NUCLEAR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING BASED ON PARTICIPATORY DECISION ANALYTIC APPROACHES

This work was undertaken in order to develop methods and techniques for evaluating systematically and comprehensively protective action strategies in the case of a nuclear or radiation emergency. This was done in a way that the concerns and issues of all key players related to decisions on protective actions could be aggregated into decision-making transparently and in an equal manner. An approach called facilitated workshop, based on the theory of Decision Analysis, was tailored and tested in the planning of actions to be taken. The work builds on case studies in which it was assumed that a hypothetical accident in a nuclear power plant had led to a release of considerable amounts of radionuclides and therefore different types of protective actions should be considered. Altogether six workshops were organised in which all key players were represented, i.e., the authorities, expert organisations, industry and agricultural producers. The participants were those responsible for preparing advice or presenting matters for those responsible for the formal decision-making. Many preparatory meetings were held with various experts to prepare information for the workshops. It was considered essential that the set-up strictly follow the decision-making process to which the key players are accustomed. Key players or stakeholders comprise responsible administrators and organisations, politicians as well as representatives of the citizens affected and other persons who will and are likely to take part in decision-making in nuclear emergencies. The realistic nature and the disciplined process of a facilitated workshop and commitment to decision-making yielded up insight in many radiation protection issues. The objectives and attributes which are considered in a decision on protective actions were discussed in many occasions and were defi ned for different accident scenario to come. In the workshops intervention levels were derived according justifi cation and optimisation principles in radiation protection. Insight was also gained in what information should be collected or subject studied for emergency management. It was proved to be essential that information is in the proper form for decision-making. Therefore, methods and models to assess realistically the radiological and cost implications of different countermeasures

[1]  Timothy L. McDaniels,et al.  Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach , 1998 .

[2]  Felix Rauschmayer,et al.  Reflections on ethics and MCA in environmental decisions , 2001 .

[3]  V Brendler,et al.  Evaluation and ranking of restoration strategies for radioactively contaminated sites. , 2001, Journal of environmental radioactivity.

[4]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[5]  Simon French,et al.  Nordic Decision Conference: An exercise on clean-up actions in an urban environment after a nuclear accident , 1996 .

[6]  A. Salo,et al.  BER-3.2 report: Methodology for justification and optimization of protective measures including a case study. Protective actions planned for Gotland in an EXERCISE SIEVERT-release , 1992 .

[7]  Joseph L Arvai Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Aiea,et al.  International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources , 1994 .

[9]  Tammy O. Tengs,et al.  Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Student,et al.  PSYCHOLOGY OF PREFERENCES , 1982, Pediatrics.

[11]  Hans J. Eysenck,et al.  The psychology of politics , 1956 .

[12]  T. Stewart Simplified approaches for multicriteria decision making under uncertainty , 1995 .

[13]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Facts or values -- how do parliamentarians and experts see nuclear power? , 1991 .

[14]  Arja Alho Silent Democracy, Noisy Media , 2004 .

[15]  Simon French,et al.  Decision Support Issues in RODOS: The Needs of Decision Makers , 1997 .

[16]  R. C. Schwing,et al.  Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? , 1980 .

[17]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Using Values in Operations Research , 1994, Oper. Res..

[18]  Paul Goodwin,et al.  Decision Analysis for Management Judgment , 1998 .

[19]  R. Hämäläinen A decision aid in the public debate on nuclear power , 1990 .

[20]  S. French Uncertainty Modelling, Data Assimilation and Decision Support for Management of Off-Site Nuclear Emergencies , 1997 .

[21]  T Schneider,et al.  Chernobyl post-accident management: the ETHOS project. , 1999, Health physics.

[22]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Spontaneous Decision Conferencing in Parliamentary Negotiations , 2004 .

[23]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 2000 .

[24]  G. Bengtsson,et al.  What Is a Reasonable Cost for Protection Against Radiation and Other Risks? , 1993, Health physics.

[25]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen Computer Assisted Energy Policy Analysis in the Parliament of Finland , 1988 .

[26]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[27]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Interactive Computer Support in Decision Conferencing: The Case of Nuclear Emergency Management, Proceedings of Group Decision & Negotiation 2001, F , 2001 .

[28]  W. Schulze Ethics, Economics and the Value of Safety , 1980 .

[29]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .

[30]  Vlasta Molak,et al.  Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and Risk Management , 1996 .

[31]  Zakkula Govindarajulu,et al.  Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. , 1993 .

[32]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision analysis of countermeasures for the milk pathway after an accidental release of radionuclides , 2001 .

[33]  Timothy L. McDaniels,et al.  The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives , 1996 .

[34]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision analysis interviews on protective actions in Finland supported by the RODOS system , 2000 .

[35]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[36]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision analysis makes its way into environmental policy in Finland , 1992 .

[37]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs , 2002, Oper. Res..

[38]  S. Aumônier,et al.  Non-radiological risks of evacuation , 1990 .

[39]  K. Sinkko RODOS: Decision support system for off-site nuclear emergency management in Europe , 2000 .

[40]  C. Heady,et al.  COCO-1 : model for assessing the cost of offsite consequences of accidental releases of radioactivity , 1991 .

[41]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants , 1994 .

[42]  John Kadvany From Comparative Risk to Decision Analysis: Ranking Solutions to Multiple-Value Environmental Problems , 1995 .

[43]  J. Mumpower Selecting and evaluating tools and methods for public participation , 2001 .

[44]  Simon French,et al.  Valuing the Future: a MADA example involving nuclear waste storage , 1998 .

[45]  Ian Lerche,et al.  Environmental Risk Analysis , 2001 .

[46]  New Technical Functions for WSPEEDI : Worldwide Version of System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information , 2000 .

[47]  Gary F. Bennett,et al.  International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation of and for the safety of radiation sources , 1996 .

[48]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[49]  岩崎 民子 SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION : United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes , 2002 .

[50]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Risk Perception And Trust , 1996 .

[51]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decisionarium ‐ aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the web , 2005 .

[52]  L Sjöberg,et al.  The Cost‐Effectiveness of Lifesaving Interventions in Sweden , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[53]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  RODOS and decision conferencing on early phase protective actions in Finland , 1998 .

[54]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment , 1995 .

[55]  S. French Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality , 1986 .

[56]  L. Phillips A theory of requisite decision models , 1984 .

[57]  M Boyd,et al.  The way forward in radiological protection , 2002 .

[58]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[59]  L. Susskind,et al.  Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach To Resolving Disputes , 1996 .

[60]  L. Eränen,et al.  Finnish reactions facing the threat of nuclear accidents in Russian nuclear power plants. , 1997, Patient education and counseling.

[61]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions , 1999 .

[62]  Carl-Axel S. Staël von Holstein,et al.  Exceptional Paper---Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis , 1975 .

[63]  Peter Adler,et al.  Participating the Public: Group Process, Politics, and Planning , 1997 .

[64]  R. Keeney,et al.  Improving risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[65]  Simon French,et al.  Decision conferencing on countermeasures after a large nuclear accident. Report of an exercise by the BER-3 of the NKS BER programme , 1993 .

[66]  George E. Apostolakis,et al.  Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders , 1998 .

[67]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis , 1999 .

[68]  R. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision support for risk analysis in energy policy , 1992 .

[69]  K. McConway,et al.  Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality , 1986 .

[70]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions , 1977 .

[71]  Simon French,et al.  Multi‐attribute decision support in the event of a nuclear accident , 1996 .

[72]  N. Mccoll,et al.  Intervention criteria in a nuclear or radiation emergency , 1996 .

[73]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Siting energy facilities , 1980 .

[74]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.