Call for Emergency procedures improvements re floods and nuclear

Last week I attended a couple of hours of a presentation by the County Council Emergency Officers. It was an important look into what we are doing to prepare for emergencies - it is clear the County have taken many important steps and also have innovative schemes like their volunteer Emergency Response Team - the only one of its kind in the country.

We heard for example that during the Foot and Mouth disaster in 2001 there were some 12,000 telephone calls and 94,000 web hits in a time when the internet was only just beginning to make its mark. We also heard about the July 2007 floods - the largest peactime emergency in the County - and how the various Command stations work...However I had many questions...but also as my last blog entry on todays floods notes we need to get serious about prevention....

Below is the email I have been putting together with particular reference to nuclear as I have been involved with previous work on this issue. There are some fascinating questions which, as yet, I have been unable to get answers - clearly the safest way to deal with nuclear risk is to remove the risk itself ie close existing nukes and don't open more. The County, of course, does not have such powers.....

Thank you very much for the very useful and important training in Emergency Procedures. I welcome the moves to improve how we respond to emergencies. In an effort to help improve the measures further I make the following comments and would appreciate responses to the questions asked.
1. Increasing awareness of Emergency Procedures

Is there a way that local communities, particularly Parish Councils can be made more aware of procedures? Many of them were at the forefront of bottled water delivery during the recent floods yet few appear to have been able to attend the training.

2. Hexafluorosilic acid on our roads

You will remember that in October 2005 the Safe Water Campaign wrote 65 letters to Council Emergency Officers, Fire and Police services to warn that a highly toxic chemical that is so strong it eats through road surfaces and solid steel is being transported across the country and possibly through Gloucestershire each day in tankers (iii). The group are still very concerned that even a relatively minor road incident could lead to widespread evacuations and possibly fatalities. They note that they were not convinced by answers they had from the authorities that they will be able to deal with such a situation safely. Indeed some Emergency Officers noted they had been unaware of the extreme risks of what is one of the most poisonous acids known.
- Are all the Emergency service personnel aware of the very considerable dangers of this acid and the need for very specialised procedures to deal with such an incident?

3. Nuclear incident

As noted in the break during the training I would welcome information about the County's plans in response to a nuclear incident particularly since a study commissioned by Greenpeace in 2002 revealed that the UK's local authorities were not equipped to deal with the aftermath of such an attack or accident on a nuclear power station (i). I have noted some key questions below which highlight very real concerns about the County's readiness to respond.

Background research: the Greenpeace study by independent nuclear consultants revealed that a plume of highly dangerous radiation from an incident at Oldbury power station involving just one tonne of used reactor fuel could put the entire district of Gloucestershire and South Wales at immediate risk. Within a matter of hours the cities of Gloucester, Bristol and Bath would be affected. Since then at a public meeting in October 2007, John Large spoke again about the concerns regarding Oldbury particularly in the light of repeated failures at the plant and the corroded graphite core and concluded: "Potentially an accident at Oldbury would have the same outcome as Chernobyl" (ii).

3.1. Terrorism: The Greenpeace study revealed that despite the UK Government identifying nuclear power stations as terrorist targets, the emergency plans did not even acknowledge the possibility of an attack. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, said that in 2006 there were 252 reported cases of radioactive materials that were stolen, missing, smuggled or in the possession of unauthorised individuals - a 385% increase since 2002. Uranium for a ‘dirty bomb’ was seized by the police in Slovakia in November last year. It is clear also that the risk of terrorism has increased.
- Do emergency plans now acknowledge the possibility of a terrorist attack for such a disaster? - Are plans now in place to deal specifically with a nuclear incident?

3.2. Protective suits: It was announced in 2006 that up to 12,000 police officers are to be given protective suits to deal with chemical or nuclear terror attacks. The NBC suits - nuclear, biological and chemical - will be stored in "strategic locations" in London, thought to be most at risk, plus at airports and in key city police stores. I was informed recently that the Assistant Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset who is in charge of Emergency operations is alleged to have said publicly that the suits they had could only be used for 20 minutes and in any case they would be unlikely to be worn as they could cause panic.
- Please can you confirm what suits are available locally?
- Are suits available for County personnel and other emergency workers?
- If not, why not?
- How much radiation monitoring equipment and protective clothing have you bought?

