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.
|Number of pages||13|
|State||Published - 31 Jan 2008|
|Publisher||Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie|