Emergency Response to Nuclear Disasters & Incidents - Assignment Example

Emergency Response to Nuclear Disasters & Incidents January 7, Introduction With the advancement intechnology and the emergence of Nuclear Energy as the preferred alternative to generate power, disastrous accidents and meltdowns at Nuclear power plants have threatened the safety of our planet since the mid of the 20th century for its long term devastating effects on the entire ecosystem. The catastrophic effects, though, cannot be reversed once befallen; however, an effective emergency response to nuclear disasters may help alleviate the severity of the aftereffects. Research Problem Nuclear power plants operate in most states in the US, for example, and produce about 20 percent of the nation's power. Nearly three million people live within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of an operating nuclear power plant.1 Nuclear power plants use the heat generated from nuclear fission in a contained environment to convert water to steam, which powers generators to produce electricity, also producing by-products in the wake of this procedure like, radiation and release radioactive particles into the air which can be harmful to people, animals, crops, and the environment overall. Mutation of humans and animals, deaths of plants and infection of various species resulting in an entire food chain getting irrevocably poisoned, severely erosive acid rain, contamination of the water cycle and air as radioactive particles diffuse into the surrounding regions are some of the many devastating effects that disrupt the ecosystem of our planet. Although the construction and operation of nuclear power plants are closely monitored and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), accidents at these plants are possible due to flaws in the design of the power plant, human error of the operators and electrical engineers involved etc. The worrying thing about these power stations is that when something goes wrong due to human error or a fault not fixed, an irreversibly massive accident can occur destroying many kilometers of area in its vicinity, contaminating it almost forever. The magnitude of its effects is determined by the amount of radiation released from the explosion, wind direction and speed, and weather condition. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) nuclear bombings, two of the most famous nuclear accidents at these power stations occurred at the Chernobyl reactor 4 (Ukraine - 1986) in the former Soviet Union and the Three Mile Island (US - 1979) reactor 2 in the United States. Categorized as the most intense nuclear disaster ever, the Chernobyl nuclear explosion (1986) destroyed the unit in its entirety and released an incredible amount of radiated fallout, into the environment resulting in about 600000 deaths due to radiation exposure as revealed by IAEA and WHO studies with 56 direct deaths off the explosion. The 4000 cancer deaths due to exposure to nuclear carcinogens are just a meager part of the expected 100000 fatalities. The after effects of this nuclear power plant disaster were Nuclear rain in places like Ireland as the radioactive fallout traveled over an extensive geographical area spreading all through the Western Europe in just a span of 1 week resulting in contamination in large areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Four square kilometers of pine land forests turned brown and died in addition to numerous animal deaths and the remaining badly poisoned with thyroid and reproductive problems, now known as the 'Red Forest'. However, the later generations did not suffer these problems. About 336000 people's evacuation, resettling due to this tragedy and the horrendous large scale loss of life and lifestyle pose nuclear power catastrophe as one of the most irreversibly destructive threats in this contemporary society of technological development where precautions and safety measures direly need to be adopted to avoid a bigger loss. The Kyshtym (1957) disaster in a Russian nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Mayak, the Windscale fire (UK - 1957) and a few other meltdowns have also been famously reported as resulting in massive destruction as the population was neither informed nor evacuated on time, and many were affected by mysterious ailments that were later found to have been caused by radioactive exposure. The radiation released also had long-term effects on the cancer incidence rate of the surrounding population. At least 200 cancer deaths occurred before the government took it upon itself to evacuate the people, at least a week too late. Though Ozyorsk is now considered safe for humans, the EURT region is still heavily contaminated and declared a 'no trespassers' zone by the Government. Hence, extensive amount of research into disaster preparedness needs to be done since despite the disaster preventive measures, human error and a late emergency response have led to irrevocable accidents in the past. The Chernobyl disaster can be blamed on the scientists who chose to experiment by disabling the built in safety systems of the reactor but it is also due to the reactor's design flaws where inflammatory materials like bitumen were used in the roofing construction. Hence, the electrical engineers and designers of these reactors need to take extra precaution for not only their security but also conduct regular monitoring of the plants for maintenance. Research Methods For such an issue due to the disaster context and immediacy of going into the field, this research proposal will make use of both qualitative and quantitative methods to give both breadth and depth to the research at hand and will be in the form of a single case study. A case study as described by Robert Yin, a social scientist is "the preferred method when, how or why questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, or when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real life context" (Yin 1994) (Babbie 1989:261). For studying emergency preparedness, the sample will consist of a selected community in the United States which is in the vicinity of a Nuclear power plant. The inhabitants of that community will be acquainted with the right guidelines and precautions to be undertaken in case of a nuclear reactor meltdown as post-disaster safety through awareness programs broadcast on their local T.V