TY - BOOK
T1 - Report from the Belgian stakeholder panel on scope, format and content of the Guidance for lifting of countermeasures
AU - Carlé, Benny
AU - Turcanu, Catrinel
AU - Sohier, Alain
AU - Camps, Johan
AU - Olyslaegers, Geert
N1 - RN - ER-50
AI - European EURANOS integrated project of the European 6th Framework Programme (Integrated Project FI6R-CT-2004-508843), under CAT1RTD04
Score = 2
PY - 2008/1/31
Y1 - 2008/1/31
N2 - Some relevant remarks ..
• This guidance might have a better place as part of the inhabited area handbook than as a standalone document. It is good to stimulate discussions, define a common terminology and launch discussions in order to derive at the level of each country practical arrangements and procedures. However it suffers in the current form from a certain amount of lack of clarity and good structuring, especially in its chapter 2 on influencing factors...
• The guidance would be more useful if specific scenario's are developed, trying to be generic over a too wide range of accident scopes makes the guidance too vague.
• It is suggested to discuss the radiological criteria prior to discussing the adequacy of monitoring data. Related to the latter, the analysis should follow the chain: conceptual criteria => operational criteria => measurements needed.
• Socio-economic aspects should be included as well in the list of influencing factors. In general, a broader discussion framework is necessary, while having the radiation-protection standpoint as a good start. The parts of the guidance concerning communication, socio-economic and psychological aspects might have to be developed with the help of specialists in these domains.
AB - Some relevant remarks ..
• This guidance might have a better place as part of the inhabited area handbook than as a standalone document. It is good to stimulate discussions, define a common terminology and launch discussions in order to derive at the level of each country practical arrangements and procedures. However it suffers in the current form from a certain amount of lack of clarity and good structuring, especially in its chapter 2 on influencing factors...
• The guidance would be more useful if specific scenario's are developed, trying to be generic over a too wide range of accident scopes makes the guidance too vague.
• It is suggested to discuss the radiological criteria prior to discussing the adequacy of monitoring data. Related to the latter, the analysis should follow the chain: conceptual criteria => operational criteria => measurements needed.
• Socio-economic aspects should be included as well in the list of influencing factors. In general, a broader discussion framework is necessary, while having the radiation-protection standpoint as a good start. The parts of the guidance concerning communication, socio-economic and psychological aspects might have to be developed with the help of specialists in these domains.
KW - Emergencency management
KW - stakeholders
KW - lifting of countermeasures
UR - http://ecm.sckcen.be/OTCS/llisapi.dll/open/ezp_86437
M3 - ER - External report
VL - 1
T3 - SCK•CEN Reports
BT - Report from the Belgian stakeholder panel on scope, format and content of the Guidance for lifting of countermeasures
PB - SCK CEN
ER -