Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter August 22, 2013

Human Factors Perspective on the Reliability of NDT in Nuclear Applications

Einfluss der menschlichen Faktoren auf die Zuverlässigkeit zerstörungsfreier Prüfungen für kerntechnische Anwendungen
Marija Bertovic, Babette Fahlbruch and Christina Mueller
From the journal Materials Testing

Abstract

A series of research studies have been conducted over the course of five years venturing into the fields of in-service inspections (ISI) in nuclear power plants (NPPs) and inspection of manufactured components to be used for permanent nuclear waste disposal. This paper will provide an overview of four research studies, present selected experimental results and suggest ways for optimization of the NDT process, procedures, and training. The experimental results have shown that time pressure and mental workload negatively influence the quality of the manual inspection performance. Noticeable were influences of the organization of the working schedule, communication, procedures, supervision, and demonstration task. Customized Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was used to identify potential human risks, arising during acquisition and evaluation of NDT data. Several preventive measures were suggested and furthermore discussed, with respect to problems that could arise from their application. Experimental results show that implementing human redundancy in critical tasks, such as defect identification, as well as using an automated aid (software) to help operators in decision making about the existence and size of defects, could lead to other kinds of problems, namely social loafing and automation bias that might affect the reliability of NDT in an undesired manner. Shifting focus from the operator, as the main source of errors, to the organization, as the underlying source, is a recommended approach to ensure safety.

Abstract

Der Artikel beschreibt eine arbeitspsychologische Analyse des Einflusses der menschlichen Faktoren auf die Zuverlässigkeit zerstörungsfreier Prüfungen (ZfP). Im Zeitraum von 5 Jahren wurde eine Serie von Untersuchungen zur wiederkehrenden Prüfung in Kernkraftwerken sowie zur Prüfung von Komponenten für die Endlagerung von radioaktivem Abfall durchgeführt. Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über vier Studien, diskutiert ausgewählte experimentelle Ergebnisse, und schlägt sich daraus ergebende Möglichkeiten zur Optimierung des ZfP-Verfahrens, der Prüfanweisung sowie zur Schulung des Personals vor. Die experimentellen Ergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass sowohl hoher Zeitdruck als auch hohe psychische Arbeitsbeanspruchung die Qualität des Prüfungsergebnisses negativ beeinflussen. Auffällig waren die Einflüsse der Einteilung des Arbeitsplans, der Kommunikation, der Prüfanweisung, der Prüfaufsicht sowie der Demonstrationsübung. Die abgewandelte Fehlermöglichkeits- und Einflussanalyse (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis – FMEA) wurde zur Identifizierung potentieller menschlicher Risiken während der Datenaufnahme und deren Auswertung benutzt. Darauf basierend werden verschiedene Präventivmaßnahmen, wie z.B. menschliche Redundanz und Automatisierung vorgeschlagen, sowie sich daraus möglicherweise ergebende Probleme diskutiert. Die experimentellen Ergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass menschliche Redundanz bei kritischen Anwendungen, wie beispielweise der Fehler­identifizierung, zu anderen Fehlerquellen führen kann, wie “sozialem Faulenzen” bei den Prüfern. Die Verwendung automatisierter softwarebasierter Entscheidungshilfen zur Fehlererkennung bzw. Fehlergrößenbestimmung kann zu übersteigertem Vertrauen in das automatisierte System (automation bias) durch die Prüfer und somit zu Fehlentscheidungen führen. Dadurch kann die Zuverlässigkeit der Prüfung in ungewollter Weise beeinflusst werden. Um die Zuverlässigkeit und Sicherheit der technischen Prozesse zu gewährleisten ist es wichtig, als Hauptfehlerquelle nicht mehr nur das einzelne Individuum zu sehen, sondern ebenfalls die Organisation zu berücksichtigen.

References

1 Health and Safety Executive (1999), Reducing Error and Influencing Behaviour, UK: HSE Books. ISBN 9780717624522. Retrieved from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg48.htm Search in Google Scholar

2 H. M.StephensJr.: NDE Reliability – Human Factors – Basic Considerations, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Rome (2000), retrieved from http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn736/idn736.htm Search in Google Scholar

3 B.Fahlbruch, B.Wilpert: Event Analysis as Problem Solving Process, In Hale, A. R., Wilpert, B. & Freitag, M. (Eds.), After the Event: From Accident to Organizational Learning, Oxford: Elsevier (1997), pp. 113130 Search in Google Scholar

4 B.Fahlbruch: Integrating Human Factors in Safety and Reliability Approaches, Proceedings of the 4th European American Workshop on Reliability of NDE (2009), Berlin, June 24–26, 2009 Search in Google Scholar

5 M.Bertovic, B.Fahlbruch, C.Müller, J.Pitkänen, U.Ronneteg, D.Kanzler, U.Ewert, D.Schombach: Human Factors Approach to the Acquisition and Evaluation of NDT Data, Proceedings of the 18th WCNDT (2012), Durban, South Africa, April 16–20, 2012 Search in Google Scholar

