epr-method (2003) - IAEA Publications - International Atomic Energy ...

86
4.2.11. Mitigating the non-radiological consequences (A11 elements)
Response objective: To consider the non-radiological consequences of the response in order to ensure that the response actions do more good than
harm (4.94).
A11 - MITIGATING THE NON-RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE EMERGENCY
AND RESPONSE
Threat category
Responsibility
Elements I II III IV V O L N
A11.1 Arrange for justifying, optimizing and authorizing different intervention levels or action levels
following an event for which agricultural countermeasures or longer-term protective actions are in place.
Include arrangements for consulting the people affected. Consider, for the long term protective actions,
anxiety or distress caused, effects on economic conditions, employment and long term needs for social
welfare, and other non-radiological effects. This process should provide for exceptions from compliance
with international standards where these are justified (4.95).
Resist the public, political and media pressure to implement long term programmes based on the
perceived radiological risk and before actual radiological risk reduction and the adverse social and
psychological impact of the programmes can be evaluated. This can be accomplished by establishing in
advance the process and criteria, based on international standards, for making long term decisions and
by ensuring that all the parties involved in the decision making process, including the media and public,
are aware of the actual radiation risks (see Element A10.6). Develop recommendations for implementing
countermeasures to alleviate the radiological consequences according to on accepted radiation
protection principles that do not anticipate other factors and that are based on realistic assumptions.
Recommendations should be accompanied by a plain language explanation that enables the decision
maker to understand them, reasonably consider them and explain them to the public. The explanation
must make it clear to people that the actions recommended (taken) ensure their safety and that of all other
family members, including unborn children. The decision maker should consider this in the broader
decision making process that includes consideration of economic, social and other factors when
determining the action levels to be used.
Scientifically based recommendations for implementing countermeasures should be accompanied by an
explanation that enables the decision maker to understand them, reasonably consider them and explain
them to the other stakeholders. The explanation must make it clear to people that it ensures their “safety”