IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v31y2001i5p121-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New York Power Authority Uses Decision Analysis to Schedule Refueling of Its Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis J. Dunning

    (New York Power Authority, 123 Main Street, White Plains, New York 10601)

  • Steve Lockfort

    (New York Power Authority)

  • Quentin E. Ross

    (New York Power Authority)

  • Phillip C. Beccue

    (Amgen Inc., One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California 91320-1789)

  • Jeffrey S. Stonebraker

    (Bayer Corporation, 4101 Research Commons, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3387)

Abstract

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) wanted to develop a 10-year schedule for refueling its Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant (IP3) that balanced fish protection, which occurs when IP3 is shut down for refueling, and the costs of buying and loading fuel. We developed a decision analysis model to compare alternative strategies for refueling. It explicitly considered key uncertainties associated with future operation: how well IP3 operates, how long it takes to refuel, and when New York State is likely to deregulate the electric utility industry. The NYPA decision makers used the model to reinforce their choice of a refueling strategy. They were not surprised that more fish protection occurred with strategies that restricted the starting date for refueling to the third week in May, rather than allowing the starting date to float throughout the period from May through August. However, the decision makers were surprised that the more restrictive strategies also resulted in lower costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis J. Dunning & Steve Lockfort & Quentin E. Ross & Phillip C. Beccue & Jeffrey S. Stonebraker, 2001. "New York Power Authority Uses Decision Analysis to Schedule Refueling of Its Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 121-135, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:31:y:2001:i:5:p:121-135
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.31.5.121.9658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.31.5.121.9658
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.31.5.121.9658?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. Fourcade, Fabrice & Johnson, Ellis & Bara, Mourad & Cortey-Dumont, Philippe, 1997. "Optimizing nuclear power plant refueling with mixed-integer programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 269-280, March.
    2. Carl S. Spetzler & Carl-Axel S. Staël Von Holstein, 1975. "Exceptional Paper--Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 340-358, November.
    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. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    2. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Gilberto Montibeller, 2015. "Probability Elicitation Under Severe Time Pressure: A Rank‐Based Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    3. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    4. Ben Ewing & Erin Baker, 2009. "Development of a Green Building Decision Support Tool: A Collaborative Process," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 172-185, September.

    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. Thomas W. Keelin & Bradford W. Powley, 2011. "Quantile-Parameterized Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 206-219, September.
    2. Simone Cerroni & Sandra Notaro & W. Douglass Shaw, 2011. "Do Monetary Incentives and Chained Questions Affect the Validity of Risk Estimates Elicited via the Exchangeability Method? An Experimental Investigation," Department of Economics Working Papers 1110, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    3. Kleijnen, J.P.C., 1978. "Economic framework for information systems," Other publications TiSEM 45d15745-54b7-49ee-8b4e-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Hiba Baroud & Jose E. Ramirez‐Marquez & Kash Barker & Claudio M. Rocco, 2014. "Stochastic Measures of Network Resilience: Applications to Waterway Commodity Flows," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    5. Griset, Rodolphe & Bendotti, Pascale & Detienne, Boris & Porcheron, Marc & Şen, Halil & Vanderbeck, François, 2022. "Combining Dantzig-Wolfe and Benders decompositions to solve a large-scale nuclear outage planning problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(3), pages 1067-1083.
    6. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    7. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    8. Froger, Aurélien & Gendreau, Michel & Mendoza, Jorge E. & Pinson, Éric & Rousseau, Louis-Martin, 2016. "Maintenance scheduling in the electricity industry: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 695-706.
    9. Anil Gaba & W. Kip Viscusi, 1998. "Differences in Subjective Risk Thresholds: Worker Groups as an Example," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 801-811, June.
    10. Melvin Novick, 1980. "Statistics as psychometrics," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 411-424, December.
    11. Petersen, Elizabeth H. & Fraser, Rob W., 2000. "Grower perceptions of the impact of protein premiums and discounts for wheat," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123725, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Baker, Erin & Keisler, Jeffrey M., 2011. "Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 595-605.
    13. Beccue, Phillip C. & Huntington, Hillard G. & Leiby, Paul N. & Vincent, Kenneth R., 2018. "An updated assessment of oil market disruption risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 456-469.
    14. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    15. Guikema, Seth D., 2007. "Formulating informative, data-based priors for failure probability estimation in reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 490-502.
    16. Jiang, R. & Zhang, W. J. & Ji, P., 2003. "Required characteristics of statistical distribution models for life cycle cost estimation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-194, February.
    17. Moors, J.J.A. & Schuld, M.H. & Mathijssen, A.C.A., 1995. "A new method for assessing judgmental distributions," Other publications TiSEM 7ad88666-4ed3-42bf-a563-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Moors, J.J.A. & Schuld, M.H. & Mathijssen, A.C.A., 1995. "A new method for assessing judgmental distributions," Research Memorandum FEW 708, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    20. William F. Wright, 1988. "Empirical comparison of subjective probability elicitation methods," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, September.

    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:inm:orinte:v:31:y:2001:i:5:p:121-135. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.