6 M.Bertovic, C.Mueller, B.Fahlbruch, J.Pitkänen, U.Ronneteg: Human Factors Approach to the Reliability of NDT in Nuclear Waste Management in Sweden and Finland, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components (2010), Berlin, Germany, 29th Oct-1st Nov 2010 Search in Google Scholar

7 D. H.Harris, B. P.McCloskey: Cognitive correlates of ultrasonic inspection performance, EPRI Report NP-6675 (1990) Search in Google Scholar

8 R. A.Murgatroyd, R. K.Chapman, S.Crutzen, H.Seed, A. J.Willetts, G. M.Worall: Human Reliability in Inspection, Final report on Action 7 in the PISC III Programme, PISC III Report n°31 (1994), Joint Research Centre Search in Google Scholar

9 J.Kettunen: Beliefs Concerning the Reliability of Nuclear Power Plant In-Service Inspections, Report STUK-YTO-TR121 (1997) Search in Google Scholar

10 J.Enkvist, A.Edland, O.Svenson: Operator Performance in Non-Destructive Testing: A Study of Operator Performance in a Performance Test, Stockholm, SKI-Report 00:26 (2000) Search in Google Scholar

11 B. A.McGrath: Programme for the Assessment of NDT in Industry, PANI 3, Prepared by Serco Assurance for the Health and Safety Executive, Research Report RR617 (2008) Search in Google Scholar

12 B.Wilpert, B.Fahlbruch: Safety related interventions in intraorganizational fields, in Hale, A. & Baram, M. (Eds), Safety Management and the Challenge of Organisational Change, Oxford: Elsevier (1998) Search in Google Scholar

13 J.Reason: Managing the management risk: New approaches to organizational safety, in Wilpert, B. & Qvale, T. (Eds), Reliability and Safety in Hazardous Work Systems: Approaches to Analysis and Design, Hove, UK: Lawrence (1993), pp. 721 Search in Google Scholar

14 C.Mueller, M.Elaguine, M.Scharmach, B.Redmer, U.Ewert: Reliability investigation of NDT systems by modular analysis of recorded data, Proceedings of the 8th ECNDT (2002), Barcelona, June 2002 Search in Google Scholar

15 C.Nockemann, C.Fortunko: Summary of the workshop, Proceedings of the European American Workshop on Reliability and Validation Methods on NDE (1997), Berlin, Germany, June 18–20, 1997 Search in Google Scholar

16 C.Mueller, M.Bertovic, M.Gaal, H.Heidt, M.Pavlovic, M.Rosenthal, K.Takahashi, J.Pitkänen, U.Ronneteg: Progress in Evaluating the Reliability of NDE Systems – Paradigm Shift, Proceedings of the 4th European American Workshop on Reliability of NDE (2009), Berlin, June 24–26, 2009 Search in Google Scholar

17 J.Enkvist: A Human Factors Perspective on Non-Destructive Testing (NDT): Detection and Identification of Cracks, Doctoral dissertation submitted at the Stockholm University, Department of Psychology (2003) Search in Google Scholar

18 J.Enkvist, A.Edland, O.Svenson: Human Factors Aspects of Non-Destructive Testing in the Nuclear Power Context, A Review of Research in the Field, Stockholm: SKI Report No. 99:8 (1999) Search in Google Scholar

19 A. D.Swain, H. E.Guttman: Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Report NUREG/CR-1278 (1983) Search in Google Scholar

20 J.Spanner, D. H.Harris: Human factor developments in computer-based training and personnel certification, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear Sand Pressurized Components, (1999), pp 149–165, 20–22 October 1998 – Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Held by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Woodhead Publishing Limited Search in Google Scholar

21 D. J.Pond, D. T.Donohoo, R. V.HarrisJr.: An Evaluation of Human Factors Research for Ultrasonic In-service Inspection, Report NUREG/CR-6605, PNNL-11797 (1998) 10.2172/582236 Search in Google Scholar

22 D. H.Harris: Effect of human information processing on the ultrasonic detection of intergranular stress-corrosion cracking, Materials Evaluation48 (1990), pp. 475480 Search in Google Scholar

23 D. H.Harris: Effect of Decision Making on Ultrasonic Examination Performance, EPRI Report TR-100412 (1992) Search in Google Scholar

24 J.Kettunen, L.Norros: Human and Organizational Factors Influencing the Reliability of Non-Destructive Testing, An international literary survey, Report STUK-YTO-TR103 (1996) Search in Google Scholar

25 L.Norros, J.Kettunen: Analysis of NDT inspectors working practices, Report STUK-YTO-TR147 (1998) Search in Google Scholar

26 J.Enkvist, A.Edland, O.Svenson: Effects of Time Pressure and Noise on Non-Destructive Testing, Stockholm: SKI Report No 01:48 (2001) Search in Google Scholar

