Environmental Radiation Protection

2012 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Environmental Radiation

scholarly journals Do fungi need to be included within environmental radiation protection assessment models?

2017 ◽  
Vol 175-176 ◽  
pp. 70-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Guillén ◽  
A. Baeza ◽  
N.A. Beresford ◽  
M.D. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Environmental Radiation

Environmental Radiation Protection

2011 ◽  
pp. 2503-2564
Author(s):  
Y. Maeda ◽  
S. Osaki ◽  
A. Vincze
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Environmental Radiation

scholarly journals When a duck is not a duck; a new interdisciplinary synthesis for environmental radiation protection

2018 ◽  
Vol 162 ◽  
pp. 318-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmel Mothersill ◽  
Michael Abend ◽  
François Bréchignac ◽  
George Iliakis ◽  
Nathalie Impens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Environmental Radiation ◽  
Interdisciplinary Synthesis

Amendments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada (40 CFR Part 197)

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond L. Clark ◽  
Kenneth Czyscinski ◽  
Reid J. Rosnick ◽  
Daniel Schultheisz
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yucca Mountain ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Environmental Radiation

In 2001, as directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued public health and environmental radiation protection standards for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Several parties sued the Agency on numerous aspects of the rule. A Federal Court upheld EPA on all counts except for the compliance period associated with the individual-protection standard, which the Agency had limited to 10,000 years for a number of technical and policy reasons. However, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had recommended that the standard be set for the time of peak risk, within the limits imposed by the long-term stability of the geologic environment, which NAS estimated at 1 million years. EPA’s standards required that the Department of Energy (DOE) project doses to the time of peak dose but did not apply a compliance standard to these longer term projections. The Court ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year compliance period was inconsistent with the NAS recommendation. This aspect of the rule was vacated and remanded to the Agency for revision. In 2005, EPA proposed amendments to the standards. Following public hearings and a public review period, the final amendments were issued in September 2008. This paper discusses the new requirements.

scholarly journals From tangled banks to toxic bunnies; a reflection on the issues involved in developing an ecosystem approach for environmental radiation protection

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmel E. Mothersill ◽  
Deborah H. Oughton ◽  
Paul N. Schofield ◽  
Michael Abend ◽  
Christelle Adam-Guillermin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Ecosystem Approach ◽  
Environmental Radiation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document