Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 67–83 | Cite as

ReSCA: decision support tool for remediation planning after the Chernobyl accident

  • A. Ulanovsky
  • P. Jacob
  • S. Fesenko
  • I. Bogdevitch
  • V. Kashparov
  • N. Sanzharova
Original Paper

Abstract

Radioactive contamination of the environment following the Chernobyl accident still provide a substantial impact on the population of affected territories in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Reduction of population exposure can be achieved by performing remediation activities in these areas. Resulting from the IAEA Technical Co-operation Projects with these countries, the program ReSCA (Remediation Strategies after the Chernobyl Accident) has been developed to provide assistance to decision makers and to facilitate a selection of an optimized remediation strategy in rural settlements. The paper provides in-depth description of the program, its algorithm, and structure.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The program ReSCA was developed within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Co-operation Projects RER/9/074 “Long-term countermeasure strategies and monitoring of human exposures in rural areas affected by the Chernobyl accident” and RER/3/004 “Radiological support for the rehabilitation of the areas affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident” in 2003–2008.

References

  1. Agricultural Radioecology (1992) In: Alexakhin RA, Korneyev NA (eds) Ecology: Moscow [in Russian]Google Scholar
  2. Alexakhin RM (1993) Countermeasures in agricultural production as an effective means of mitigating the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Environ 137:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BRIR (1990) Annual report of Belarussian branch of all-union institute of agricultural radiology. Gomel (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. Cox G, Beresford NA, Alvarez-Farizo B, Oughton D, Kis Z, Eged K, Thørring H, Hunt J, Wright S, Barnett CL, Gil JM, Howard BJ, Crout NMJ (2005) Identifying optimal agricultural strategies for a hypothetical contamination scenario using the strategy model. J Environ Radioact 83:383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):157–164Google Scholar
  6. Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM, Balonov MI, Bogdevich IM, Howard BJ, Kashparov BA, Sanzharova NI, Voigt G, Zhuchenka Y (2006a) Chernobyl accident. Consequences for agriculture. Nucl Eng Int 51(620):34–37Google Scholar
  7. Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM, Balonov MI, Bogdevich IM, Howard BJ, Kashparov VA, Sanzharova NI, Panov AV, Voigt G, Zhuchenka YM (2006b) Twenty years’ application of agricultural countermeasures following the Chernobyl accident: lessons learned. J Radiol Prot 26:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM, Balonov MI, Bogdevich IM, Howard BJ, Kashparov VA, Sanzharova NI, Panov AV, Voigt G, YuM Zhuchenka (2007) An extended critical review of twenty years of countermeasures used in agriculture after the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Environ 383:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 40:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golikov V (2003) Review of existing data on countermeasures against external exposures and prepare dosimetric data for five candidate settlements. Report for IAEA TC Project RER/9/074.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  11. Golikov VY, Balonov MI, Jacob P (2002) External exposure of the population living in Russian areas contaminated due to the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys 41:185–193Google Scholar
  12. 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 Radioact 83:275–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IAEA (1994) Guidelines for agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides. IAEA Technical Report Series 363.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  14. IAEA (1997) The use of Prussian Blue to reduce radiocaesium contamination of milk and meat produced on territories affected by Chernobyl accident. Report of United Nations Project E 11. IAEA-TECDOC-926, ISSN 1011-4289.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  15. IAEA (2001) Guide on decontamination of rural settlements in the late period after radioactive contamination with long-lived radionuclides. IAEA TC Project RER/9/059. Working materials.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. IAEA (2006a) Environmental consequences of the chernobyl accident and their remediation: twenty years of experience. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Environment” (EGE).—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. IAEA (2006b) Countermeasure strategies in rural areas in the long term after the Chernobyl accident. IAEA TC Project RER/09/074. Working materials.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  18. IAEA (2007) Radiation Monitoring of population exposure in the late period after the Chernobyl accident. IAEA TC Project RER/09/074. Working materials.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  19. ICRP (1993) Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: part 2. J. Valentin (Ed.). ICRP Publication 67. Ann ICRP 23(3–4):1–167Google Scholar
  20. ICRP (2006) Assessing dose of the representative person for the purpose of radiation protection of the public. In: Valentin J (ed) Assessing dose of the representative person for the purpose of radiation protection of the public and the optimization of radiological protection: broadening the process. ICRP Publication 101, Part 1. Ann ICRP 36(3):1–62Google Scholar
  21. ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. In: Valentin J (ed) ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332Google Scholar
  22. Ilyin LA, Pavlovsky OA (1988) Radiological consequences of the accident of the Chernobyl NPP and measures taken for the mitigation thereof. Atomnaya Energia 65:119–128 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  23. Jacob P (2003) Efficiency of decontamination of rural settlements. An evaluation of field experiences of TC project RER/9/059.—Report for IAEA TC Project RER/9/974.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacob P (2005) Recommendations on dose reduction factors for decontamination work in affected settlements. Report for IAEA TC Project RER/9/074.—International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacob P, Fesenko S, 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 Radioact 56:51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacob P, Fesenko S, Bogdevich I, Kashparov V, Sanzharova N, Grebenshikova N, Isamov N, Panov A, Ulanovsky A, Zhuchenko Y (2009) Recommendations on remediation strategies for rural area affected by the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Environ 408:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nisbet AF, Mercer JA, Nesketh JA, Liland A, Thørring H, Bergan T, Beresford NA, Howard BJ, Hunt J, Oughton DH (2004) Datasheets on countermeasures and waste disposal options for the management of food production systems contaminated following a nuclear accident. Report NRPB-W58. National Radiological Protection Board, ChiltonGoogle Scholar
  28. Nisbet AF, Mercer JA, Rantavaara A, Hanninen F, Vandecasteele C, Carle B, Hardeman F, Ioannides KG, Papachristodoulou C, Tzialla C, Ollagnon H, Jullien T, Pupin V (2005) Achievements, difficulties and future challenges for the FARMING network. J Environ Radioact 83:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 Radioact 74:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 137:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Recommendations (1998) Guide on agriculture management on contaminated territories of Ukraine after Chernobyl accident. In: Prister BS, Kashparov VA, Nadtoschiy PP, Mozhar AO (eds) Ukrainian Institute of Agricultural Radiology, Kiyv (in Ukrainian)Google Scholar
  32. Recommendations (2003) Guidelines on agricultural and industrial product in under radioactive contamination in the Republic of Belarus. In: Bogdevich IM (ed) Minsk (in Russian)Google Scholar
  33. UNDP-UNICEF (2002) United Nations development programme and United Nations Children’s Fund the Human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Strategy for Recovery. Chernobyl Report Final 240102. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 61:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. Radiat Prot Dosim 92:45–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ulanovsky
    • 1
  • P. Jacob
    • 1
  • S. Fesenko
    • 2
  • I. Bogdevitch
    • 3
  • V. Kashparov
    • 4
  • N. Sanzharova
    • 5
  1. 1.Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental HealthInstitute of Radiation ProtectionNeuherbergGermany
  2. 2.International Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Research Institute for Soil Science and AgrochemistryMinskBelarus
  4. 4.Ukrainian Institute of Agricultural RadiologyChabany, Kiev RegionUkraine
  5. 5.Russian Institute of Agricultural Radiology and RadioecologyObninskRussia

Personalised recommendations