channels, safety measures printed in their local newspapers, leaflets distributed at every door step and public education campaigns for everyone. Community dwellers will consult their nuclear plant's community relations officials, local, state, or federal emergency planners of their area to get familiar with warning system of their area and practice drills so that if an accident at a nuclear power plant were to release radiation in that area, local authorities will activate warning sirens or another approved alerting system. They would also use the Emergency Alert System (EAS) on local television and radio stations to advise the people about how to evacuate and shelter themselves. Local and state governments, federal agencies, and electric utility companies will have emergency response plans that would be activated in the event of a nuclear power plant emergency. The plans define two "emergency planning zones." The first zone covers the area within a 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the plant, where it is possible that people could be harmed by direct radiation exposure. The second zone covers a broader area, usually up to a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius from the plant, where radioactive materials could contaminate water supplies, food crops, and livestock. Open-ended questionnaires will be given out to the inhabitants of the chosen community to quiz them on the following information they may have gleaned from the broadcast and printed information. They will be asked to find out if they live in a nuclear power plant "emergency planning zone," and, if they do, tick from the options 'first' or 'second' zone; write down the immediate actions to be adopted, suggestions for additional security measures they can think of, hazardous effects of radiation that they know from the awareness programs and protective measures etc. A pamphlet outlining precautions to reduce exposure to radiation will also be attached, (for example, decreasing the amount of time spent near the source of radiation, increasing the distance, shielding with a barrier etc). Due to a lack of preparation time immediately following the disaster, surveys will be prepared prior to case specific qualitative data is gathered. It will be designed to provide information determining community integration and residential satisfaction in relation to evacuation and sheltering as post-disaster safety. Qualitative field methods will be used to gather information that will fill in the gaps related to community context and disaster event. Observation and interviews will be performed providing depth to the information gleaned from a larger sample of survey respondents. The military response that involves the DoD (Department of Defense US), including the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which coordinates DoD responders to a nuclear/radiological incident, will also be assessed on the efficiency of their preparedness as they assist in evacuation. The community council will be strictly advised to stay in constant correspondence with the Department of Defense of US at all times, exchanging strategies, tactics, allocating sources and practicing drills to avoid confusions. The federal responders, both civilian and military, will have the lead in assessing the extent of the radiological release in support of the local incident Commander, who will manage operations at the incident site. A global radiological/nuclear field response will also be provided by the Air Force radiation Assessment Team (AFRAT), based in San Antonio, Texas and whose cooperation will also be taken in this field research. Quantitative data included close ended questionnaires, will be used which will be basically a check list of all the precautionary measures that the community members should prepare in advance. Respondents will check on the list dropped at their doorstep, if they keep enough fuel in the car for emergency situations, necessary food items, a survival kit, lead protective wear for immediate protection, and if they are familiar with the exit routes in case of a nuclear bomb blast, for example. Data Analysis Data analysis will be tackled upon return from the community site. While preliminary thematic notes will be compiled in the field at daily debriefings among team members, official data analysis will not be accomplished until returning from the community. Employing such a case study using reliable quantitative techniques and gleaning in-depth analysis from qualitative questionnaires and telephonic interviews for more insight and validity for measuring disaster preparedness in emergency responders will help reveal more aspects of valid preparedness metrics, additional findings that will assist in future guidance and add to our understanding of nuclear disaster management. Inductive and deductive analysis will be mixed (Huberman and Miles 1994) as themes and patterns are gleaned then compared with the initial hypotheses posed. This part of the research is the key to provide depth to the quantitative surveys administered and to fill in the gaps about the disaster and community as related to the disaster. Quantitative surveys will be analyzed using statistical techniques to determine the correlations between variables. Researchers will use bivariate on the dependent variable (McClave and Sincich 2000:578). Tables will be compiled to demonstrate the relationships between the variables. Compare and analyze the survey questions and preparedness guidance by looking for key themes and recommended preparedness measures, in order to identify preparedness goals and activities associated with preparedness. Informal analysis of relevant documents gathered from the World Wide Web and news releases will assist in providing background materials in which to frame the nuclear disaster event. The approach taken will be informal content analysis (Babbie 1989-292) to gain themes about the disaster site the team will be entering to help evacuate and shield. Taped recordings and notes from qualitative interviews will be transcribed as quickly as possible upon return from the field (Bernard 1988, Huberman and Miles 1994). As previous records of research methods have shown that when distributed through the mail, many were not responded to due to a change of address (Paul 1999) or simply negligence from the respondents, or possibly due to any difficulty in