Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Countermeasures and Restoration

  • Reference work entry
Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

Definition of the Subject and Its Importance

There are a large number of sites around the world contaminated with radionuclides which, to varying extents, require attention. Some of these sites were contaminated by nuclear testing or radiation accidents while others became contaminated as a result of authorized discharges (e.g., hospitals) or inadequate waste management and/or waste disposal practices. In recent years, problems associated with radioactively contaminated sites have led to considerable concern amongst both the general public and decision makers. To a large extent, the concern has been stimulated by the occurrence of several radiation accidents, most notably the Chernobyl accident. These issues have also gained a particular importance because of an increased public concern about the safety of radioactive waste disposal and the associated justification of a sustainable development of nuclear power.

The first stage of any strategy responding to contamination is an...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 6,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Acceptable limit:

A limit acceptable to the relevant regulatory body.

Accident:

Any unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures or other mishaps, the consequences or potential consequences of which are not negligible from the point of view of protection or safety.

Action level:

The level of dose rate or activity concentration above which remedial actions or protective actions should be carried out in chronic exposure or emergency exposure situations.

Contamination:

Radioactive substances on surfaces, or within solids, liquids, or gases (including the human body), where their presence is unintended or undesirable, or the process giving rise to their presence in such places.

Cost–benefit analysis:

A systematic economic evaluation of the positive effects (benefits) and negative effects (disbenefits, including monetary costs) of undertaking an action.

Countermeasure:

An action aimed at alleviating the radiological consequences of an accident.

Decommissioning:

Administrative and technical actions taken to allow the removal of some or all of the regulatory controls from a facility.

Decontamination:

The complete or partial removal of contamination by a deliberate physical, chemical, or biological process.

Dose:

A measure of the energy deposited by radiation in a target.

Emergency:

A nonroutine situation or event that necessitates prompt action, primarily to mitigate a hazard or adverse consequences for human health and safety, quality of life, property, or the environment.

Evacuation:

The rapid, temporary removal of people from an area to avoid or reduce short-term radiation exposure in an emergency.

Exemption level:

A value established by a regulatory body and expressed in terms of activity concentration, total activity, dose rate, or radiation energy, at or below which a source of radiation may be granted exemption from regulatory control without further consideration.

Exposure pathway:

A route by which radiation or radionuclides can reach humans and cause exposure.

Exposure:

The act or condition of being subject to irradiation.

Intervention:

Any action intended to reduce or avert exposure or the likelihood of exposure to sources that are not part of a controlled practice or that are out of control as a consequence of an accident.

Justification (for intervention):

The process of determining whether a proposed intervention is likely, overall, to be beneficial, as required by ICRP’s System of Radiological Protection, i.e., whether the benefits to individuals and to society (including the reduction in radiation detriment) from introducing or continuing the intervention outweigh the cost of the intervention and any harm or damage caused by the intervention.

Protective action:

An intervention intended to avoid or reduce doses to members of the public in emergencies or situations of chronic exposure.

Reference level:

An action level, intervention level, investigation level, or a recording level.

Relocation:

The nonurgent removal or extended exclusion of people from a contaminated area to avoid chronic exposure.

Remedial action:

Action taken when a specified action level is exceeded, to reduce radiation doses that might otherwise be received, in an intervention situation involving chronic exposure.

Remediation:

Any measures that is carried out to reduce the radiation exposure from existing contamination of land areas through actions applied to the contamination itself (the source) or to the exposure pathways to humans.

Risk:

A multi-attribute quantity expressing hazard, danger, or chance of harmful or injurious consequences associated with actual or potential exposures. It relates to quantities such as the probability that specific deleterious consequences may arise and the magnitude and character of such consequences.

Risk assessment:

Assessment of the radiological risks associated with normal operation and possible accidents involving a source or practice.

Site evaluation:

Analysis of those factors at a site that could affect the safety of a facility or activity on that site.

