1. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision Conferencing in Nuclear Emergency Management by Raimo P. Hämäläinen Mats Lindstedt Kari Sinkko

2. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Contents of presentation: background of the study decision conferences at STUK results and conclusions

3. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

4. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

5. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

6. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

7. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

8. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Conferences at STUK

9. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Conferences at STUK

10. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Objectives of the first conference to define the factors and attributes important when deciding on countermeasures no uncertainties included

11. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Problem structuring session Preliminary value tree

12. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology First decision conference Final value tree

13. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology First decision conference -the strategies and their impacts

14. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology First decision conference - weights given by participants

15. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology First decision conference - rankings 1 2 3

16. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

17. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Second decision conference Final value tree

18. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Second decision conference-impacts

19. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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.

20. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Second decision conference - utility functions

21. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Second decision conference - weights

22. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Second decision conference Ranking with SMART Ranking with Tradeoff

23. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Second decision conference - ranking with SMART (95% fractile)

24. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

25. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

26. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

27. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

28. S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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.