NEWS DIGEST Lowering clean-up standards to ‘a new normal’
In late March the Obama Administration endorsed a plan to relax long-held standards for cleaning up radioactive material released by a nuclear power plant disaster or act of terrorism. A draſt report on radiation remediation departs from standard US practice. In the 1980s EPA clean-ups were designed so that no more than one in 10,000 people would be expected to develop cancer in a worst-case scenario involving long-term exposure to radioactive contaminants. The new recommendation, however, suggests guidelines under which as many as one in 23 people would be expected to develop cancer from long-term radiation exposure, based on a report by the private National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). If approved, a radiation dose to the human body of between 100 and 2,000 millirems per year should be the target officials should aim for when deciding on clean-up aſter a nuclear event. The NCRP report says the relaxation of clean-up standards has resulted from
events such as the 2011 Fukushima disaster, which contaminated an area the size of Connecticut. It claims that standards of remediation as thorough as previously required would not be possible - and instead suggests aiming for the lower end of the 100-2,000 millirem/year range when possible. The NCRP report also states that previous stringent EPA guidelines – which have been used to clean hundreds of sites, including those affected by nuclear weapons operations and the 9/11 attacks -- are not appropriate, and advises embracing a “new normal” in the years following an incident involving radioactive materials. zy
Photo: G. Webb/IAEA
CoBRA certified for the US Air Force
Unit 3 of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant aſter meltdown.
US legislation for biodefence
On the positive side, in March President Obama signed legislation to re-authorize and update a range of medical readiness initiatives in response to bioterrorism. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act “revises authorities for activities to improve public health and bioterrorism emergency planning, preparedness and response” and permits funding for an array of related activities through fiscal 2018. It also empowers the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to permit the emergency use of drugs awaiting FDA license, and enables short-term reassignment of federally funded state and local emergency response personnel to disaster areas beyond their normal areas of responsibility. The law permits up to $2.8 billion in funds between fiscal years 2014 and 2018 for Project Bioshield, which seeks to fund private-industry preparation of new vaccines, antibiotics and other medical countermeasures.
…and UK warnings on biodefence
And in the UK, the annual report on the Home Office’s CONTEST counterterrorism strategy called for enhanced ability to detect biological attacks, treat victims, and decontaminate attack sites – and states that it is becoming easier for terrorists to gain access to the information and technology needed to create and spread biological weapons. The availability of formulae and other information on the Internet, courses in biological sciences at universities and “greater availability of technology” all make it more likely that biological attacks will occur, said Director of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism Charles Farr.
08 CBNW 2013/02
In 2012 the Home Office began enforcing a new list of controlled biological agents to ensure that “ensure that dangerous pathogens and toxins that are required in important medical and scientific research are used and held securely.” The annual CONTEST report also said that lessons learned from London Olympic Games security operations have informed the wider programme of planning for high impact biological attacks. But as ever, cuts may impact on spending – according to Charles Farr “the changing nature of the threat puts new financial pressure on the Home Office and other agencies.” zy
CoBRA Software’s WEB version 4 has been certified by the US Department of the Air Force Headquarters Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) out of Scott AFB, Illinois and the CoBRA WEB program has been placed on the Air Force Evaluated/Approved Products List (AF E/APL). CoBRA WEB version is an all-hazards incident management solution that provides synchronization and collaboration for the users of the CoBRA desktop client version, as well as providing thin client (Web) access to incident information and CBRNe data via a browser. The CoBRA WEB tools are used to enhance the already deployed client versions of CoBRA soſtware, which resides on the user’s laptop or desktop. The USAF certification provides
a user authorization to install WEB CoBRA, which is now a certified application for installation on US Air Force servers. By expanding CoBRA soſtware usage beyond the stand-alone laptop, users can now achieve situational awareness and a common operating picture by sharing status updates, resource requests, live chat and ability to quickly and easily create, display and share chemical/radiological plume and explosives hazard zones. CoBRA clients who use the collaborative solution connected via server can also expand their capabilities through Sensor Data Fusion, accessing data from mobile and fixed site sensors, and monitor- ing Sensor Status via WEB Mapping. This data fusion capability can enhance sharing of data to support decision making at multiple levels of leadership. zy
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100