Article

Towards an improved decision-making process to better cope with uncertainties following a nuclear accident

¹ IRSN – Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Institute, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
² CEPN – Nuclear Protection Evaluation Centre, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
³ CIEMAT – Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Madrid, Spain
⁴ APA – Portuguese Environment Agency, Amadora, Portugal
⁵ IST-C2TN – Instituto Superior Técnico, Centro de Ciências e Tecnologias Nucleares, Lisbon, Portugal
⁶ EPA – Environmental Protection Agency, Dublin, Ireland
⁷ EEAE – Greek Atomic Energy Commission, Athens, Greece
⁸ RIVM – Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
⁹ WFSR – Wageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
¹⁰ VUJE – VUJE a.s., Trnava, Slovak Republic

^* Corresponding author: vanessa.durand@irsn.fr

Abstract

An emergency situation is subject to multiple sources of uncertainties which should be identified in advance in order to improve the emergency and recovery management, and so optimally foster the living conditions of the population and the quality of their environment. In this context, the Work Package 4 of the European Research Project CONFIDENCE aimed at identifying and reducing uncertainties which could emerge in decision-making processes, in order to improve the preparedness and response after a nuclear accident. To that end, stakeholder panels have been set up in several European countries to collect their views and concerns regarding the decisions to be taken in the event of a nuclear crisis (e.g. evacuation, food restrictions, etc.). More particularly, the implementation of these panels allowed the researchers to (i) identify the main uncertainties that may hamper decision-making processes and to (ii) evaluate the influence of prior decisions made during the emergency phase over the medium to long-term evolution of the situation. Based on these discussions, the various types of uncertainties raised by the national panels have been analysed in order to suggest recommendations to better consider them and to improve the decision-making processes. This paper aims to detail the recommendations resulting from the panels discussions.