A study on the validity of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants-Comparing task complexity scores with two sets of operator response time data obtained under a simulated SGTR

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 557-566

  Park, Jinkyun ^a   Jung, Wondea ^a  

^a Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Emergency operating procedure; Operator performance; Simulated emergency; Task complexity measure

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER OPERATING PROCEDURES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; STEAM GENERATORS;

EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES (EOP); STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE (SGTR);

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS;

EID: 36849089615     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2007.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Feyer A., et al. The involvement of human behaviour in occupational accidents: errors in context. Saf Sci 25 1-3 (1997) 55-65
2. Rouse S.H., et al. Design and evaluation of an onboard computer-based information system for aircraft. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-12 4 (1982) 451-463
3. Hollnagel E. Human reliability assessment in context. Nucl Eng Technol 37 2 (2005) 159-166
4. Center for Chemical Process Safety. Guidelines for preventing human error in process safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1994.
5. Roth EM, et al. An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies. NUREG/CR-6208, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1994.
6. Qin W., and Seong P.H. A validation method for emergency operation procedures of nuclear power plants based on dynamic multi-level flow modeling. Nucl Eng Technol 37 1 (2005) 118-126
7. Ghosh S.T., and Apostolakis G.E. Organizational contributions to nuclear power plant safety. Nucl Eng Technol 37 3 (2005) 207-220
8. Frostenson CK. Lessons learned from occurrences involving procedures at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1994. In: Proceedings on human factors and ergonomics society (HFES) Annual Meeting, San Diego, USA, 1995. p. 1033-7.
9. O'Hara JM, et al. Computer-based procedure systems: technical basis and human factors review guidance. NUREG/CR-6634, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2000.
10. Boy GA, Brito G. Toward a categorization of factors related to procedure following and situation awareness. In: Proceedings of international conference on human computer interaction in aeronautics (HCI-Aero), Toulouse, France, 2000.
11. Wright P., and McCarthy J. Analysis of procedure following as concerned work. In: Hollnagel E. (Ed). Handbook of cognitive task design (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London 679-701
12. Degani A., and Wiener E.L. Procedures in complex systems: the airline cockpit. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 27 3 (1997) 302-312
13. Dien Y, Montmayeul R. Contribution of the ergonomic analysis to the improvement of the design of operating procedures in nuclear power plants. 93NB00043, Electricite de France, 1992.
14. Wood R.E., and Locke E.A. Goal setting and strategy effects on complex tasks. Res Organ Behav 12 (1990) 73-109
15. Jimmieson N.L., and Terry D.J. The moderating role of task characteristics in responses to a stressful work simulation. J Organ Behav 20 (1999) 709-736
16. Kernan M.C., et al. Individual and group performance: effects of task complexity and information. Hum Perform 7 4 (1994) 273-289
17. Hollnagel E. Human reliability assessment in context. Nucl Eng Technol 37 2 (2005) 159-166
18. Linebarger J.H. Transient management: strategies and implementation. Nucl Eng Des 83 (1984) 233-237
19. Pirus D, Chambon Y. The computerised procedures for the French N4 series. In: Proceedings of IEEE sixth conference on human factors and power plants, Orlando, USA, 1997. p. 6/3-6/9.
20. Colquhoun R. Development of symptom-oriented operating procedures. Nucl Saf 25 3 (1984) 341-349
21. Spurgin AJ, et al. The state of practice of computerized operating procedures in the commercial nuclear power industry. In: Proceedings on human factors and ergonomics society (HFES) 37th annual meeting, Santa Monica, USA, 1993. p. 1014-7.
22. O'Hare D., et al. Cognitive failure analysis for aircraft accident investigation. Ergonomics 37 11 (1994) 1855-1869
23. Fruta K., et al. Human factor analysis of JCO criticality accident. Cognit Technol Work 2 (2000) 182-203
24. Marsden P., and Green M. Optimizing procedures in manufacturing systems. Int J Ind Ergon 17 (1996) 43-51
25. Corcoran W.R., et al. Transient management using the safety function approach. In: Lassahn P.L., Majumdar D., and Brockett G.F. (Eds). Anticipated and abnormal plant transients in light water reactors (1984), Plenum Press, New York 1059-1072
