Exercise Euranos 2007 - Department of Housing, Planning

Transcription

EXERCISE EURANOS 2007
Department of Environment, Heritage and
Local Government
Report Prepared by OCTO, October 2008
© Operational Command Training Organisation Ltd 2008
CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY INFORMATION – All Rights Reserved
1
Revision 3 – September 2008
Contents
1
Exercise Euranos Purpose, Objectives and Scope.......................................................... 2
1.1
Purpose ...........................................................................................................3
1.2
Objectives of the Handbook ............................................................................3
1.3
Objectives of Euranos 2007 Demonstration Exercise ....................................3
1.4
Exercise Scope ...............................................................................................4
1.5
Exercise Delivery ............................................................................................6
1.6
Additional objective – opportunity NECC practical development....................7
1.7
Recognition of the realities of the potential hazard and risk ...........................7
2
Exercise Structure ............................................................................................................ 8
3
Main Findings ................................................................................................................. 10
3.1
Euranos Handbook questionnaire.................................................................10
3.2
NECC facility – adjustments for ERCC operations .......................................10
3.3
Real-time decision making in the ERCC.......................................................11
3.4
Information dissemination in the ERCC ........................................................12
3.5
Communications between ERCC and Government Departments................12
3.6
Briefing and familiarization of ERCC members.............................................13
3.7
ERCC support ...............................................................................................13
3.8
ERCC schedule.............................................................................................13
3.9
Radiological risk ............................................................................................14
3.10
Euranos Handbook .......................................................................................14
3.11
The dynamic model.......................................................................................14
3.12
Future training and exercising programme ...................................................15
4
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 16
5
Summary of Recommendations ..................................................................................... 17
Annex A – Exercise Euranos Questionnaire
2
1
1.1
Exercise Euranos Purpose, Objectives and Scope
Purpose of the Euranos Exercise
To test the suitability and applicability of the Euranos Handbook for Food Production Systems
in supporting the mitigation and remediation phases of a radiological incident in Ireland.
The Euranos Handbook is a
“Generic Handbook for Assisting in the Management of Contaminated Food
Production Systems in Europe following a Radiological Emergency”
1.2
Objectives of the Handbook
To provide up-to-date information on management options and factors affecting
their implementation;
To outline the many factors that influence the implementation of these options;
To illustrate how to select and combine options to build up a recovery strategy;
To provide advice on techniques for involving stakeholders and for customisation
at local and national level; and
To provide background information on radiological protection, sources and
behaviour of radionuclides in the foodchain
1.3
Objectives of Euranos 2007 Demonstration Exercise
To test the usefulness and applicability of the Handbook (product) for situations
where food production systems become contaminated as a result of a
radiological emergency
To test the value of a stakeholder engagement in customising and applying the
Handbook at national, regional or local levels.
1.3.1 Usefulness and Applicability of the Handbook
Adequacy (level of detail, clarity, state-of-the-art, comprehensiveness, ease of
understanding, etc.) of the type of information presented
Adequacy of the way information is presented in terms of structure and layout of
Handbook, interactive aspects, links, ease of navigation, appropriateness of
figures, tables and diagrams
Added value of look-up tables, colour-coded selection tables, selection trees and
datasheets for assisting in the identification of management options/strategies.
Overall suitability for customisation
3
1.4
Exercise Scope
The exercise was based around issues arising in the various agricultural sectors of Ireland as
a consequence of a major accidental release of radioactivity from the nearest nuclear facility,
the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station in Anglesey, Wales some 120 kilometres miles east of
Dublin.
The scenario was similar to that
used for Exercise INEX 3 during
2005. It represented a release
30 times higher than the Wylfa
reference accident. (reference
accident is based on the
concept of the worst credible
accident which is reasonably
foreseeable at a given nuclear
site).
The radionuclides selected for detailed modelling were Iodine 131 132; Caesium 134 and
137; Strontium 89 and 90. The releases simulated for the exercise were:
I-131
4.5x1014 Bq
Cs-134
1.36x1014 Bq
The date of the exercise selected for simulation by the
Department of Agriculture and Food was 14 August
2007.
Cs-137
1.64x1014 Bq
Release duration of the radionuclides was 2 hours.
Sr-90
2.91x1011 TBq
4
The date of the release was chosen so that the weather scenario was such that the plume of
radioactive material would first be transported west, passing over Dublin, with surrounding
market garden agriculture, and spread across mainly rural, agricultural country to the
agricultural and tourist area of South West Ireland.
Size of area affected – approximately 20,800 km2
RPII simulated the impact
on Ireland of this release
using real weather
forecasts and rainfall
patterns. The products
affected and included in the
simulation were: milk, leafy
green vegetables, grass;
cereals; beef and lamb.
Other meat products were
affected but not simulated
or exercised.
Phase One of the exercise simulated the beginning of the consequence management phase,
starting the day following a radiological incident.
Four expert teams comprised of members of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the
Food Safety Authority of Ireland used the Euranos Handbook to determine an effective
response to simulated radiological impact modelled by the RPII.
Dairy and dairy products
Meat products – beef and lamb
Meat products – pork
Arable products – wheat, barley, grass, lettuce.
Building on lessons learned in the INEX 3 exercise of 2005, and in order to monitor the impact
