Human reliability analysis of the Tehran research reactor using the SPAR-H method

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to cover human reliability analysis of the Tehran research reactor using an appropriate method for the representation of human failure probabilities. In the present work, the technique for human error rate prediction and standardized plant analysis risk-human reliability methods have been utilized to quantify different categories of human errors, applied extensively to nuclear power plants. Human reliability analysis is, indeed, an integral and significant part of probabilistic safety analysis studies, without it probabilistic safety analysis would not be a systematic and complete representation of actual plant risks. In addition, possible human errors in research reactors constitute a significant part of the associated risk of such installations and including them in a probabilistic safety analysis for such facilities is a complicated issue. Standardized plant analysis risk-human can be used to address these concerns; it is a well-documented and systematic human reliability analysis system with tables for human performance choices prepared in consultation with experts in the domain. In this method, performance shaping factors are selected via tables, human action dependencies are accounted for, and the method is well designed for the intended use. In this study, in consultations with reactor operators, human errors are identified and adequate performance shaping factors are assigned to produce proper human failure probabilities. Our importance analysis has revealed that human action contained in the possibility of an external object falling on the reactor core are the most significant human errors concerning the Tehran research reactor to be considered in reactor emergency operating procedures and operator training programs aimed at improving reactor safety

Enhancing Human Reliability Prediction in Smart Tower Crane Interfaces: A Refined Approach Using Simplified Plant Analysis Risk–Human Reliability Assessment and the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory–Analytic Network Process

“…Task processing time refers to the time available to operators or personnel to diagnose and take action during abnormal events [28]. This Performance Shaping Factor (PSF) shows independence from other PSFs, considering the ratio of available time to required time in the cabin.…”

“…It encompasses narrowed attention and muscle tension, including anxiety. Environmental factors, known as pressure sources, such as heat, noise, poor ventilation, or radiation, can induce stress and affect operator mental or physical performance [28]. This PSF intersects with task complexity, responsibility, adaptability, and human-environment factors [26].…”

“…For instance, in cases where a complex task imposes a high workload on operators, considering only the complexity and workload may lead to a redundant calculation of the impact of complexity, resulting in an overestimation of HEPS, and vice versa. However, many HRA methods handle PSFs independently and generally do not account for the integrated effects of PSFs on human performance when estimating HEP [28]. This paper aims to provide a prediction of human reliability.…”

Importance measures for performance shaping factors of human reliability analysis

“…Importance measures, including Fussell‐Vesely (FV), risk reduction worth (RRW), risk achievement worth (RAW), and Birnbaum (BI) 17 that are extensively used in probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) 18,19 were introduced and adapted to PSFs and PSF levels as part of a decision‐making evaluation HEP process. The proposed importance analysis quantifies the relative contributions of PSFs and PSF levels to the HEP.…”

Internal dose assessment for environmental monitoring in nuclear power plant accidents

“…The ex tremely strong earth quake (8.9 in Rich ter scale) at 14:46 on March 11, 2011, and the con se quent dev as tat ing tsu nami, al most 30 min utes af ter the earthquake, hit the north ern east of Ja pan. This caused the most se vere nu clear ac ci dent af ter the Chernobil's 1986 which was due to the hu man er ror as the main rea son of nu clear in dus try ac ci dents [1]. Fukushima Dai-ichi nu clear power plant (NPP) with 6 re ac tors was the cen ter of this ac ci dent, where units 5 and 6 were for tu nately in the cold shut down for main tenance.…”