Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 4a295d6b-937a-429e-8fe4-1470b992d859
Document Type: srp
Title: Rev. 0 – November 2009
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0929/ML092950353.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 18
Section ID: 18
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ts,” or “Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide, Cambridge University Press,” 1991). Prior experience with tasks or subtasks similar to the actions proposed to be credited in the D3 analysis may provide valuable insights for the analysis/estimates of operator response times. Operating Experience Review (OER) data used to provide input to the analysis/estimates of operator response times should be supplemented with information about the similarities and differences between the credited actions and the actions identified in the OER. A time margin should be added to the analyzed time(s). One acceptable method is for the time margin to equal the maximum recovery time for any single credible3 operator error. Inclusion of such margins provides assurance that manual actions can be performed with a high level of reliability. The basis for the specific time margin used in the analysis should be justified and documented. Insights from the HFE program, especially the OER and Human Reliability Analysis, should be used. The identification of potential errors, error detection methods, and error recovery paths in event trees may be used to provide estimates of how much margin should be added to the operator response time estimates. 1 For an example of an expert panel elicitation, see NUREG-1852, “Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire.” 2 ANSI/ANS 58.8, “Time Response Design Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions,” provides an acceptable task decomposition methodology for this purpose. However, the time intervals described in ANSI/ANS 58.8 were validated using analog controls and; therefore, may not be accurate for this application. 3 As used here, credible operator errors are any errors of omission or commission that are plausible considering applicable operating experience and a human reliability analysis for the task. 18-A-5 Rev. 0 – November 2009 1.B. Review Criteria The responsible