Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
1) K. Sinkko, 2) R. P. Hämäläinen and 1) R. Hänninen PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
1) K. Sinkko, 2) R. P. Hämäläinen and 1) R. Hänninen

1) K. Sinkko, 2) R. P. Hämäläinen and 1) R. Hänninen

50 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

1) K. Sinkko, 2) R. P. Hämäläinen and 1) R. Hänninen

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Experiences in methods to involve key players in planning protective actions in a case of nuclear accident 1) K. Sinkko, 2) R. P. Hämäläinen and 1) R. Hänninen • STUK-Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority • Helsinki University of Technology

  2. Key players Responsible administrators and organisations, politicians as well as representatives of affected citizens and other actors who will and are likely to take part in decision-making in nuclear emergencies. Who bears cots and benefits should be involved in decision-making in fear and competent decision-making.

  3. Methods to involve key players in decision-making process • hearings; • advisory committees; • planning cells; • citizen juries; • mediation; • stakeholder network; • facilitated workshops; • etc.

  4. DM process and outcome The decision-making process should be fair and competent(Renn, Webbler and Wiedermann 1996). A good decision does not guarantee a good consequence. A decision cannot be qualified based on its true consequence(Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa 1999). A ‘language’ to guide the discussion.

  5. Facilitated workshop • is an intensive session or working meeting; • attended by key players with different fields of expertise aiming to solve a problem; • a neutral facilitator aids the group's discussion and sharing of knowledge; • an analyst, using decision-aiding technology, models the group views; • workshop lasts few hours up to two or three day.

  6. Decision Analysis Guides discussion and offers a structured way to tackle the problem. The main steps are: • identification relevant objectives and attributes; • definition of action alternatives; • assessment of consequences of each action; • judgement of the relative importance of consequences; • sensitivity analysis. The aim is evaluate and identify the best strategy - optimisation

  7. Justification

  8. Decision-making process Ideal; MD tend to wait, take distance, no commitment • Expert • organisations • Collection of • information: • health • social • psychology • environment • economy • etc. Key players/ stakeholders facilitated workshop for overall optimisation Experts Preparatory meetings Decision- makers Formal decision Advice, open debate, set up opinion

  9. Objectives of the study International recommendations have been based on holistic justification and optimisation. Detailed planning was left to national organisations: • this study is response to the call for national planning. All participatory methods do not articulate factors and judgement systematically and openly to be viewed by all concerned people: • aim is to develop methods to include key players concerns and issues openly and equally in the decision.

  10. Nordic workshops • 1992 DK, relocation(NKS, RISØ, STUK, UoL); • 1995 SE, clean-up(NKS, NRPA, SSI, RISØ, STUK, UoL, HUT); • 1997 FI, early phase actions(CEC, STUK, HUT); • 1998 FI, early phase actions, uncertainties(CEC, STUK, HUT); • 1999 FI, early phase actions, interview method(CEC, STUK, HUT); • 2001 FI, milk pathway(national funding, STUK, HUT).

  11. Observations • incorporation of uncertainties in nuclear emergency management is problematic; • experts should do technical calculations and reports in a way that elected officials could understand the problem and the consequences of decision options; • it was not possible to undertake a systematic analysis to derive optimal intervention levels for the accident scenario. More flexible tools to modify protective actions and assess realistically their consequences would have needed.

  12. 1) Early release phase with uncertainties. Assessment is based on certainty equivalent value2) Individual dose in the first month. Evacuation was planned for six months and avertable dose estimation was 22 mSv.3) Evacuation time was not considered. 5) Provision of uncontaminated fodder or upgrading milk to cheese or butter to protect the milk pathway. 6) Action level.7) Restriction to a single foodstuff. 8) Maximum permitted level.

  13. Participants view • participants considered the workshop and the decision analysis very useful in planning actions in advance; • they expected a similar approach to be applicable in a real situation, although its suitability was not rated as high as for planning; • suitability of the approach in early phase of an accident was rated the lowest; • some did not feel comfortable with modelling tools;

  14. Conclusions • key player involvement create a network to be better prepared; • rare decisions could benefit from use of facilitated workshop. Not needed in recurrent decision; • transparency and communication could be increased by applying decision analysis; • decision analysis guides information collection that is needed in decision-making;

  15. Ways to increase credibility of politics and democracy (Sauri 2002) • elected officials should stay as elected officials and not behave as an expert; • elected officials should control the decision-making process so that fixed objectives could be achieved; • elected officials should speak so that those who have given the power could understand the issue; • experts should not have a role of elected official or politician;

  16. Further information http://www.stuk.fi/english/publications/ research publications/ STUK-A series http://www.evatech.hut.fi