Restoring areas after a radioactive fallout: A multidisciplinary study on decontamination.

Land remediation is an important part of restoration measures after a radioactive fallout containing long-lived fission products such as 137Cs. In this multidisciplinary study, we focused on three main issues related to remediation of contaminated urban areas. First, we assessed how much decontamination contributes to reducing resident radiation exposure and how much this reduction depends on the timing of implemented measures. Second, we calculated direct and indirect costs of decontamination in an industrialized country such as Sweden. Finally, in a survey study, we considered reactions of Swedish citizens to being given the hypothetical option of moving to a site decontaminated after radioactive fallout and how this predicted response might influence the design of contingency plans. The main findings are that clean-up operations must be done within the first few years after a fallout to contribute significantly to reducing residual dose. If conducted within 1–2 years, large-scale decontamination can, on average, avert 20–200 manSv per km2 residential area and unit ground deposition of 137Cs (1 MBq). The estimated direct costs (in 2020 purchasing power) would amount to 100 million Euro per km2 decontaminated residential area (comparable to Japanese estimates after the Fukushima accident), generating 39,000 m3 of radioactive waste on average, mainly in the form of 137Cs-contaminated topsoil. In our survey study of 2291 Swedish respondents about their willingness to return to decontaminated homes, women, families with resident children, and high-income earners exhibited more skepticism about returning, even if authorities were to deem it safe. The demographic pattern in attitudes was similar to that found among evacuees in the Fukushima prefecture after 2011. We conclude that predefined ranges of measured 137Cs ground deposition can be used as guidance for rescue leaders in the early post-accident phase in long-term planning for affected areas. This planning should include timing and intensity of decontamination measures, duration of evacuation, and risk communication to citizens. Because some citizens expressed both high risk perception and risk aversion, however, timely and dialogic communication is unlikely to limit a shift after the incident to an older and more male-dominated population composition. There is a risk that those who can afford to do so will move away, whereas people whose wealth is locked in property (houses or businesses) will feel stuck. Perceptions of unfairness may fray the social fabric and complicate resettlement, which in some cases may mean inefficient outlay of decontamination costs. We believe that the issue of monetary compensation to affected residents requires priority in future work. • Decontamination of urban areas can avert 20–200 manSv/km2 if done 1 y post-fallout. • The estimated direct cost of urban decontamination in Sweden is 100-million-EUR/km2. • Even after decontamination, most households prefer not to live in restored areas. • Hesitance to return reduces the net benefit of decontamination. • Individual compensation of evacuees could be key for cost-efficient restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]