Final Report

The 4th IAEA-MOE Experts Meeting on
Environmental Remediation

Tokyo, Date City, Minamisoma City
06 – 10 November 20171

A. Introduction
The 4th IAEA-MOE Expert Meeting allowed the IAEA team to discuss the current status (progress,
challenges and solutions) of environmental remediation activities taking place in off-site areas
affected by the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station; and provide advice to Japan, as
appropriate, for advancing the environmental remediation work; with a view to sharing relevant
findings with the international community. The meeting addressed the following six topics:







Updates and Future Plans for the Environmental Remediation Activities
Lessons Learned from Environmental Remediation Activities (Decontamination Project
Report)Involvement of Local Stakeholders in the Decision-Making Process and Communication ofEnvironmental Remediation Activities to the International Community
Follow-up of the Recommendation Proposed by the IAEA team at the 3rd Experts’ Meeting
Possibility of Preparing a Consolidated Meeting Summary Report on the Results andAchievements of Experts’ Meetings
Site Visit – Environmental Regeneration Plaza (Fukushima Ambassador Program), Date City,
Minamisoma City, and Soil-recycling in Minamisoma City

This report summarizes the main findings of the IAEA team and some recommendations to theJapanese authorities for further consideration in progressing with the environmental remediation
activities and related works.

B. Meeting Results
This session presents an overview of the main findings and issues addressed in each of the topicalsessions of the meeting.

Updates and Future Plans for Environmental Remediation Activities
The MOE reported significant progresses that have been made with the remediation of off-site areasin the Special Decontamination Area (SDA) and the Intensive Contamination Survey Area (ICSA).
According to the planned activities, the full-scale decontamination was completed in the SDA, and theplanned decontamination activities in the ICSA have almost come to end. The MOE explained to the
IAEA team that the decontamination activities have played an important role in the reduction of air
dose rates. Additional reported progress was the initiation of Interim Storage Facility (ISF) operationand the growing amount of soil delivered to the ISF. By April 2017, the evacuation orders have been
lifted in 9 municipalities in the SDA. The Act on Special Measures for Reconstruction and Revitalizationof Fukushima (Act No. 25 of 2012) was revised and enacted on May 19, 2017. Based on this revised
Act, the heads of the municipalities in the Areas where Returning is Difficult (hereinafter referred toas the “ARD”) should develop a plan for community reconstruction and recovery, and the plan should
include project timelines and proposals for land use. This plan should be discussed with the Governorof Fukushima Prefecture and then approved by the Prime Minister. Based on the approved plan,
decontamination activities and infrastructure development will be implemented.

2

It was reported by the MOE that progress was also made with the demonstration project on soil
recycling that has been conducted at the Eastern Temporary Storage Site in Minamisoma City since2016. This recycling project was initiated on the agreement with the Minamisoma City to investigate
options to use the soil generated from decontamination activities (hereinafter referred to as“removed soil”) as construction material. The average of radioactivity of the removed soil at thestorage site is around 2,000 Bq per kg, and the soil of which the activity level is 3,000 Bq per kg andless has been tested for use as embankment material. The test team has confirmed that the soil canbe used as construction material, and the team has a plan to convey the results to the potential
stakeholders with a view to recycling the removed soil.

Lessons Learned from Environmental Remediation Activities(Decontamination Project Report)
The MOE briefed the IAEA team on the status of works undertaken by the MOE on the upcoming
Decontamination Project Report. The objective of the report is to explain the effectiveness of thedecontamination work to the Japanese citizens in a plain language and to share the information andthe lessons learned with the international community. This second version has been prepared after
the major wide area decontamination project was complete, while the first version was prepared with
the information with progress up to 2013. The draft Table of Contents was reviewed by the IAEA
experts in October 2017. MOE will incorporate the comments while developing the report. The second
version will cover the overview of the accident and decontamination project, decontamination
methods employed, decontamination project management, verification of decontamination efforts,
remaining issues and lessons learned.

