Report from the Belgian stakeholder panel on scope, format and content of the Guidance for lifting of countermeasures

Research output: Report/bookER - External reportpeer-review

Standard

Bibtex - Download

@book{42efdcc4f264410f9e1deb89bd8a3e44,
title = "Report from the Belgian stakeholder panel on scope, format and content of the Guidance for lifting of countermeasures",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Emergencency management, stakeholders, lifting of countermeasures",
author = "Benny Carl{\'e} and Catrinel Turcanu and Alain Sohier and Johan Camps and Geert Olyslaegers",
note = "RN - ER-50 AI - European EURANOS integrated project of the European 6th Framework Programme (Integrated Project FI6R-CT-2004-508843), under CAT1RTD04 Score = 2",
year = "2008",
month = jan,
day = "31",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
series = "SCK•CEN Reports",
publisher = "SCK CEN",
number = "ER-50",
address = "Belgium",
edition = "0",

}

RIS - Download

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 -

ID: 95210