0
SPECIAL SECTION PAPERS

Enhancing the Plant's Capability for Design Basis and Design Extension Conditions Based on Time-Dependent Context Evaluation of Human Performance in ATWS Events

[+] Author and Article Information
Gueorgui I. Petkov

Independent Consultant,
Volewijkshof 20,
Amsterdam AH 1031, The Netherlands
e-mail: petkovgi@yahoo.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 30, 2016; final manuscript received December 22, 2017; published online March 5, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Leon Cizelj.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 4(2), 020905 (Mar 05, 2018) (11 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1133; doi: 10.1115/1.4039000 History: Received September 30, 2016; Revised December 22, 2017

The experience of severe accidents shows that reliable determination of technological process parameters is necessary but not always sufficient to avoid catastrophic consequences. The accident measures should be considered in a broader context that includes the human factor, organization of the nuclear technology, external influences, and safety culture. The anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) events were not considered in the original water water energy reactor (WWER) (Russian pressurized water reactors (PWR)) design basis accidents (DBA). The design extension conditions (DEC) scenarios progress in a context which is very uncertain and highly stressful for the operators. If a specific scenario requires some operators' actions as measures to mitigate, delay, or distribute the accident consequences, then the dynamics of accident context seem of primary importance for “best estimate” evaluations and enhancing the plant's capability. The paper presents the capacities of the performance evaluation of teamwork (PET) procedure for enhancing plant's capability for DEC based on best estimate context evaluation of human performance in ATWS events. The PET procedure is based on a thorough description of symptoms of various timelines and their context quantification. It is exemplified for different ATWS scenarios of the nuclear power plant (NPP) with WWER-1000 based on thermal-hydraulic simulations with RELAP5/MOD3.2 code and models.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

IAEA, 1999, “ Anticipated Transients Without Scram for WWER Reactors,” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, Report No. IAEA-EBP-WWER-12. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/32/011/32011665.pdf
Groudev, P. P. , Stefanova, A. E. , and Pavlova, M. P. , 1999, “ Model Validation for Units 5 & 6, Safety Analysis Capability Improvement of the Kozloduy NPP in the Field of Thermal Hydraulic Analysis,” Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy-Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, Report No. BOA 278065-A-R4.
Groudev, P. P. , Stefanova, A. E. , and Pavlova, M. P. , 2001, “ Engineering Handbook, Safety Analysis Capability Improvement of KNPP (SACI of KNPP) in the Field of Thermal Hydraulic Analysis,” Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria, Report No. BOA 278065-A-R4.
Petkov, G. , and Furuta, K. , 1998, “ Application of PN-Based Method for Identification and Classification of Human Actions in NPP TLRS,” 4th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 4), New York, Sept. 13–18, pp. 1136–1141.
Petkov, G. , and Groudev, P. , 1999, “ Correlation Between Human and Material Shocks in Symptom-Based Emergency Procedures,” ASME-PVP Conference, Boston, MA, Aug. 1–5, pp. 25–35.
Petkov, G. , 1999, “ Networked Risk Images in Human Action Context,” Third Cognitive Technology Conference CT99, San Francisco, CA, Aug. 11–14.
Wisse, P. E. , 2001, Metapattern: Context and Time in Information Models, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Petkov, G. , 2004, “ Dealing With Dynamic Aspects of Operators' Performance,” Sixth International FLINS Conference on Applied Computational Intelligence, Blankerberge, Belgium, Sept. 1–3, pp. 677–683.
Petkov, G. , and Petkov, S. , 2000, “ Towards Defence-in-Depth of Human-Machine Interaction,” Probabilistic Safety Assesment and Management Conference (PSAM 5), Osaka, Japan, Nov. 27–Dec. 1.
Reason, J. T. , 1990, Human Error, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [CrossRef]
Reason, J. , 2000, “ Human Error: Models and Management,” BMJ, 320(7237), pp. 768–770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ujita, H. , Fukuda, M. , Kubota, R. , and Hayashi, M. , 1990, “ Plant Operator Performance Evaluation Based on Cognitive Process Analysis Experiment,” Topical Meeting on Advances in Human Factors Research on Man/Computer Interactions: Nuclear & Beyond, Nashville, TN, June 10–14.
Petkov, G. , Todorov, V. , Takov, T. , Petrov, V. , Stoychev, K. , Vladimirov, V. , and Chukov, I. , 2004, “ Safety Investigation of Team Performance in Accidents,” J. Hazard. Mater., 111(1–3), pp. 97–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Petkov, G. , Kostov, E. , Filipov, K. , Stefanova, A. , Atanasova, B. , Andreeva, M. , and Groudev, P. , 2015, “ Dynamic Context Evaluation of Human Actions in Severe Accident Analysis and Management,” ESREL 2015 Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 7–10, Paper No. M18_764.
Rodin, M. J. , 1987, “ Who is Memorable to Whom? A Study of Cognitive Regard,” Soc. Cognit., 5(2), pp. 144–165. [CrossRef]
Petkov, G. , 2015, “ Symptom-Based Context Evaluation of Human Performance and Convergence of HEAP into its HPLV,” ESREL 2015 Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 7–10, Paper No. M18_881.
Petkov, G. , and Vela-Garcia, M. , 2015, “ Severe Accident Context Evaluation for BWR NPPs Based on Long-Term Station Blackout,” ASME Paper No. ICONE24-60923.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Adapted metapattern object-image-situation representation of context

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Case 1: CR group withdrawal at minimum controllable power level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Case 2: CR group withdrawal at HFP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Case 3: loss of MFW

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Case 4: loss of off-site power

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Case 5: loss of condenser vacuum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Case 6: opening of TG control valves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Case 7: actuation of auxiliary PRZ spray

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Case 8: trip of two RCPs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Case 9: max decrease of FW temperature

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In