ML23195A133
| ML23195A133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/2023 |
| From: | Jing Xing NRC/RES/DRA/HFRB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML23195A133 (1) | |
Text
Application of Human Reliability Analysis to DI&C Control Room Modernization Jing Xing, Y. James Chang U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Presented by Jing Xing to HMIT/NPIC2023 7-17-2023
Acronyms DI&C - Digital Instrument & Control HRA - Human Reliability Analysis HEP - Human Error Probability IDHEAS - The Integrated Human Event Analysis System CFM - Cognitive Failure Mode in IDHEAS method PIF - Performance Influencing Factors (same as PSF, performance shaping factors) 2
Outline I. Introduction to HRA in DI&C environment II. Overview of IDHEAS method III. Evaluation of applicability of IDHEAS method in DI&C environment IV. Conclusions and path forward 3
Introduction - Digital Instrument &Control (DI&C) - Human Performance Framework Human-System Interface (HSI)
[1] O'Hara, J.M., Gunther, B., Martinez-Guridi, G., Xing, J.F., & Barnes, V.E. (2010). The Effect of Degraded Digital Instrumentation and Control systems on Human-system Interfaces and Operator Performance.
4
DI&C Systems For Nuclear Power Plant Operation DI&C A Proposed Taxonomy of DI&C Design Element Categories Multi-User Display Decision Support Systems Individual user display Human-Automation Interaction Soft Control Systems Concept of Operations (or work process)
Alarm Systems Scenario/Task Characteristics Computer-based Procedures Digital System Failure Operating reactor New Small modular Advanced CR modernization reactors reactors reactors
[2] Presley, Boring, Ulrich ert.al. (2021) A Taxonomy And Meta-analysis Template For Combining Disparate Data To Understand The Effect Of Digital Environments On Human Reliability 5
HRA Considerations in DI&C Environment Are existing HRA methods applicable to DI&C environment?
Considerations for HRA in DI&C environment:
- What can go wrong with human performance
- Safety-important scenarios, unsafe actions, characterization of critical human tasks
- Human performance failure modes
- What are the causals?
- Does DI&C environment need new performance influencing factors (PIFs)?
- Do PIFs affect human performance the same in DI&C vs. analog environment?
- How likely can it go wrong?
- Are the data quantifying human error probability (HEP) applicable to DI&C environment?
- Do we need additional human performance data for DI&C HRA?
6
Applicability of The Integrated Human Event Analysis System (IDHEAS) in DI&C environment
- The method is technology-neutral, cognition-based
- Qualitative guidance for analyzing what can go wrong with operator actions and what may cause human errors
- Quantification model and software for calculating human error probabilities (HEPs)
- HEP calculation is supported with human error data including many from DI&C environment.
Purpose of the study: Evaluate the applicability of IDHEAS method in DI&C HRA 7
Outline I. Introduction to HRA in DI&C environment II. Overview of IDHEAS method III. Evaluation of applicability of IDHEAS method in DI&C environment IV. Conclusions and path forward 8
How IDHEAS Models Human Failure Events
- 5 Macrocognitive functions, Human actions /
- 5 or 6 processors for each function, human failure tasks
- Application-specific failure modes event Event context
- 20 PIFs & Time adequacy
- PIF attributes
- Failure of human actions is represented by failure of macrocognitive functions and failure of cognitive processors.
- The context that affects human performance of an action is modeled with PIFs and the attributes.
9
Cognitive Basis Structure Macrocognitive Cognitive PIFs Processors functions mechanisms Processor - D1 Cognitive Detection mechanism Processor - D5 PIF 1 Cognitive Processor - U1 mechanism PIF 2 Understanding Processor - U5 Cognitive PIF 3 mechanism Human Decision- Processor - DM1 task Cognitive making Processor - DM6 PIF 17 mechanism Action Processor - E1 PIF 18 Cognitive execution mechanism Processor - E5 PIF 19 Interteam Processor - T1 Cognitive coordination mechanism Processor - T7 10
IDHEAS Cognition Model:
Macrocognitive Function Processors Table 1: IDHEAS-ECA Cognition Model: Macrocognitive Function Processors D- U- DM - E - Action T - Interteam Detection Understanding Decisionmaking Execution Coordination D1 - Initiate U1 - DM1 - Select E1 - Assess T1 - Establish or detection Assess/select decisionmaking action plan and adapt interteam D2- Select, data. model. criteria. coordination identify, and U2 - Select/ DM2 - Manage the E2- Develop or T2 - Manage attend to adapt goals and decision modify action information sources of /develop the criteria. scripts. T3 - Maintain information. mental model. DM3 - Acquire and E3 - Coordinate shared D3 - Perceive, U3 - Integrate select data for and command situational recognize, and data with the decisionmaking. action awareness.
categorize mental model DM4 - Make implementation. T4 - Manage information. U4 - Verify decision E4 - Implement resources D4 - Verify and and revise the DM5 - Evaluate action scripts. T5 - Plan modify the understanding the decision or E5 - Verify and interteam outcomes of U5 - Export plan. adjust collaborative detection. the outcome. DM6 - execution activities D5 - Retain or Communicate and outcomes. T6 - Implement communicate authorize the decisions and the outcomes. decision. commands 11
PIF Structure Environment Personnel and System Task Context and Situation organization
- Information
- Staffing availability and
- Accessibility/habitabi *Procedures, reliability
- System and I&C lity of workplace and guidance, and *Scenario familiarity transparency to PIF travel paths personnel instructions *Multitasking,
- Workplace visibility *Training interruptions, and
- Human system
- Workplace Noise *Team and distractions interface Cold/heat/humidity organizational *Task complexity
- Equipment and
- Resistance to physical factors *Mental fatigue tools movement *Work processes *Time pressure and stress
- Physical demands PIF *Poor lighting in
- Indicator similarity
- Procedure is inadequate
- Distributed functional
- Information is attributes workplace localization *Procedure is difficult to temporarily not Note: The PIF *Glare or reflection *inadequate use available attributes shown are on physical structure confirmation of *Procedure is available,
- Information is examples and *Smoke or fog- control actions but does not fit the inaccurate correspond to the PIFs induced low visibility *Confusion in control situation highlighted in red.
states 12
Outline I. Introduction to HRA in DI&C environment II. Overview of IDHEAS method III. Evaluation of applicability of IDHEAS method in DI&C environment IV. Conclusions and path forward 13
Approach of Evaluating IDHEAS Method for DI&C HRA DI&C data source (DI&C events and simulator studies)
Scenario and DI&C conditions design features and IDHEAS process Tasks Context classes (use the Failure PIFs taxonomy in Reference [2])
modes 14
DI&C Design Element Categories and Associated Applicable IDHEAS-ECA PIF Attributes Design Classes Examples of IDHEAS PIF attributes potentially affected Elements Multi-User Fixed, PIF Information availability and reliability Display dynamic, or INF1 - Information is temporarily incomplete or not readily available mixed INF2 - Information unreliable or uncertain Individual information user selection; PIF Task complexity workstation C1 - Detection overload with multiple competing signals (or display) System, C2 - Detection is moderately complex function PIF Human-system-interface display level; HSI5 - Poor salience of the target (indicators, alarms, alerts) out of the Integrated crowded background process HSI9 - Poor functional localization - multiple (2~5) displays / panels needed to status execute a task overview; PIF Teamwork factors TF2 - Poor command & control Information TF3 - Poor information management in multiple-team tasks sharable function PIF Multitasking, Interruption, and Distraction MT1 - Distraction by other on-going activities that demand attention 15
Digital Design Features and Applicable Failure Modes and PIFs Digital design Potentially incurred Potentially affected PIF attributes features detailed failure modes Workstation - U1 - Incorrectly HSI3 - Related information for a task is spatially Support for assessing the data / distributed, or cannot be accessed at the same time degraded HSI/I&C signals SIC4 - System or I&C failure modes are not conditions / Signal U2 - Having the wrong transparent to personnel validation mental model for C15 - Ambiguity in the situation, e.g., Key degraded signals. information is cognitively masked, Workstation - D2- Attending to wrong HSI9 - Poor functional localization - 2~5 displays /
Design (structure, sources of information panels needed to execute a task size, and number E4 - Incorrectly execute HSI10 - Ergonomic deficits - maneuvers of controls of screens) Ease of action with soft control are un-intuitive or unconventional getting to the Implement action scripts. HSI13 - Controls provide inadequate or ambiguous information E5 - Not verifying feedback, i.e., lack of or inadequate confirmation of the execution outcomes. action executed 2nd checker; MCR D4 - Not verifying the TF3 - Poor information management in multiple-crew functions and outcomes of detection. team tasks responsibilities; E5 - Not verifying and WP1 - Lack of practice of self- or cross-verification concept of adjusting execution (e.g., 3-way communication) operations outcomes. WP2 - Lack of or ineffective peer-checking 16
Insights from Analyzing DI&C Events Some trends observed in multiple DI&C events / studies:
- Not having the full mental model for the cues / information to be detected, e.g., over-reliance of automation.
- Failing to verify the information detected or the action step executed, e.g., difficulty in verifying detection results in dynamic displays or verifying execution outcome on dynamic soft control (no sensory feedback).
- Failing to integrated multiple pieces of information to generate mental representation of the situation, e.g., improper functional localization.
- Information overload, e.g., multiple competing signals presented to operators.
- Weak or lack of peer-checking 17
Summary of the Evaluation HRA Desired HRA method IDHEAS elements Additional work question capabilities needed What can
- safety-important
- Generic
- Safety-important go wrong scenarios and human qualitative human actions actions analysis guidance for specific types
- Task characterize
- Cognitive failure of reactors /
- Human performance modes technologies failure modes Causes
- PIFs representing the
- 20 PIFs and
- Possible context attributes additional PIF attributes Likelihood
- PIF effects - human error
- Many data from
- Data for some data in DI&C DI&C DI&C specific PIF environment environment attributes 18
Outline I. Introduction to HRA in DI&C environment II. Overview of IDHEAS method III. Evaluation of applicability of IDHEAS method in DI&C environment IV. Conclusions and path forward 19
Conclusions of the Preliminary Study
- HRA method(s) applicable for DI&C environment should be evaluated against DI&C design features rather than specific reactor design or technologies.
- IDHEAS method is technology neutral and is capable of modeling human actions and context in DI&C environment.
- Additional PIF attributes may be needed for specific technologies.
- A more thorough validation of the applicability is a continuous process as more human performance data with DI&C systems become available.
20
Path Forward
- Analyze more DI&C events with IDHEAS method.
- Collect data of simulator performance in DI&C environment to enhance the technical basis of DI&C HRA.
- Integrate HRA and human factors engineering in DI&C.
21