Document Type : Research Paper


Nuclear Power and Energy Division, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka, Bangladesh.


The Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) framework to a radiological emergency in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) accident should be developed systematically and efficiently by applying an appropriate methodology. A systematic approach is applied in this study to select the appropriate method from different methodologies for developing EPR framework of a NPP accident by applying trade-off analysis. Ten evaluation criteria, namely causal analysis, decision making analysis, feedback analysis, interactive graphical analysis, nonlinear behavior analysis, organizational factor analysis, quantitative analysis, sensitivity analysis, statistical analysis, and threat analysis were identified for methodology selection by conducting requirement analysis of EPR framework. The System Dynamics (SD) approach was found as the most capable and the best methodologies according to the trade-off analysis by considering the assigned criteria for EPR framework of a NPP accident. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) can also be applied in the EPR framework development process of NPP accident.


Main Subjects

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (1996). Defence in depth in nuclear safety (INSAG Series No. 10). Retrieved from
  2. Hossen, M. M., Kang, K. H., & Song, J. H. (2016, May). Developing off-site emergency preparedness and response model (OEPRM) for severe accident of NPP in a densely populated country using system dynamics approach. Paper presented, Transactions of the korean nuclear society spring meeting. Conference conducted at the meeting of Korean Nuclear Society (KNS), Jeju, Korea. Retrieved from
  3. Haskins, C. (Ed.). (2011). Systems engineering handbook a guide for system life cycle processes and activities. INCOSE.
  4. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process- panning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, USA.
  5. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences1(1), 83-98.
  6. Taherdoost, H. (2017). Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP); a step by step approach. International journal of economics and management systems2, 243-246.
  7. Olabanji, O. M. (2020). Fuzzified synthetic extent weighted average for appraisal of design concepts. International journal of research in industrial engineering9(2), 183-201.
  8. Chan, A. H., Kwok, W. Y., & Duffy, V. G. (2004). Using AHP for determining priority in a safety management system. Industrial management & data systems, 104(5), 430–445.
  9. Ha, J. S., & Seong, P. H. (2004). A method for risk-informed safety significance categorization using the analytic hierarchy process and bayesian belief networks. Reliability engineering & system safety83(1), 1-15.
  10. Cheng, J., Greiner, R., Kelly, J., Bell, D., & Liu, W. (2002). Learning Bayesian networks from data: an information-theory based approach. Artificial intelligence137(1-2), 43-90.
  11. Phan, T. D., Smart, J. C., Capon, S. J., Hadwen, W. L., & Sahin, O. (2016). Applications of Bayesian belief networks in water resource management: a systematic review. Environmental modelling & software85, 98-111.
  12. Van Der Gaag, L. C. (1996). Bayesian belief networks: odds and ends. The computer journal39(2), 97-113.
  13. Lee, E., Park, Y., & Shin, J. G. (2009). Large engineering project risk management using a Bayesian belief network. Expert systems with applications36(3), 5880-5887.
  14. Uusitalo, L. (2007). Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecological modelling203(3-4), 312-318.
  15. Olama, M. M., Allgood, G. O., Davenport, K. M., & Schryver, J. C. (2010, May). A Bayesian belief network of threat anticipation and terrorist motivations. Sensors, and command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) technologies for homeland security and homeland defense IX(Vol. 7666, pp. 159-169). SPIE.
  16. Friedman, N., & Goldszmidt, M. (1996, July). Discretizing continuous attributes while learning Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on machine learning (ICML) (pp. 157-165.) Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
  17. Sankar, N. R., & Prabhu, B. S. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. International journal of quality & reliability management, 18, 324–336.
  18. Liu, H. C., Liu, L., & Liu, N. (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert systems with applications40(2), 828-838.
  19. Pillay, A., & Wang, J. (2003). Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability engineering & system safety79(1), 69-85.
  20. Liu, H. C. (2019). Improved FMEA methods for proactive healthcare risk analysis(pp. 15-45). Singapore: Springer.
  21. Fazel Rabbi, M. (2018). Assessment of fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for reach stacker crane (RST): a case study. International journal of research in industrial engineering7(3), 336-348.
  22. Nurmi, J., & Niemelä, M. S. (2018, November). PESTEL analysis of hacktivism campaign motivations. Nordic conference on secure it systems(pp. 323-335). Springer, Cham.
  23. Yüksel, I. (2012). Developing a multi-criteria decision making model for PESTEL analysis. International journal of business and management7(24), 52-66.
  24. Shtal, T. V., Buriak, M. M., Amirbekuly, Y., Ukubassova, G. S., Kaskin, T. T., & Toiboldinova, Z. G. (2018). Methods of analysis of the external environment of business activities. Revista espacios, 39(12), 1-22.
  25. Buye, R. (2021). Critical examination of the PESTLE analysis model. Retrieved from
  26. Radzicki, M. J., & Taylor, R. A. (1997). Introduction to system dynamics: a systems approach to understanding complex policy issues. Sustainable Solutions, Inc.
  27. Azar, A. T. (2012). System dynamics as a useful technique for complex systems. International journal of industrial and systems engineering10(4), 377-410.
  28. Williams, T. (2002). Modelling complex projects. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  29. Wang, Q., Ning, X., & You, J. (2005). Advantages of system dynamics approach in managing project risk dynamics. Journal of Fudan University, 44, 201-206.
  30. Chen, Y., Li, J., Lu, H., & Yan, P. (2021). Coupling system dynamics analysis and risk aversion programming for optimizing the mixed noise-driven shale gas-water supply chains. Journal of cleaner production278, 123209.
  31. Delgado-Álvarez, C. A., & Olaya-Morales, Y. (2019). Modeling disaster operations management problems with system dynamics. Decision-making in humanitarian operations(pp. 223-248). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  32. Gürel, S., & Tat, M. (2017). SWOT analysis: a theoretical review. The journal of international social research, 10, 994-1006.
  33. Ghazinoory, S., Esmail Zadeh, A., & Memariani, A. (2007). Fuzzy SWOT analysis. Journal of intelligent & fuzzy systems18(1), 99-108.
  34. Wohlfart, L., Bilan, L., & Schimpf, S. (2010). Step-by-step development of facility management services, a Practitioners’ guide on the I3CON service engineering approach (SEA). I3CON.
  35. Bykov, Y. A., & Fadeeva, V. A. (2021, May). Methodology for assessing the competitiveness of options for the direction of the projected railway using SWOT analysis. IOP conference series: materials science and engineering(Vol. 1151, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing.
  36. Beeho, A. J., & Prentice, R. C. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage tourists: a case study of New Lanark World Heritage Village. Tourism management18(2), 75-87.
  37. Raja Prasad, S. V. S., & Prasad Rao, Y. V. S. S. S. V. (2012). Optimization of emergency management system in a construction organization in India. International journal of research in industrial engineering1(3), 26-38.
  38. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2012). Considerations in emergency preparedness and response for a state embarking on a nuclear power programme. Retrieved from
  39. Mohamed, S. A. S., & Lim, H. K. (2017). Emergency preparedness and response plan for nuclear power plant. International journal of engineering research & technology, 6(06), 1174-1179.
  40. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2007). Arrangements for preparedness for a nuclear or radiological emergency (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GS-G-2.1). Retrieved from
  41. Hossen, M. M., & Hossain, M. (2021). System dynamics model development by analyzing causes of Fukushima Daiichi npp unit-1 accident. International journal of engineering applied sciences and technology, 6(3), 30-35.
  42. Alexander, I. (2002, September). Initial industrial experience of misuse cases in trade-off analysis. Proceedings IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering(pp. 61-68). IEEE.
  43. Daniels, J., Werner, P. W., & Bahill, A. T. (2001). Quantitative methods for tradeoff analyses. Systems engineering4(3), 190-212