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting. Seattle Washington, October 25-29. 1982;Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA. p. 669-73.
11. Sträter O. Considerations of the elements of the quantification of human reliability. In: Proceedings of an Internat. OECD Workshop, Building the New HRA: strengthening the link between experience and HRA. Munich, Germany, 28-30 January. OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris; 2002.
12. Sträter O., Bubb H. Assessment of human reliability based on evaluation of plant experience: requirements and implementation. Reliab Engng Syst Safety. 63:1999;199-219.
13. Sträter O. Overview about the CAHR Method and its application in assessing errors of commission. In: Building the new HRA: errors of commission-from research to application, OECD NEA Workshop, Rockville, MD, USA, May 7-9. OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris; 2001.
14. Swain A.D., Guttmann H.E. Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report. NUREG/CR-1278. 1983;US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
15. Atwood C.L., Gentillon C.D. Bayesian treatment of uncertainty in classifying data. Proceedings of ESREL'96/PSAM-III Internat. Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. Crete, Greece. vol. 2:1996;Springer, London. p. 1283-8.
16. Siu N. Monte Carlo method for parameter estimation in the presence of uncertain data. Reliab Engng Syst Safety. 28:1990;59-98.
17. Mays G.T., Gallaher R.B. Events resulting in reactor shutdown and their causes. Nucl Safety. 23:1982;85-86. see also pages 214-5, 342, 458, 587-8, 721-2.
18. Mays G.T., Gallaher R.B. Events resulting in reactor shutdown and their causes. Nucl Safety. 24:1983;102-103. see also pages 250-1, 389-90.
19. Mays G.T. Events resulting in reactor shutdown and their causes. Nucl Safety. 24:1983;538-539.
20. Silver E.G., Clemons D. Events resulting in reactor shutdown. Nucl Safety. 24:1983;688. see also pages 851-2.
21. Silver E.G., Clemons D. Events resulting in reactor shutdown. Nucl Safety. 25:1984;262-263. see also pages 399, 556-7.
22. Casto WR (ed.). Operating experience. Nuclear Safety 1982; 23: 72-96. (see also pages 198-223, 320-58, 451-71, 572-602, 702-36).
23. Casto WR (ed.). Operating experience. Nuclear Safety 1983; 24: 75-113 (see also pages 243-61, 383-404, 520-58, 678-707, 836-62).
24. Casto WR (ed.). Operating experience. Nuclear Safety 1984; 25: 88-127(see also pages 255-80, 373-424, 547-74, 697-719, 830-51).
25. Forester J.A., Minarick J.W., Schriner H.K., Dolan B.W., Mitchell D.B., Whitehead D.W., Jensen J.J. Precursors to potential severe core damage accidents: 1982-1983. A status report. NUREG/CR-4674. vol. 24:1987;US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
26. Embrey DE, Reason JT. The application of cognitive models to the evaluation and prediction of human reliability. In: Proceedings of the International Meeting on Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems, Knoxville, TN, 21-24 April 1986. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois; 1986. p. 292-301.
27. Kauffman JV. Engineering evaluation. Operating events with inappropriate bypass or defeat of engineered safety features. AEOD/E95-01, Reactor Analysis Branch, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC; 1995.
28. Bailey R.T. Estimation from zero-failure data. Risk Anal. 17:(3):1997;375-380.
29. Reer B. Deriving context-specific probabilities from incompletely specified data - sub sample size bounding technique. In: Proceedings of an Internat. OECD Workshop, Building the New HRA: Strengthening the Link Between Experience and HRA. Munich, Germany, 28-30 January. OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris; 2002.
30. Smith A.F., Roberts G.O. Bayesian computation via the Gibbs sampler and related Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. J R Stat Soc; B. 55:1993;3-23.
31. Embrey DE, Humphreys P, Rosa EA, Kirwan B, Rea K. SLIM-MAUD: an approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgment. Vol. I: Overview of SLIM-MAUD. Vol. II: Detailed analyses of the technical issues. NUREG/CR-3518. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC; 1984.
32. Sträter O., Reer B. A comparison of the application of the CAHR method to the evaluation of PWR- and BWR- events and implication for the methodological development of HRA. Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, PSA'99, Washington DC, August 22-26. vol. II:1999;American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL. p. 869-6.