3.3. Police are given a lower limit of toxicity exposure than other Emergency workers and Council staff:
- Why does the Council not have the same safety limits as the police? - In the light of the different emergency services having different tolerable radiation exposure levels, have you met with the Fire Brigade, police and ambulance service to decide how you will deal with the emergency?
- Have you identified which employees will take part in the emergency response and thus which employees will be required to operate at a higher radiation dose level?
- Have they received the necessary training?

3.4. Medics attendance at nuclear incidents: in the Three Mile Island incident only 10% of medics turned up. While not wishing to question the professionalism of our medical and Emergency staff what plans are made for a similar situation arising in Gloucestershire?

3.5. Distribution of potassium iodate tablets: these protect against some forms of cancer. Eire has distributed these tablets to all residents of the country as a precautionary measure.
- How many potassium iodate tablets do you have in stock and where are they?
- Have you pre-distributed potassium iodate tablets?
- Have you considered placing stocks of potassium iodate in schools, public amenity centres, etc outside of the DEPZ?
- In the light of the shelf life of the tablets how often do you need to renew stocks?

3.6. Emergency Plan: The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations (REPPIR) came into force in September 2002. As part of the legislation the relevant local councils were given 6 months notice to draw up their emergency plans and make them publicly available. I understand REPPIR requires local authorities to prepare, revise, implement and test plans for a nuclear emergency. This involves plans to get safety information to the public, to distribute potassium iodate tablets, which protect against some forms of cancer and to evacuate areas where necessary. The Regulations require the local authority to consult with other persons, bodies and authorities and members of the local public whom it 'considers appropriate' [Reg 9(12b)] when preparing the off-site plan. Many local authorities consider it sufficient to consult with the nuclear plant Community Liaison Committee and not with local NGOs, interest groups and, importantly, members of public by public meeting, newsletter and similar.
- What consultation has there been with the public about your emergency plan?
- Have you conducted any rehearsal of your plan with members of the public?
- Is the plan available to the public?
- How much money have you put aside for enacting your emergency plan?

4. Floods Crisis management

I recently made a number of recommendations to the consultations of flooding. Various measures like better preparation are clearly being taken on board. What are your views on:
- stronger measures to stop people making unnecessary journeys, which contributes to congestion and stops the emergency services being able to reach affected areas: despite extreme weather warnings people still streamed onto 'their' roads as if on autopilot
- clearer warnings about the health risks of contaminated flood waters
- improved communication over issues like siting of bowsers

Notes: (i) Greenpeace news release on 28 November, 2002. (ii) See John Large's presentation (iii) Letter sent to all Fire, Police and Council Emergency Officers in the region:

Dear I am writing this open letter on behalf of the Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, which has gathered many thousands of signatures locally from those who are opposed to artificial fluoridation of our public water supplies. I, and others, in the group have undertaken an in-depth study of the literature and research papers into the properties and effects of fluoride compounds. We are very concerned about the extraordinary toxicity, reactivity and corrosiveness of hexafluorosilic acid (H2SiF6) which is the predominant agent used to artificially fluoridate 10% of Britain's public water supplies. Government's plans to extend fluoridation to further large areas of Britain will mean many more hundreds of tons of hexafluorosilic acid on our roads. In the light of this we hope you will be able to answer our concerns that are directly relevant to our Emergency services:

1. Are you aware of the following incidents? - On Gloucestershire's doorstep at Avonmouth in 2001? A portable tank of hexafluorosilic acid was damaged in transit from Bilbao in Spain. On discovery, the port authority declared a 'Port Emergency' and a 'Major Incident' which resulted in much of the port being shut down for about 30 hours. Details obtained by the National Pure Water Association (NPWA) show this incident was a hairs breadth away from being a major life-taking catastrophe. - Florida, USA, 6th September 1994 there was an accident involving a truck carrying 4,500 gallons of hexafluorosilic acid. It's entire contents were spilled out onto the public highway. 87 people including police and other Emergency workers had to be hospitalised for treatment for up to 6 weeks. 300 tons of fluoride contaminated dirt needed to be removed. The accident occurred during rain and the operation only just managed to prevent contamination of groundwater and aquifers.

2. What contact do you have with the water authorities concerning the transportation of hexafluorosilic acid? Do the water authorities fluoridating at present (e.g. Severn Trent in the Birmingham area) have any legal obligation to inform Emergency Authorities, such as yourselves, when and where trucks carrying hexafluorosilic acid are travelling on our roads? Or have the water authorities contacted you on a voluntary basis about the transportation of this class 8 chemical on our roads? Or do you have no contact?

3. Are you aware of the following well-documented facts that no doubt are of considerable concern for the Emergency Services? - Extreme risks re contact with tarmac and vegetation. Hexafluorosilic acid is a by-product of the artificial fertiliser industry. The fertiliser is produced by the chemical breakdown of phosphate-bearing rock. In the process hydrogen fluoride is given off in considerable quantities. This is generally acknowledged by scientists to be the most highly reactive and corrosive compound known to us. This gas is then passed through 'scrubber towers' (the trade name) where it is chemically combined with silica to form hexafluorosilic acid. Concentrated hexafluorosilic acid spilled onto a road reacts with the tarmac to reform the very dangerous hydrogen fluoride gas. After the accident in Florida 600 feet of motorway had to be resurfaced. There is evidence that a concentration of one billionth of hydrogen fluoride can and has devastated large areas of vegetation. - Highly poisonous. Fluoride is such a cumulative poison with 50 percent of all that is ingested being retained in the body for life. In concentrated form in a single dose can lead to death within 24 hours. The acknowledged world expert at the time, Roholm established that the cause of the first major recorded environmental disaster was hydrogen fluoride. This occurred in the Meuse Valley near Brussels in 1930 where 60 people died and 6,000 people were made severely ill. - Causes cancer. Hexafluorosilic acid used for artificial water fluoridation is a waste product of the fertiliser industry, obtained by breaking down phosphate rock which has such a high uranium content that until recently the nuclear industry in the US used it as a source for nuclear fuel! The NPWA has written confirmation from the U.S. Public Health Service (1998) regarding the presence of 'radionuclides' in hexafluorosilic acid used in the water fluoridation plants. Detailed descriptions show, quite alarmingly, that the break-down of products from the phosphate rock, when artificial fertiliser is manufactured, include a whole 'bevy' of radioactive or otherwise highly poisonous substances. Predominant among them is Radon 210. This substance has a deep and well-hidden 'biography'. After this radioactive gas is produced, it dissolves readily in the hexafluorosilic acid when it passes with all the other break down products into the scrubber towers. The Radon has a half-life of 3.86 days. This means it turns quite rapidly and seemingly innocuously into its decay product Lead 210. Lead 210. as far as is known, has no damaging radiation, but carries with it the property of combining as readily and eagerly with the human bones as calcium itself does. Scientists tell us that after 20 years lead 210 transmutes into polonium 210 which then gives off 5,000 more alpha radiation than radium. Scientists estimate that a mere 6.8 trillionth of a gram (0.0000000000068gm) can cause cancer. How unlikely is it that those people including police and other Emergency workers who were hospitalised for the full six weeks after the accident in Florida are not right now harbouring lead 210 which in 9 years time would be due to transmute into deadly polonium? (All this in the cause of supposedly helping young children have somewhat less tooth decay.)

4. What plans do you have to deal with an event involving a major spillage of hexafluorosilic acid on Gloucestershire's roads? Are all the Emergency services aware of the very considerable dangers of such an incident? Do you for example, have specific plans for dealing with potentially thousands of tons of radioactive fluoride-contaminated earth? Surely poor disposal could lead to further very considerable health risks and dangers? We would appreciate a speedy and thorough reply to these questions. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need further information or would like to discuss the matter further.

Yours faithfully, James Christian, Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire