s ystems analysis laboratory helsinki university of technology decision conferencing in nuclear...
TRANSCRIPT
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Decision Conferencing in Nuclear Emergency Management
by
Raimo P. Hämäläinen
Mats Lindstedt
Kari Sinkko
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Contents of presentation:
• background of the study
• decision conferences at STUK
• results and conclusions
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Objectives
• to study decision conferencing and its suitability in RODOS
• to study the use of the RODOS software
• to study the incorporation of uncertainties
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
First series of decisionconferences in 1997
Second meeting:Decision conference
First meeting: Problemstructuring session
First phase of the decisionconferences: attributes and values
Second phase of the decisionconferences: uncertainties
Second meeting:Decision conference
First meeting:Preconference
Second series of decisionconferences in 1998
Conferences at STUK
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Conferences at STUK
Facilitators
Decision Makers
Screen used for projecting the computerscreens and slides
Analyst for thedecision aiding
software
Analyst for theRODOSsoftware
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Objectives of the first conference
• to define the factors and attributes important when deciding on countermeasures
• no uncertainties included
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Problem structuring
session
Preliminary value tree
Overall
Health
Economics
Political
Industry
State/Atom pool
Technical feasibility
Socio-Psychological
Hereditary effects
Non-radiation
Cancer
Deterministic
Adults
Children
Immediate costs
Citizens
Industry
Society
Social
Health related
Safety related
Terratogenic
Int. confidence
Public confidence
National safety
Value of property
Economy
Loss of income
Immediate costs
Agriculture
Tourism
Production
Protection
Compensation
Ability to recover
Citizens
National property
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
First decision conference
Finalvalue tree
Overall
Health
Economics
Political
Losses duringrecovery
State/Atompool
Technicalfeasibility
Socio-Psychological
Non-radiation& other
Rescueworkers
Othercancers
Thyroid cancer
Social
Health andsafety
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
First decision conference-the strategies and their impacts
Attribute Unit No action Reluctant Medium RigorousHealth Thyroid cancer number of incidents 1000 900 700 0 Other cancers number of cancer deaths 400 300 220 0 Rescue workers number of deaths 0 1 1 2 Non-radiation and other
number of deaths 0 3 7 10
Socio-Psychological Health and safety
very neg-very pos(100 - 0)
80 80 70 40
Social very neg-very pos(100 - 0)
0 5 40 80
Technical feasibility very low-very high(100 - 0)
0 1 10 100
Economics State/ Atom pool MFIM 250 240 500 20000 Losses during recovery
MFIM 1000 1000 1000 10000
Political very neg-no change(100 - 0)
100 30 30 80
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
First decision conference- weights given by participants
Attribute LeastPreferred
Level
MostPreferred
Level
DM 1SMARTER
DM 2SMART
DM 3SMART
Thyroid cancer 1000 0 0.337 0.250 0.235Other cancers 400 0 0.212 0.250 0.188Rescue workers 2 0 0.013 0 0.047Non-radiation & other 10 0 0.013 0 0.012Health and safety 100 0 0.076 0 0.235Social 100 0 0.030 0 0.118Technical feasibility 100 0 0.107 0 0.047State/ Atom pool 20000 0 0.149 0.250 0Losses during recovery 10000 0 0.013 0.250 0Political 100 0 0.051 0 0.118
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
First decision conference- rankings
AlternativeNo actionReluctantMediumRigorous
Utility 0.337 0.446 0.536 0.610
State/Atom pool Losses d. recovery Health and SafetySocial Technical feasib. PoliticalThyroid cancer Other cancers Rescue workersNon-radiation&other
AlternativeNo actionReluctantMediumRigorous
Utility 0.472 0.559 0.656 0.500
State/Atom pool Losses d. recovery Health and SafetySocial Technical feasib. PoliticalThyroid cancer Other cancers Rescue workersNon-radiation&other
AlternativeNo actionReluctantMediumRigorous
Utility 0.271 0.390 0.448 0.612
State/Atom pool Losses d. recovery Health and SafetySocial Technical feasib. PoliticalThyroid cancer Other cancers Rescue workersNon-radiation&other
1 2
3
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
• 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
Second decision conference
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Second decision
conference
Overall
Health
Costs
Political cost
Socio-Psychological
Othercancers
Thyroid cancer
Negativeeffects
Positiveeffects
Finalvalue tree
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Second decision conference-impactsAttribute Unit Strategy
0Strategy
1Strategy
2Strategy
3Strategy
4Health Thyroid cancer nr of cancer 5% 0 0 0 0 0
incidents 50% 20 5 2 2 495% 240 50 20 20 40
Other cancers nr of cancer 5% 0 0 0 0 0incidents 50% 22 20 20 20 12
95% 320 286 288 286 204Socio-Psychological Positive effects no change- 5% 0 100 10 10 0
very pos 50% 0 75 50 45 40(0 - 100) 95% 0 50 90 80 80
Negative effects no change- 5% 40 0 90 80 50very neg 50% 70 40 50 45 35(0 - 100) 95% 100 80 10 10 20
Costs MFIM 5% 0 9.7 13.5 13.5 960.2MFIM 50% 11.8 18.7 22.5 22.5 962.9MFIM 95% 166.2 143.1 145.3 144.5 1056.2
Political cost no change- 5% 30 0 0 20 80very neg 50% 65 40 40 30 50(100 -0) 95% 100 80 80 40 20
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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.
Please set Level L and probability P so that certain Alternative Aand lottery Alternative B are equally preferred
A B
L = 50
P = 0.500250
1 - P = 0.5000
Risk Premium = 75, Local Risk Aversion (r) = 0.0131251
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Second decision conference- utility functions
Utility
Thyroid cancer (nr. of incidents)
1
0
0 250
Selected Point -- Level:50 Utility:0.5
Utility
Costs (MFIM)
1
0
0 1100
Selected Point -- Level:1000 Utility:0.5
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Second decision conference- weights
Attribute LeastPreferred
Level
MostPreferred
Level
SMART Tradeoff SMART
95%
Thyroidcancer
250 0 (20) 0.328 0.210 0.400
Othercancers
400 0 (200) 0.262 0.105 0.120
Positiveeffects
0 100 0.016 0.030 0.040
Negativeeffects
100 0 0.098 0.101 0.080
Costs 1100 0 (100) 0.033 0.050 0.040Politicalcost
100 0 0.262 0.504 0.320
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Second decision conferenceAlternativeStrategy 0Strategy 1Strategy 2Strategy 3Strategy 4
Utility 0.566 0.743 0.753 0.783 0.722
Costs Other cancers Political costSoc.-Psych Negative Soc.-Psych Positive Thyroid cancer
AlternativeStrategy 0Strategy 1Strategy 2Strategy 3Strategy 4
Utility 0.474 0.697 0.694 0.748 0.628
Costs Other cancers Political costSoc.-Psych Negative Soc.-Psych Positive Thyroid cancer
Rankingwith
SMART
Rankingwith
Tradeoff
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Second decision conference- ranking with SMART (95% fractile)
Alternative
Strategy 1Strategy 2Strategy 3Strategy 4
Utility 0.043 0.431 0.636 0.762 0.781
Costs Other cancers Political costSoc.-Psych Negative Soc.-Psych Positive Thyroid cancer
Strategy 0
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
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.