What is still needed for emergency preparedness?

Vienna, IAEA, 9 November 2021

International Conference on a Decade of Progress after the Fukushima Daiichi - Building on the lessons learned to further strengthen nuclear safety Participation in the Panel 2 “Preparing and Responding to a Potential Nuclear Emergency – Robust Preparedness.

by Patricia Wieland

Good day everyone, Many thanks for the invitation.

I'll focus on the infrastructure to mitigate the consequences of the accident to the public.

In general, when considering the impact of accidents on the population, the parameters that would categorize the severity of an accident are:

1) Fatalities, physical and mental effects;

2) Evacuation;

3) Surveillance of Environmental Air, water, soil, and food and

4) Economic loss

Therefore, efforts for a robust infrastructure are required to avoid those outcomes or mitigate them.

After an accidental release, understanding radiation protection and dosimetry by decision makers is fundamental to use properly the reference levels. They are not a number, but requires interpretation according to the situation.

I have some experience during the Goiânia radiological accident in Brazil in 87 that shaped my understanding of protecting the population and effective communications. Words like risk, contamination, dose limits have different meanings, depending on the level of knowledge, perspective, and culture.

Furthermore, overestimated averted radiation doses trigger mitigation actions, that could actually bring health, social and economic disruption, sometimes more deleterious than any other risk. Nowadays, there is no need for theoretical modelling if you have drones mapping the dose in real-time.

1) Fatalities

We saw no fatalities due to radiation, however, the fear and stress on the population were enormous, leading to depression and mental health disorders.

We require to a) analyze critically how to avoid unnecessary stress and b) how to build resilience to cope with the situation and yet, be able to make good decisions.

Under stress, people may find some relief and comfort by being within a group. Any disaster presents a big deal of uncertainties, as information is not always available. Nor it is easy to understand, especially under stress, loss, or life-changing pressure. The IAEA report on the 2011 accident recommends involving non-governmental organizations at the preparedness stage to facilitate their effective support to the overall emergency response, and this would relieve the population stress as well.

So

• Disaster response is a multidisciplinary effort, and we cannot leave psychology off the table.

• Gaming in metaverse with influencers could be used to familiarize the public with emergency response, in a wider outreach.

2)Evacuation

Evacuation is a critical point that generates huge social and economic impacts.

The order to evacuate, or to shelter, is a high-level decision and the criteria must be set and clearly understood not only by decision-makers but also by representatives of the public (as in law) well before any accident. Otherwise, the public pressure will be to apply the very conservative 1 mSv per year, instead of the intervention level of 50 mSv, which could well be double, without any health effect.

Other issues to be considered, could be

-Analyzing all risks in perspective

- Reliable use of Detectors and monitoring network

- Correct understanding of Health effects due to radiation in the light of the recent UNSCEAR REPORT that maybe will encourage ICRP to consider these new findings.

3) Air, water and Foodstuff contamination

There are significant economic consequences on the trade of local produces. Controls are surely important. However, even after being cleared of radiation, many times it lacked confidence that the produce could be consumed, even long after the accident.

- Credibility on the radiation clearance certification schemes is as critical as the monitoring itself.

• The joint coordination of UN organizations like IAEA, ILO, WHO and UNEP for coherent and consistent standards and communications would be fundamental to maintain trust in those organizations and relieve the stress and disruptions due to an accident.

• Inconsistencies on reference levels recommended by different authorities should be harmonized before they need to actually be confronted in a situation.

Finally, nuclear accident response with long term offsite consequences involves thousands of people. It requires alignment and cooperation of different ministries and governmental sectors, like energy, civil defence, trade, health, and agriculture and at federal, state or municipal levels within the country. This calls for preparations, procedures, and frequent and challenging simulation exercises, involving a commensurate number of people.