Report of NTW Working Group on Emergency Preparedness & Response (EP&R)
|Author||NTW, N.Železnik, A.Klemenc|
|Classification||6.01.3.80/24 (NUCLEAR SAFETY - SITE SELECTION / EMERGENCY PLANS)|
From the publication:
Report of NTW Working Group on Emergency Preparedness & Response (EP&R) Publisher: Nuclear Transparency Watch Editor: Nadja Železnik, Andrej Klemenc Members of working group: Brigitte Artmann, David Boilley, Dominique Boutin, Jean Claude Delalonde, Michel Demet, Eva Deront, Eloi Glorieux, Marcin Harembski, Jan Haverkamp, Gilles Heriard Dubreuil, Philip Kearney, Andrej Klemenc, Yves Lheureux, Zoriana Mischuk, Jerzy Nizyporuk, Michèle Rivasi, Boris Sandov, Alabena Semionova, Roger Spautz, Johan Swahn, Nadja Železnik-chairperson Cover and page design: Maša Primc March 2015 Executive Summary One of the first steps of the Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) association was to establish the working group (WG) on the Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) with the aim to carry out an evaluation of the existing European and national EP&R provisions from the civil society point of view, to inform the public on the findings and to and provide guidance for further activities of the interested public. The information on EP&R provisions in Europe and Ukraine was collected and analyses were performed based on a) desk work to review the national provisions and international requirements, b) interviews and questionnaires with representatives of responsible institutions and members of local populations, c) the organisation of trans-boundary roundtables involving the participation of responsible institutions and civil society, d) international seminars with expert institutions and international associations as well as e) the available investigations performed by the European institutions (i.e. the “Review of current off-site nuclear emergency preparedness and response arrangements in EU member states and neighbouring countries“ study). It has to be emphasised that the NTW investigations were performed by individuals or associations which did not possess or have access to dedicated resources to perform the work and also under conditions where they were sometimes obstructed from obtaining requested information. Therefore, the results do not claim to be comprehensive or homogenous, but provide preliminary information on the EP&R provisions as seen from the civil society point of view.