26. Wieringa DR, Farkas DK. Procedure writing across domains: nuclear power plant procedures and computer documentation. In: Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on systems documentation, Chicago, USA, 1991. p. 49-58.
27. Baron S. Application of a procedure oriented crew model to modeling nuclear plant operation. In: Proceedings of the international topical meeting on advanced in human factors in nuclear power systems, Knoxville, USA, 1986. p. 21-3.
28. Eekhout J.M., and Rouse W.B. Human errors in detection, diagnosis and compensation for failures in the engine control room of a super tanker. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-11 12 (1981) 813-816
29. Lawton R. Not working to rule: understanding procedural violations at work. Saf Sci 28 2 (1998) 77-95
30. Grosdeva T., and Montmollin M. Reasoning and knowledge of nuclear power plant operators in case of accidents. Appl Ergon 25 5 (1994) 305-309
31. Park J, Jung W. A study on the development of a task complexity measure for emergency operating procedures of nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 2007;92:1102-16.
32. Park J., et al. Identifying cognitive complexity factors affecting the complexity of procedural steps in emergency operating procedures of a nuclear power plant. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 89 (2005) 121-136
33. Woods D.D. On taking human performance seriously in risk analysis: comments on Dougherty. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 29 (1990) 375-381
34. Dien Y. Safety and application of procedures, or 'how do they have to use operating procedures in nuclear power plants?'. Saf Sci 29 (1998) 179-187
35. Mosneron-Dupin F., et al. Human-centered modeling in human reliability analysis: some trends based on case studies. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 58 (1997) 249-274
36. Lipner MH, et al. A computerized procedures system for nuclear power plants. In: Proceedings on international meeting on advances in human factors in nuclear power systems, Knoxville, USA, 1986. p. 225-9.
37. Kammann R. The comprehensibility of printed instructions and the flowchart alternative. Hum Factors 17 (1975) 183-191
38. Wieringa D., et al. Procedure writing principles and practices. 2nd ed. (1998), Battelle Press
39. Woods D.D., and Shattuck L.G. Distant supervision-local action given the potential for surprise. Cognit Technol Work 2 (2000) 242-245
40. Bainbridge L. The change in concepts needed to account for human behavior in complex dynamic tasks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 27 3 (1997) 351-359
41. Meister D. Cognitive behavior of nuclear reactor operators. Int J Ind Ergon 16 (1995) 109-122
42. Davis J.S., and LeBlanc R.J. A study of the applicability of complexity measures. IEEE Trans Software Eng 14 9 (1998) 1366-1372
43. Park J., and Jung W. A database for human performance under simulated emergencies of nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Technol 37 5 (2005) 491-502
44. Henneman R.L., and Rouse W.B. Measures of human problem solving performance in fault diagnosis tasks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-14 1 (1982) 99-112
45. Johannsen G., Levis A.H., and Stassen H.G. Theoretical problems in man-machine systems and their experimental validation. Automatica 30 2 (1994) 217-231
46. Arend I., Colom R., Botella J., Contreras M.J., Rubio V., and Santacreu J. Auantifying cognitive complexity: evidence from a reasoning task. Per Individ Differences 35 (2003) 659-669
47. American Nuclear Society. Time response design criteria for safety-related operator actions. ANSI/ANS-58.8, 1994.
48. Chung H.M. Fuel behavior under loss-of-coolant accident situations. Nucl Eng Technol 37 4 (2005) 327-362
49. Kim H.C., et al. Hydrogen behavior in the IRWST of APR 1400 following a station blackout. Nucl Eng Technol 38 2 (2006) 195-200
50. Maynard D.C., and Hakel M.D. Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on performance. Hum Perform 10 4 (1997) 303-330
51. Liu Y., and Wickens C.D. Mental workload and cognitive task automaticity: an evaluation of subjective and time estimation metrics. Ergonomics 37 11 (1994) 1843-1854
52. Combustion Engineering Owner's Group. Combustion engineering emergency response guidance. CEN-152, Rev. 04, 1996.
53. Westinghouse Owner's Group. Emergency response guidance. HP Volume, Rev. 1A, 1987.
54. Stassen H.G., et al. Internal representation, internal model, human performance model and mental workload. Automatica 26 4 (1990) 811-820
55. Wieringa P.A., and Stassen H.G. Assessment of complexity. In: Wise J.A., Hopkin V.D., and Stager P. (Eds). Verification and validation of complex systems: human factors issues (1993), Springer, Berlin 173-180
56. Johannsen G., et al. Theoretical problems in man-machine systems and their experimental validation. Automatica 30 2 (1994) 21-231
57. Visser M., and Wieringa P.A. PREHEP: human error probability based process unit selection. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 31 1 (2001) 1-15