Discussion of Comments from a Peer Review of A Technique for Human Event Anlysis (ATHEANA)

In May of 1998, a technical basis and implementation guidelines document for A Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA) was issued as a draft report for public comment (NUREG-1624). In conjunction with the release of draft NUREG- 1624, a peer review of the new human reliability analysis method its documentation and the results of an initial test of the method was held over a two-day period in June 1998 in Seattle, Washington. Four internationally known and respected experts in HK4 or probabilistic risk assessment were selected to serve as the peer reviewers. In addition, approximately 20 other individuals with an interest in HRA and ATHEANA also attended the peer and were invited to provide comments. The peer review team was asked to comment on any aspect of the method or the report in which improvements could be made and to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. They were asked to focus on two major aspects: Are the basic premises of ATHEANA on solid ground and is the conceptual basis adequate? Is the ATHEANA implementation process adequate given the description of the intended users in the documentation? The four peer reviewers asked questions and provided oral comments during the peer review meeting and provided written comments approximately two weeks after the completion of the meeting. This paper discusses their major comments.