Waste management:

All administrative and operational activities involved in the handling, pretreatment, treatment, conditioning, transport, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. IAEA (2007) IAEA safety glossary: terminology used in nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eisenbud M, Gessel T (1997) Environmental radioactivity from natural, industrial and military sources, 4th edn. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (ISBN 0-12-235154-1)

    Google Scholar 

  3. IAEA (1987) Dosimetric and medical aspects of the radiological accident in Goiania in, 1987. IAEA TECDOC-1009. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  4. IAEA (1999) Technologies for the remediation of radioactively contaminated sites, International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA-TECDOC-1086. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  5. UNSCEAR (2000) United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation. Report to the general assembly. sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Scientific Annex C, UNSCEAR, New York, pp 157–252

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aarkrog A (2001) Manmade radioactivity. In: Van der Stricht E, Kirchman R (eds) Radioecology: radioactivity and ecosystems. Fortemps, Liege, pp 55–78

    Google Scholar 

  7. IAEA (2002) Radiation legacy of the 20th century: environmental restoration IAEA-TECDOC-1280. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  8. IAEA (2003) Remediation of areas contaminated by past activities and accidents safety requirements IAEA safety standards series No. WS-R-3. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  9. González AJ (2009) International approaches to remediation of territorial radioactive contamination. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. ICRP (2008) Scope of radiological protection control measures ICRP publication 104 Annals ICRP 37(5). Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  11. Voigt G, Eged K, Howard BJ, Kis Z, Nisbet AF, Oughton DH, Rafferty B, Salt CA, Smith JT, Vandenhove H (2000) A wider perspective on the selection of countermeasures. Rad Prot Dosim 92:45–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM, Balonov MI, Bogdevitch IM, Howard BJ, Kashparov VA, Sanzharova NI, Panov AV, Voigt G, Zhuchenka YM (2007) An extended critical review of twenty years of countermeasures used in agriculture after the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Environ 383:1–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shershakov V, Fesenko S, Kryshev I, Semioshkina N (2009) Decision-aiding tools for remediation strategies. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 123–178

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jacob P, Fesenko SV, Firsakova SK, Likhtarev IA, Schotola C, Alexakhin RM, Zhuchenko YM, Kovgan L, Sanzharova NI, Ageyets V (2001) Remediation strategies for rural territories contaminated by the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Radioactiv 56:51–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lochard J (2004) Living in contaminated territories: a lesson in stakeholder involvement. In: Current trends in radiation protection (EDP Sciences)., pp 211–220

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM, Balonov MI, Bogdevich IM, Howard BJ, Kashparov VA, Sanzharova NI, Panov AV, Voigt G, Zhuchenko YuM (2006) Twenty years’ application of agricultural countermeasures following the Chernobyl accident: lessons learned. J Radiol Prot 26(4):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fesenko S, Zeiller L, Voigt G (2009) Site characterisation and measurement strategies for remediation purposes. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 43–122

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shaw G (2007) Introduction. In: Shaw G (ed) Radioactivity in the terrestrial environment, Radioactivity in the environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Iranzo E, Richmond CR (1987) Plutonium contamination twenty years after the nuclear accident in Spain. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wrenn MMN (1974) Environmental levels of plutonium and transplutonium elements WASH 1359 (Atomic Energy Commission). Washington, DC, USA, p 89

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eriksson M (2002) On weapons plutonium in the arctic environment (Thule, Greenland) Riso-R-1321(EN). Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  22. Strand P, Balonov M, Bewers M, Howard BJ, Tsaturov YS, Salo A, Aarkrog A (eds) (1997) Arctic pollution issues. radioactive contamination. A report from an international expert group to the arctic monitoring and assessment programme. Oslo, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, p 160

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ramzaev V, Mishin A, Golikov V, Argunova T, Ushnitsi V, Zhuravskaya A, Sobakin P, Brown J, Strand P (2008) Radioecological studies at the Kraton-3 underground nuclear explosion site in 1978–2007: a review In: Strand P, Brown J, Jǿlle T (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on radioecology and environmental radioactivity, NRPA, Norway, pp 448–451

