246
20 Remediation
esteemed professionals. Such standards would have the advantages of being consistent across the nation, of being developed by highly competent professionals who
almost certainly understand the science well enough to have a sound basis for the
limits they derive. In addition, by developing cleanup standards in advance there
would be ample time to publish drafts to solicit comments and feedback from both
the public and the scientific communities and they would be available to be used
at the time of an attack, rather than requiring weeks or months to develop in the
aftermath. Unfortunately, having so important a decision made by strangers who do
not have a stake in the eventual outcome might not be acceptable to the citizens since
many of those developing remediation recommendations will come from outside the
community. In addition, government “blue ribbon” committees are not necessarily
trusted to have the best interests of the local citizens at heart.
Another potential solution is to wait until there is an attack and to then assemble
a panel of “stakeholders” (those who have a stake in the matter) to develop cleanup
standards in the aftermath of an attack. In a case such as this the national government
might develop guidance documents in advance, but the final standards would be
developed by those living in the city that was attacked and who have ties to the
community. Such a decision would be more likely to be respected by residents, at the
same time, it is also more likely to be driven by the concerns of people who might
not have a good understanding of radiation science.
Regardless as to how decontamination criteria are established, they should have a
basis. Risk-based standards, for example, are based on the risk posed to the population
by radiation dose rates, internal contamination due to resuspended radioactivity, and
any number of assumptions to help determine how significant these exposures might
be. These assumptions would require discussion, justification, and acceptance by the
group developing cleanup standards, and would need to be acceptable to the public
as well.
Whatever standards are decided upon, if they are to be accepted by the community then those who developed them must be accepted as not only having appropriate
expertise, but also as representing the interests and concerns of the various stakeholders: the public, business, public health, government, and whichever other groups
are represented. If those developing cleanup standards are not accepted by the various
stakeholders then it is entirely possible that the standards will also be rejected. This
means that the group determining remediation and reoccupancy standards must be
seen as scientifically competent, but also as being attuned to the interests and needs
of the various groups that make up the community stakeholders.
20.2 Contamination Limits and Decontamination Goals
Many decontamination and remediation projects are driven by contamination levels,
often based on counting statistics and detector characteristics to determine when
contamination is unambiguously present. However, statistics-based contamination
limits have very little to do with health and safety; using the dose conversion factors
20 Remediation
esteemed professionals. Such standards would have the advantages of being consistent across the nation, of being developed by highly competent professionals who
almost certainly understand the science well enough to have a sound basis for the
limits they derive. In addition, by developing cleanup standards in advance there
would be ample time to publish drafts to solicit comments and feedback from both
the public and the scientific communities and they would be available to be used
at the time of an attack, rather than requiring weeks or months to develop in the
aftermath. Unfortunately, having so important a decision made by strangers who do
not have a stake in the eventual outcome might not be acceptable to the citizens since
many of those developing remediation recommendations will come from outside the
community. In addition, government “blue ribbon” committees are not necessarily
trusted to have the best interests of the local citizens at heart.
Another potential solution is to wait until there is an attack and to then assemble
a panel of “stakeholders” (those who have a stake in the matter) to develop cleanup
standards in the aftermath of an attack. In a case such as this the national government
might develop guidance documents in advance, but the final standards would be
developed by those living in the city that was attacked and who have ties to the
community. Such a decision would be more likely to be respected by residents, at the
same time, it is also more likely to be driven by the concerns of people who might
not have a good understanding of radiation science.
Regardless as to how decontamination criteria are established, they should have a
basis. Risk-based standards, for example, are based on the risk posed to the population
by radiation dose rates, internal contamination due to resuspended radioactivity, and
any number of assumptions to help determine how significant these exposures might
be. These assumptions would require discussion, justification, and acceptance by the
group developing cleanup standards, and would need to be acceptable to the public
as well.
Whatever standards are decided upon, if they are to be accepted by the community then those who developed them must be accepted as not only having appropriate
expertise, but also as representing the interests and concerns of the various stakeholders: the public, business, public health, government, and whichever other groups
are represented. If those developing cleanup standards are not accepted by the various
stakeholders then it is entirely possible that the standards will also be rejected. This
means that the group determining remediation and reoccupancy standards must be
seen as scientifically competent, but also as being attuned to the interests and needs
of the various groups that make up the community stakeholders.
20.2 Contamination Limits and Decontamination Goals
Many decontamination and remediation projects are driven by contamination levels,
often based on counting statistics and detector characteristics to determine when
contamination is unambiguously present. However, statistics-based contamination
limits have very little to do with health and safety; using the dose conversion factors