of decisions made by the expert teams, Octo (the exercise organisers) built a dynamic model
of agricultural impact and countermeasure implementation. Key challenges at this stage in
the determination of agricultural countermeasures is that the assessment of the impact and
the identification of potential consequences would still be ongoing in the face of an incomplete
picture of the situation and an incomplete understanding of the extent or level of
contamination.
Phase Two of the exercise continued the consideration of countermeasures in time jumps of
up to a week at a time. This phase explored the longer term and collateral impacts of initial
decisions, and the medium term impacts on the agriculture and related food industries in
Ireland.
5
1.5
Exercise Delivery
The exercise followed a tabletop format and took place in two phases over one day, each
phase separated by an artificial time interval of one week.
1.5.1 Exercise Initiation
On the day before the Euranos exercise participants received a short briefing paper
representing a summary report from the Emergency Response Co-ordination Committee
(ERCC) as if prepared by the ERCC on Day 1 of the event. This included a situation report; a
summary of key actions taken, briefing submitted to the Committee of Ministers. The briefing
additionally included short excerpts of media coverage in Ireland and UK from day one.
1.5.2 Day 2 – Exercise Phase One
Phase one of the exercise simulated the beginning of the consequence management phase,
commencing on day two, the day after the radioactive release. By day two, the release had
stopped, the radioactive plume had passed over Ireland, resulting in widespread radioactive
contamination and the initial Government crisis response including any immediate
countermeasures had been undertaken. The assessment of the impact and the identification
of potential consequences was still ongoing and there existed an incomplete picture of the
situation and an incomplete understanding of the extent/level of contamination. The issues
simulated included:
Preliminary simulation of potential radiological contamination by the Radiological
Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII);
Estimated impact on livestock; crops; food and water;
Restrictions on consumption of contaminated foods and water supplies;
Agricultural countermeasures to reduce contamination of foodstuffs;
Sampling and radiological measurement to map contamination profiles across
Ireland.
1.5.3 Time Compression between Phase One and Phase Two
The time-jump between phases was simulated with simulated sampling measurements from
Day 8 superseding the predictions of day two. A time-jump of one week was played.
Assumptions were made regarding likely response of the agricultural and food industry based
on the expected procedural responses of the ERCC on day one. The management of the
time compression between phase one and phase two took place by running the agricultural
impact model and assessing the impact of decisions made by the expert teams during phase
one.
The initial conditions to be addressed at the outset of phase two were determined by the
agricultural model.
6
1.5.4 Week 2 – Exercise Phase Two
Phase two of the exercise simulated a day within the second week of the response and
tested the application of medium to longer-term countermeasures. At exercise design it was
expected that phase two assessment would lead to a range and choice of countermeasures
to be selected. In practice, the level of contamination, based on August modelling was readily
handled by the meat products teams by feeding animals with stored feed. The resultant
levels of product contamination were insufficient to present many major issues. Only the
arable impact team had significant issues to consider. This phase of the exercise was
adjusted to consider issues arising at an earlier time of year, when livestock alternative feed
would not be readily available. Issues simulated included:
Sampling results and mapping of actual contamination profile;
Actual impact on livestock; crops; food and water;
Imposition of crops, food and livestock restrictions; the impact and issues arising;
Animal and foodstuff movement restrictions;
Economic impact for agriculture; rural communities; tourism; food industry;
Ongoing sampling of food-stuffs and animal products for return to food-chain;
Disposal of contaminated materials;
Regulation, enforcement and security;
Public and stakeholder communications;
Public and stakeholder response.
1.5.5 Exercise feedback
Each exercise player was provided with a copy of the Euranos questionnaire and time
assigned for them to answer the questions and identify issues arising during the tabletop
exercise. The Exercise Moderators were given a similar questionnaire. At the end of the
exercise, each team was facilitated by its Exercise Moderator, in discussion of their
observations and in pooling information and general impressions, including any perceived
gaps in the response. Following the tabletop exercise, the Lead Moderator and Assistant
Moderators compiled the completed Exercise Evaluation Questionnaires into the overview
report at Annex A.
1.6
Additional objective – opportunity National Emergency Co-ordination
Centre (NECC) practical development
At the pre-exercise briefing 8 November 2007, the Emergency Response Co-ordination
Committee (ERCC) decided to use structured Crisis and Information Management processes
in the National Emergency Co-ordination Centre (NECC) in the Exercise.
1.7
Recognition of the realities of the potential hazard and risk
A bonus value of Exercise Euranos, building on the previous experience of Exercise INEX 3,
was increased awareness in contributing officials and other participants of the realities of the
problems likely to be faced in such circumstances. Several remarked upon the fact that the
7
RPII, in generating a worthwhile exercise, was obliged to increase the levels of the
radiological release to 30 times higher than the reference accident.
2
Exercise Structure
Euranos Exercise Structure
Each team comprises
members of DAF; FSAI; RPII
as required.
One representative from each
responding agency on ERCC.
KEY EVENTS
Dairy and
Dairy Produce
FACT
TIME
ERCC
Deduction
People
ACTIONS
ACTION
STRATEGIC AIM
Recognised Current Situation
Strategic Aim
DAF representative on ERCC
Reputation; oppo rtunity; values
T IME
Business
KEY EVENT
Selected Options - FO CUS
Z Sadf
1
Time
Z Asdf
Z Asdf
Z Asdf
Z Asdf
2
FSAI representative on ERCC
Meat Products
– Beef and lamb
Z SAsdf
Media
Meat Products
– Pigs
Time
Z Asdf
Z Asdf
Z Asdf
Exercise Director
Arable Products
-Wheat, Barley,
Grass, Lettuce
Figure (1)
Investors and other
Stakeholders
Exercise Controller
A small team comprising the
Exercise Controller and a
representative from DAF and FSAI
Euranos Exercise Structure
2.1.1 Exercise structure / Participation by each organisation
Department
Representation in Exercise
Involvement in Exercise
Preparations
Department of the
Environment, Heritage
and Local Government
Chair Emergency Response Co-ordination
Committee (ERCC):
Exercise Planning Representative
and Scenario Adviser:
Sean Hogan
Conor Corbett
Tony Boland