    Google Scholar 

  24. Alexakhin RM, Fesenko SV, Sanzharova NI (1996) Serious radiation accidents and the radiological impact on agriculture. Radiat Prot Dosim 64:37–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Alexakhin RM, Buldakov LA, Gubanov VA, YeG D, Ilyin LA, Kryshev II, Linge II, Romanov GN, Savkin MN, Saurov MM, Tikhomirov FA, Kholina YuB (2004) Large radiation accidents: consequences and protective countermeasures. Moscow, IzdAT Publisher

    Google Scholar 

  26. Alexakhin RM (2009) Remediation of areas contaminated after radiation accidents. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 179–224

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cancio DJ, Gutierrez C, Rujz AS (1993) Radiological considerations related with the restoration of a phosphogypsum disposal site in Spain, European Commission Doc. XI-5027/94. In: Proceedings international symposium remediation and restoration of radioactive-contaminated sites in Europe, Antwerp. pp 645–652

    Google Scholar 

  28. IAEA (1999) Compliance monitoring for remediated sites, international atomic energy agency, IAEA-TECDOC-1118. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  29. IAEA (1996) International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. IAEA safety series No. 115. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  30. ICRP (1991) Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection ICRP publication 60 Annals ICRP 21(1–3). Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  31. ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection ICRP Publication 103 Annals ICRP 37(2–4). Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  32. ICRP (2006) Assessing dose of the representative person for the purpose of radiation protection of the public and the optimisation of radiological protection: broadening the process publication 101 Annals ICRP 36(3). Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  33. ICRP (1999) Protection of the public in situations of prolonged radiation exposure ICRP Publication 82 Annals ICRP 29(1/2). Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  34. ICRP (1983) Cost-benefit analysis in the optimisation of radiation protection ICRP publication 37. Annals ICRP 10(2/3). Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  35. ICRP (1989) Optimisation and decision-making in radiological protection. ICRP publication 55 Annals ICRP 20 (1). Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  36. IAEA (2002) Non-technical factors impacting on the decision making processes in environmental remediation IAEA-TECDOC-1279. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  37. IAEA (2000) Site characterisation techniques used in environmental restoration activities, International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA-TECDOC-1148. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fesenko SV, Colgan A, Sanzharova NI, Lissianski KB, Vazquez C, Guardans R (1997) The dynamics of the transfer of caesium-137 to animal fodder in areas of Russia affected by the Chernobyl accident and doses resulting from the consumption of milk and milk products. Radiat Prot Dosim 69:289–299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fesenko SV, Jacob P, Alexakhin R, Sanzharova NI, Panov A, Fesenko G, Cecille L (2001) Important factors governing exposure of the population and countermeasure application in rural settlements of the Russian Federation in the long term after the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Radioactiv 56:77–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Howard BJ, Wright SM (eds) (1999) Spatial analysis of vulnerable ecosystems in Europe: spatial and dynamic prediction of radiocaesium fluxes into European foods (SAVE). Final report. Commission of European Communities, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  41. Howard BJ, Liland A, Beresford NA, Andersson KG, Cox G, Gil JM, Hunt J, Nisbet A, Oughton D, Voigt G (2004) A critical evaluation of the strategy project. Radiat Prot Dosim 109:63–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sanzharova NI, Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM, Anisimov VS, Kuznetsov VK, Chernyayeva LG (1994) Changes in the forms of 137Cs and its availability in plants as dependent on properties of fallout after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident. Sci Total Environ 154:9–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Dale P, Robertson I, Toner M (2008) Review: radioactive particles in dose assessments. J Environ Radioactiv 99:1589–1595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Alexakhin RA, Korneev NA (eds) (1991) Agricultural Radioecology. Ecology, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Prister BS, Perepelyatnikov GP, Perepelyatnikova LV (1993) Countermeasures used in the Ukraine to produce forage and animal food products with radionuclide levels below intervention limits after the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Environ 137:183–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Howard BJ (2000) The concept of radioecological sensitivity. Radiat Prot Dosim 92:29–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Alvarez-Farizo B, Gil JM, Howard BJ (2009) Impacts from restoration strategies: assessment through valuation workshops. Ecol Econ 68:287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Howard BJ, Beresford NA, Nisbet A, Cox G, Oughton DH, Hunt J, Alvarez B, Andersson KG, Liland A, Voigt G (2005) The STRATEGY project: decision tools to aid sustainable restoration and long-term management of contaminated agricultural ecosystems. J Environ Radioactiv 83:275–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Alexakhin RM (1993) Countermeasures in agricultural production as an effective means of mitigating the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Environ 137:9–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Prister B, Loshchilov N, Perepelyatnikova L, Perepelyatnikov G, Bondar P (1992) Efficiency of measures aimed at decreasing the contamination of agricultural products in areas contaminated by the Chernobyl NPP accident. Sci Total Environ 112:9–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Howard BJ, Beresford NA, Voigt G (2001) Countermeasures for animal products: a review of effectiveness and potential usefulness after an accident. J Environ Radioactiv 56:115–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bogdevitch I, Sanzharova N, Prister B, Tarasiuk S (2002) Countermeasures on natural and agricultural areas after Chernobyl accident. In: Kolejka J (ed) Role of GIS in lifting the cloud off Chernobyl, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 147–158

