Decision Conferencing in Nuclear Emergency Management

1
Decision Conferencing in Nuclear Emergency
Management

• by
• Raimo P. Hämäläinen
• Mats Lindstedt
• Kari Sinkko

2
Contents of presentation

• background of the study
• decision conferences at STUK
• results and conclusions

3
RODOS project

• a Real-time On-line DecisiOn Support project to
  develop a group support system for nuclear
  emergency management
• sponsored by the European Commission and started
  in 1990
• in Finland STUK (Radiation and Nuclear Safety
  Authority) participates in the project
• the decision conferences were part of the RODOS
  project and organized by STUK

4
Objectives

• to study decision conferencing and its
  suitability in RODOS
• to study the use of the RODOS software
• to study the incorporation of uncertainties

5
Decision conferencing

• refers to intensive, computer supported meetings
• a group of people develops a shared understanding
  of a common problem
• develops a decision analysis model, assisted by a
  facilitator
• originally a two-day meeting

6
Decision conferencing

• here a faster type of decision conferencing was
  used (a few hours)
• prestructured value trees or separate decision
  making groups
• decision analysis interviews

7
Conferences at STUK

• early phase countermeasures (a few hours after
  the accident)
• iodine tablets, sheltering, and evacuation
• the RODOS software was used to calculate accident
  data and impacts of countermeasures
• first phase of the conferences values and
  attributes
• second phase of the conferences uncertainties
• participants from STUK and from the Finnish
  nuclear power companies

8
Conferences at STUK
9
Conferences at STUK
10
Objectives of the first conference

• to define the factors and attributes important
  when deciding on countermeasures
• no uncertainties included

11
Problem structuring session
Preliminary value tree
12
First decision conference
Final value tree
13
First decision conference-the strategies and
their impacts
14
First decision conference- weights given by
participants
15
First decision conference- rankings
2
1
3
16
Second decision conference

• uncertainties included
• it was known that an accident had happened, but
  it was not known how severe it had been
• 5, 50, and 95 fractiles used
• three accident scenarios

17
Second decision conference
Final value tree
18
Second decision conference-impacts
19
Second decision conference- eliciting utility
functions
Lottery question Please select the number of
cancer incidents (L) that would make you
indifferent between getting that amount for
sure and a fifty-fifty chance of getting 250
cancer incidents or 0 incidents.
20
Second decision conference- utility functions
21
Second decision conference- weights
22
Second decision conference
Ranking with SMART
Ranking with Tradeoff
23
Second decision conference- ranking with SMART
(95 fractile)
24
Observations

• the decision conferencing format was successful
• a lot of progress was made in just a few hours,
  with more training this method could be used in a
  real situation
• using prestructured value trees or benchmarks
  seems a promising way forward
• brainstorming was a good way to get the process
  started
• the participants were able to agree on the value
  trees
• provides a common framework from which to discuss
  the situation

25
Problems

• the choice of strategies was too limited, the
  best choice was too obvious
• the attributes need to be better defined
• the terminology used needs to be clearer
• the case assumed a single decision point, in
  reality sequential decision making would be used
• the participants did not feel that the weighting
  of the attributes was very appropriate

26
Understanding uncertainties

• this was found to be very difficult
• the participants rather focused on the worst case
  scenario (95 fractile) and ignored the
  probabilities
• there was no uncertainty about the accident, if
  there had been the situation would have been even
  more difficult

27
Conclusions - RODOS software

• still a prototype, but could have worked better
• problems with presenting the data using thematic
  maps
• does not yet allow what-if analyses
• the software was not used very much during the
  conferences
• the participants felt RODOS could be used to
  provide data on the accident and to calculate
  impacts
• they did not feel RODOS could help in the actual
  decision making

28
References

• Hämäläinen, R. P, Leikola, O. 1996. Spontaneous
  Decision Conferencing with Top-level Politicians.
  OR Insights Vol 9, pp. 24-28.
• Hämäläinen R.P., Sinkko K., Lindstedt M. 1999.
  Multi-Attribute Risk Analysis in Nuclear
  Emergency Management. Risk Analysis, 2000.
• Hämäläinen R.P., Sinkko K., Lindstedt M., Ammann
  M. and Salo A. 1998. RODOS and decision
  conferencing on early phase protective actions in
  Finland, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority,
  STUK-A159, December, pp. 1-76. Downloadable at
  http//www.hut.fi/Units/SAL/Publications/
• Hämäläinen R.P., Sinkko K., Lindstedt M., Ammann
  M. and Salo A. 1999. Decision analysis interviews
  on protective actions in Finland supported by
  RODOS system. Radiation and Nuclear Safety
  Authority, STUK-A173, February 2000, pp. 57. Also
  RODOS Report - Decision Support for Nuclear
  Emergencies, RODOS(WG7)-TN(99)-04.
• Hämäläinen R.P., Lindstedt M. and Sinkko K. 2000.
  Decision analysis interviews in nuclear emergency
  management. Manuscript.
• French, S., Finck, R., Hämäläinen, R.P.,
  Naadland, E., Roed, J., Salo, A. and Sinkko K..
  1995. An exercise on clean-up actions in an urban
  environment after a nuclear accident, Nordic
  Decision Conference, Sweden, 20-31, August.
• Hämäläinen R P. 1988. Computer Assisted Energy
  Policy Analysis in the Parliament of Finland.
  Interfaces 4 (Vol. 18) 12-23.