Despite the incorporation of advanced technology into nuclear power plant alarm systems, human factors problems remain. This paper identifies issues to be addressed in order to allow advanced technology to be used effectively in the design of nuclear power plant alarm systems. The operator's use and processing of alarm system information will be considered. Based upon a review of alarm system research, issues related to general system design, alarm processing, display and control are discussed. It is concluded that the design of effective alarm systems depends on an understanding of the information processing capabilities and limitations of the operator.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS.HolmstromC.MarshallE. (1985a). Conventional Instrumentation in the Advanced Control Room - Experiment 1: A Comparison of Operator Performance Using Three Display Modes (HWR-152). Norway: Halden Reactor Project.
2.
BakerS.HolmstromC.MarshallE.ReiersenC. (1985b). Conventional Instrumentation in the Advanced Control Room - Experiments 2 and 3: Further Comparisons of Operator Performance When Using Different Display and Control Modes (HWR-178). Norway: Halden Reactor Project, 1985b.
3.
BanksW.W.BooneM.P. (1981). Nuclear Control Room Annunciators: Problems and Recommendations (NUREG/CR-2147). Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4.
BartlettF. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BeltracchiL. (1988). Alarm coding of a model-based display. In 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
6.
BersonB.L.Po-ChedleyD.A.BoucekG.P.HansonD.C.LefflerM.F.EassonR.L. (1981). Aircraft Alerting Systems Standardization Study, Volume II - Aircraft Alerting System Design Guidelines (DOT/FAA/RD-81/38/II). Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration.
7.
CrouchD.HigginsJ.LuckasW.MacDougallE.RugerC. (1989). An Assessment of Potential Upgrades to Control Room Annunciators (BNL A-3967–89–2). Upton, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
8.
FinkR. (1984). A Procedure for Reviewing and Improving Power Plant Alarm Systems (EPRI NP-3448). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
9.
FrakerM. (1988). A theory of situation awareness: Implications for measuring situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society - 32nd Annual Meeting.Santa Monica, California: Human Factors Society, 1988.
10.
FujitaY. (1989). Improved annunciator system for Japanese pressurized-water reactors. Nuclear Safety, 30, 209–221.
11.
FujitaY. (1988). Improved annunciator system for Japanese PWRs: Functions and evaluation. In Man-Machine Interface in the Nuclear Industry.Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
12.
FujitaY.SanquistT. (1988). Operator cognitive processes under abnormal plant conditions with conventional and advanced control room designs. In 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on Human Factors.New York: Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers.
13.
GreenD.M.SwetsJ.A. (1966) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics.New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
14.
KennedyW. (1989). Lessons Learned in Process Control at the Halden Reactor Project (NUREG-1361). Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15.
KinkadeR.G.AndersonJ. (1984). Human Factors Guide for Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Development (EPRI NP-3659). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
16.
KraghtH. (1984). A comparative simulation study of annunciator systems. Ergonomics, 27, 927–945.
17.
KraghtH.BontonJ. (1983). Evaluation of a conventional process-alarm system in a fertilizer plant. In IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13, 586–600.
18.
MaloneT. (1980). Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Design and Operator Performance at Three Mile Island-2 (NUREG/CR-1270). Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
19.
MarshallE. (1982). A Preliminary Evaluation of the HALO System for Handling Alarms (HWR-83). Norway: Halden Reactor Project.
20.
MarshallE.OwneF. (1986). The experimental evaluation of an advanced alarm system. In Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems.Illinois: American Nuclear Society.
21.
MatsushitaK. (1988). Improvement of PWR control room design. In Man-Machine Interface in the Nuclear Industry (Tokyo Conference Proceedings).Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency.
22.
MorayN. (1981). The role of attention in the detection of errors and the diagnosis of failures in man-machine systems. In RasmussenJ.RouseW.B. (eds.), Human Detection and Diagnosis of System Failures.New York: Plenum Press.
23.
MPR Associates (1988). An Evaluation of Alternative Power Plant Alarm Presentations (EPRI NP-5693P). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
24.
MPR Associates (1985). Power Plant Alarm Systems: A Survey and Recommended Approach for Evaluating Improvements (EPRI NP-4361). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
25.
O'HaraJ.M.BrownW.S.KimI.S. (1991). Advanced Alarm Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Background Review (Draft BNL Report). Upton, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
26.
PineS.M.SchulzK.A.EdmanT.R.HansonT.G.EvansT.G.GonzalezW.SmithD.SeminaraJ. (1982). Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms (NP-2411). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
27.
RankinW.L.DuvernoyE.G.AmesK.R.MorgensternM.H.EckenrodeR.J. (1983). Near-Term Improvements for Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Annunciator Systems (NUREG/CR-3217). Washington, D.C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
28.
ReasonJ. (1987). Generic error-modelling systems (GEMS): A cognitive framework for locating common human error forms. In RasmussenJ.DuncanK.LeplatJ. (eds.), New Technology and Human Error.New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
29.
ReasonJ. (1988). Cognitive aids in process environments: Prostheses or tools? In HollnagelE.ManciniG.WoodsD. D. (eds.), Cognitive Engineering in Complex Dynamic Worlds.New York: Academic Press.
30.
ReiersenC.S.MarshallE.BakerS. (1987). A Comparison of Operator Performance When Using Either an Advanced Computer-Based Alarm System or a Conventional Annunciator Panel (HPR-331). Halden Reactor Project.
31.
SeminaraJ. (1988). Control-Room Deficiencies, Remedial Options, and Human Factors Research Needs (NP-5795). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
32.
SeminaraJ.L.SeidensteinS.EckertS.K.SmithD.L. (1979). Human Factors Methods for Nuclear Control Room Design: Volume 1, Human Factors Enhancement of Existing Control Rooms (EPRI NP-1118). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.
33.
SimpsonC.McCauleyM.RolandE.RuthJ.WilligesB. (1987). Speech controls and displays. In SalvendyG. (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors.New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
34.
SorkinR. (1989). Why are people turning off our alarms?Human Factors Society Bulletin, 32 [4], 3–4.
35.
SorkinR. (1987). Design of auditory and tactile displays. In SalvendyG. (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors.New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
36.
SorkinR.KantowitzB.KantowitzS. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors, 30, 445–459.
37.
SorkinR.WoodsD. (1985). Systems with human monitors: A signal detection analysis. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 49–75.
38.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1981). Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews (NUREG-0700). Washington, D.C.: Author.
39.
WoodsD.O'BrienJ.HanesL. (1987). Human factors challenges in process control: The case of nuclear power plants. In SalvendyG. (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors.New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