ERCC Information
managers / Action
Managers
Celina Barrett (Major Emergency
Project Team):
Dennis Keeley
Tony Colville
RPII
RPII member of ERCC:
Ann McGarry; Tom Ryan
Tony Colgan (morning only)
Ciara McMahon
8
ACTIO N
BY
EX P.TIME
W HOM
COMP
Department
Preparations
RPII Technical Advisory Team, working in
support of specialist teams:
Paul McGinnity
Killian Smith
Stephen Somerville
Barbara Rafferty
Kevin Kelleher
Department of Agriculture
and Food
Member of ERCC:
Andy Irving
Andy Irving
Team members for Dairy, Meat (*2) and
Arable teams:
Milk & Dairy – John Doody &
Bernadette Hickey
Feed & Crops – Sean Gaule,
Barry O’Reilly, Cara MacAodhain
Meat & Livestock – Michael
Sheahan, Maresa Sheehan (Thurs
only), Kilian Unger (Fri only),
Patrick Connolly, Andrew Guthrie
Food Safety Authority of
Ireland
Member of ERCC:
Jeff Moon
Jeffrey Moon
Team members for Dairy, Meat (*2) and
Arable teams:
Rhod Evan, Chief Specialist
Toxicology
Tim Camon, Agri Officer
Jane Ryder, Press & PR
Noirin O’Gorman / Martine
Brennan, Rapid Alert Team
Eibhlin O’Leary, Service Contracts
In addition to the four exercise cells listed above, the following representation will be required at the ERCC
table.
Department of Defence
Member of ERCC:
David Lalor
Lt Col Willie Dwyer
Department of Health
and Children
Member of ERCC:
Eamon Corcoran sent apologies.
None
9
Department
Department of
Communications, Marine
and Natural Resources
Member of ERCC:
Department of the
Taoiseach
Member of ERCC:
An Garda Siochana
Member of ERCC:
Preparations
None
Ger Burns
Sgt John Roche
3
Main Findings
In addition to the principle output of this project, the Euranos Exercise Questionnaire, the
following section offers an overview of the main lessons learned for the ERCC, DAF and
FSAI.
3.1
Euranos Handbook questionnaire
The primary output of the Euranos 2007 Exercise is the completed Euranos questionnaire,
attached at Annex A.
3.2
NECC facility – adjustments for ERCC operations
The Euranos 2007 exercise was the latest in a series of nuclear emergency exercises. This
was the first to be held at the newly commissioned NECC facility in Agriculture House. The
NECC is conceptually an admirable crisis management centre, with considerable scope for
flexibility and enhancement as experience of its use extends.
Although not specified as an exercise objective, it was clear that developing arrangements
and matching use of the centre with ERCC requirements had to be an integral part of the
exercise. At the briefing on 8 November 2007, the ERCC accepted a proposal from Exercise
Director, Mr Jeremy Larken of OCTO, that structured Crisis Management and Information
Management Systems consistent with the Framework for Major Emergency Management
would be used in the Exercise.
Following the briefing, the main room of the NECC was re-configured in keeping with this
system, which essentially involves creating a ‘wedge’ shape desk arrangement, with the chair
located at the thin end, and whereby all ERCC members have both eye contact with each
other, and can see a series of four principal information boards/ screens with the following
headings:
Recognised Current Situation
Key Issues arising
Strategic Aim/ Priorities
Action Management
10
Photographs are included below showing the configuration, and the various information
boards.
Figure (2)
Photographs of ERCC in action
The meeting room adjoining the main room was designated as the space for information
management purposes, and the four boards were brought into operation, using flip charts,
white boards and one screen fed from a laptop.
The NECC is provided with four plasma screens and a capable routing system. This
arrangement could readily be used to present such an information management system
electronically, bringing major advantages in terms of recording progress and decisions, and
storing data systematically, throughout an incident. It would also aid greatly the facility to
exchange data between the NECC and other Co-ordination Centres.
Recommendation (1)
Adopt the NECC facility layout developed for Euranos 2007 as the standard facility
configuration for operation of the ERCC. Upgrade information management facilities
to electronic white-boards / projection as preferred.
The NECC appears to draw routine support functions from Agriculture House – security, IT
support, stationery, general maintenance. During an emergency, any issues with facilities
and services provision should not prove a distraction to the smooth operation of the ERCC.
This could best be provided through formalisation of the role of a facilities manager with
authority to draw resources from the various support departments in Agriculture House.
Recommendation (2)
3.3
Introduce a role of facilities manager for the NECC. Duties to include: security – for
access control, provision of NECC facilities, IT support.
Real-time decision making in the ERCC.
ERCC decisions making was thus informed by the information management system defined
in the Framework for Major Emergency Management (2006). This built on the
recommendations from the INEX exercise of 2005.
Recommendation (3)
Formalise the information management protocols in NECC / ERCC operating
instructions.
11
Recommendation (4)
Ensure a small cadre of trained and experienced information managers are available
at all times to support NECC operations.
The INEX exercise of 2005 had shown that for agricultural and food safety issues, the
structure of departmental sub-groups was unwieldy. A trial had suggested that harnessing
multi-disciplinary sub-groups, bringing together experts around agricultural topics such as
dairy; meat; arable crops, might be the more effective in developing coherent advice for the
ERCC. Such as multi-disciplinary team structure was adopted for the Euranos exercise and
demonstrated to work effectively. An exercise artificiality was that the sub-groups were
positioned in the breakout arena next to the ERCC. In practice there would not be sufficient
room in this area, allowing for all the other ERCC advisors, and the agricultural sub-groups
would need to be drawn together in and around their normal working areas in Agriculture
House or other nominated locations.
Recommendation (5)
Formalise the multi-disciplinary sub-group structure for agricultural issues within
ERCC operating instructions.
Recommendation (6)
Consider the balance of representation in other ERCC sub-groups in future
exercises, starting with the premise that departmental representation is a sound
default structure until the requirement for multi-disciplinary teams is demonstrated.
Recommendation (7)
Develop and clarify the decision-making mandates of all sub-groups and individuals
operating under the NEPNA.
3.4
Information dissemination in the ERCC
Information collated and presented in the ERCC needs to be shared and disseminated with
sub-groups; notably media and public communications, public health, various agricultural
specialisms, RPII. As the emergency develops the ERCC needs to be able to adjust the
balance of advice that it receives from the sub-groups. The Euranos exercise revealed the
challenge of information sharing beyond the ERCC. With electronic information management
systems operating in the ERCC, the opportunity arises for sharing the structured information
array with all sub-groups. Various techniques can be used, from the basic and fairly labourintensive arrangement of briefing boards provided around the facility - regularly updated, to
electronic dissemination to display boards or individual terminals.
Recommendation (8)
3.5
Explore electronic means of information dissemination from the ERCC to subgroups
in the NECC and beyond.
Communications between ERCC and Government Departments
The effectiveness of the links between individual ERCC members and their own departments
is not yet tested. The challenges are:
to draw an accurate appreciation of the situation as it develops through the
perspective of each supporting department, and to communicate this to the
ERCC via the departmental ERCC representative.
to share the situation, strategic aim and priorities as seen by the ERCC
to obtain formal commitment from departments to meet the strategic aim and
priorities set by the ERCC within their own departmental mandate.
to co-ordinate timely and accurate public warning, incorporating the media
12
Recommendation (9)
3.6
Conduct, through a limited-scope exercise, the communication and information links
between the ERCC and supporting departments.
Briefing and familiarization of ERCC members
The ERCC Director during the exercise briefing established the ‘ground rules’ of ERCC
operation, setting out base documentation including:
NEPNA (Version Dec 05);
ERCC SOP (Draft 14 Feb 07);
Exercise Orders (29 Oct 07);
Protocol for Multi-Agency Response to R/N Emergencies (Draft 24 Oct 07);
Euranos Handbook for Food Production Systems.
In the early phase of a radiological emergency there is a limited window of opportunity to take
action. It is important therefore that Departmental Representatives arrive at the ERCC fully
briefed as to their role in handling some complex technical issues. Departmental
representatives on the ERCC will change from time to time, and there is therefore a need for
newcomers to familiarise themselves quickly with NEPNA and an underpinning appreciation
of basic radiological information. Many of those attending the Euranos exercise, particularly
from the Department of Agriculture and Food, had taken the trouble to read into the Euranos
handbook and gain a basic understanding of the radiological issues which apply. This played
a significant role in their ability to assimilate the specialist technical advice offered by RPII
and, in turn, to advise their ERCC representative on agricultural issues.
Recommendation (10)
3.7
Develop a familiarisation training programme for new and existing members of the
ERCC. This should include a basic appreciation of relevant radiological issues as
suggested by RPII.
ERCC support
It is important that ERCC members are not obliged to leave the ERCC conference while it is
in session, for example either giving or receiving briefings to sub-groups. While not wishing to
have other delegates at the ERCC table, the ERCC agreed that ‘seconds’ or ‘deputies’ are
required for each ERCC rep, and that it would be possible for this group to be in the main
room, without interfering with ERCC proceedings.
Recommendation (11)
3.8
Establish the requirement for seconds or deputies to support each ERCC member.
ERCC schedule
It is not desirable for the ERCC to operate in permanent session. Single day intensive
exercises do not provide a realistic dynamic in this regard. DAF have experience of running a
daily schedule as a crisis evolves, involving early morning meetings, scheduling of Ministerial
involvement, scheduled press briefings. The ERCC should set appropriate meeting
schedules for the first and subsequent days / phases of an emergency as a realistic starting
point for the ERCC schedule. Such a schedule can readily be adjusted according to the
circumstances of the emergency.
13
Recommendation (12)
3.9
Establish days one, two, seven and subsequent ERCC schedules within the ERCC
operating instructions.
Radiological risk
It was noted that the level of risk to Ireland from such an accident is very low. Exercise
designers found it challenging to generate a scenario that would create effects which would
impact on the agricultural industry, let alone the person ‘in the street’. This was achieved only
by assuming a release 30 times higher than the Wylfa reference accident.
Members of the ERCC, and indeed everyone present, were very interested in what the RPII
had to say about the need to increase the severity of the release 30-fold in order to achieve
an agricultural impact. In any reasonably credible circumstances the levels of radiological
contamination are likely to be within the threshold for safe food consumption.
It might be useful to invite RPII to discuss this sort of data publicly, in the interests of
reassuring the community that risks are very small. Certainly there would appear to be civic
value in communicating realistic radiation risk.
Recommendation (13)
3.10
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) be invited to discuss the risks
of radiological contamination of Ireland, in the interests of reassuring the community
that these risks are very small.
Euranos Handbook
It was eminently useful to get a substantial number of experts, especially from the Department
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assembled and involved, and to enable them to gain
familiarity with the Euranos Handbook. There is a wealth of feedback to be taken forward in
reviewing the Handbook.
In circumstances such as those exercised, it is important for experts and officials to have data
at their ‘fingertips’. The data needed for managing the consequences of a nuclear incident
are not the same as everyday requirements. There is additionally a need to know what data
is required and for what purpose.
Recommendation (14)
The Handbook be customized to Irish circumstances as a prime resource in the
event of a radiological incident affecting Ireland in generating mitigation and
remediation measures.
Recommendation (15)
Stakeholders at national, regional and local levels be familiarised with the Handbook,
and gain experience in using it in support of optimising mitigation and remediation
measures in the event of a radiological incident affecting Ireland.
3.11
The dynamic model
The exercise provided a dynamic consequence impact and analysis model prepared by the
organisers (Octo), drawing upon an exercise delivery vehicle using well-established and
validated predictions of the impact of a radiological incident, these being exaggerated in this
case.
This offered the immediate testing of various candidate mitigation strategies to determine their
likely effect, practicality and usefulness. Practical application during the exercise was
14
handicapped by a lack of sufficient timely data from a number of sources, such as could
reasonably to be expected to be available in situations such as that simulated. The potential
of the model was however demonstrated.
It should be noted that the model promises to be additionally useful in a range of agricultural
