How many performance shaping factors are necessary for human reliability analysis?

It has been argued that human reliability analysis (HRA) has expended considerable energy on creating detailed representations of human performance through an increasingly long list of performance shaping factors (PSFs). It is not clear, however, to what extent this refinement and expansion of PSFs has enhanced the quality of HRA. Indeed, there is considerable range in the number of PSFs provided by individual HRA methods, ranging from single factor models such as timereliability curves, up to 50 or more PSFs in some current HRA models. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission advocates 15 PSFs in its HRA Good Practices (NUREG-1792), while its SPAR-H method (NUREG/CR-6883) espouses the use of eight PSFs and its ATHEANA method (NUREG-1624) features an open-ended number of PSFs. The apparent differences in the optimal number of PSFs can be explained in terms of the diverse functions of PSFs in HRA. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of PSFs across different stages of HRA, including identification of potential human errors, modeling of these errors into an overall probabilistic risk assessment, quantifying errors, and preventing errors.