    Google Scholar 

  53. Junker H, Jensen JM, Jørgensen HB, Roed J, Andersson KG, Kofman PD, Bøllehuus E, Baxter L, Grebenkov A (1998) Chernobyl bioenergy project, ELSAMPROJEKT report no. EP 8204-98-n600hju

    Google Scholar 

  54. Andersson K, Roos P (2009) Effectiveness of remedial techniques for environments contaminated by artificial radionuclides. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 375–426

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Andersson KG, Roed J, Eged K, Kis Z, Voigt G, Meckbach R, Oughton DH, Hunt J, Lee R, Beresford NA, Sandalls FJ (2003) Physical countermeasures to sustain acceptable living and working conditions in radioactively contaminated residential areas, RISOE-R-1396(EN), ISBN 87-550-3190-0

    Google Scholar 

  56. Andersson KG, Brown J, Mortimer K, Jones JA, Charnock T, Thykier-Niellsen S, Kaiser JC, Proehl G, Nielsen SP (2008) New developments to support decision-making in contaminated inhabited areas following incidents involving a release of radioactivity to the environment. J Environ Radioactiv 99:439–454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Brown J, Mortimer K, Andersson K, Duranova T, Mrskova A, Hänninen R, Ikäheimonen T, Kirchner G, Bertsch V, Gallay F, Reales N (2008) Generic handbook for assisting in the management of contaminated inhabited areas in Europe following a radiological emergency, parts I-V, Final report of the EC-EURANOS project activities CAT1RTD02 and CAT1RTD04, EURANOS(CAT1)-RP(07). Health Protection Agency, UK

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nisbet A, Brown J, Jones A, Rochford H, Hammond D, Cabianca T (2009) HPA-RPD-064 – UK recovery handbooks for radiation incidents, HPA, Didcot

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nisbet AF, Brown J, Howard BJ, Beresford NA, Ollagnon H et al (2010) Decision aiding handbooks for managing contaminated food production systems, drinking water and inhabited areas in Europe. Radioprotection 45(5):S23–S37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Salt CA, Rafferty B (2001) Assessing potential secondary effects of countermeasures in agricultural systems: a review. J Environ Radioactiv 56:99–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. IAEA (2006) Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: twenty years of experience report of the Chernobyl forum expert group environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  62. Oughton D, Bay-Larsen I, Voigt G (2009) Environmental, social, ethical and economic aspects of remediation. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 427–452

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  63. Oughton D, Forsberg E-M, Bay I, Kaiser M, Howard B (2004) An ethical dimension to sustainable restoration and long-term management of contaminated areas. J Environ Radioactiv 74:171–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Gould P (1990) Fire in the rain: the democratic consequences of Chernobyl. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  65. Heriard Dubreuil G, Lochard J, Girard P, Guyonnet JF, Le Cardinal G, Lepicard S, Livolsi P, Monroy M, Ollagnon H, Pena-Vega A, Pupin V, Rigby J, Rolevitch I, Schneider T (1999) Chernobyl post-accident management: the ETHOS project. Health Phys 77:361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Eged K, Kis Z, Voigt G, Andersson KG, Roed J, Varga K (2003) Guidelines for planning interventions against external exposure in industrial area after a nuclear accident – Part I: a holistic approach of countermeasure application, GSF-Bericht 01/03, GSF – Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit GmbH, Neuherberg, ISSN 0721-1694, 67 p

    Google Scholar 

  67. IAEA (1994) Handbook of parameter values for radionuclide transfer in the temperate environments. Technical Report Series 364, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  68. Nisbet A, Howard B, Beresford N, Voigt G (2005) Stakeholder involvement in post-accidental management. J Environ Radioactiv 83:259–435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Beresford NA, Howard BJ, Barnett CL, Rantavaara A, Rissanen K, Reales N, Gallay F, Papachristodoulou C, Ioannides K, Nisbet AF, Hesketh N, Oughton D, Bay I (2005) Compendium of countermeasures for the management of food production systems. Deliverable TN(05)-01 (including CD) for EURANOS project (Cat1). Available at http://www.euranos.fzk.de

  70. Nikipelov BV, Romanov GN, Buldakov LA, Babaev NS, Kholina YuB, Mikerin EI (1987) The radiation accident in the South Urals in 1957. Atomnaya Energia 67:74–80 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Burnazyan AI (1990) Results of the studies and experience of mitigation of consequences of the accidental contamination of the territory by uranium fission products. Energoatomizdat, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sokolov VE, Krivolutsky DA (eds) (1993) Environmental impacts of radioactive contamination in the South Urals. Nauka, Moscow, 336 p ISBN 5-02-005719-3 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Akleev AV, Kiselev MF (2001) Ecological and medical impacts of the 1957 accident at the PP “Mayak”. RF Ministry of Health, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  74. Romanov GN, Drozhko EG, Nikipelov BV, Teplyakov IG, Shilov VP (1993) Summing up: restoration of the economic activity. In: Sokolov VE, Krivolutsky DA (eds) Environmental impacts of radioactive contamination in the South Urals. Moscow, Nauka (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Fetisov VI, Romanov GN, Drozhko EG (1993) Practice and problems of environment restoration at the location of the industrial association Mayak, 1994, European Commission Doc. XI-5027/94. In: Proceedings international symposium remediation and restoration of radioactive-contaminated sites in Europe, Antwerp, pp 507–521

