PubMed · 10162313
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D G Jarrett. 1996. Nuclear nightmares.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10162313/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In 1991 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its revised Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents. The protective action guides contained in the manual represent EPA's formal recommendations to Federal, State, and local emergency response officials for protecting public health and safety during a nuclear incident. These guides are expressed in terms of the projected dose at which action(s) should be taken to reduce or eliminate that dose. In determining the appropriate values for the protective action guides, the Agency considered the following four principles: (1) acute health effects should be avoided, (2) the risk of delayed health effects should be minimized, (3) the values should not be higher than justified by a cost-benefit analysis, and (4) the risk to health from implementing the protective action should not be greater than the risk from the dose avoided. This paper examines each of these principles and their application in the selection of the evacuation and sheltering protective action guides for the early, or immediate, phase of a nuclear incident.
Evacuation time estimate (ETE) analyses are conducted to accomplish three objectives. First, they provide data to emergency decision-makers that indicate if evacuation can be implemented in time to significantly reduce radiation exposures. Second, they can be used to determine if ETEs are significantly affected by uncontrollable events such as adverse weather. Third, they indicate whether traffic management actions would significantly reduce evacuation times and provide information relevant to the development of effective traffic management plans.
Emergency response training poses three problems that are not encountered in training for routine operations. The first of these is a need to remember the provisions of emergency plans and procedures over long periods of time until an emergency occurs. The second problem is a need to generalize from the specific conditions under which training occurred to the potentially very different conditions of an actual emergency. The third problem is a need to develop effective mechanisms for teamwork under conditions that limit retention and generalization. This article identifies nine ways that emergency response training programs can be modified to improve the effectiveness of nuclear power plant personnel who must respond to accident conditions.