27 M.Gaal, M.Bertovic, C.Mueller, S.Zickler, B.Fahlbruch, V.Spokoiny, D.Schombach, T.Just, H.-J.Cramer: Untersuchungen zum Einfluss menschlicher Faktoren auf das Ergebnis von zerstörungsfreien Prüfungen, Möglich­keiten zur Minimierung dieses Einflusses und Bewertung der Prüfergebnisse – Vorhaben 3607R02514, Endbericht, Ressortforschungsberichte zur kerntechnischen Sicherheit und zum Strahlenschutz, Report Nr. BfS-RESFOR-25/09 (2009), Salzgitter: BfS, Available at: http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:0221-2009111107/1/BfS_2009_BfS-RESFOR-25-09.pdf Search in Google Scholar

28 M.Bertovic, M.Gaal, C.Mueller, B.Fahlbruch: Investigating Human Factors in Manual Ultrasonic Testing: Testing the Human Factor Model. Insight5312 (2011), pp. 67367610.1784/insi.2011.53.12.673 Search in Google Scholar

29 S. G.Hart, L. E.Steveland: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research, in P.Hancock & N.Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload, Amsterdam: Noth Holland Press (1988), pp. 239250 Search in Google Scholar

30 O.Svenson, A. J.Maule (Eds.): Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making, New York: Plenum Press (1993) 10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6 Search in Google Scholar

31 Sicherheitstechnische Regel des KTA, KTA 3201.4 Komponenten des Primärkreises von Leichtwasserreaktoren, Teil 4: Wieder­kehr­en­de Prüfungen und Betriebsüberwachung, Fassung 2010–11 Search in Google Scholar

32 Posiva, Final disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Olkiluoto (2011), Brochure Search in Google Scholar

33 SKB, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co.Encapsulation – when, where, how and why? English translation: Richard Nord Translations AB, ISBN 91-975606-4-2 (2008) Search in Google Scholar

34 Y.Papadopoulos, D.Parker: Automating the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of Safety Critical Systems, Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE'04) (2004) Search in Google Scholar

35 G.Cassanellia, G.Murab, F.Fantinia, M.Vanzib, B.Planoc: Failure Analysis-Assisted FMEA, Microelectronics Reliability, 46 (2006), pp. 1795179910.1016/j.microrel.2006.07.072 Search in Google Scholar

36 M.Bertovic, C.Mueller, D.Kanzler, B.Fahlbruch (in press): Human Factors in NDT of the EB-Weld, Final report of the project “POD of Posiva's EB-Weld and the Effect of Human Factors in NDT of EB-Weld”, Eurajoki: Posiva Oy Search in Google Scholar

37 T. R.LaPorte, P. M.Consilini: Working in Practice but not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of High Reliability Organizations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1 (1991), pp. 1947 Search in Google Scholar

38 J.Domeinski, R.Wagner, M.Schöbel, D.Manzey: Human Redundancy in Automation Monitoring: Effects of Social Loafing and Social Compensation, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting (2007) Search in Google Scholar

39 S.Sagan: The Problem of the Redundancy Problem: Why More Nuclear Security Forces May Produce Less Nuclear Security, Risk Analysis244 (2004), pp. 93594610.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00495.x Search in Google Scholar

40 K. D.Williams, S. J.Karau: Social Loafing and Social Compensation: The Effects of Co-Worker Performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 614 (1991), pp. 57058110.1037/0022-3514.61.4.570 Search in Google Scholar

41 S. J.Karau, K. D.Williams: Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 654 (1993), pp. 68170610.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 Search in Google Scholar

42 R.Parasuraman, V.Riley: Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39 2 (1997), SAGE Publications, pp. 230253 Search in Google Scholar

43 I.Singh, R.Molloy, R.Parasuraman: Automation-Induced “Complacency”: Development of the Complacency-Potential Rating Scale, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 32 (1993), pp. 11112210.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2 Search in Google Scholar

44 K. L.Mosier, L. J.Skitka: Human decision makers and automated decision aids: made for each other? In: Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M. (Eds.), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Application, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, (1996), pp. 201–220 Search in Google Scholar

45 R.Parasuraman, D. H.Manzey: Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society523 (2010), pp 38141010.1177/0018720810376055 Search in Google Scholar

46 J. D.Lee, K. A.See: Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society461 (2004), pp. 5080 Search in Google Scholar

47 L. J.Skitka, K. L.Mosier, M.Burdick: Does automation bias decision-making?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies515 (1999), pp. 991100610.1006/ijhc.1999.0252 Search in Google Scholar

48 P.Madhavan, D. A.Wiegmann, F. C.Lacson: Automation Failures on Tasks Easily Performed by Operators Undermine Trust in Automated Aids, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 482 (2006), pp. 24125610.1518/001872006777724408 Search in Google Scholar

49 L. J.Skitka, K.Mosier, M. D.Burdick: Accountability and automation bias, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies524 (2000), pp. 70171710.1006/ijhc.1999.0349 Search in Google Scholar

50 J.Reason: Managing the risks of organizational accidents, Surgate: Ashgate (1997) Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-08-22
Published in Print: 2013-04-02

© 2013, Carl Hanser Verlag, München