Sigit Santoso, Roziq Himawan, Johnny Situmorang, Tulis Jojok Suryono, Edison Edison



To enhance the safety and reliability of a new reactor, human factors should be integrated into its design process. The experimental power reactor (RDE) currently being developed in Indonesia needs to include human factors in the design process. One approach to incorporate human factors into design is by considering reactor operational experience data. This paper reviews and analyses the operational experience data of RSG-GAS reactor. The operational experience data of RSG-GAS reactor with 40,435 hours of total operation time spanning from 2003 to 2013 was used as a base in the study. In depth analysis on human factors was applied to the primary cooling system using Human Factors Analysis and Classification System-HFACS method. An amount of 289 un-intended trips were found in the observation data period. Most of un-intended trip were caused by external factors (38%). A review on the primary and secondary cooling system operational data showed that 3.11% of un-intended reactor trip occurrence causes were associated with human failure. Most suspected human failure/human error corresponds to the pump maintenance task which is classified as A action category. Analysis on the cooling system based on HFACS showed that the challenges to the human factors are related to unsafe acts, preconditions of unsafe acts, and unsafe supervision. The result reaffirm that human factors should be treated appropriately in the design of reactor equipment and operation procedure as well.

Keywords: reactor operation experience, research reactor, human factors, reactor trip

Full Text:



  1. Mohamed F., Hassan A., Yahaya R., Rahman I., Maskin M., Praktom P., et al. Operator reliability study for Probabilistic Safety Analysis of an operating research reactor. Ann. Nucl. Energy. 2015. 80:409–15.
  2. Joe J.C., Thomas K.D., Boring R.L. Establishing a Value Chain for Human Factors in Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Modernization. Procedia Manuf. 2015. 3(Ahfe):1312–8.
  3. Shokr A.M. Considerations of Human Factors in the Design and Operation of Research Reactors. 2015. 48(4):170–7.
  4. Hugo J. V., Kovesdi C.R., Joe J.C. The strategic value of human factors engineering in control room modernization. Prog. Nucl. Energy. 2018. 108(June):381–90.
  5. Kim A.R., Park J., Kim J.T., Kim J., Seong P.H. Study on the identification of main drivers affecting the performance of human operators during low power and shutdown operation. Ann. Nucl. Energy. 2016. 92:447–55.
  6. Park J., Kim Y., Jung W. Calculating nominal human error probabilities from the operation experience of domestic nuclear power plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2018. 170(October 2016):215–25.
  7. Li C., Tang T., Chatzimichailidou M.M., Jun G.T., Waterson P. A hybrid human and organisational analysis method for railway accidents based on STAMP-HFACS and human information processing. Appl. Ergon. 2019. 79(February):122–42.
  8. Ribeiro A.C., Sousa A.L., Duarte J.P., Frutuoso e Melo P.F. Human reliability analysis of the Tokai-Mura accident through a THERP-CREAM and expert opinion auditing approach. Saf. Sci. 2016. 87:269–79.
  9. Simonsen E., Osvalder A.L. Categories of measures to guide choice of human factors methods for nuclear power plant control room evaluation. Saf. Sci. 2018. 102(October 2016):101–9.
  10. Alvarenga M.A.B., Frutuoso E Melo P.F., Fonseca R.A. A critical review of methods and models for evaluating organizational factors in Human Reliability Analysis. Prog. Nucl. Energy. 2014. 75:25–41.
  11. Santoso S. Factors Influencing Human Reliability of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Operation. J. Teknol. Reakt. Nukl. Tri Dasa Mega. 2016. 18(3):135.
  12. Li P. cheng, Zhang L., Dai L. cao, Li X. fang, Jiang Y. A new organization-oriented technique of human error analysis in digital NPPs: Model and classification framework. Ann. Nucl. Energy. 2018. 120:48–61.
  13. Jang I., Kim A.R., Jung W., Seong P.H. Study on a new framework of Human Reliability Analysis to evaluate soft control execution error in advanced MCRs of NPPs. Ann. Nucl. Energy. 2016. 91:92–104.
  14. Knol S., de Groot S., Salama R. V., Best J., Bakker K., Bobeldijk I., et al. HTR-PM fuel pebble irradiation qualification in the high flux reactor in Petten. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2018. 329(September 2017):82–8.
  15. Gou F., Chen F., Dong Y. Dynamic response of the HTR-10 under the control rod withdrawal test without scram. Energy Procedia. 2017. 127:247–54.
  16. Santoso S., Bakhri S., Situmorang J. A Bayesian Network Approach to Estimating Software Reliability of RSG-GAS Reactor Protection System. Atom Indones. 2019. 45(1):43.
  17. J. Sukmana, R.Triharto Lesson Learn from Scram at JKT03 channel Using Fault Tree Analysis in RSG-GAS Reactor. 2018.
  18. Park J., Jung W. Comparing cultural profiles of MCR operators with those of non-MCR operators working in domestic Nuclear Power Plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015. 133:146–56.
  19. Musharraf M., Smith J., Khan F., Veitch B., MacKinnon S. Incorporating individual differences in human reliability analysis: An extension to the virtual experimental technique. Saf. Sci. 2018. 107(November 2016):216–23.
  20. Kim Y., Park J., Jung W. A quantitative measure of fitness for duty and work processes for human reliability analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2017. 167(November 2015):595–601.
  21. Anonymous, Safety Analysis Report of RSG- GAS, Rev 10, 2 (2008).
  22. Anonymous Licensing for Working with Nuclear Installation and Material, BAPETEN Chairman Regulation No.6 of 2013. 2014.
  23. Hassan A., Maskin M., Tom P.P., Brayon F., Hlavac P., Mohamed F. Operator response modeling and human error probability in TRIGA Mark II research reactor probabilistic safety assessment. Ann. Nucl. Energy. 2017. 102:179–89.
  24. Wiegmann, D.A., Shappell S.A. Human Factors Analysis and Classification System(HFACS). Ashgate, Burlington,VT. 2003.:83–103.
  25. Ergai A., Cohen T., Sharp J., Wiegmann D., Gramopadhye A., Shappell S. Assessment of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS): Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Saf. Sci. 2016. 82:393–8.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

PTKRN Digital Library Mendeley