understanding the questions in the way they are phrased (which should be pre-tested), surveys will also be conducted on the phone, preceded by a little familiarization of the respondent with the possible threat at hand in order to give impetus to them to participate in the study. Benefits of the proposed research project This research proposal highlights a very crucial problem in this modern world where nuclear energy is being used in a lot of fields for not only experimentation, power generation but also in atomic bombs which are a big threat for the whole humanity. Prevention may not be certain as nuclear power plant meltdowns are usually unforeseen accidents, only maintenance and excellent expertise working in these fields can partly reduce the nuclear threat. Another way is timely information of the disaster, well planned preparedness efforts with the help of federal government and disaster management agencies and employing adequate safety measures which come with increased awareness which would save the lives of many. Social scientists, emergency managers, and public policy makers generally organize both research and guidance around four phases of disaster loss reduction: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Nuclear energy can easily be made safe with a little extra effort and education. Nuclear disasters, being an ominous threat in the modern world of nuclear powers, should be given prime importance for extensive research into emergency response planning to prevent its long lasting effects that sometimes even outlast generations. This preparedness management strategies program will also be directed at the immediate workers and operators at the nuclear power station in the community, as they are the closest to this threat and can prevent any imminent meltdown if trained by the Disaster management team clearly and in constant touch for maintenance. For example, the Chernobyl explosion has been partly blamed on the operator who was not fully trained on the know-how. Preparedness for such a disaster in nuclear plant zone is critical for households, businesses in that community. Recent disasters serve to highlight the need for individual responsibility, local coordination, and continuity plans to ensure the ability to respond to and recover from major events. However, the limitation of such a research is that a nuclear disaster is not an often happening incident and a project cannot be started right when an incident occurs to measure the emergency response of a certain community members. Thus, studying the emergency response of the participants without a real emergency where all members are familiar with the project lacks validity and insight and may bring in researcher's bias. What happens in a real genuine emergency situation cannot be observed objectively under artificial settings through participant observation and this may invalidate the findings. However, just an attempt to improve the emergency response of people in case of nuclear disasters is one of the prime issues for countries focus their attention on in the contemporary society. Project Time Line Due to the nature of a quick response grant, a research plan that can be implemented quickly and succinctly will enable researchers to enter the field and accomplish their tasks within the time allotted. Awareness programs will be especially designed and broadcast on local T.V and radio channels of that community followed by surveys, both close-ended and open-ended interviews by the research team members that will be statistically and objectively analyzed. Observational techniques will be used in drills and during public education campaigns to analyze and identify key barriers that spread confusion at the time of evacuation, for example. Using the help of DOD and community council, this field research on emergency response will seek to find additional findings in ways of improving preparedness efforts. Project risk assessment This will not be a high-budget research as only one small community will be chosen for this field research and that which will only constitute qualitative and quantitative questionnaires, interviews and observation techniques. Taking the cooperation from Air force Radiation Assessment Team and DOD may be a hard step. The techniques used, to a large extent measure the level of preparedness in the emergency responders validly and the methods employed are also very reliable making this research design followed replicable in the same community after some years or in a different community, cross-culturally for comparison of emergency response. Researchers may require a lot of time in this as we are handling a whole community whose members may be busy in their appointments. Time management and project scheduling may be a tough task in addition to the finances that may be heavy. However, this is an essential aspect of our contemporary society as the usage of nuclear power plants are becoming widespread in the country and pose a constant risk to humanity that we need to be prepared for. References Sutton, J. Kathleen, T., 2006 Disaster Preparedness: Concepts, Guidance, and Research, University of Colorado, California. Babbie, Earl. 1989. The Practice of Social Research; fifth edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Heyer, R.J., 2006 Introduction to CBRNE Terrorism: An Awareness Primer and Preparedness Guide for Emergency Responders, the Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Response Association, Longmont, Co. Belcher, John C., Frederick L. Bates. 1982. "Aftermath of natural disasters: Coping through residential mobility." Disasters. 7/2/1983 Rosdilsky, Jack L. 1999. "Disaster Recovery in an On-Going Hazard Situation on Montserrat: The July 20 1999 Volcanic Dome Collapse." Quick Response Report #121. Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado, Boulder. Colorado Education, 2009 Social Integration, Disaster, and Migration: a Study of how Social Integration reduces Migration Intent following a Natural Disaster. (Socy 5031 Research Design) Viewed on 20 January 2010, Patil, S.B., 2009. Nuclear Power Plant Disaster. Intelligent Life on the Web, Viewed on 20 January 2010. < http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nuclear-power-plant-disasters.html> Maiello, M.L., Groves, K.L, 2006. Resources for Nuclear and Radiation Disaster Response, Nuclear News, Viewed on 20 January 2010 Read More