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

A11 - MITIGATING THE NON-RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE EMERGENCY
AND RESPONSE
Threat category
Responsibility
Elements I II III IV V O L N
and that of all other family members, including unborn children. Therefore, along with the criteria there
should be a common language statement defining “safe”. This explanation should be tested on
representative members of the intended audience. Provision to address public concerns of a perceived
terrorist threat should be considered such as increased security at locations perceived as concern.
A11.2 Arrange to respond to public concern, anxiety and distress in an actual or perceived radiation
emergency. Arrange to explain any health risks and appropriate and inappropriate personal actions for
reducing risks; to monitor for and respond to any related health effects; to counter inappropriate actions on
the part of workers and the public; to designate organization(s) with the responsibility for identifying the
reasons for such actions (such as misinformation obtained from the media) and to make recommendations
on countering them. Specify how these recommendations are to be incorporated into the national
emergency response (4.96).
Identify the organization(s) with the responsibility for identifying causes of these reactions (e.g.
misinformation or unrealistic fears) and for making recommendations on their mitigation. Detail how
these recommendations will be incorporated into the national response. Unwarranted reactions include
shunning of potentially exposed people, spontaneous evacuations, hoarding, or unwarranted terminations
of pregnancy.
Establish the process used to develop the system of compensation for emergency workers and the public
after an emergency (radiation, chemical or other) following careful consideration of the benefits and long
term social, psychological and economic effects. The compensation system should be directly related to
tangible losses or needs resulting from the emergency, such as implementation of protective actions (e.g.
evacuation costs, or replacement of potentially contaminated food); compensation for demonstrated
losses or costs directly related to the emergency (e.g. replacing lost incomes or contaminated property);
and re-establishing a normal life (e.g. providing job training for those who lost jobs or providing
assistance in finding housing for those displaced from contaminated areas). Compensation criteria that
support public fears (e.g. based on contamination levels in areas where the population is allowed to
remain) should be avoided. The system of compensation should address acts of terrorism.
87