Category: Interesting publications & events

The ONR has reissued the document ONR Response to a Class 1 Event – off-site Nuclear Emergency having made what it calls “a minor amendment” following withdrawal of the Government Technical Advisor.

The GTA was introduced following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 after which the Government reviewed UK civil nuclear emergency response arrangements. That review identified a need for somebody to provide authoritative and independent statements to the press and broadcast media in the event of a civil nuclear emergency, and to advise the emergency services on actions to protect the public. The review also concluded that the most suitably qualified person to undertake the role would be a senior member of HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII). As a result, the arrangements for appointing a Government Technical Adviser were put into effect. (Ref. NEPLG Guidance)

Now, as a result of greater use of COBR and SAGE as described in CONOPS, the GTA is considered unnecessary. I’m not sure that I agree that the two mechanisms cover the same service.

The ICRP have issued a draft paper on the Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection which makes interesting reading. It contains a great quote “Radiation protection is not only a matter for science. It is a problem of philosophy, and morality, and the utmost wisdom” (Taylor, 1957).

The paper states that “The traditional emphasis on the science of radiation has shown its limits and is now recognised that human and ethical dimensions of exposure situations are important and sometimes decisive in the decision process”.

It then reviews the history of radiation protection from preventing deterministic effects “do no harm” (from 1928), managing the probability of harm to people (from 1955), to protecting non-human species and the environment (1977) and considering the diversity of exposure situations (2007).

It then considers, in retrospect, the ethical values of beneficence and non-maleficence, prudence, Justice and dignity.

It concludes that in the future we may see the assessment of collective and individual well-being of exposed people including mental and social aspects.

A House of Commons Science and Technology Committee paper from 2011 Scientific advice and evidence in emergencies , Third Report of Session 2010–11 concludes that  it “had misgivings about the Government’s communication of what it termed ‘reasonable worst case scenarios’, that is, the worst situation that might reasonably happen”.

The committee believed that “While such scenarios are useful for organisations preparing for, and responding to, emergencies, use of such scenarios led to sensationalised media reporting about the projected deaths from swine flu. We concluded that the Government must establish the concept of ‘most probable scenarios’ with the public, in all future emergencies”.

It also reported (para 82) that for bird flu it chose not to take the fatality rate from the bird flu of 60% but the 2% from Spanish Flu as the worst number gave a situation that was “almost unpreparable for” leading to (para 87) “We are concerned that the word “reasonable” appears to be influenced by the need to find a reasonable level of public expenditure for contingency planning rather than outlining the worst scenario that might realistically happen, based on the best available evidence“.

So, Worst Reasonable Case is not good for public communication and not always used as the basis for planning assumptions.

 

 

There is a new consultation on the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability framework (here) which provides access to the draft Second Edition of the Framework (here).

This is a very well written document that is very useful to any organisation, such as a REPPIR or COMAH site, that trains to respond to major incidents with the emergency services.

At 50 pages long you might struggle to get your Command Team to read the whole document but it makes a great basis for a Command and Control training course and as a guide when writing your emergency response manuals.

 There is a new IAEA Safety Standard on site Evaluation that states that:

2.29. The external zone for a proposed site shall be established with account taken of the potential for radiological consequences for people and the feasibility of implementing emergency plans, and of any external events or phenomena that might hinder their implementation. Before construction of the nuclear installation is started, it shall be confirmed that there will be no insurmountable difficulties in establishing an emergency plan for the external zone before the start of operation of the installation.

Where the “external zone” is the likely future UPZ, by default 25 km.

It’ll be interesting to see how the ONR seek to establish off-site planning around new build especially as they want the Local Authorities to take the lead.

Spanish firm Escuadrone has developed what it claims is the world’s first drone equipped with a system for detecting radioactivity. The drone can be used in the management of nuclear-related emergencies, it says.

Source: Radiation-detecting drone developed

I rather like the e-learning emergency planning introduction presented by the Museum of London found here. Succinct text, good questions and a well worked web-site.

A model of good practice.

There is an interesting publication about air quality available here from the Royal College of Physicians.

Its opening statement is that:

Each year in the UK, around 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution, with more linked also to exposure to indoor pollutants

One of its conclusions is that:

If we act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to target levels by 2050, we can have a real impact. An analysis for the European Commission suggests that, each year in the UK, this would prevent the following impacts related to local and regional air pollutant exposure:
>  5,700 deaths
> 1,600 hospital admissions for lung and heart problems
2,400 new cases of bronchitis.
Reducing air pollution would also allow vulnerable people  to be more active, take less medication, and live longer.
The economic value of these benefits would add up to  €3.9 billion per year.

Food for thought.