Proposed 'Dirty Bomb' Response Guidelines Faulted

A copy of the guidelines provided to The Times shows they are meant for dealing with anything from a crude radiological device to a full-scale nuclear weapon. The cleanup guidelines would permit indefinite radiation exposure levels higher than those allowed to remain at Superfund sites. They would also permit continued shipment, sale and consumption of contaminated food and drinking water for an "intermediate" phase that could last a year or more.

If a dirty bomb attack only contaminated a small area, the guidelines said, "it might reasonably be expected that a complete return to normal conditions can be achieved within a short period of time. However, if the impacted area is very large, then achieving even very low criteria for remediation of the entire area and/or maintaining existing land uses may not be practicable."

Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr., part of an interagency group that formulated the guidelines, said members had to balance economic realities with health risks. He said that although nuclear power plants like those in California had large contingency funds set aside for accidental releases, it was impossible to respond the same way to an attack.

Referring to one of California's two operating nuclear power plants, McGaffigan said, "We can force San Onofre [Nuclear Generating Station] to set aside half a billion dollars ahead of time -- but by definition, in a crisis we don't have access to Al Qaeda pockets to finance a half-billion-dollar cleanup.

"We have to do something, and do it as best we can," McGaffigan said. "Obviously we would clean up a building; we would remove most of the materials -- but if there's some residual radiation that's no more than background levels, why should we raze it?"

Critics, including a federal official who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the guidelines would allow residual radiation far higher than naturally occurring levels.

"It's outrageous," said Daniel Hirsch, head of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a group that studies nuclear risk. "They are permitting much higher doses than are protective of the public, and appear to be doing so as part of an overall effort to relax public radiation protections."