Involvement of Local Stakeholders in the Decision-Making Process andCommunication of Environmental Remediation Activities to theInternational Community
The presentation from a Japanese expert discussed how communication activities could be promoted
for the future from the sociological point of view. It was emphasized stable decommissioning anddecontamination efforts at the on/off sites are essential and should be the basis for effective
community recovery and enhanced image for Fukushima. The presentation proceeded with various
questions/answers which showed gap of knowledge and misperceptions generally held by the people
outside Fukushima. The percentage of the population that left Fukushima prefecture due to theevacuation was 1.7% whilst the survey showed higher figures are generally perceived. It was also
noted that the population of Fukushima Prefecture had been decreasing even before the accident,
and that the decrease rate has come back to the pre-accident level after 2013. Consumer perceptionof the health effect of radiation within the established limits was also discussed. Results showed thataround 20% of the survey responders have been consistently unwilling to accept any risks associatedwith the ingestion of food produced in the regions while the remaining 80% are more tolerant to the
low risks that cannot be confirmed to affect the health (Consumer Affairs Agency, 2017). Regarding
local tourism recovery, the expert mentioned that the recovery rate was 87.9% in 2015 compared tothe pre-accident situation, but has not been fully recovered. This is because, as was explained by theexpert the Fukushima area was popular for school field trips before the accident, but now the schools
have difficulties in getting consent from parents for a Fukushima trip. The expert then identified
additional challenges for Fukushima recovery, including reputational damage that harms the economy
directly, need for reconstruction of the municipalities that underwent evacuation orders (123municipalities), and social perception of the decontamination and decommissioning work
(contaminated water, decontamination waste, status of reactors, etc.). The expert also suggested achange in the approach of communication moving from “issues for science” to “issues forcommunication and social studies.” A deficit in social scientific expertise to address the current issues
was emphasized in the suggestion.

Follow-up of the Recommendation Proposed by the IAEA team at the 3rdExperts’ Meeting
Follow-up actions which have been taken by the MOE in response to the recommendations made by
the IAEA team during the 3rd Experts’ Meeting were reviewed during the meeting. The
recommendations of the IAEA team and the MOE’s responses to each of them are summarized asfollows:
The IAEA team suggested that the MOE in cooperation with other relevant organizations in Japan
should focus its efforts on developing remediation plans targeting the ARD reconstruction.


The MOE responded that the municipalities would create the remediation plans for the ARD
based on the amended Act on Special Measures for Reconstruction and Revitalization of
Fukushima, and that the government seeks to achieve the long term goal (1mSv per year) bymeans of monitoring, control of food safety and risk communication as well as decontamination.

The IAEA team indicated that this was the time to start a process to review the national policy on
environmental remediation (the Act on Special Measures1) in a way to provide alignment with the
IAEA GSR Part 3, specifically by addressing the requirements contained in the chapter related to“Existing Exposure Situations”. In this regard, the accumulated national experience should also be
captured in reviewing the Act.
The MOE responded that the review of the Act has been conducted by the MOE’s committee,
and that further review, especially from the perspective of radiological protection, should be
performed by another body such as the Radiation Council.

The IAEA team noted that the results presented on the effectiveness of the remediation consisted ofdiagrams showing an overall summary of the remediation efforts. The IAEA team considered that it
would be more useful if the data from different cities (with different circumstances) could bepresented, so that a better understanding of the variability in the effectiveness of the work done could
be captured and subsequently analysed.
The MOE described that the amount of soil removal per area for each municipality in the SDA
showed linear correlation with the impact on air dose rate reduction, while in the ICSA, there
was no clear correlation between the amount of soil removed and reduction of radiation.

