Evacuation after a nuclear accident: Critical reviews of past nuclear accidents and proposal for future planning. (March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ohba, Takashi; Tanigawa, Koichi; Liutsko, Liudmila
• Is Part Of: Environment international. Volume 148(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-03
• Subjects: Evacuation -- Relocation -- Sheltering -- Nuclear accident -- Health effects -- Well-being; Environmental protection -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; Environmental monitoring -- Periodicals; Environmental Monitoring -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Protection -- Périodiques; Hygiène du milieu -- Périodiques; Environnement -- Surveillance -- Périodiques; Environmental health; Environmental monitoring; Environmental protection; Periodicals; 333.705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106379
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0160-4120

Abstract

Highlights: Evacuation plans need to be tailored to the type of resident with specific considerations for vulnerable people. Information and instructions should be provided in the event of a nuclear accident. Necessary resources for the sheltering option need to be secured with the support from the governments. Coordinated approaches for the case of a long-term relocation. Plans for lifting evacuation need to be carefully determined with the involvement of stakeholders. Abstract: Standards and guidelines for preparedness and response in the case of a nuclear accident cover radiation protection, health management and communication with affected populations. Decision makers use these recommendations to decide on measures that protect people residing around a nuclear power plant that suffers an accident from radiation exposure; for example, sheltering, evacuation and relocation. While technological and radiological criteria exist for these protective measures, studies on past radiological and nuclear emergencies have shown that evacuation and relocation result in serious health effects; this needs to be considered in accident preparedness and responses in the future. Within the framework of the Nuclear Emergency Situations Improvement of Medical and Health Surveillance (SHAMISEN) (Ohba et al., 2020), a critical review of recommendations and experiences of previous major nuclear accidents was conducted, and the current paper focuses on the lessons learned about evacuation and relocation. We reviewed the contents of official documents and literature relating to the evacuation and relocation of residents, and to the evacuation of medical and other facilities in the three largest nuclear accidents to date: the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl accident, and Fukushima accident. We developed recommendations classified into the preparedness phase, early and intermediate phases, and recovery phase after an accident. In the cases of Three Mile Island and Fukushima, the evacuation area was set at 8–10 km from the nuclear power plant in the disaster prevention plan, and emergency responses, such as information provision and evacuation, had been developed only in this area. When the Fukushima accident occurred, evacuation beyond this area was urgently planned or instructed, resulting in marked confusion, such as forced multiple evacuations and relocations for long periods. Furthermore, information was lacking, and personal protective measures such as respiratory protection and iodine prophylaxis were not applied to evacuees. In hospital and facility evacuation, it became more difficult to implement evacuation owing to a lack of advance planning and support in the event of the accident. In Fukushima, more than 60 people in hospitals and nursing care facilities died during or soon after evacuation. In long-term relocation, in addition to continuing adverse mental effects, there were health effects relating to relocation, such as lifestyle-related disease. The return of residents to the evacuation area required many issues, such as a delayed recovery of the living environment, to be overcome in addition to measures to reduce the effects of radiation. Recommendations for evacuation in the SHAMISEN framework were developed (SHAMISEN Consortium, 2017; Liutsko et al., 2020) from these lessons of previous accidents.