consequence modelling and analysis applications. It is prospectively available in this context.
Recommendation (16)
Further experience should be gained in using the model in circumstances where
food production systems are judged liable to widespread contamination, using a
realistic spread of appropriate data.
Recommendation (17)
Consideration should be given to using the model to examine a range of agricultural
consequence modelling and analysis applications
3.12
Future training and exercising programme
The NECC is now an established and capable facility. The next stage in its evolution is to
introduce the formal NECC response system to all senior staff and members of Government
who could be involved, either in a nuclear emergency or other emergency applications of the
NECC. These should include senior Department staff, Secretary General, Assistant
Secretaries and Principal Officers in relevant areas. Ministers and Ministers of State should
visit the NECC and receiving briefing on their role and the level of support that they can
expect. All staff who could have a support role, bearing in mind the likely extended nature of
any emergency, need to see the facility in operation.
Departmental (DEHLG) engagement around water supply and environmental issues needs
definition.
Future exercises need to extend the range of ERCC operations to include a broad range of
sub-groups exercising simultaneously. In particular, a full media and communications team
should be trained and exercised. Links to key stakeholders beyond the ERCC, such as Local
Authorities from affected areas should be activated and explored in limited-scope exercises.
Recommendation (18)
Brief senior Departmental staff and Ministers in NECC function.
Recommendation (19)
Define DEHLG Departmental roles around water supply and environmental issues in
a nuclear emergency.
Recommendation (20)
Extend the involvement of the full range of ERCC sub-groups in subsequent
exercises, in particular media and communications and Local Authorities.
15
4
Conclusions
Exercise Euranos 2007 was successful and it achieved its objectives.
The Euranos Handbook for Food Production Systems was tested in terms of
usefulness and applicability for situations where food production systems
become contaminated as a result of a radiological emergency. This test was
positive, with qualifications in a detailed report (Annex A).
The value of stakeholder engagement to customise and apply the Handbook at
national, regional and local levels was noted .
It was eminently useful to assemble a substantial number of experts to address
the problem simulated by the exercise.
A dynamic model for presenting impact and consequence analysis was used,
providing immediate testing of various mitigation strategies. Its practical
application during the exercise was handicapped by the lack of timely data,
realistically to be expected, from a number of sources.
This model is available also for a range of parallel applications in agricultural
management.
It was necessary to increase the levels of the radiological release to 30 times
above the Wylfa reference accident to generate a worthwhile exercise.
There would appear to be civic value in communicating realistic radiation risk to
Ireland, this being very small.
The use of the NECC by the ERCC provided some useful insights into the
NECC’s potential operational capability to meet a wide range of potential national
contingency requirements.
16
5
Summary of Recommendations
NECC facility – adjustments for ERCC operations................................................................. 10
Recommendation (1)
Adopt the NECC facility layout developed for Euranos 2007 as
the standard facility configuration for operation of the ERCC. Upgrade information
management facilities to electronic white-boards / projection as preferred. .................11
Recommendation (2)
Introduce a role of facilities manager for the NECC. Duties to
include: security – for access control, provision of NECC facilities, IT support.............11
Real-time decision making in the ERCC. ............................................................................... 11
Recommendation (3)
Formalise the information management protocols in NECC /
ERCC operating instructions. ........................................................................................11
Recommendation (4)
Ensure a small cadre of trained and experienced information
managers are available at all times to support NECC operations.................................12
Recommendation (5)
Formalise the multi-disciplinary sub-group structure for
agricultural issues within ERCC operating instructions. ...............................................12
Recommendation (6)
Consider the balance of representation in other ERCC subgroups in future exercises, starting with the premise that departmental representation is a
sound default structure until the requirement for multi-disciplinary teams is demonstrated.
..........................................................................................12
Recommendation (7)
Develop and clarify the decision-making mandates of all subgroups and individuals operating under the NEPNA. ....................................................12
Information dissemination in the ERCC.................................................................................. 12
Recommendation (8)
the ERCC.
Explore electronic means of information dissemination around
..........................................................................................12
Communications between ERCC and Government Departments ......................................... 12
Recommendation (9)
Conduct, through a limited-scope exercise the communication
and information links between the ERCC and supporting departments........................13
Briefing and familiarization of ERCC members ...................................................................... 13
Recommendation (10)
Develop a familiarisation training programme for new and
existing members of the ERCC. This should include a basic appreciation of relevant
radiological issues as suggested by RPII. .....................................................................13
17
ERCC support......................................................................................................................... 13
Recommendation (11)
each ERCC member.
Establish the requirement for seconds or deputies to support
..........................................................................................13
ERCC schedule ...................................................................................................................... 13
Recommendation (12)
Establish Day 1, 2, 7 and subsequent ERCC schedules within
the ERCC operating instructions. ..................................................................................14
Radiological risk...................................................................................................................... 14
Recommendation (13)
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) be invited