    Google Scholar 

  76. Espinosa A, Aragon A, Stradling N, Hodgson A, Birchall A (1998) Assessment of doses to adult members of the public in Palamares from inhalation of plutonium and americium. Radiat Prot Dosim 79(1–4):161–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Izrael YuA, Kvasnikova EV, Nazarov IM, Fridman ShD (1994) Global and regional contamination of the territory of the European part of the former USSR by 137Cs. Meteorol Hydrol 5:5–9 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Izrael Yu (1999) Radioactive fallout after nuclear explosions and accidents. Environ Monit Assess 59(1):121–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sanzharova NI, Fesenko SV, Kotik VA, Spiridonov SI (1996) Behaviour of radionuclides in meadows and efficiency of countermeasures. Radiat Prot Dosim 64:43–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Ratnikov AN, Vasiliev AV, Alexakhin RM, Krasnova EG, Pasternak AD, Howard BJ, Hove K, Strand P (1998) The use of hexacyanoferrates in different forms to reduce radiocesium contamination of animal products in Russia. Sci Total Environ 223:167–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Strand P, Balonov M, Travnikova I, Hove K, Skuterud L, Prister B, Howard BJ (1999) Fluxes of radiocaesium in selected rural study sites in Russia and Ukraine. Sci Total Environ 231:159–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Fesenko SV, Voigt G, Spiridonov SI, Sanzharova NI, Gontarenko IA, Belli M, Sansone U (2000) Analysis of the contribution of forest pathways to the radiation exposure of different population groups in Bryansk region of Russia. Radiat Environ Biophys 39:291–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Shutov VN, Bruk GYa, Basalaeva LN, Vasiletskiy VN, Ivanova NP, Karlin IS (1996) The role of mushrooms and berries in the formation of internal exposure doses to the population of Russia after the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Prot Dosim 67:55–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Tikhomirov FA, Shcheglov AI (1994) Main investigation results on the forest radioecology in the Kyshtym and Chernobyl accident zones. Sci Total Environ 157:45–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Fesenko SV, Voigt G, Spiridonov SI, Gontarenko IA (2005) Decision making framework for application of forest countermeasures in the long term after the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Radioactiv 82:143–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. IAEA (2006) Radiological conditions in the Dnieper River Basin: assessment by an international expert team and recommendations for an action plan radioecological assessment report series. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  87. Smith JT, Kudelsky AV, Ryabov IN, Hadderingh RH, Bulgakov AA (2003) Application of potassium chloride to a Chernobyl contaminated lake: modelling the dynamics of radiocaesium in an aquatic ecosystem and decontamination of fish. Sci Total Environ 305:217–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Kudelsky AV, Smith JT, Petrovich AA (2002) An experiment to test the addition of potassium to a non-draining lake as a countermeasure to 137Cs accumulation in fish. Radioprotection Colloques 37:621–626

    Google Scholar 

  89. Roed J, Andersson KG, Barkovsky AN, Fogh CL, Mishine AS, Ponamarjov AV, Ramzaev VP (2006) Reduction of external dose in a wet-contaminated housing area in the Bryansk Region. Russia J Environ Radioactiv 85:265–279

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Rosenthal JJ, Cunha PO, Oliveira CA (1989) Aspects of the initial and recovery phases of the radiological accident in Goiania. In: Proceedings international symposium recovery operations in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency, IAEA, Vienna, 593–597

    Google Scholar 

  91. Oliveira AR, Hunt JG, Valverde NJL, Brandao-Mello CE, Farina R (1991) Medical and related aspects of the Goiania accident: an overview. Health Phys 60(1):17–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. IAEA (1998) Dosimetric and medical aspects of the radiological accident in Goiania in, 1987. IAEA TECDOC-1009. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  93. Rosenthal JJ, Almeida CE, Mendonca AH (1991) The radiological accident in Goiania, the remedial action. Health Phys 60:7–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Anspaugh LR, Church BW (1986) Historical estimates of external γ exposure and collective external γ exposure from testing at the Nevada Test Site. I. Test series through Hardtack II, 1958. Health Phys 51:35–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Donaldson LR, Seytnour AH, Nevissi’k AE (1997) University of Washington’s radioecological studies in the Marshall islands, 1946-1977. Health Phys 73:214–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Danesi PR (2009) Remediation of sites contaminated by nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands and Australia. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 225–262

    Google Scholar 

  97. Carlsen TM, Peterson LE, Ulsh BA, Werner CA, Purvis KL, Sharber AC (2001) Radionuclide contamination at Kazakhstan’s semipalatinsk test site: implications on human and ecological health. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. UCRL-JC-143920

    Google Scholar 

  98. Bennet BG (2000) Worldwide panorama of radioactive residues in the environment. In: Restoration of environments with radioactive residues, Proceedings International Symposium Arlington, Virginia, USA, 29 Nov.-3 Dec. 1999, IAEA, Vienna, pp 11–24

