Working Group 3 Working Group 3 Challenges in

Working Group 3

Working Group 3 Challenges in the practical implementation of countermeasure strategies and their optimisation in existing exposure situations and how decision aiding tools can support this Moderator: Anne Nisbet

Approach taken n n Round table introductions Selection and reframing of questions Discussion Exchange of notes Presentation

Discussion topics n n n How clean is clean? Do we have the necessary tools for managing existing exposure situations? If not, what else can be done? How can decision-aiding tools in particular, be used in existing exposure situations?

How clean is clean (1) n Depends on: n Scale (small vs large) n Political factors – responsibility n n Trust in authorities n n Accident or malicious Preparedness, awareness, information Who participates in decision n Places for dialogue at the local level

How clean is clean (2) n Depends on: n Understanding of risks n Understanding of optimisation n n Prioritisation of needs in the local context n n Averted dose vs social, ethical, env impacts What to clean and to what level Acceptance of individual preferences n Stay/go; self-help actions

How clean is clean (3) n Successes from Japan n Culture of re-building following natural disasters Local initiatives and networks for decontamination activities Availability of tools n n Technical approaches, monitoring equipment Social networking

Are the right tools available (1) YES n AGRICP and ERMIN n n n MOIRA EURANOS Recovery Handbooks n n Food production; inhabited areas SAGE Handbook + CODIRPA n RP Culture

Are the right tools available (2) BUT. . . n All tools need revising post Fukushima n Develop additional ‘simple’ tools n Develop app for I-Phone? n Identify new training programmes n n Decon teams Engage stakeholders for dialogue under non-crisis conditions

Are the right tools available (2) BUT. . . n Characterise vulnerabilities (zones) n More information needed on long term behaviour of many radionuclides n Inadequate calibration of monitoring equipment (aerial surveys) leading to bad management decisions

Application of D. A. Tools Benefits n Assess overall evolution of residual dose n Identifies exposure pathways and points to intervene n Enables elimination of options n Provides audit trail of decisions (BAT – resulting from expert knowledge)

Application of D. A. Tools Limitations n Don't include uncertainties n May not be able to distinguish between similar sets of options on basis of residual dose n Unsuitable for malicious acts n Different source terms, particle size, deposition velocity, physico-chemical