to discuss the risks of radiological contamination of Ireland, in the interests of reassuring
the community that these risks are very small. ................................................................... 14
Euranos Handbook ................................................................................................................. 14
Recommendation (14)
The Handbook be customised to Irish circumstancesfor use as
a prime resource in the event of a radiological incident affecting Ireland in generating
mitigation and remediation measures................................................................................
14
Recommendation (15)
Stakeholders at national, regional and local levels be
familiarised with the Handbook, and gain experience in using it in support of optimising
mitigation and remediation measures in the event of a radiological incident affecting
Ireland.
..........................................................................................14
The dynamic model ................................................................................................................ 14
Recommendation (16)
Further experience should be gained in using the model in
circumstances where food production systems are judged liable to widespread
contamination, using a realistic spread of appropriate data. .........................................15
Recommendation (17)
Consideration should be given to using the model to examine a
range of agricultural consequence modelling and analysis applications.......................15
Future training and exercising programme............................................................................. 15
Recommendation (18)
Brief senior Departmental staff and Ministers in NECC function.
..........................................................................................15
Recommendation (19)
Define Departmental roles around water supply and
environmental issues in a nuclear emergency. .............................................................15
Recommendation (20)
Extend the involvement of the full range of ERCC sub-groups
in subsequent exercises, in particular media and communications and Local Authorities.
..........................................................................................15
Jeremy Larken
Managing Director
for OCTO
18
Euranos Exercise Report – Annex A
Ireland
Department of Environment, Heritage and
Local Government
Prepared by OCTO, 4 December 2007
1
Annex A
Commercial in Confidence
Annex A: The evaluation questionnaire
Part 1: Evaluation of the product
Handbook installation, format, navigation, content, scope
1
Did the Handbook files install OK?
Yes/No
2
Was there any problem with Adobe Acrobat reader?
Yes/No
3
Familiarity with Adobe Acrobat and its functions?
Yes/No
4
Is the format of Handbook user friendly?
Yes/No
5a
Is navigation through the Handbook adequate using Adobe and
hyperlinks?
Yes/No
5b
Did you find any broken links?
Yes/No
6
Is the level of detail of information provided on radiological protection
appropriate?
Yes/No
7
Is the level of detail of information provided on the behaviour and transfer
of radionuclides in food production systems appropriate?
Yes/No
8
Is the level of detail of information provided on factors affecting the
implementation of management options appropriate?
Yes/No
9
Is the level of detail of information provided on radiological protection
appropriate?
Yes/No
10
Is the level of detail of information provided on management options
appropriate?
Yes/No
11
Is the level of detail of information provided on techniques for engaging
stakeholders in the management of the foodchain appropriate?
Yes/No
12a
Was the glossary useful?
Yes/No
12b
Were there any terms missing from the glossary?
Yes/No
13
Is the information provided state-of-art?
Yes/No
14
Does the scope cover important areas of interest?
Yes/No
Comments relating to Handbook installation, format, navigation, content, scope:
2
Annex A
Exercise/Scenario related; usefulness of various tools in identification of management options
1a
Did the Handbook raise awareness of the complexity of factors that need
to be considered when selecting a management strategy?
Yes/No
1b
Were the Mind Maps useful highlighting this complexity?
Yes/No
2a
Were the look-up tables on the applicability of options for different
radionuclides useful in eliminating some options?
Yes/No
2b
Was the look-up table on the applicability of options according to scale of
contamination of food products useful in eliminating some options?
Yes/No
2c
Was the table showing whether options produced secondary wastes and/or
incremental doses useful?
Yes/No
2d
Was the table summarising stakeholder feedback on many of the
management options useful in highlighting diversity of opinion and different
perspectives?
Yes/No
3
Did the colour coded selection tables provide good examples of the time
dependency and applicability of various management options for the food
production systems chosen?
Yes/No
4
Did the selection trees complement the selection tables and aid in
selecting a subset of management options?
Yes/No
5
Did the datasheets provide the right sort of information and in such a way
as to facilitate comparison between options?
Yes/No
6a
Having used the generic Handbook, do you think that it would be suitable
for customisation at national /regional/local levels?
Yes/No
6b
Would customisation involve a participatory approach with a wide range of
stakeholders?
Yes/No
7
Would you be interested in joining a Users’ Group for the Handbook that
would make recommendations for maintaining/improving/updating it?
Yes/No
Comments relating to usefulness of various tools in identification of management options:
3
Annex A
The Process
Part 2: Evaluation of the stakeholder engagement process
Initiation
1
Is stakeholder engagement used as part of the decision-making process in
your country?
Yes/No
2
Did you have any problems identifying a Government department to drive
and support the process?
Yes/No
3
Did you have any problems identifying a co-ordinator to identify and
mobilise the stakeholders?
Yes/No
4
Did you establish
stakeholders?
Yes/No
5
Did you get a wide range of stakeholders to commit to the process?
Yes/No
6
Was there a willingness from the stakeholders to openly discuss the issues
at stake from contamination of the foodchain?
Yes/No
a
protocol
for
conducting
meetings
between
Extending the process
7
Were the stakeholders interested in exploring the Handbook as a tool for
assisting in the selection of management strategies?
Yes/No
8
Were other tools required to help explore the full potential of the
Handbook?
Yes/No
9
Did the stakeholders show interest in defining a process for producing a
customised Handbook?
Yes/No
10
Will the stakeholders continue to work together to develop strategies for
the management of food
Yes/No
production systems?
11
Do the stakeholders consider that they have a role to play in the event of
radiological contamination of the foodchain?
12
Would the stakeholders like to be part of a wider European network, to
enhance communication and collaboration between member States and to
address cross-border issues
Yes/No
