Response in the late phase to a radiological emergency

Full text: This paper will look at the key issues that need to be addressed during the transition from the emergency phase to the recovery phase, and the development of the initial recovery strategy. It will then discuss the extent to which current national plans and international advice address the needs of decision makers following contamination of inhabited areas and food production systems. Since the events of September 11th 2001, attention is becoming increasingly focussed on the response to the deliberate dispersal of radioactive material, eg so called 'dirty bombs' or deliberate contamination of the food supply. Whilst some aspects of the response to a dirty bomb will be similar to those for a nuclear accident, in other respects such deliberate dispersal will pose additional challenges (e.g. identification of the radionuclide(s) involved, likely dispersion from within an urban area for dirty bombs, identification of the geographical spread of foods contaminated). This papers also considers the extent to which existing arrangements and assessments underpinning nuclear accident response would need modification/upgrading for response to deliberate dispersal. In the transition from the emergency phase to the recovery phase, decision makers will be under pressure to make rapid decisions concerning the lifting of countermeasures implemented during the emergency phase and the need for further measures. A failure to respond promptly will leave an information void in which other, self-styled, experts will advertise their solutions, thereby adding to the pressure. This may then lead to a loss of confidence by the public, and make it more difficult to develop a practicable recovery strategy that is also acceptable to those affected. However, if decisions are made without a full understanding of the contamination pattern and its likely future impact, then it is possible that promises or actions taken early on will need to be reversed as a fuller understanding of the situation is reached. This too, is likely to lead to a loss of public confidence and pressure to divert resources into recovery that would be better expended in other ways. In any case, those affected by the release will wish to be consulted about the recovery strategy being developed: a recovery strategy that does not take account of local concerns and priorities is very unlikely to be accepted. This process of involving all those likely to be affected by the recovery strategy, whilst essential, also runs the risk of preventing the implementation of an effective strategy owing to unrealistic public demands and mounting expectations. For those reasons, it is important that countries develop a generic recovery plan in advance of a radioactive release occurring. This plan will provide guidance on the prioritizing of actions and decisions, provide a framework for appropriate dialogue with those affected, and, enable response authorities to provide outline guidance to the public and farming/food production sector an the sorts of measures that might be required and the information that is needed before firmer decisions can be reached. Issues that might be appropriate for consideration in a generic recovery plan include: decisions on lifting emergency countermeasures; the assessment of doses received by people and future monitoring of their health; the characterization of the contamination pattern and its future impact on people and agriculture; the identification of goals for the recovery strategy and appropriate ways of demonstrating that they have been met; the identification and selection of options for recovery in both inhabited and agricultural areas; the identification of options for waste disposal (of both food and other contaminated wastes); long term environmental monitoring; the role (and limits) of stakeholder information and dialogue. International criteria have been developed for the marketing of food, with different criteria applicable in different situations or in different parts of the world. In some countries further guidance has been developed on practical strategies for dealing with interdicted foodstuffs. International criteria for relocation have also been published, with some additional national guidance developed on decontamination and other recovery issues. As with food criteria, this guidance has not been standardized worldwide. The extent to which international and national guidance meets the needs of decision makers in the recovery phase is explored in the paper, and examples of 'best practice' identified. In addition, the conclusions of research programmes into specific issues, in particular the management of food production systems and options for decontamination in inhabited areas, and the development of tools for assisting decisions in the recovery phase are discussed which reference to their potential usefulness to decision makers. From this discussion, areas in which decision makers require further support are identified. (author)