Protection of emergency workers

Protection of Emergency Workers. By definition, emergency workers are those people charged with attempting to reduce the impact of an accident on personnel, the population, and/or the environment. Some of these workers risk exposing themselves to significant doses, while most will only be expected to receive relatively low doses. 

Protection of Emergency Workers. Emergency workers on-site could be exposed to very high doses. The same basic requirements apply for these workers as for threat category I and II workers. This includes those responding from off-site into the facility (e.g., firefighters). 

Protection of Emergency Workers. Emergency workers would be subject to the same provisions as those established for threat categories I and II (see above. Protection of Emergency Workers). 

This Safety Guide does not address the monitoring of workers and the workplace, although its recommendations and guidance may be useful for the occupational protection of emergency workers in the event of an accident... 

The analyser protection should comply with safety regulations, especially strict for hazardous areas, which involve protection of the workers, emergency actions, identification and handling of radioactive, toxic or inflammable products, protection against fire, control of the Industrial environment, etc. 

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends specific limits of dose, applicable to stated time intervals (a quarter, a year, and so forth) as guidance for protection of radiation workers these are called maximum permissible doses and are applicable to individuals exposed continuously or intermittently from time to time as their work requires (40). To assist the planning of nuclear designs and operations so as to minimize, appropriately, the low level exposure of members of the public which may ordinarily result from normal operations, dose limits for individual members of the public are recommended by ICRP which are one-tenth or less of the maximum permissible doses for radiation workers. Though these maximum permissible doses and dose limits have little to do directly with the control of major radiation emergencies (i.e., reactor accidents) they are quoted in brief in Table VII. 

As with all laboratory work, protection of the worker against the hazard consists of good facility design, operation, and monitoring, as well as good work practices on the part of the worker. The ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) exposure principle is central to both levels of protection. The amount of radiation or radioactive material used should be minimized. Exposures should be minimized by shielding radiation sources and workers and visitors and by use of emergency alarm and evacuation procedures. Physical distance between personnel and radiation sources should be maximized, and whenever possible, robotic or other remote operations should be used to reduce exposure of personnel. 

Protection of the worker performing emergency work if an accident has occurred (e.g., clean-up of a toxic chemical spill). 

Decision as to possible health hazards in mass production preliminary information on type of hazard which might exist in mass manufacture Safety of equipment necessity for ventilation, safe atmospheric concentration selection of suitable physical protective devices for workers (respirators, protective clothing, showers) procedure for medical treatment in emergency if this requires special equipment Decision as to health services needed at plant plan of preventive medicine (including selection of workers according to expected degree of exposure and methods of periodic check on health)... 

The socio-economic impacts of an emergency response plan relate to social agitation (industry production, social network), anxiety of the workers and the population at large, monetary costs (direct and indirect costs of protective actions) etc. In the proposed methodology, the number of people participating in the evacuation procedure and the number of people to be sheltered measure the socio-economic impacts of an ERP. More precisely, the number of people taking part in a protective action is to be minimized (see also Papazoglou et ai, 1997). 

Since the safety of our laboratory personnel and visitors to the laboratory is always a primary concern, I would like all our laboratory workers to participate in this exercise in order to increase their awareness of the proper use and testing of our protective and emergency equipment while at the same time determining if this equipment is working properly. The items to be tested are the fume hoods, the eyewash stations, and the safety showers. 

Right-to-Know Working Around Hazardous Substances From worker perspective, labeling and handling of hazardous chemicals, oxidizers, poisons, corrosives, flammables, water-sensitive chemicals, spill response, and protective and emergency equipment. BNA Communications Inc. 

ITiis reference also provides extensive health (toxicological) and safe-handUng information and data on most chemicals of commercial and industrial importance. It provides chemical-specific information pertinent to safe handling and transportation of chcmticals, worker protection, emergency response information to address spills, explosions or fire situations, and chemical stabihty /reactivity data. 

Among the various types of emergencies that can occur in a laboratory environment, occurrence of a fire is a major probability. The best way to minimize the effect of emergencies is to prevent them. For this reason, fire prevention plans should be instituted. If a fire or other emergency does occur, emergency plans must be in place to protect the laboratory and its workers. These plans may be a part of the laboratory CHP, or they may stand alone. Various issues associated with life safety must be considerd to maximize the occupant s ability to escape the facility during an emergency. 

---