Comparative qualitative and quantitative analysis of guidelines for nuclear accident recovery

Open Access

Issue		Radioprotection Volume 59, Number 2, April - June


Page(s)		69 - 79
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2023043
Published online		03 June 2024

ASN. 2012. Policy elements for post-accident management in the event of nuclear accident https://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/Media/Files/Policy-elements-for-post-accident-management-in-the-event-of-nuclear-accident [Google Scholar]
ASN. 2022. Recommandations pour la gestion post-accidentelle d’un accident nucléaire. https://www.asn.fr/publications/2022/Recommandations-pour-la-gestion-post-accidentelle/ [Google Scholar]
Bertho J-M., Gabillaud-Poillion F, Reuter C, Riviere O. 2022. Comparative study of nuclear post-accident management doctrines in Europe and North America. Radioprotection 57 (1): 9–16. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Bromet et al., 2016: Bromet E.J. 2016. Emotional consequences of three Mile Island and Chernobyl: Lessons learned for Fukushima. Pages 67-82 in J. Shigemura and R. K. Chhem, editors. Mental health and social issues following a nuclear accident: The case of Fukushima. [Google Scholar]
Cléro E, Ostroumova E, Demoury C, Grosche B, Kesminiene A, Liutsko L, Motreff Y, Oughton D, Pirard P, Rogel A, Van Nieuwenhuyse A, Laurier D, Cardis E. 2021. Lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima on thyroid cancer screening and recommendations in case of a future nuclear accident. Environ Int 146: 106230. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Costa PS, Santos NC, Cunha P, Cotter J, Sousa N. 2013. The use of multiple correspondence analysis to explore associations between categories of qualitative variables in healthy ageing. J Aging Res 2013: 302163. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
EPA. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-04/documents/green-remediation-primer.pdf [Google Scholar]
EPA. 2017. PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/epa_pag_manual_final_revisions_01-11-2017_cover_disclaimer_8.pdf [Google Scholar]
Fushiki S. 2013. Radiation hazards in children − lessons from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima Brain & development, vol. 35, 3, pp. 220–227. [Google Scholar]
Geysmans R, Zeleznik N, Abelshausen B, Duranova T, Schieber C, Schneider T, Crouail P, Turcanu C, Liutsko L, Cantone MC. 2020. Broadening and strengthening stakeholder engagement in emergency preparedness, response and recovery. Radioprotection 55(HS2): S219– S225. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Hasegawa A, Ohira T, Maeda M, Yasumura S, Tanigawa K. 2016. Emergency responses and health consequences after the Fukushima accident; evacuation and relocation. Clin Oncol 28 (4): 237-244. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Health Canada. 2020. Guidance on planning for recovery following a nuclear or radiological emergency. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/health-risks-safety/planning-recovery-nuclear-emergency/guidance-on-planning-en.pdf [Google Scholar]
HM Government. 2015. National Nuclear Emergency Planning and Response Guidance. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a807dbce5274a2e87dba1c8/NEPRG03_-_Recovery.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA Nuclear energy Series No. NG-G-5. 1 2021. Stakeholder Engagement in Nuclear Programmes. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1967_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-1.31.2022. Experience in the Management of Radioactive Waste After Nuclear Accidents: A Basis for Preplanning. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB2022_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA Safety Standards Series No.GSG-10. 2018. Prospective Radiological Environmental Impact Assessment for Facilities and Activities. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1819_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA Safety Standards Series No.GSG-11.2018. Arrangements for the termination of a nuclear or radiological emergency. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1796_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA Safety Standards Series No.GSG-15. 2022. Remediation Strategy and Process for Areas Affected by Past Activities or Events. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1969_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR part 7. 2015. Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P_1708_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
IAEA-TECDOC-2020. 2023 Ten Years of Remediation Efforts in Japan https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-2020web.pdf [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication No: 103.2007.The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_ 2-4 [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication No : 124. 2014. Protection of the Environment under Different Exposure Situations. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_43_1 [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication No : 138. 2018. Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_47_1 [Google Scholar]
ICRP Publication No: 146. 2020. Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_49_4 [Google Scholar]
IFRC. 2015. Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Guidelines − Preparedness, Response and Recovery. https://www.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/1296000-NuclearRadio.Emer_.Guide-Int-EN-LR.pdf [Google Scholar]
Ishikura T, Fujita R. 2012. Environmental remediation cost in Fukushima Area. J Atomic Energy Soc Jpn (ISSN 1882-2606), 55 (1): 40–47. [Google Scholar]
JCER. 2019. Follow up Report of Public Financial Burden of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://www.jcer.or.jp/jcer_download_log.php?f=eyJwb3N0 × 2lkIjo0OTY2MSwiZmlsZV9wb3N0 × 2lkIjo0OTY2Mn0=&post_id=49661&file_post_id=49662 [Google Scholar]