Comments relating to the process:
Any Additional Comments:
4
Annex A
Completion of the Evaluation Questionnaire
After the Euranos Exercise on 9 November, 11 completed evaluation questionnaires
were returned as follows:
Organisation
Questionnaires
returned
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF)
6
Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)
3
Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII)
2
5
th
e
ha
nd
b
W
er
e
oo
k
W
e r rai s
e
e
th
th
aw
e
e
lo
W
ar
M
ok
as
en
in
-u
es
d
th
p
M
e
t
W
ap s o
a
l
o
b
as
f
ok
s
le
us the
s
-u
th
on
p
e
e
co
fu
D
ta
ta
m
th
id
lh
bl
bl
pl
e
es
th
e
i
g
ex
a
hl
e
sh
pp
i ty
ig
co
W
ow on
l
i
h
c
of
t
lo
as
ti n
he
ab
in
rc
fa
g
g
i lit
th
a
o
ct
w
t
e
y
hi
de
or
he ppl
D
t
o
s
a
.
d
ic
f
id
t
c
bl
h
o
ab
se
om ..
e
er
p
th
t
i
l
s
l
e
e
io
pl
it
op
um
ct
ns
se
D
ex
io
ti o y of
id
m
le
i ty
n
fo
n
o
ar
ct
th
t
r
s
?
p
a
io
e
i
d
t
s
b
p
i
iff
n
on
in
da
le
ro
e.
t
g
s
H
d
s
r
t
e
as
..
uc
st
pr
av
ak
he es
ov
ed acc
in
co
o
eh
g
id
et
r
se
di
W
us
e
m
s
ol
co
n.
go
pl
ou
pr
ed
..
e m der
n
o
o
ld
d
v
t
d
h
f
i
a
e
en
cu
de
e
e
r
e
...
xa
W
db
tt
st
th
o m gen
m
he
ou
ac
e
er
pl
r
ld
k
s
is
i
gh
ic
el
at
on e o
yo
ec
H
io
ft
u
an t so
m
n
ti o
..
be
an
rt
in
n
v o dbo
of
y
in
t
a
o
o
te
lv
bl
in
f
k,
e
re
do form es a ...
a
st
pa
ed
nd
at
yo
rti
io
in
u
ai
ci
n
th
jo
d.
p
a
in
ar
in
..
nd
k
to
in
g
t
i
r
n
h
y
a
a
..
ti
Us app
tw .
ro
er
o
ac
s
ul
G
d
h
ro
..
up with
fo
a
rt
...
he
H
an
...
D
id
Scores
Annex A
Overall Scores: Exercise/Scenario related
12
"Yes" Answers to Evaluation Questionnaire
- Category Exercise / Scenario related
10
Total Of Answer
8
DAFF
6
FSAI
4
RPII
2
0
6
Annex A
Overall Scores: Extending the process
7
th
e
Fa
m
i lia
D
id
na
ri t
th
vi
y
e
ga
w
H
i th
t io
an
I
n
db
A
s
D
th
do
t
e
oo
h
ta
ro
D
e
b
k
il
et
ug
e
fo
fi l
of
ai
A
r
h
es
m
cr
lo
in
t
a
h
o
fo
fi
in
t
e
b
of
Is
rm
st
nf
at
H
al
or
an
th
H
a
a
lO
t
n
m
an
e
i
d
o
d
at
bo
le
n
d
K?
f
u
i
b
v
o
o
ok
Is
nc
oo
el
n
n
th
r
t
o
o
k
a
io
ad
n
fd
de
e
us
ns
ra
io
le
et
qu
er
?
lo
di
ve
ai
a
gi
f
on
lo
r
lo
t
i
e
c
e
u
a
fi
fd
nd
us
cl
lp
nf
id
et
ly
in
ro
or
es
?
ai
D
g
t
m
ec
et
lo
A
D
i
a
n
d
ai
et
t
f
t
io
ob
io
fo
lo
in
ai
n
n
od
e.
fo
lo
fi
ap
pr
rm
..
nf
fi
p
o
p
or
ro
nf
at
vi
r
op
du
or
m
de
io
at
ria
n
m
d
ct
io
pr
at
io
on
te
n
io
o
n
?
vi
on
n
fa
sy
de
on
c
st
m
to
d
. ..
te
an
rs
on
ch
ag
af
ra
ni
f
e
e
di
qu
m
ct
ol
en
in
es
og
.. .
W
t
fo
ic
op
er
a
re
e
tio
lp
th
ng
ns
ro
er
ag
t ..
a
e
pp
.
in
an
g
r
op
W
y
st
te
a
a
ri a
D
s
ke
rm
Is
te
oe
th
ho
s
?
e
th
s
m
l
gl
de
e
th
i
ss
os
in
e
r
s
fo
in
sc
sa
i ..
rm
g
op
ry
.
fro
at
e
us
i
m
o
co
e
n
fu
th
ve
pr
l?
e
ov
ri
gl
m
o
i
de
po
ss
d
ar
rta
st
y?
nt
at
ear
of
ea
-a
s
rt?
of
in
te
re
st
?
Is
Scores
Annex A
Overall Scores: Handbook
12
- Category Handbook Installation
10
Total Of Answer
8
DAFF
6
FSAI
4
RPII
2
0
8
Annex A
Overall Scores: Initiation
9
Annex A
Scores DAFF: Exercise
10
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
en
ga
D
ge
id
m
yo
en
u
ha
tu
ve
se
d
an
as
y
pr
pa
o
rt
bl
D
of
id
em
th
yo
s
e
u
id
de
ha
en
ci
ve
tif
si
y
on
an
in
g
-m
y
a
D
p
ak
ro
G
id
in
o
b
yo
ve
le
g
u
m
p.
r
n
es
s
..
m
id
ta
e
en
nt
bl
is
t
d
ify
ep
h
in
a
ar
g
pr
tm
D
a
ot
id
co
en
o
yo
co
-o
tt
u
lf
rd
...
ge
or
in
at
ta
co
or
nd
w
to
id
uc
e
id
W
t
in
ra
en
as
g
ng
tif
m
th
y
e
e
er
a.
of
et
e
.
i
ng
st
a
ak
w
s
illi
eh
be
ng
ol
tw
de
ne
ee
rs
ss
n
st
to
fro
a.
co
m
..
m
th
m
e
i
tt
st
o
ak
th
eh
e
ol
pr
de
oc
rs
es
to
s?
op
en
ly
di
sc
us
s
th
...
Is
Scores
Annex A
Scores DAFF: Extending the process
4
- DAFF - Stakeholder Extending the Process
3
Total Of Answer
2
DAFF
1
0
11
th
e
na
vi
ga
tio
n
Fa
m
ilia
rit
y
id
w
ith
D
th
e
H
an
db
oo
Ad
th
I
k
s
ro
ob
fil
th
D
u
es
e
e
gh
et
A
f
ai
o
in
D
c
th
r
lo
r
m
st
et
ob
e
al
at
fi
ai
H
a
lO
nf
lo
a
t
o
nd
an
or
fH
fi
K?
m
b
nf
Is
d
an
oo
at
or
fu
th
d
i
k
nc
on
m
e
bo
ad
at
le
tio
ok
on
io
ve
eq
ns
n
u
Is
ra
lo
ua
?
s
o
di
er
th
n
fd
te
o
e
r
fri
lo
et
ad
u
le
en
si
gi
ai
io
ve
ng
ca
lo
dl
nu
lo
y?
lp
fi
A
c
fd
nf
do
lid
r
o
or
et
e
t
b
ec
s
e
m
ai
in
tio
an
at
lo
io
fo
n
fi
...
D
n
od
a
nf
et
D
pp
pr
or
et
ai
pr
ov
r
lo
ai
m
op
od
lo
id
at
fi
ria
uc
ed
io
nf
fi
te
n
nf
t
or
i
on
on
?
pr
or
m
ov
m
at
fa
s
y
at
io
ct
id
s
io
n
te
or
ed
n
on
m
s
on
on
s?
af
m
f
ec
ra
te
an
d
ch
t
in
ag
io
g
ni
lo
em
qu
th
gi
ca
...
en
es
l
to
fo
pr
pt
re
ot
io
ec
ng
ns
ti.
ag
.
ap
in
pr
g
op
st
ak
Is
D
ria
oe
eh
th
te
W
e
s
o
?
a
l
i
th
s
de
nf
th
e
or
rs
e
sc
m
in
gl
at
op
os
t..
io
e
n
sa
co
p
r
ro
ve
y
us
vi
ri
de
ef
m
ul
po
d
?
st
rta
a
t
nt
eof
ar
-a
ea
rt?
s
of
in
te
re
st
?
Is
Scores
Annex A
Scores DAFF: Handbook
7
- DAFF - Handbook
6
5
Total Of Answer
4
3
DAFF
2
1
0
12
id
as
th
er
e
is
h
pr
ob
le
m
s
fro
m
ra
ng
e
w
illi
ng
ne
ss
id
e
th
e
st
ak
eh
o
gs
id
th
e
...
d.
..
..
s
th
e
...
pr
oc
es
s?
di
sc
us
m
it
to
an
d
to
pr
oc
e
st
ak
eh
...
en
tif
y
be
tw
ee
n
o
op
en
ly
co
m
to
to
ld
er
s
er
s
m
ee
tin
co
-o
rd
in
at
or
t
ta
ke
ho
ld
of
s
a
in
g
en
td
ep
ar
tm
en
t
de
ci
si
on
-m
ak
G
ov
er
nm
uc
tin
g
in
g
fo
rc
on
d
id
en
tif
y
a
pa
rt
of
th
e
in
g
as
id
en
tif
y
us
ed
pr
ot
oc
ol
w
a
pr
ob
le
m
s
ge
ta
a
yo
u
es
ta
bl
an
y
an
y
ng
ag
em
en
t
4
D
id
yo
u
ha
ve
ha
ve
er
e
Scores
Scores DAFF: Initiation
W
D
id
yo
u
yo
u
st
ak
eh
ol
d
D
id
D
Is
Annex A
- DAFF - Stakeholder Initiation
3
Total Of Answer
2
DAFF
1
0
13
Annex A
Scores FSAI: Exercise
14
Annex A
Scores FSAI: Extending
15
th
e
D
id
th
ri t
na
e
y
vi
H
w
ga
an
i th
t io
db
A
Is
n
oo
d
ob
D
th
th
k
et
e
ro
e
fi l
a
fo
D
ug
Ac
es
il
r
et
o
m
h
r
ai
fi
in
o
at
th
b
st
lo
nf
e
at
of
al
or
fi
H
an
lO
m
H
nf
a
Is
a
n
a
o
d
K?
nd
db
ti o
rm
th
fu
e
b
n
nc
oo
at
o
le
on
io
ok
ti o
k
ve
n
ad
Is
ra
ns
us
lo
on
e
d
?
th
e
fd
qu
io
ra
rf
e
l
o
e
a
r
di
le
g
t
i
t
a
e
e
on
ve
ica
il
nd
us
lo
of
uc
lp
ly
in
fd
?
lid
in
r
g
ot
fo
es
et
A
e
r
do
ai
c
m
i
D
t
n
lo
io
at
be
et
fo
n
D
io
fi
ai
...
od
et
ap
n
nf
lo
ai
p
or
pr
pr
fi
ro
lo
m
o
n
o
vi
fi
pr
fo
du
at
de
nf
rm
ia
io
ct
d
or
te
n
i
a
o
o
?
m
pr
ti o
n
n
at
ov
s
n
fa
ys
io
on
id
c
n
t
t
ed
. ..
or
on
m
s
on
an
af
te
a
fe
ch
ra
ge
ct
di
ni
m
in
ol
qu
.. .
e
o
nt
es
gi
c
op
fo
al
tio
re
pr
ns
ot
ng
...
ag
ap
D
i
I
p
n
s
oe
r
g
o
th
pr
st
W
s
e
ia
ak
th
as
in
te
e
e
f
or
th
ho
?
sc
m
e
op
ld
a
g
er
tio
lo
e
s
ss
n
co
i ..
ar
pr
ve
.
o
y
ri
v
u
id
m
s
ef
ed
po
ul
rta
st
?
at
nt
e
-o
ar
ea
f-a
r t?
s
of
in
te
re
st
?
Is
Fa
m
i lia
Scores
Annex A
Scores FSAI: Handbook
7
- FSAI - Handbook
6
5
Total Of Answer
4
3
FSAI
2
1
0
16
Annex A
Scores FSAI: Initiation
17
Annex A
Scores RPII: Exercise
18
Annex A
Scores RPII: Handbook
19
Annex A
Overall Comments
Section: Handbook installation, format, navigation, content and scope
Didn't have adequate time to fully read and explore the content and potential of
this handbook, so answers given are not fully informed.
FSAI
Content
Intervention levels for grass feedstuffs are not applicable in Irish situations.
DAFF
Intervention levels in grass and other feedstuffs should be directly related to
intervention levels in beef and other meat/ milk products (i.e. impact of
feedstuffs intervention levels on meat, milk etc.)
DAFF
Definitions in glossary: intervention levels and action levels are not very clear.
