Abstract: The need for transparent and consistent decision making in nuclear emergency management across local, regional, national and international levels is well recognised. Several decision support systems have been developed to help achieve this; but, by and large, with little consultation with potential DMs and with limited understanding of the emergency management procedures across Europe and how they differ. This work, part of a European Fifth Framework project EVATECH, considers the application of process modelling to document and compare the emergency management process in four countries. We have observed that the four process models are substantially different in their organizational structure and identified differences in where decisions are made, the management of advice and the communication network style. This papers focus is on the results of the comparison and the implications for the design and use of decision support systems.

Abstract: During the past quarter century there have been many developments in scientific models and computer codes to help predict the ongoing consequences in the aftermath of many types of emergency: e.g. storms and flooding, chemical and nuclear accident, epidemics such as SARS and terrorist attack. Some of these models relate to the immediate events and can help in managing the emergency; others predict longer term impacts and thus can help shape the strategy for the return to normality. But there are many pitfalls in the way of using these models effectively. Firstly, non-scientists and, sadly, many scientists believe in the models' predictions too much. The inherent uncertainties in the models are underestimated; sometimes almost unacknowledged. This means that initial strategies may need to be revised in ways that unsettle the public, losing their trust in the emergency management process. Secondly, the output from these models form an extremely valuable input to the decision making process; but only one such input. Most emergencies are events that have huge social and economic impacts alongside the health and environmental consequences. While we can model the latter passably well, we are not so good at modelling economic impacts and very poor at modelling social impacts. Too often our political masters promise the best 'science-based' decision making and too late realise that the social and economic impacts need addressing. In this paper, we explore how model predictions should be drawn into emergency management processes in more balanced ways than often has occurred in the past. © Proceedings ISCRAM 2004.

Abstract: Driven by events such as terrorist outrages and pandemics, the 21 st century has seen substantial changes in how countries plan for and manage emergencies across health care systems. Aside from changes in the pattern, type and scale of emergency, emergency preparedness must respond to developments in medical knowledge and treatment, and in information and communication technologies, particularly social networking. This report describes a scoping study of research and development (R&D) needs with regard to emergency planning in health care undertaken by the authors in the UK. We discuss the design of the study, difficulties in its conduct and, via a reference to the published final report, indicate its conclusions. © 2012 ISCRAM.

Abstract: We are just beginning a two year research project on the management of nuclear risk issues, paying particular attention to environmental, financial and safety issues. One aspect that concerns us is to avoid the assumption that any future accident will be similar to a past accident. In the cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima, it was possible both to evacuate the local population to impose a substantial exclusion zone, and we recognize that for many potential accidents this would be the case. But for some nuclear plant, it may not be so because of the large number of local inhabitants or because of some key industrial or societal infrastructure. We would like to take the opportunity of the ISCRAM conference to discuss this issue with a wide audience.

Abstract: This paper outlines an approach to support decision-makers in designing resilient critical infrastructure (CI) networks. As CIs have become increasingly interdependent disruptions can have far-reaching impacts. We focus on the vulnerability of CIs and the socio-economic systems, in which they are embedded, independent from any initial risk event. To determine which disruptions are the most severe and must be avoided, quantitative and qualitative assessments of a disruption's consequences and the perspectives of multiple stakeholders need to be integrated. To this end, we combine the results of consequence models and expert assessments into stress test scenarios, which are evaluated using multi-criteria decision analysis techniques. This approach enables dynamic adaption of the stress tests in the face of a fast changing environment and to take account of better information about interdependencies or changing preferences. This approach helps make trade-offs between costs for resilient CIs and potential losses of disruptions clearly apparent.