Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회지)

Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of Human Performance between Operators of a Main Control Room in the SMR

  • Heo, Eun Mee (Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Kyunghee) ;
  • Byun, Seong Nam (Department of Industrial & Management, The University of Kyunghee) ;
  • Park, Hong Joon (Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Kyunghee) ;
  • Park, Geun Ok (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute(KAERI))
  • Received : 2013.12.11
  • Accepted : 2014.02.04
  • Published : 2014.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to improve human performance by analyzing the operators' tasks and providing input data on the composition of future SMART operators. Background: SMART is a nuclear reactor for export which needs operators who can satisfy both safety and economic feasibility. Therefore, this study is fundamental research on the composition of operators and this research analyzed SMART tasks in terms of human safety performance. Method: After analyzing 10 SMART EOG in hierarchical task analysis, this study classified task performance types according to task requirements of NUREG-0711 (Rev.3). Results: This study found the task frequency of SMART EOG and 12 operating task types. Conclusion: This study expects that human performance can be improved by analyzing the personal errors, which have the highest task frequency among 12 operating task types. Application: The results of this study can be applied as base data when licensing needs to be acquired.

Keywords

References

  1. Byun, S.N. and Lee, D.H., Preliminary Safety Review on the Design of Korea Next Generation Reactor: A Human Factors Evaluation of Advanced Control Facilities in Korea Next Generation Reactor, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, KINS/HR-404, 2001.
  2. Coblentz, A. and Mollard, R., Human efficiency variability in monotonous conditions effects on safety, Human decision making and manual control, 76-86, 1989.
  3. Endsley, M.R., Measurement of situational awareness in dynamic systems, Human Factors, 37, 65-84, 1995b. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049499
  4. Fowlkes, J.E., Lane, N.E., Dwyer, D.J., Willis, R.P. and Oser, R., Team performance measurement issues in DIS-based training environments. In Proceedings of the 14th Interservice/Industry Training Systems and Education Conference (pp.272-280). Arlington, VA: American Defense Preparedness Association, 1995.
  5. Ha, J.S., Seong, P.H, Lee, M.S. and Hong, J.H., Development of human performance measure for human factors validation in the advanced MCR of APR-1400, IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science, Vol.54, No.6, pp.2687-2700, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2007.907549
  6. Hackman, J.R.(ed.), Groups that work (and those that Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1990.
  7. Hackman, J.R., Effects of task characteristics on group products, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.4, pp.162-187, 1968. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90040-1
  8. Hackman, J.R., A normative model of work team effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No.2), New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1983.
  9. Hackman, J.R., Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances, Boston: HBS Press, 2002.
  10. Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G., Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol.8, pp.45-99, New York: Academic Press, 1975.
  11. Helmreich, R.L., Butler, R.E., Taggart, W.R. and Wilhelm, J.A., Behavioral markers in accidents and incidents : Reference list. NASA/UT/FAA Technical Report 95-1. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, 1995.
  12. INPO., Control Room Teamwork Development Training: Course Administration and Facilitation Guide, National Academy for Nuclear Training, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
  13. INSAG; International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, Summary report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on Chernobyl Accident. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1986.
  14. Kim, S.K., Development and Evaluation of Crew Resource Management Training for Improving Team Performance of Operators in the APR-1400 Nuclear Power Plant, Graduate School of Kyung Hee University, Dissertation of Industrial Engineering, 2008.
  15. KINS, Development of Evaluation Techniques for Emerging Digital Application's Safety and MCR Operator's Team Performance, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, KINS/RR-555, 2008.
  16. KOPEC, Engineering Report: 2th HFE V&V Report, SNK 3&4, Korea Power Engineering Company, 2007.
  17. Lee, D.H., Byun, S.N. and Lee, Y.H., Short-Term Human Factors Engineering Measures for Minimizing Human Error in Nuclear Power Facilities, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(4), 121-125, 2007. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2007.26.4.121
  18. Montgomery, J. Gaddy C. and Toquam, J., Team interaction skills evaluation criteria for nuclear power plant control room operators, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, 2-6September, 918-22, Santa Monica, CA: HFS, 1991.
  19. Mumaw, R., Swatzler, D., Roth, E. and Thomas, W., Cognitive skill training for nuclear power plant operational decision making (NUREG/CR-6126), Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1994.
  20. Norman, D.A. and Bobrow, D.G. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44-64, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3
  21. O'Donnell, R.D. and Eggemeier, F.T., Workload assessment methodology. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. Thomas, Eds., Handbook of Perception and Human Performance; volumeII, cognitive Processes and Performance. New York, NY: J. Wiley and Sons, 1986.
  22. O'Hara, J.M. and Hall, R.E., Advanced control rooms and crew performance issues: implications for human trust, Brookhaven National Laboratory, NewYork 11973, 1405-1409, 1990.
  23. Rasmussen, J., Information processing and human-machine interaction, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986.
  24. Reason, J., The Chernobyl errors. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40, 201-206, 1987.
  25. Rogovin, M., Grampton, G.T. and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Special Inquiry Group, Three Mile Island: A report to the Commission and the public (NUREG/CR-1250, Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1980.
  26. Roth, E.M. et al., An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies, NUREG/CR-6208. Washington, DC: USNRC, 1994.
  27. Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., The science of training: A decade of progress, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471-499, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471
  28. Seamster, T.L. et al., Developing Advanced Crew Resource Management (ACRM) Training: A Taining Manual 1998.
  29. Sebok, A., Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing levels, Ergonomics, 43(8), 1210-1236, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130050084950
  30. Stout, R.J., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E., The role of shared mental models in developing team situational awareness: Implications for training. Training Research Journal, 2, 85-116, 1996.
  31. Stout, R.J., Salas, E. and Fowlkes, J., Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, I, 169-182, 1997.
  32. Tannenbaum, S.I. and Yukl, G., Training and development in work organization, Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 339-441, 1992.
  33. United States Congress, Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425) 1982.
  34. USNRC, NRC action plan developed as a result of the TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660), Washington DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1980.
  35. USNRC, Operator licensing examiner standards (NUREG-1021), Washington DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1989.
  36. USNRC(?), A Study of Control Room Staffing Levels for Advanced Reactors(NUREG/IA-0137) Washington DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  37. Wigdor, A.K. and Green, B.F., Jr., Performance assessment for the workplace. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
  38. Wickens, C.D., Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York, NY; Harper Collins, 1992.
  39. Wickens, C.D., Gordon, S.E. and Liu, Y., An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering. New York, NY: Longman, 1998.
  40. Williges, R. and Wierwille, W.W., Behavioral measures of aircrew mental workload. Human Factors, 21, 549-574, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872087902100503