Uncertainty Assessment in Regulatory Judgement and Decisionmaking

  • B. Faust
Conference paper


The significance of uncertainty assessment of nuclear power plants (NPP) has been widely recognized [1], [2]. Defense-in-depth requires to effectively account for them. Their explicit quantification improves regulatory judgment and helps decisionmakers set priorities in addressing the most important upgrade or repair activities with respect to safety, economics and time [3], [4]. Decisions become more transparent in front of the stakeholders and, a higher power level may be allowed if exaggerated conservatisms are removed. In order to avoid that safety margins are introduced twice, political perceptions have to be clearly separated from consequence analyses. Conservatism and the way how different objectives should be weighted are part of risk management and, not of uncertainty description itself. This paper deals with the explicit formulation and hierarchical structuring of uncertainty in dependence of its safety relevance. Operators and regulatory bodies are provided with ideas useful for including risk-informed aspects to move into integrated decisionmaking.


Nuclear Power Plant Epistemic Uncertainty Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Uncertainty Assessment Aleatory Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U.S. NRC Draft Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.2“Review of Transient and Accident Analysis”, 2003Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    NEA issue Brief“An Analysis of principle nuclear issues”, 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nureg/CR-6833“Formal methods of decision applied to priorization of research and other topics”, 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paté-Cornell, E.” Risk & Uncertainty Analysis in Government Safety Decisions”, Workshop on Sensitivity Analysis Methods, Stanford University, 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oberkampf, W.L. et altri” Error and uncertainty in modeling and simulation”, Rel. Engineering and System Safety 75, 2002Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmocker, U.”Technische Massnahmen zur Begrenzung der Folgen schwerer Unfälle”, SVA Vertiefungskurs, 1997Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sardella, R.” Proposta di una metodologia per il trattamento dell’opinione degli esperti negli studi probabilistici di sicurezza degli impianti nucleari”, PhD thesis, University Bologna, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apostolakis, G”The distinction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty is important: an example from the inclusion of aging effects into PSA” Proc. of PSA International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, 1999Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nureg/CR-6372, “Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts”, 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ayyub, B.” Practical Guide on Conducting Expert Elicitation of Probabilistics and Consequences for Corps Facilitiess”, 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nureg-1150” Severe Accident Risks — Assessment of NPP’s”, 1990Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    VTT/Finnland Nordic Nuclear Safety Research (NKS)”Identification and communication of uncertainties of phenomenological models in PSA,” 2001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niehaus, F. (IAEA)”Use of Probabilistics Safety Assessment for nuclear Installations” Safety Science 40 /153–176, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Helton, J.C., Oberkampf W.L. et altri“Competing Failure Risk Analysis Using Evidence Theory”, Non-Deterministic Approaches in Virginia Forum, 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmocker, U. et altri“An Assessment of the Risk-Impact of Reactor Power Upgrade for a BWR-6 MARK-III Plant”, Proceed. PSAM-3, 1997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burgazzi, L.”Evaluation of uncertainty related to passive system performance” 11th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering Tokyo, 2003Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammonds et altri, “An Introduction Guide to Uncertainty Analysis in Environmental and Health Risk Assessment,” 1994Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woltereck, M”Dynamic Reliability Analysis with Quantification f Epistemic Uncertainty: A BWR Application presented at the Institute for Reactor Dynamics and Reacor Safety,” Garching / Germany, 2002Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faust, B.”Evaluation of the residual load-bearing capacity using fuzzy-logic & decision analysis”, PhD thesis, Univ. Federal Armed Forces Munich, 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Faust
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (HSK)VilligenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations