Decision making for late-phase recovery from nuclear or radiological incidents

Abstract

Much of the effort on radiological emergency preparedness has focused on the initial responses to an event (e.g., rescuing or triaging missions), while guidance on the more complex issues (e.g., radiological remediation or population resettlement) of long-term recovery has been lacking. The recent major nuclear accidents at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 have clearly shown that radiological effects can spread over extended areas and last for a long period of time, thus making planning for long-term recovery an essential extension to the overall response. Similar challenges may be encountered in the aftermath of malicious acts involving devices such as radiological dispersal devices or improvised nuclear devices. Given the potentially unprecedented nature of the impact, the affected communities would have to face a series of daunting tasks in attempting to return to normality. To achieve this objective, a top priority is to conduct an effective and timely remediation of the contaminated areas. In contrast to emergency responses, the late-stage recovery effort is necessarily community focused and therefore will be driven by stakeholders. However, given the nature of the contamination and the widespread impact, cleanup in the aftermath of a major incident could involve a rather complex decision-making process for which the requisite experiences may not be readily available. To this end, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) established a scientific committee to prepare a comprehensive study that develops a framework and recommends an approach to optimizing decision making in late-phase recovery in the wake of major nuclear or radiological incidents. This study, published as NCRP Report No. 175, addresses all relevant dimensions in decision making for long-term recovery. The report describes optimization as a flexible, graded, and iterative process that consists of a series of steps, all of which involve deliberations with stakeholders as central to the success of a community-focused recovery. Above all, it also presents a new paradigm that specifically addresses a long-term approach to managing the challenging radiological conditions that could be encountered by the communities. In conclusion, the report makes a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing and strengthening the effort toward long-term recovery following a major nuclear or radiological incident.