    Google Scholar 

  99. Hamilton TF (2004) Linking legacies of the cold war to arrival of anthropogenic radionuclides in the oceans through the 20th century. In: Livingston HD (ed) Radioactivity and the environment, vol 6. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 30–87

    Google Scholar 

  100. Robison WL, Phillis WA, Colsher CS (1977) Dose assessment at Bikini Atoll, Rep. UCRL-51879, Part 5, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore

    Google Scholar 

  101. Miltenberger RP, Greenhouse NA, Lessard ET (1980) Whole body counting results from 1974 to 1979 for Bikini Island residents. Health Phys 39:395–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Robinson WL, Noshkin VE (1999) Radionuclide characterization and associated dose from long-live radionuclides in close-in fallout delivered to the marine environment at Bikini and Enewetak Atolls. Sci Total Environ 237–238:311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Simon SL, Graham JC (1997) Findings of the first comprehensive radiological monitoring program of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Health Phys 73:66–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. IAEA (1998) Characterization of radioactively contaminated sites for remediation purposes, IAEA-TECDOC-1017. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  105. Robison WL, Bogen KT, Conrado CL (1997) An updated assessment for resettlement options at Bikini Atoll U.S. nuclear test site. Health Phys 73:100–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Symonds JL (1985) A history of British atomic tests in Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  107. Haywood SM, Smith JG (1992) Assessment of potential doses at the Maralinga and Emu test sites. Health Phys 63:624–630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Parkinson A (2000) Maralinga rehabilitation project. National Conference-MAPW Australia, http://www.mapw.org.au/conferences/mapw2000/papers/parkinson.html

  109. Williams GA (ed) (1990) Inhalation hazard assessment at Maralinga and Emu, Technical Report ARL/TR087

    Google Scholar 

  110. Williams GA, Cooper MB, Martin LJ (1998) Plutonium contamination at Maralinga – dosimetry and clean-up criteria. In: Proceedings AIOH-98 17th annual conference of Australian institute of occupational hygienists (AIOH), December 1998, pp 117–126

    Google Scholar 

  111. IAEA (2005) Selection of decommissioning strategies: issues and factors. Report by an expert group IAEA-TECDOC-1478. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  112. Falck WE, Seitz R, Pearl M, Audet M, Schmidt P, Fernandes HM (2009) Remediation as part of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. In: Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 263–374

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  113. NEA (2006) Releasing of the nuclear installations – a status report. NEA Publication No. 6187. OECD-Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD-NEA), Paris

    Google Scholar 

  114. IAEA (2004) Application of the concepts of exclusion, exemption and clearance, IAEA safety standard series No. RS-G-1.7. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  115. Fesenko SV, Sanzharova NI, Wilkins BT, Nisbet AF (1996) FORCON: local decision support system for the provision of advice in agriculture – methodology and experience of practical implementation. Radiat Prot Dosim 64(1/2):157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Van der Perk M, Burrough PA, Voigt G (1998) GIS based modelling to identify regions of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia affected by residues of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. J Hazard Mater 61:85–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Gillett AG, Crout NMJ, Absalom JP, Wright SM, Young SD, Howard BJ, Barnett CL, McGrath SP, Beresford NA, Voigt G (2001) Temporal and spatial prediction of radiocaesium transfer to food products. Radiat Environ Biophys 40:227–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Jackson D, Wragg SK, Bousher A, Zeevaert T, Stiglund Y, Brendler V, Hedemann Jensen P, Nordlinder S (1999) Establishing a method for assessing and ranking restoration strategies for radioactively contaminated sites and their close surroundings. Nucl Energy 38:223–231

