262
20 Remediation
• Lack of natural disasters—volcanic eruptions, major earthquakes, tsunamis,
tornadoes, and other catastrophic natural disasters can have a negative impact
on facility integrity.
The waste disposal facility should ideally be licensed by the appropriate regulatory
agency and should be staffed by qualified, competent radiation workers. Arriving
waste will likely be handled the same as any other radioactive waste, with the caveat
that the aftermath of a radiological or nuclear attack is likely to produce larger
quantities of building and demolition debris than typical waste streams at present.
References
1. Chen S, Tenforde T (2010) Optimization approaches to decision making on long-term cleanup
and site restoration following a nuclear or radiological terrorism incident. Homel Secur Aff
VI(1)
2. Elcock D, Klemic G, Taboas A (2004) Establishing remediation levels in response to a
radiological dispersal event (or “dirty bomb”). Environ Sci Technol 38(9):2505–2512
3. International Atomic Energy Agency (2018) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive
Material, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6 (Rev 1). IAEA, Vienna
4. Karam P (1999) To remediate or not: a case study of Co-60 contamination at the Southerly Waste
Water Treatment Plant, Cleveland Ohio, USA. In: Andersson K (ed) Proceedings, VALDOR
(Values in Decisions on Risk) symposium, Stockholm Sweden, 13-17 June, pp 173–180
5. Keeney R (1994) Decisions about life-threatening risks. New Engl J Med 331(2):193
6. Leone D (2020) Seattle Cesium spill should be clean in about a year, NNSA nonproliferation
chief says. Nuclear Security and Deterrence Monitor, August 28
7. Lorber M, Gibb H, Grant L, Pinto J, Pleil J, Cleverly D (2007) Assessment of inhalation
exposures and potential health risks to the general population that resulted from the collapse
of the World Trade Center towers. Risk Anal 27(3):1203–1221
8. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2014) Decision making for latephase recovery from major nuclear or radiological incidents, report no 175. NCRP, Bethesda
MD
9. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2013) Urban remediation response:
contractors’ oversight manual, decision-making toolkit, and property owners’ manual for environmental cleanup response to a radiological dispersal device. New York City DOHMH, New
York City
10. Nordgren M, Goldstein E, Izeman M (2002) The environmental impacts of the world trade
center attacks: a preliminary assessment. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York City
11. US Department of Homeland Security (2008) Planning guidance for protection and recovery
following radiological dispersal device (RDD) and improvised nuclear device (IND) incidents.
73 FR 45029-45048. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC
12. US Department of Transportation (2020) Code of federal regulations title 49, Parts 171, 172,
and 173. Washington DC. 2020
13. US Environmental Protection Agency (2017) PAG Manual: Protection Action Guides and
Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents (EPA-400/R-17/001. USEPA, Washington DC
14. US Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Federal guidance report no. 15: external exposure
to radionuclides in air, water and soil. US EPA, Washington DC
15. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1989) Regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive
waste: a guide to the nuclear regulatory commission’s 10 CFR part 61. Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20 Remediation
• Lack of natural disasters—volcanic eruptions, major earthquakes, tsunamis,
tornadoes, and other catastrophic natural disasters can have a negative impact
on facility integrity.
The waste disposal facility should ideally be licensed by the appropriate regulatory
agency and should be staffed by qualified, competent radiation workers. Arriving
waste will likely be handled the same as any other radioactive waste, with the caveat
that the aftermath of a radiological or nuclear attack is likely to produce larger
quantities of building and demolition debris than typical waste streams at present.
References
1. Chen S, Tenforde T (2010) Optimization approaches to decision making on long-term cleanup
and site restoration following a nuclear or radiological terrorism incident. Homel Secur Aff
VI(1)
2. Elcock D, Klemic G, Taboas A (2004) Establishing remediation levels in response to a
radiological dispersal event (or “dirty bomb”). Environ Sci Technol 38(9):2505–2512
3. International Atomic Energy Agency (2018) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive
Material, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6 (Rev 1). IAEA, Vienna
4. Karam P (1999) To remediate or not: a case study of Co-60 contamination at the Southerly Waste
Water Treatment Plant, Cleveland Ohio, USA. In: Andersson K (ed) Proceedings, VALDOR
(Values in Decisions on Risk) symposium, Stockholm Sweden, 13-17 June, pp 173–180
5. Keeney R (1994) Decisions about life-threatening risks. New Engl J Med 331(2):193
6. Leone D (2020) Seattle Cesium spill should be clean in about a year, NNSA nonproliferation
chief says. Nuclear Security and Deterrence Monitor, August 28
7. Lorber M, Gibb H, Grant L, Pinto J, Pleil J, Cleverly D (2007) Assessment of inhalation
exposures and potential health risks to the general population that resulted from the collapse
of the World Trade Center towers. Risk Anal 27(3):1203–1221
8. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2014) Decision making for latephase recovery from major nuclear or radiological incidents, report no 175. NCRP, Bethesda
MD
9. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2013) Urban remediation response:
contractors’ oversight manual, decision-making toolkit, and property owners’ manual for environmental cleanup response to a radiological dispersal device. New York City DOHMH, New
York City
10. Nordgren M, Goldstein E, Izeman M (2002) The environmental impacts of the world trade
center attacks: a preliminary assessment. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York City
11. US Department of Homeland Security (2008) Planning guidance for protection and recovery
following radiological dispersal device (RDD) and improvised nuclear device (IND) incidents.
73 FR 45029-45048. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC
12. US Department of Transportation (2020) Code of federal regulations title 49, Parts 171, 172,
and 173. Washington DC. 2020
13. US Environmental Protection Agency (2017) PAG Manual: Protection Action Guides and
Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents (EPA-400/R-17/001. USEPA, Washington DC
14. US Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Federal guidance report no. 15: external exposure
to radionuclides in air, water and soil. US EPA, Washington DC
15. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1989) Regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive
waste: a guide to the nuclear regulatory commission’s 10 CFR part 61. Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC