IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v27y2007i4p1027-1042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Making During Nuclear Power Plant Incidents—A New Approach to the Evaluation of Precursor Events

Author

Listed:
  • C. L. Smith
  • E. Borgonovo

Abstract

Renewed interest in precursor analysis has shown that the evaluation of near misses is an interdisciplinary effort, fundamental within the life of an organization for reducing operational risks and enabling accident prevention. The practice of precursor analysis has been a part of nuclear power plant regulation in the United States for over 25 years. During this time, the models used in the analysis have evolved from simple risk equations to quite complex probabilistic risk assessments. But, one item that has remained constant over this time is that the focus of the analysis has been on modeling the scenario using the risk model (regardless of the model sophistication) and then using the results of the model to determine the severity of the precursor incident. We believe that evaluating precursors in this fashion could be a shortcoming since decision making during the incident is not formally investigated. Consequently, we present the idea for an evaluation procedure that enables one to integrate current practice with the evaluation of decisions made during the precursor event. The methodology borrows from technologies both in the risk analysis and the decision analysis realms. We demonstrate this new methodology via an evaluation of a U.S. precursor incident. Specifically, the course of the incident is represented by the integration of a probabilistic risk assessment model (i.e., the risk analysis tool) with an influence diagram and the corresponding decision tree (i.e., the decision analysis tools). The results and insights from the application of this new methodology are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • C. L. Smith & E. Borgonovo, 2007. "Decision Making During Nuclear Power Plant Incidents—A New Approach to the Evaluation of Precursor Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1027-1042, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:4:p:1027-1042
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00941.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00941.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00941.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prakash P. Shenoy, 1992. "Valuation-Based Systems for Bayesian Decision Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 463-484, June.
    2. Patrick Cox & Jörg Niewöhner & Nick Pidgeon & Simon Gerrard & Baruch Fischhoff & Donna Riley, 2003. "The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 311-324, April.
    3. Concha Bielza & Prakash P. Shenoy, 1999. "A Comparison of Graphical Techniques for Asymmetric Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(11), pages 1552-1569, November.
    4. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    5. Martin Neil & Norman Fenton & Manesh Tailor, 2005. "Using Bayesian Networks to Model Expected and Unexpected Operational Losses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 963-972, August.
    6. Ralph L. Keeney, 1980. "Equity and Public Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3-part-i), pages 527-534, June.
    7. H. Christopher Frey, 2002. "Introduction to Special Section on Sensitivity Analysis and Summary of NCSU/USDA Workshop on Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 539-545, June.
    8. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    9. Zvi Covaliu & Robert M. Oliver, 1995. "Representation and Solution of Decision Problems Using Sequential Decision Diagrams," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(12), pages 1860-1881, December.
    10. Ralph L. Keeney, 1980. "Utility Functions for Equity and Public Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 345-353, April.
    11. Sumeet R. Patil & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Methods Based on Applications to a Food Safety Risk Assessment Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 573-585, June.
    12. Paul R. Kleindorfer & James C. Belke & Michael R. Elliott & Kiwan Lee & Robert A. Lowe & Harold I. Feldman, 2003. "Accident Epidemiology and the U.S. Chemical Industry: Accident History and Worst‐Case Data from RMP*Info," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 865-881, October.
    13. Ross D. Shachter, 1988. "Probabilistic Inference and Influence Diagrams," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 589-604, August.
    14. Andrea Saltelli, 2002. "Sensitivity Analysis for Importance Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 579-590, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo, 2017. "Deciding with Thresholds: Importance Measures and Value of Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1828-1848, October.
    2. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    3. Xie, Shuyi & Huang, Zimeng & Wu, Gang & Luo, Jinheng & Li, Lifeng & Ma, Weifeng & Wang, Bohong, 2024. "Combining precursor and Cloud Leaky noisy-OR logic gate Bayesian network for dynamic probability analysis of major accidents in the oil depots," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    4. Nima Khakzad & Faisal Khan & Paul Amyotte, 2015. "Major Accidents (Gray Swans) Likelihood Modeling Using Accident Precursors and Approximate Reasoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1336-1347, July.
    5. Lyu, Dong & Si, Shubin, 2020. "Dynamic importance measure for the K-out-of-n: G system under repeated random load," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Keith Anderson & Tomasz Zastawniak, 2017. "Glamour, value and anchoring on the changing /," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 375-406, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Tonoli, Fabio, 2014. "Decision-network polynomials and the sensitivity of decision-support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 490-503.
    2. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    3. Bielza, Concha & Gómez, Manuel & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2011. "A review of representation issues and modeling challenges with influence diagrams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 227-241, June.
    4. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2006. "Measuring Uncertainty Importance: Investigation and Comparison of Alternative Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1349-1361, October.
    5. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Pomatto, Luciano, 2020. "Aggregate risk and the Pareto principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    6. Demirer, Riza & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2006. "Sequential valuation networks for asymmetric decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 286-309, February.
    7. Concha Bielza & Prakash P. Shenoy, 1999. "A Comparison of Graphical Techniques for Asymmetric Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(11), pages 1552-1569, November.
    8. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2008. "Epistemic Uncertainty in the Ranking and Categorization of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Model Elements: Issues and Findings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 983-1001, August.
    9. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2019. "Fair social decision under uncertainty and belief disagreements," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 775-816, June.
    10. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2008. "Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output with Input Constraints: A Generalized Rationale for Local Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 667-680, June.
    11. Elmar Plischke & Emanuele Borgonovo, 2020. "Fighting the Curse of Sparsity: Probabilistic Sensitivity Measures From Cumulative Distribution Functions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2639-2660, December.
    12. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.
    13. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    14. Makam, Vaishno Devi & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis with χ2-divergences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 372-383.
    15. Marc Lipsitch & Nicholas G. Evans & Owen Cotton‐Barratt, 2017. "Underprotection of Unpredictable Statistical Lives Compared to Predictable Ones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 893-904, May.
    16. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    17. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    18. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Zuber, 2013. "Inequality aversion and separability in social risk evaluation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 675-692, November.
    20. Ke, Ginger Y. & Zhang, Huiwen & Bookbinder, James H., 2020. "A dual toll policy for maintaining risk equity in hazardous materials transportation with fuzzy incident rate," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:4:p:1027-1042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.