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Shershakov VM, Trakhtengerts EA (1997) Decision-making in an emergency by using computer analysis with dynamically changeable rules. Radiat Prot Dosim 73:141–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. ICRP (1973) Implication of commission recommendations that doses be kept as low as readily achievable ICRP Publication 22. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  121. ICRP (1977) Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection ICRP publication 26, Annals ICRP 1(3). Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  122. Lochard J, Schneider T (2001) Application of decision aiding technologies for relocation strategies. In: Van der Stricht E, Kirchman R (eds) Radioecology: radioactivity and ecosystems. Fortemps, Liege, pp 504–536

    Google Scholar 

  123. IAEA (2000) Restoration of environments affected by residues from radiological accidents: approaches to decision making IAEA-TECDOC-1131. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  124. Jacob P, Fesenko S, Bogdevitch I, Kashparov V, Sanzharova N, Grebenshikova N, Isamov N, Lazarev N, Panov A, Ulanovsky A, Zhuchenko Y, Zhurba M (2009) Rural areas affected by the Chernobyl accident: radiation exposure and remediation strategies. Sci Total Environ 408:14–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Salt CA, Culligan Dunsmore M (2000) Development of a spatial decision support system for post-emergency management of radioactively contaminated land. J Environ Manage 58(3):169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Sazykina TG, Kryshev II (2006) Multi-criteria analysis for evaluating the radiological and ecological safety measures in radioactive waste management. Communications of Higher School. Nuclear Power Engineering (Izvestia vissikh uchebnikh zavedenij. Yadernaya energetica), Obninsk 1, pp 39–46 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  127. Shaw G, Robinson C, Holm E, Frissel M, Crick M (2001) A cost-benefit analysis of long-term management options for forest following contamination with 137Cs. J Environ Radioactiv 56:185–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. IAEA (2009) Quantification of radionuclide transfers in terrestrial and freshwater environments for radiological assessments IAEA-TECDOC-1616. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  • Brechignac F, Howard BJ (eds) (2001) Radioactive pollutants: impact on the environment and humans. EDP Science, Les Ulis

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Hammond DJ, Kwakman P (2009) Generic handbook for assisting in the management of contaminated drinking water in Europe following a radiological emergency. EURANOS(CAT1)-TN(09)-02

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilyin LA, Gubanov VA (eds) (2004) Large radiation accidents: consequences and protective countermeasures. IzdAT Publisher, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  • International Atomic Energy Agency (2006) Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: twenty years of experience, Radiological assessment reports series. Report of the Chernobyl forum expert group “Environment.” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Izrael YuA (2002) Radioactive fallout after nuclear explosions and accidents. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet AF, Jones A, Turcanu C, Camps J, Andersson KG, Hänninen R, Rantavaara A, Solatie D, Kostiainen E, Jullien T, Pupin V, Ollagnon H, Papachristodoulou C, Ioannides K, Oughton D (2009) Generic handbook for assisting in the management of contaminated food production systems in Europe following a radiological emergency v2. EURANOS (CAT1)-TN(09)-01. Available at http://www.euranos.fzk.de

  • Scott EM (ed) (2004) Modelling radioactivity in the environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw G (ed) (2007) Radioactivity in the terrestrial environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Beresford NA (2005) Chernobyl catastrophe and consequences. Praxis Publishing/Springer, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Stricht E, Kirchman R (eds) (2001) Radioecology: radioactivity and ecosystems. IUR, Fortmeps, Liege

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt G (ed) (2001) Remediation strategies. Special Issue. J Environ Radioactiv 56

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt G, Fesenko S (eds) (2009) Remediation of contaminated environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, IAEA Environment Laboratories, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramer Strasse 5, 100,1400, Vienna, Austria

    Dr. Sergey V. Fesenko

  2. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK

    Brenda J. Howard

Authors
  1. Dr. Sergey V. Fesenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda J. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergey V. Fesenko .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RAMTECH LIMITED, Larkspur, CA, USA

    Robert A. Meyers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Fesenko, S.V., Howard, B.J. (2012). Environmental Countermeasures and Restoration. In: Meyers, R.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_273

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation