Re: Response to Ted Rockwell's article

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/22/2003 5:57:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, 

crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM writes:

One question is what kind of information is being

given to first responders?  NCRP 116, "Limitation of

Exposure to Ionizing Radiation," recommends 0.5 Sv (50

rad?) ED for occupational workers in life-saving

situations.  NCRP 138, "Management of Terrorist Events

Involving Radioactive Material," uses this same

guidelines for first responders.  Are first responders

occupational workers?  

These questions and the ones that follow in other posts on this subject are 

being addressed, mostly on a case-by-case basis with first responder agencies.  



>From a regulatory persepective, the use of an RDD will not fall into any 

regulated category of use of radioactive material (RAM).  Thus, the dose limits in 

Part 20, and most Agreement State regulations will not apply, since those 

regulations apply to "licensees."  An RDD situation falls outside of those 

regulations, which is not to say that they cannot be used as some kind of initial 

guide for responders.



The most sensible plan I have seen so far is from a relatively small city in 

the Southern California area, who has developed a generic response to mass 

casualty incidents.  Their plan includes entry into the area with SCBA and full 

turnout gear to "snatch and grab" victims.  The first step is to call out and 

ask all ambulatory victims to follow their voice, and be directed to a "safe 

area" outside the building (or otherwise affected area), and then to do a swift 

search and recovery of non-ambulatory victims to remove them from the 

immediately affected area.  Upon the arrival of additional response units, various 

testing equipment will be used to the extent possible to determine if there are 

radioactive, chemical or biological agents present.



In talking to the Fire Chief, his reasoning was that his men are going to 

rescue people in such an incident, so they needed a reasonable plan to mitigate 

harm to themselves and the victims to the greatest extent possible (i.e., they 

wanted to maximize the effect and minimize the harm - somewhere there's a 

saddlepoint).  Their concerns included harmful agents, as well as something as 

mundane as potential building collapse, so they want to protect their men as best 

they can (with the use of SCBA, full turnouts, and the snatch and grab 

technique), and provide the best possible rescue scenario for the victims, balancing 

the harms of moving them against the harm of treating them in what is a 

potentially structurally unstable or contaminated environment.



The fact of the matter is, these actions will take place in the first few 

minutes of the first responders' arrival.  To hamper them by requiring that they 

have appropriate equipment and expertise to evaluate the potential dose from 

an RDD, the potential risk from a biological or chemical agent, or the knowlege 

of a civil engineer to evaluate the structural integrity of the building 

they're entering would be to eviscerate their great and courageous value to 

society.



My experience with many of the first responder agencies in the Southern 

California area is that they understand and have accepted the risks they face more 

profoundly than any professional risk assessor.  Our job is to provide an 

understanding of the risks they face before an incident occurs, and provide 

professional, technical support in the immediate aftermath to the best of our 

ability.



Barbara