epr-method (2003) - IAEA Publications - International Atomic Energy ...

not appear for days, weeks or even years. Finally, many misconceptions prevail concerning
the risks from radiation exposure and radiation emergencies, which can lead to decision
making and public actions that do more harm than good. Therefore, preplanning on the basis
of established principles of radiation protection and safety is essential.
This section provides a brief review of some terms and concepts that must be understood
before planning can begin, followed by a discussion of the major steps to take in developing a
capability to respond to radiation emergencies.
2.1.1. GOALS OF EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RESPONSE
In the context of a radiation emergency, the practical goals of emergency response [2] are:
(1) to regain control of the situation;
(2) prevent or mitigate consequences at the scene;
(3) to prevent the occurrence of deterministic health effects in workers and the public;
(4) to render first aid and manage the treatment of radiation injuries;
(5) to prevent, to the extent practicable, the occurrence of stochastic health effects in the
population;
(6) to prevent, to the extent practicable, the occurrence of adverse non-radiological effects
on individuals and among the population;
(7) to protect, to the extent practicable, the environment and property; and
(8) to prepare, to the extent practicable, for the resumption of normal social and economic
activity.
The first and second goals are the responsibility of the operator of the practice or facility. It
involves preventing or reducing the release of radioactive material and exposure of workers
and the public. The remaining objectives are the combined responsibility of operators and offsite
organizations.
The third goal is accomplished by taking urgent protective actions to keep the dose below the
threshold for deterministic health effects (see Appendix 2). In many cases, this is best
accomplished by taking protective actions before a release when severe conditions are
detected in the facility.
The fourth goal is initially accomplished by having the first to arrive at the scene qualified to
immediately provide first aid for life threatening injuries. It also can involve very specialized
treatment of radiation-induced injuries that can only be prescribed or provided by specialists.
Lack of preparation to provide the correct medical treatment of severe overexposure has
resulted in several cases of inappropriate treatment and unnecessary suffering. Medical
personnel, without training on radiological response, have been reluctant to treat potentially
contaminated victims due to fear.
The fifth goal is met by taking protective actions to avert doses consistent with those
indicated in international guidance. International guidance [3, 4] specifies “generic
intervention levels” (GILs), at which urgent and longer term protective actions should be
taken by the public, and “generic action levels” (GALs), at which controls should be placed
on food. These levels were selected so that the protective action would do more good than
harm: that is, the benefits of averting a dose will be greater than the penalty incurred by
applying the protective action. Notably, this also means that taking protective action at
considerably lower or higher values could increase the overall detriment to the public or
workers. This information is summarized in Appendices 1, 2 and 3. However, this
international guidance (GILs and GALs) is not designed to be used during an emergency; the
4