Annex II of Technical Volume 5

INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE BASIS FOR ASSESSING

RECOVERY OPERATIONS
II1. DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE
This volume seeks to identify lessons learned related to post-accident recovery that may further
improve preparedness worldwide. This objective assessment of the recovery programme is made
according to international best practice.
In the practice and assessment of radiation and nuclear safety, international best practice is a process
or technique that is likely to consistently produce superior results. An important principle is that a
best practice can evolve to become better as improvements are discovered and lessons are learned
from past experience. The lessons to be learned from the recovery programme as it unfolds in Japan
will feed back into improving international best practice in post-accident recovery worldwide.
Best practice is used to maintain quality and is a component of quality management systems and
standards, such as ISO 9000. It is generally regarded as being the most efficient and effective way to
accomplish desired outcomes. The body of best practice is used as a benchmark and for selfassessment.
The IAEAs technical cooperation (TC) programme describes best practice as follows [II1]:
For the IAEAs TC programme, a best practice is an example of a standing policy,
strategy, procedure, process, tool, technique or method that supports enhanced compliance
with relevant performance indicators in the effective and efficient delivery of the objectives of
a TC task.
There is no one source for international best practice. It is necessary to look in different places for the
various aspects of the relevant situation to find international best practice for those different elements.
In many areas, the IAEA safety standards provide guidance on meeting essential safety requirements
based on international best practice. By reference to these documents, and also comparing different
national systems and national facilities, it is possible to identify what is international best practice. In
addition, a particular university or other organizations, such as the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
(OECD/NEA) also provide information on best practice, for example in relation to safety assessment
or stakeholder engagement. For the latter, for example, there is the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence
[II2].
For the purposes of this volume, international best practice is derived in the main from relevant
international safety standards, past experience and peer review.
II2. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE
An overview of some of the relevant sources of international best practice is presented here. Other
sources include expert reports by organizations, such as United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the OECD/NEA.
II2.1.

The IAEA safety standards

The IAEA has led the development of an international framework on nuclear and radiation safety.
This involves three key elements: legally binding international treaties, globally agreed international
safety standards, and provisions for facilitating the application of those standards.
1

The hierarchy of the IAEA safety standards involves three levels, with the IAEA Safety Fundamentals
[II3] set out the fundamental safety objective and ten associated safety principles.
Beneath the Safety Fundamentals are the Safety Requirements, comprising seven General Safety
Requirements (GSRs) and six Specific Safety Requirements (SSRs). This integrated set of Safety
Requirements, when complete, will establish the international consensus of standards that is required
to be met to ensure the protection of people and the environment, both now and in the future,
governed by the objective and principles of the Safety Fundamentals.
Supporting the Safety Requirements is a suite of Safety Guides which are based on an international
consensus and provide assistance on how to comply with the Safety Requirements.
Currently, under the terms of the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety1, a review of all IAEA Safety
Requirements has been conducted and revision is under way where changes are warranted as a result
of initial lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident. The lessons
related to those safety standards that deal with the various aspects involved in post-accident recovery
are presented in Technical Volume 5 and will form part of this ongoing revision process.
International experience of remediation
There are a number of recovery exercises that have been conducted around the world that provide
useful experience for aspects of Japanese recovery efforts. Some of this wealth of experience and
information is presented here.
Three Mile Island
In 1979, at the Three Mile Island (TMI) NPP in the United States of America, a cooling malfunction
caused part of the core to melt in the No. 2 reactor, leading to its destruction. The cleanup of the
damaged nuclear reactor took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US $973 million. The cleanup
was uniquely challenging, technically and radiologically. Plant surfaces had to be decontaminated.
Water used and stored during the cleanup had to be processed. And about 100 t of damaged uranium
fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel. Defuelling the TMI-2 reactor vessel was at the heart
of the cleanup efforts.
Chernobyl
From 1996 the issue of rehabilitation of living conditions in a territory affected by long lasting
radioactive contamination as a consequence of a nuclear accident has been identified and explored
through different European projects. These have been carried out in the context of the post-accident
situation involving the areas contaminated by the deposition from the accident at the Chernobyl NPP
in the former Soviet Union.
For example, the FARMING and STRATEGY European projects (20012004) had the aim of
selecting and evaluating methodologies for the rehabilitation of living environments after a nuclear
accident based on a multi-criteria approach for decision making. The European Approach to Nuclear
and Radiological Emergency Management and Rehabilitation Strategies (EURANOS) programme
(2004-2009) aimed to establish various handbooks for the management of post-accident situations and
recovery after a nuclear accident [II4 to II6], to enhance decision support systems, and to develop
preparedness and management strategies and guidance for rehabilitation of living conditions in
territories affected by long lasting radioactive contamination as a result of a nuclear event.

See Technical Volume 1, Section 1. 6 for more information.

The European projects ETHOS 1 and 2 (19962001), developed in Belarus and demonstrated the
feasibility of post-accident strategies that rely on the active engagement of local authorities and
professionals in the response to radioactive contamination. These strategies involve practical
evaluation of the local contamination situation by local stakeholders, and the development of concrete
actions aimed at the protection of the inhabitants and the improvement of their living conditions.
Palomares
An accident in 1966 involving the mid-air collision of two US military aircraft near Palomares in
Spain resulted in four nuclear weapons being dropped. Two of these were damaged, resulting in the
dispersal of plutonium in the local environment by conventional explosions.
At the time, Spain had no established criteria for the cleanup of plutonium contamination from
residential and farming lands. Negotiations between US and Spanish authorities on levels and
methods of decontamination were difficult, due to varied opinions on what was acceptable and the
need for speedy action. Significantly, in 1966, there were also no criteria in the USA for permissible
levels of plutonium in accident situations. The importance of being prepared with agreed and publicly
accepted cleanup criteria is highlighted by the Palomares experience.
The US Defense Nuclear Agency issued a Palomares Summary Report [II7] in 1975 that stated that
there were, however, broad guidelines for plutonium contamination levels established from the
Nevada nuclear weapons tests, and that for Palomares A sense of urgency prevailed, primarily from a
political standpoint, to arrive at criteria and begin the clean-up.
The stated policy of the US Government was to decontaminate to levels which were more than
adequate by US safety standards. However, the Spanish Government desired levels far beyond
safety requirements in the interest of combating psychological consequences of the accident. The
USA also expressed the concern that whatever decontamination levels were agreed to at Palomares
could in the future be pointed to as safety standards in any subsequent contamination incidents.
Goinia
In 1987, an abandoned teletherapy machine complete with its 137Cs source was taken and
subsequently broken up and dispersed in Goinia, in Brazil [II8]. Various remedial actions were
undertaken, such as decontamination of property, collection of contaminated clothing, removal of
contaminated soil, and restrictions on some home grown produce. The dose criterion adopted was that
the dose to the critical group in the first year should not exceed 5 mSv. Action levels were derived
from this criterion. The area over which remediation was carried out was relatively small (1 km2).
Criteria were employed to guide the evacuation of some houses, although as the IAEA report states,
The approach adopted was heavily influenced by political and social pressures and an
unwillingness for the accident to be considered as an emergency in any way comparable with
a possible nuclear power accident (see p. 69 [II8]).
The contaminated waste from the Goinia remediation was stored temporarily until a permanent
repository for disposal could be developed.
Maralinga
An area of South Australia remained contaminated following British atomic tests at Maralinga
between 1955 and 1963. Of importance was long lived 239Pu, of which some 24 kg was explosively
dispersed in several minor trials. The inhalation of plutonium dust presented the most significant
3

health hazard arising from residual contamination of the Maralinga area, due to the very low solubility
of the plutonium oxide and the dusty, dry conditions.
The dilemma faced by the Maralinga Indigenous Australian community was what form of cleanup
could adequately deal with the contamination, without causing the massive environmental damage
that top soil removal from large areas would cause (involving the removal of trees and grass from an
area of verdant bush land, with potential for subsequent erosion problems).
The programme of remediation that was agreed with all stakeholders involved a standard, for any
scenario involving permanent occupancy, that the risk of fatal cancer following uptake of
contamination should not exceed 1 in 10 000 by the 50th year, from which was derived an annual
committed dose of less than 5 mSv. Criteria were also established and agreed for the removal of hot
particles and contaminated fragments [II9].
In fact, following the cleanup, annual doses were estimated to not exceed 1 mSv for all realistic
scenarios. This outcome was due to a number of reasons, some of which are relevant to the situation
following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. These include the inherent conservatism in calculating the
5 mSv/y cleanup boundaries and the practicalities in setting cleanup boundaries, which meant that a
greater degree of cleanup was undertaken than was strictly required by the agreed reference levels.
The environmental processes such as migration and erosion, that have the effect of lowering the
availability of contamination over time, were also a common factor.
The contaminated soil and debris resulting from the successful remediation of the Maralinga lands
were buried on-site in near surface disposal trenches.
Hanford
Much of the radioactive waste from the remediation of the partially decommissioned Hanford nuclear
production site in Washington State, in the USA, is being disposed of in a near surface disposal
facility following immobilization of the waste by vitrification. Immobilizing the waste in this manner,
together with envisioned long term institutional controls on access, means that waste containing
higher concentrations of long lived radionuclides such as 99Tc can be safely disposed of in a near
surface facility, rather than requiring deep geological disposal to meet the safety objectives, as
indicated in the safety case [II10].
International Experts Meeting on Decommissioning and Remediation after a Nuclear Accident
An important source of international best practice for benchmarking the Japanese recovery
programme was the IAEAs International Experts Meeting on Decommissioning and Remediation
after a Nuclear Accident (IEM 4), held in January 2013. At this meeting, the international nuclear and
radiation safety community recognized that, based on lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi accident,
and past major nuclear accidents, that it is too late to begin planning for accident recovery after an
accident has occurred.
The IAEAs report on IEM 4 [II11], summarizes many lessons which are relevant in the context of
the Fukushima Daiichi accident. While these will not be repeated in detail here, there are three broad
categories of lessons that are highlighted in the IEM 4 report that are crucial for post-accident
recovery and that are emphasized in the lessons that are drawn from the assessments reported here.
II2.2.

The role of planning in post-accident recovery

The Chairpersons Summary of IEM 4 states:

There is no reason to believe that accidents will not happen in the future, leading to future
actions related to recovery activities such as decommissioning and remediation. Before an
accident, planning should identify and establish appropriate procedures to handle acute
consequences and bring the situations under control in a manner that reduces, to the extent
practicable and possible, the long term consequences that will turn into legacy. If such a
legacy occurs, or already exists, a system to deal with it, which includes decommissioning
and remediation, must be available. [II11]
In essence, the lesson is that it is too late to start planning the essential and urgently required elements
of post-accident recovery in the aftermath of a radiation or nuclear accident. These elements include:
Reference levels for remediation strategy and action levels for specific remedial actions.
End states and strategies for decommissioning of accident-damaged facilities.
Waste management and disposal strategies (e.g. availability of a generic safety case).
The narrative presented below and in more detail in Annex I underlines the crucial IEM 4
recommendation that forward planning for recovery is essential.
Stakeholder engagement and an understanding of what is safe
Again, quoting from the Chairpersons Summary of IEM 4:
The importance of trust for a constructive stakeholder interaction cannot be overestimated.
Trust will not be achieved if potential events (such as accidents) have not been identified and
clearly communicated in the planning phase and it subsequently turns out that such an event
takes place. [II11]
The Chairpersons Summary also concludes:
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has highlighted the concern of
people to be assured of their safety. The international community should strive to develop a
practical definition of safe as an aid for communicating with the public. [II11]
Management of damaged fuel and radioactive waste
The Chairpersons Summary of IEM 4 has two recommendations in this area, both relevant to specific
lessons identified in Sections 5.3 and 5.4:
With regard to waste management strategies, a recommendation can be suggested as follows:
The IAEA should assist Member States with the development of end states and decommissioning
strategies for decommissioning of accident-damaged facilities.
With particular reference to the large volumes of often low activity waste from existing
exposure situations, a recommendation can be suggested as follows: Large volumes of
radioactive waste and materials with residual amounts of radionuclides are present in many
countries. The IAEA should review its guidance on the management of these wastes
and materials, with the view to ensuring their practical application after a nuclear accident.
[II11]
The experts at the IEM 4 called for strengthened international programmes, assistance and guidance
on forward planning for post-accident recovery. The IEM 4 report concludes that information
collected from the Fukushima Daiichi accident should be periodically evaluated for incorporation into
the IAEAs safety standards and technical reports.
5

