Review of Computerized Procedure Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plant Control Rooms

Abstract

Computerized procedures (CPs) are recognized as an emerging alternative to paper-based procedures for supporting control room operators in nuclear power plants undergoing life extension and in the concept of operations for advanced reactor designs. CPs potentially reduce operator workload, yield increases in efficiency, and provide for greater resilience. Yet, CPs may also adversely impact human and plant performance if not designed and implemented properly. Therefore, it is important to ensure that existing guidance is sufficient to provide for proper implementation and monitoring of CPs. In this paper, human performance issues were identified based on a review of the behavioral science literature, research on computerized procedures in nuclear and other industries, and a review of industry experience with CPs. The review of human performance issues led to the identification of a number of technical gaps in available guidance sources. To address some of the gaps, we developed 13 supplemental guidelines to support design and safety. This paper presents these guidelines and the case for further research.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Converse

Perez

Clay

Meyer

(1992) Computerized procedures for nuclear power plants: Evaluation of the Computerized Procedures Manual (COMPA-II), In proceedings of IEEE 5th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.

Crocoll

Coury

(1990). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp.1524-1528). Santa Monica, CA, USA: HFES.

IEEE (2009). Human Factors Guide for Applications of Computerized Operating Procedure Systems at Nuclear Power Generating Stations and other Nuclear Facilities (Draft Guideline 1786, 9/30/09 version). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

NRC (1982). Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures (NUREG-0899). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRC (2008). Highly-Integrated Control Rooms—Human Factors Issues (HICR—HF): Interim Staff Guidance (DI&C-ISG-05, ML082740440). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

O’Hara

Brown

Lewis

Persensky

(2002). Human System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

O’Hara

Brown

Lewis

Persensky

(2002). The Effects of Interface Management Tasks on Crew Performance and safety in Complex, Computer-Based Systems: Detailed Analysis. NUREG-6690, Vol. 2, Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

O’Hara

Higgins

J. C.

Stubler

W. F.

Kramer

(2000) NUREG/CR-6634 Computer-Based Procedure Systems: Technical Basis and Human Factors Review Guidance, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

O’Hara

Higgins

Persensky

Lewis

Bongarra

(2004) Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model, NUREG-0711, Rev. 2. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

Wickens

(2000). A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30(3), 286-297.

11.

Pirus

Chambon

(1997). Computerised procedures for the French N4 series. Global perspectives of human factors in power generation. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE sixth conference on human factors and power plants; 1997. pp. 6/3–6/9.

12.

Rovira

McGarry

Parasuraman

(2002). Effects of unreliable automation on decision making in command and control. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, (pp. 428-432). Santa Monica, CA, USA: HFES.

13.

Sarter

Schroeder

(2001). Supporting decisionmaking and action selection under time pressure anduncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43, 573–583.

14.

Sheridan

(1992). Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.

15.

Sheridan

T.B.

(2008). Risk, human error, and system resilience: Fundamental ideas. Human Factors, 50, 418-426.

16.

Sheridan Parasuraman

(2006). Human-automation interaction. In Nickerson

R. S.

(Ed.), Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (Vol. 1, pp. 89–129) Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

17.

Wickens

(2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3.2: 150-177.