DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

TASK TYPES AND ERROR TYPES INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN-RELATED UNPLANNED REACTOR TRIP EVENTS

  • Kim, Jaew-Han (Integrated Safety Assessment Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Park, Jin-Kyun (Integrated Safety Assessment Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
  • Published : 2008.12.31

Abstract

In this paper, the contribution of task types and error types involved in the human-related unplanned reactor trip events that have occurred between 1986 and 2006 in Korean nuclear power plants are analysed in order to establish a strategy for reducing the human-related unplanned reactor trips. Classification systems for the task types, error modes, and cognitive functions are developed or adopted from the currently available taxonomies, and the relevant information is extracted from the event reports or judged on the basis of an event description. According to the analyses from this study, the contributions of the task types are as follows: corrective maintenance (25.7%), planned maintenance (22.8%), planned operation (19.8%), periodic preventive maintenance (14.9%), response to a transient (9.9%), and design/manufacturing/installation (6.9%). According to the analysis of the error modes, error modes such as control failure (22.2%), wrong object (18.5%), omission (14.8%), wrong action (11.1 %), and inadequate (8.3%) take up about 75% of the total unplanned trip events. The analysis of the cognitive functions involved in the events indicated that the planning function had the highest contribution (46.7%) to the human actions leading to unplanned reactor trips. This analysis concludes that in order to significantly reduce human-induced or human-related unplanned reactor trips, an aide system (in support of maintenance personnel) for evaluating possible (negative) impacts of planned actions or erroneous actions as well as an appropriate human error prediction technique, should be developed.

References

  1. Seminara JL, Parson SO. Human factors engineering and power plant maintenance. Maintenance Management International 1985; 6(1): 33-71
  2. Pyy P. An analysis of maintenance failures at a nuclear power plant. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2001; 72: 293-302 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00026-6
  3. Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier, 1998
  4. Reason J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate, 1997
  5. Kim JT, Park JK, Lee CJ, Koo BH, Sheen C. Development of a root cause analysis method for the human-related events. The Proceedings of the 9th international conference on PSAM, Hong Kong, 2008
  6. Toriizuka T. Application of performance shaping factor (PSF) for work improvement in industrial plant maintenance tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2001; 28: 225-236 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00036-1
  7. KHNP, Administrative standard operating procedure (SOP), YGN 3&4
  8. Dhillon BS, Liu Y. Human error in maintenance: a review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2006; 12(1): 21-36 https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510610654510
  9. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge University Press, 1990
  10. http://opis.kins.re.kr

Cited by

  1. Some insights about the characteristics of communications observed from the off-normal conditions of nuclear power plants vol.21, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20270
  2. Development of a path model for human-induced unplanned reactor trips in nuclear power plants vol.27, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1097