International Experts Meeting on Radiation Protection after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident:
Promoting Confidence and Understanding
Another important source of international best practice for benchmarking radiation protection aspects
of the Japanese recovery programme is the IAEA International Experts Meeting on Radiation
Protection after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Promoting Confidence and Understanding (IEM 6),
held in February 2014 [II12]. An issue of considerable interest at IEM 6 was the use of social media
as a communications tool, particularly among young people. The fact that there is no limit on who can
convey very different and even contradictory messages to large groups of people over a very short
time period brings new challenges to national authorities in communicating with the public. But
practices such as crowdsourcing, for example in the collection and dissemination of radiation data,
were observed to also help to improve confidence in information from official sources.
The meeting noted that the complexity of the System of Radiological Protection can be an
impediment to its effective implementation. Furthermore, decisions must be made by use of sound
judgement based on strong ethical considerations and accepted societal values.
The Chairpersons Summary of IEM 6 states that the purpose of the meeting was to provide an
opportunity for experts to discuss the various radiation protection issues that have been highlighted by
the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and to consider how these should be addressed at both the national
and international levels. The recommendations and conclusions of the Chairpersons Summary were
as follows [II13]:
Release of radionuclides to the environment:
(Conclusion) Early real-time sampling and personnel monitoring is important to improve
the source term estimation and reduce the uncertainty in estimated values. [II12]
Foods and drinking water:
(Conclusion) The relevant international organizations need to prioritize work to develop a
harmonized approach to the control of foodstuffs and drinking water contaminated as a result
of a nuclear or radiological accident. This needs to be simple to implement and take fully into
account the issues that apply in the accident State, other affected States and States that are
not affected Similarly, guidance needs to be developed on the international trade in and the
control of contaminated non-food commodities. [II12]
Remediation:
(Conclusion) The ultimate success of remediation programmes depends on the
combined efforts of actions by the local authorities, affected communities, and individual
citizens. [II12]
Social media:
(Conclusion) The development of social media brings challenges in terms of the increase in
the sources and the amount of information, even contradictory information, that is available
and the difficulty in identifying credible sources. This is a challenge for national authorities,
but can also be used to their benefit as social media provide a much more efficient outlet for
dissemination. [II12]

Risk communication:
(Conclusion) The need for better communication falls on the radiation protection community
as a whole. We need to dedicate resources to ensure we adequately inform decision makers
and the general public about radiation, radiation risks and the underlying philosophy and
ethics of the International System of Radiation Protection. If people dont understand our
advice, it is unreasonable to expect them to implement it. [II12]
System of radiation protection:
(Recommendation) While the International System of Radiation Protection is, generally, fit
for purpose, it should be modified and improved in line with the lessons learned from the
Fukushima accident. (Recommendation) While the International System of Radiation
Protection is, generally, fit for purpose, it should be modified and improved in line with the
lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. [II12]
Capacity building:
(Recommendation) All States should develop and implement a national strategy in relation
to building and maintaining competence in radiation protection. [II12]
The Joint Convention peer review
The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management [II14] (the Joint Convention) represents a commitment by Contracting Parties
(participating countries) to achieve and maintain a consistently high level of safety in the management
of spent fuel and radioactive waste as part of the global safety regime for ensuring the protection of
people and the environment.
The Joint Convention requires Contracting Parties to report and to promote open and transparent
discussions on the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. One mechanism for
achieving these objectives is peer review of national programmes for spent fuel and radioactive waste
management. The articles of the Joint Convention call for review meetings to be held at periods not
exceeding three years.
The National Report of Japan to the Fourth Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, held in May 2012,
reported on the Fukushima Daiichi accident and its early implications for management and safety of
spent fuel and accident waste [II15]. The National Report of Japan for the Fifth Review Meeting of
the Joint Convention, to be held in May 2015, contains updated information on these issues and peer
review process provides valuable feedback for both Japan and the rest of the world.
It was agreed by the Contracting Parties [II16] that national reports to the 2015 Review Meeting of
the Joint Convention should address: (i) safety implications of very long storage periods and delayed
disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste; and (ii) progress on lessons learned from the Fukushima
Daiichi accident, in particular regarding strategies for spent fuel management.

II3. RADIATION PROTECTION PRINCIPLES AND THE REMEDIATION REFERENCE

LEVEL
II3.1.

The use of 1 mSv/y in post-accident recovery

There has been considerable confusion on International Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICRP) recommendations regarding the use of the value of 1 mSv/y in post-accident recovery. ICRP
has recommended 1 mSv/y as a reference level for protection of people living in affected areas in the
long term (see para 288 in [II17] and para 50 in Ref. [II18]), acknowledging the long term success
with remediation and the effects of natural processes two decades after the Chernobyl accident. Long
term may mean several years or even decades depending on the situation and the radionuclides
involved. It is no coincidence that this is numerically equal to the dose limit for members of the public
in planned exposure situations, as the long term objective is to reduce exposures to levels that are
similar to situations considered to be normal.
As a long term objective in post-accident recovery, 1 mSv/y is a reference level, not a dose limit, and
therefore applies to the dose received from the source (residual radioactivity in the environment in the
case of the Fukushima Daiichi accident). It is used as a benchmark when evaluating the distribution of
doses to members of the public, a few of whom may exceed the value and the vast majority of whom
should be well below it.
In this context, a reference level of 1 mSv/y:
Is not recommended as a short or medium term objective (although it is the bottom of the band of
doses recommended for reference levels for this purpose);
Is not meant for use during the emergency phase of an accident;
Is not meant as a criterion for relocation, evacuation, or return to homes;
Is not meant to be applied to occupational doses incurred during recovery operations;
Is not a dose limit;
Is not a boundary between safe and unsafe.
Several examples in various post-accident recovery situations are cited in ICRP Publication 111,
Annex A [II18]. Recent estimates by UNSCEAR [II19] show that, within two decades, doses from
the Fukushima Daiichi accident will be below 1 mSv/y in all but a few small areas, taking into
account only natural processes of radioactive decay and weathering.
II3.2.

Optimization

The important principle of optimization of radiation protection involves the process of determining
what level of protection makes exposures as low as reasonably achievable, with economic and social
factors being taken into account. Optimization ensures that available funds for remediation are used as
effectively as possible, while considering all social factors of importance to the affected population as
well as the technical feasibility.
The issues relating to optimization and the choice of remediation reference level are complex. They
include the following aspects:
Optimization goes further than weighing doses and financial costs.
Optimization can involve more than just selecting a different numerical value for the long term
objective.
Radiation dose rate is only one consideration among many for recovery, and as dose rates become
relatively low with time, other social issues may progressively dominate decision-making.

 Spending a lot of resources to reduce dose rates that are already relatively low implies that those
resources cannot be spent for other, possibly more socially beneficial purposes.
This last point in particular has been the main issue when considering how the application of a
reference level of 1 mSv/y for the remediation target. Answers can be found in the application of an
overall optimization process. The choice of the value of 1 mSv/y as a reference level in Japan goes
beyond purely radiation protection considerations, since it includes also factors of equity.
The chaotic aftermath of an accident presents a far from ideal conditions in which to develop
optimized criteria for accident recovery, in particular, following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, due
to the societal disruption arising from the combined effects of the earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear
accident. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to involve stakeholders in determining recovery
criteria and strategies. This is a strong argument for the need for prior preparations involving
education and consultation with stakeholders in order to be prepared for optimized recovery solutions.
There is flexibility in how a long term numerical objective could be applied. It has been noted that it
is not a dose limit, and that the distribution of doses to members of the public is generally log-normal,
i.e. characterized by the vast majority of people receiving doses considerably below the mean, and a
long tail with relatively few people receiving higher doses. It may be possible to work with the
relatively few individuals that may receive higher doses to help them reduce their doses. It may also
be decided that is not necessary for the long term objective to be that everyone receives an additional
dose below 1 mSv/y immediately; success could be progressively defined in terms of the percentage
of the affected population receiving additional doses below this reference level. From the recent
UNSCEAR data and other sources, it is likely that at least 75% (probably more) of members of the
public living in non-evacuated districts of Fukushima Prefecture are already receiving less than
1 mSv/y of radiation that can be directly attributed to the nuclear accident.

REFERENCES
[II1]

[II2]
[II3]

[II4]

[II5]

[II6]
[II7]
[II8]
[II9]

[II10]

[II11]

[II12]

[II13]
[II14]
[I15]

[II16]

[II17]

[II18]

[II19]

10

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Best Practices in the IAEAs Technuical

Cooperation Programme, web page and brochure, IAEA, Vienna (2015),
http://www.iaea.org/technicalcooperation/programme/Quality/Best-Practices/index.html
OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) (2014),
http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/fsc/
EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY,
INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR
ORGANIZATION,
INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME
ORGANIZATION, OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, PAN AMERICAN HEALTH
ORGANIZATION, UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION, Fundamental Safety Principles, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF-1, IAEA,
Vienna (2006).
NISBET, A.F., et al., Generic Handbook for Assisting in the Management of Contaminated Food
Production Systems in Europe Following a Radiological Emergency, Rep. EURANOS (CAT1)TN(06)-06 (2006).
BROWN, J., HAMMOND, D.J., KWAKMAN, P., Generic Handbook for Assisting in the
Management of Contaminated Drinking Water in Europe Following a Radiological Emergency,
EURANOS(CAT1)-TN(06)-09-02, Version 2 (2009).
NISBET, A.F., et al., Generic Handbook for Assisting in the Management of Contaminated Inhabited
Areas in Europe Following a Radiological Emergency, EURANOS(CAT1)-TN(09)-03 (2009).
DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY, Palomares Summary Report, Defense Nuclear Agency, New
Mexico (1975).
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Accident in Goinia, IAEA,
Vienna (1988).
COOPER, M.B., MARTIN, L.J., WILLIAMS, G.A., HARRIES, J.R., Characterization of Plutonium
Contamination at Maralinga Dosimetry And Cleanup Criteria, IAEA-TECDOC-1148, IAEA,
Vienna (2000).
MCGRAIL, B., BACON, D., SERNE, R., PIERCE, E., A Strategy to Assess Performance of Selected
Low-Activity Waste Forms in an Integrated Disposal Facility, Department of Energy, Washington, DC
(2003).
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Decommissioning and Remediation after a
Nuclear Accident (Proc. International Experts Mtg, Vienna, 28 January1 February 2013,), IAEA
Report, IAEA, Vienna (2013).
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radiation Protection After the Fukushima Daiichi
Accident: Promoting Confidence and Understanding (Proc. International Experts Mtg, Vienna, 1721
February 2014), IAEA, Vienna (2014).
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Chairperson's summary, ibid.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management, INFCIRC/546, IAEA, Vienna (1997).
GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN, National Report of Japan to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent
Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Government of Japan, Tokyo
(2011).
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management, Fourth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, Final Summary Report,
JC/RM4/04/Rev.2, IAEA, Vienna (2012).
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, The 2007
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 103,
Elsevier, Oxford (2007).
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Application of the
Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas
After a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency, Publication 111, Elsevier, Oxford (2009).
UNITED NATIONS, Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation (Report to the General
Assembly), UNSCEAR 2013 Report, Vol. I, Scientific Annex A: Levels and Effects of Radiation
Exposure Due to the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami,
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), UN, New York (2014).