Lochard J, Ando R, Takagi H, Endo S, Momma M, Miyazaki M, Kuroda Y, Kusumoto T, Endo M, Endo S, Koyama Y. 2020. The post-nuclear accident co-expertise experience of the Suetsugi community in Fukushima Prefecture. Radioprotection 55 (3): 225–235. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Maeda et al., 2018: Maeda M, Oe M, Suzuki Y. 2018. Psychosocial effects of the Fukushima disaster and current tasks Differences between natural and nuclear disasters. NIPH 67 (1): 50–58. [Google Scholar]
Mizuo K, Tsuyoshi TS, Anne M, Irène K, Raphaël P, Denis Q, Arnaud Q, Olivier S, Kouji A, Sylvain G, Takashi M, Keiya Y, Damien D, Olivier M, Yasuhito I. 2018. Lessons learned from atmospheric modeling studies after the Fukushima nuclear accident: ensemble simulations, data assimilation, elemental process modeling, and inverse modeling. Geochem J 52 (2): 85–101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mobbs S, Orr P, Weber I. 2019. Strategic considerations for the sustainable remediation of nuclear installations. J Environ Radioact 196: 153–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
MOE, Interim Storage Facility - ministry of environment Japan. http://josen.env.go.jp/en/storage/ [Google Scholar]
Montero M, Sala R, Trueba C, García-Puerta B, Abelshausen B, Bohunova J, Croüail P, Durand V, Duranova T, Hilliard C, Maitre M, Mitrakos D, Monteiro Gil O, Nunes P, Paiva I, Reis M, Schneider T, Skuterud L, Smith V, Tafili V, Thørring H, Turcanu C, Twenhöfel C, Van Asselt E. 2020. Stakeholder involvement through national panels and surveys to address the issues and uncertainties arising in the preparedness and management of the transition phase. Radioprotection 55(HS1): S127– S134. [Google Scholar]
NCRP Report No: 175 2014. Decision Making For Late-Phase Recovery From Major Nuclear Or Radiological Incidents. https://ncrponline.org/shop/reports/report-no-175-decision-making-for-late-phase-recovery-from-major-nuclear-or-radiological-incidents-2014/ [Google Scholar]
NEA No: 7290. 2016. Strategic Considerations for the Sustainable Remediation of Nuclear Installations. https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14984/strategic-considerations-for-the-sustainable-remediation-of-nuclear-installations?details=true [Google Scholar]
NEA No:7582. 2022. Building a Framework for Post-Nuclear Accident Recovery Preparedness. https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_69605/building-a-framework-for-post-nuclear-accident-recovery-preparedness [Google Scholar]
NEA. 2017. Workshop on Stakeholder Involvement in Nuclear Decision Making. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7302-stakeholder-workshop.pdf [Google Scholar]
NEA. 2021. Preparedness for Post-Accident Recovery: Lessons from Experience. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-04/crpph_r_2020_1_approved_by_dg_2021-04-14_09-22-45_881.pdf [Google Scholar]
Ohba T, Tanigawa K, Liutsko L. 2021. Evacuation after a nuclear accident: Critical reviews of past nuclear accidents and proposal for future planning. Environ Int 148: 106379. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Perko T, Martell M, Turcanu C. 2020. Transparency and stakeholder engagement in nuclear or radiological emergency management. Radioprotection 55(HS2): S243– S248. [Google Scholar]
PHE. 2019. Public Health Protection in Radiation Emergencies. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf0e17aed915d7e7f2cc4f8/Advice_for_Radiation_Emergencies_2019.pdf [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Lochard J, Maître M, Ban N, Croüail P, Gallego E, Homma T, Kai M, Lecomte J-F., Takamura N. 2021. Radiological protection challenges facing business activities affected by a nuclear accident: some lessons from the management of the accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioprotection 56 (3): 181–192. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Lochard J. 2021. Supporting societal and economic dynamics of recovery: lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Ann ICRP 50(1): 68-73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Schreurs M. 2021. Reconstruction and revitalization in Fukushima a decade after the “triple disaster” struck: Striving for sustainability and a new future vision. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 53 (1):102006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
STUK. 2022. Protective actions in a nuclear or radiological emergency. https://www.stuklex.fi/en/ohje/VAL1 [Google Scholar]
SuRF. 2020. A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation. https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/surf-uk [Google Scholar]
Takada M, Yasutaka T, Kanai Y, Kuroda Y. 2020. Factors affecting resumption of forest or satoyama usage by former evacuees following their return after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Radioprotection 55 (4): 325–334. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Turcanu C, Abelshausen B, Geysmans R, Van Oudheusden M, Meskens G, Schieber C, Schneider T, Zeleznik N, Pölzl-Viol C. 2020. D9.94-Final report of the ENGAGE project. EJP-CONCERT, European Joint Programme for the Integration of Radiation Protection Research, H2020–662287. [Google Scholar]
Wieder JS, Schneider T, Martinez N. 2022. The three R’s of reasonable in radiological protection: relationships, rationale, and resources. J Radiol Prot: Official J Soc Radiol Prot 42 (2): 021513. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ac563b. [Google Scholar]
Yagi N. 2019. The State of Fisheries and Marine Species in Fukushima: Six Years After the 2011 Disaster. Agricultural Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident (III). pp. 211–220. [Google Scholar]
Yasutaka et al., 2016: Yasutaka T, Naito W. 2016. Assessing cost and effectiveness of radiation decontamination in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 151: 512–520. [Google Scholar]
Yasutaka T, Kanai Y, Kurihara M, Kobayashi T, Kondoh A, Takahashi T, Kuroda Y. 2020. Dialogue, radiation measurements and other collaborative practices by experts and residents in the former evacuation areas of Fukushima: a case study in Yamakiya District, Kawamata Town. Radioprotection 55 (3): 215–224. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.