RPII
Use of AFCF / clay minerals timelines not explained properly in book (is 50%
reduction instantaneous or 50% reduction on contaminated uptake).
RPII
Format
Contents of section 5 does not list datasheets in section.
DAFF
Found the handbook more user-friendly than the CD. Issues with CD. No
section names on pdf - why not put title of section behind section.
DAFF
Found the handbook very useful and easy to use. However could be further
developed to relfect possible Irish situations. Linkages between contamination
and feed and food levels need further work.
DAFF
Installation
Not sure of the context of this question. Installation of what, where?
CD?
DAFF
Navigation
6.10. Decision tree. Clicked into Datasheets - when finished it brings one back
to list of options and not decision tree. When one has a number of datasheets
open there are no names after them, only a number when clicking in and out.
DAFF
Had difficulties in having Section 5 and 6 open together.
DAFF
No forward/ backward button. No Search Engine.
DAFF
When open another section 2.2 it closed on already open version.
DAFF
Hard to find ….. Parts. + need to be able to open several windows
simultaneously.
FSAI
No global search function.
RPII
Section names would be better than chapter numbers only.
RPII
20
Annex A
Section: Exercise/Scenario related; usefulness of various tools in identification
of management options
Being honest, in the scenario situation we rarely referred to the handbook; we
used the expertise gathered at earlier sessions plus common sense plus
agricultural knowledge plus RPII experts.
DAFF
Further customisation of handbook important.
Handbook was rarely consulted during process partly due to presence of
experts from a wide range of backgrounds who already knew and understood
ALL the relevant issues.
DAFF
Certainly helpful to have it customised for Ireland, and for times of year
and areas within Ireland.
FSAI
Useful overall especially for arriving at some key questions for which full
answers are not provided in the handbook.
FSAI
Selection tree for pasture management would be useful.
RPII
Some users found selection trees confusing.
RPII
21
Annex A
Stakeholder engagement process: Extending the process
As far as I am aware, stakeholders outside of public service are not
engaged with yet.
DAFF
Important to involve all relevant stakeholder in further development of
handbook.
DAFF
Section: Overall
Did not consult the handbook much during the exercise, however was
familiar with the content and structure which as useful for carrying out
the exercise.
DAFF
Management factors do not provide guidance on the level of
contamination in grassland and its implications for contamination in
food.
DAFF
Limited scope to explore the functionality.
FSAI
22
Annex A
Overall Comments by Question
Part 1: Evaluation of the products
Section: Handbook installation, format, navigation, content and scope
Question
Comment
Organisation
Did the Handbook files install OK?
Autorun does not always run properly
RPII
Not used
FSAI
Used hard copy
DAFF
Was installed for me - autorun does not work
DAFF
Not used
FSAI
Used hard copy
DAFF
Was there any problem with Adobe
Acrobat reader?
Used own
Was installed for me - autorun does not work
RPII
DAFF
Familiarity with Adobe Acrobat and
functions?
Not used
FSAI
Is the format
friendly?
In printed version - yes In CD format - No
DAFF
Can't go back easily to decision trees
RPII
Not used
Used hard copy
FSAI
DAFF
Did you find any broken links?
Not used
FSAI
Detail of information on radiological
protection appropriate?
Had no prior knowledge so cannot comment
DAFF
More needed on biological clearance
RPII
Is the level of detail of information
provided on radiological protection
same as question 6
DAFF
Detail of information on management
options
Use of AFCF/clay minerals - timelines not
explained properly in book (50% reduction
instanteous or 50% reductions on continued
uptake)
RPII
Was the glossary useful?
Some issues with definitions in glossary
RPII
of
Handbook
user
Is the navigation through the
Handbook adequate using Adobe and
hyperlinks?
23
Annex A
Part 1: Evaluation of the products
Section: Exercise/Scenario related; usefulness of various tools in identification
of management options
Question
Comment
Organisation
Not used
RPII
Was the look-up tables on the
applicability of options according to
scale of contamination of food products
useful in eliminating some
Not in feeding stuffs area
DAFF
Not used
RPII
Did the selection trees complement the
selection tables and aid in selecting a
subset of management options?
Some users found them confusing
Were
the
Mind
Maps
highlighting this complexity?
useful
RPII
24
Annex A
Stakeholder engagement process: Initiation
Question
Comment
Organisation
Is stakeholder engagement used as
part of the decision-making process in
your country?
Farm organisation excluded
DAFF
Not considered
DAFF
Did you have any problems identifying
a Government department to drive and
support the process?
Not considered
a co-ordinator to identify and mobilise
the stakeholders?
Not considered
DAFF
Not considered
DAFF
Did you get a wide range of
stakeholders to commit to the
process?
Not considered
DAFF
DAFF
a Government department to drive and
support the process?
Not considered
DAFF
a co-ordinator to identify and mobilise
the stakeholders?
Not considered
DAFF
Did you establish a protocol for
conducting
meetings
between
stakeholders?
Not considered
DAFF
Did you get a wide range of
stakeholders to commit to the
Process?
DAFF
Not considered
DAFF
Was there a willingness from the
stakeholders to openly discuss the
issues at stake from contamination of
the foodchain?
Not considered
DAFF
DAFF
Did you establish a protocol for
conducting meetings between
stakeholders?
25
Annex A
Stakeholder engagement process: Extending the process
Question
Comment
Organisation
Were the stakeholders interested in
exploring the Handbook as a tool for
assisting
in
the
selection
of
management strategies?
Not considered
DAFF
Were other tools required to help
explore the full potential for the
handbook?
Not considered
DAFF
Did the stakeholders show interest in
defining a process for producing a
customised Handbook?
Not considered
DAFF
Will the stakeholders continue to work
together to develop strategies for the
management of food production
systems?
Not considered
DAFF
Do the stakeholders consider that they
have a role to play in the event of
radiological contamination of the
foodchain?
Not considered
DAFF
Would the stakeholders like to be part
of a wider European network, to
enhance
communication
and
collaboration between member states
and to address
Not considered
DAFF
Not specific to Irish situation
DAFF
26

Exercise Euranos 2007 - Department of Housing, Planning

Transcription

Similar documents

Matt Haigh – Planet-X Stealth Pro-Carbon

TruPay HR Forum.cdr

Convergence Challenges for the SME

Manufacturing Energy Management Solution (MEMS)

Service Awards

Cybex Trazer

2 aeronautical industries to materials a4m 8 2 13 salvato

Business Group Admin

TurboTax for Online Banking

Future of Wireless? The Proximate Internet