The IAEA team indicated that the classification of the amounts of soil according to the activity
concentration intervals was based on information about where the soils came from and not on
individual determinations of the activity concentration of the materials contained in each bag. The
1

The word “the Act on Special Measures” here (and hereinafter) refers to “The Act on Special
Measures concerning the Handling of Radioactive Pollution (Act No. 110 of 2011).”4

only measurement available for the bags was the exposure rate at the surface of each one of them.
With that in mind, it was considered appropriate to assess the adequateness of establishingstraightforward procedures for sampling and analysing soils in the bags. The overall idea was that by
doing so, classification of quantities of contaminated soil per activity concentration intervals could beobtained. Provided that criteria dictating the management of soils are based on the activity
concentrations, this procedure could facilitate decisions on the best way to subsequently manage thesoils contained in the bags.
The MOE responded that as air dose rates and other parameters have been monitored aroundthe temporary storage sites, there is no need for measurement of radioactivity for safety
management. The IAEA team explained that the suggestion was not about safety but about
eventual classification of waste soil for recycling options. The MOE officials responded that
there are no data available at this time.

The IAEA team emphasized the need to consider individual doses, as measured with personal
dosimeters, to support remediation decisions. An optimized monitoring program to follow up the
behaviour of the affected media (soil, vegetation, etc.) could be put into place. The IAEA team advisedthat a comprehensive health monitoring program should be prepared to support the returning
evacuees. Monitoring with whole body counters could also be proposed to assess the level of internal
exposure.
The MOE responded that the government continues to monitor the individual dose of the
returnees using personal dosimeters for external exposure and whole body counters for internal
exposure.

The possibility that the MOE publish/make available information on the amount of waste producedby various decontamination techniques was suggested by the IAEA team. This information would bevery relevant in the planning of remediation work in the event of another unlikely wide scale accident.
The MOE declared it was committed to presenting the information that is useful to theinternational community and is making efforts to describe the knowledge and experienceobtained from the decontamination projects in the upcoming Decontamination Project Report.

As the MOE moves ahead in implementing waste management activities and construction of facilities(e.g., ISF, treatment plants, etc.), the IAEA team advised that the MOE could consider conducting
safety assessment of these activities and facilities and have them evaluated by an independent agency.
This approach would be in line with the advice provided in the report of the remediation mission in2013.


It has been stated by the MOE that the construction of facilities, such as ISF, have been planned
based on the advice from experts. The MOE is and has been committed to safety management
while securing transparency and objectivity.

The IAEA team noted that it would be helpful for the MOE to assess the overall practices of stakeholder
engagement in the decision making process and extract important lessons learned. If consideredappropriate, reorient future practices accordingly, especially during the repopulation of the evacuatedareas and continuous remediation to reach the long term clean-up goal.
5The MOE responded that the review of the Act on Special Measures has been conducted by the
MOE’s committee (Committee for Review of the Act on Special Measures), including
stakeholder engagement.

Possibility of Preparing a Consolidated Meeting Summary Report on the
Results and Achievements of the Experts Meeting
Many relevant aspects have been discussed during the four IAEA-MOE Meetings. Experts participatingin these meetings and also the involved IAEA staff members were of the opinion that all these
discussions – that have been briefly compiled in summarized meeting reports – could be compiled andpresented in an expanded report. Therefore in this 4th meeting IAEA team proposed to develop a“Consolidated Meeting Summary Report” with the topics covered over the two-year series ofmeetings. Again, it is worth emphasising that the proposal was made with a recognition that theprevious three meeting outcomes have been summarized in a short report format, only highlighting
the major findings and recommendations. The topics to be covered would include decontamination
activities, waste management, knowledge management, stakeholder engagement, monitoring
technologies, and recovery activities. The proposed consolidated report would also contain therecommendations made by the IAEA team to the MOE. The proposed report will be developed undera sole responsibility of the IAEA with supports of the relevant experts who contributed to theindividual topics mentioned above. The IAEA proposed to develop a draft report by the beginning of2019 and present it at a technical meeting. The IAEA team also proposed to put forward the draft
report for review by the MOE for factual check.

Additional Activities – Site-Visit to Fukushima
The site-visit to Fukushima prefecture was attended by both the IAEA team and the MOE.
An international expert introduced to the IAEA team the “Fukushima Ambassadors Program”
developed by the Fukushima University. This program was designed to provide students from a mixed
national and international group a hands-on learning opportunity that focuses on the chronologic
physical, economical, and social consequences of the tsunami and subsequent nuclear accident inFukushima.
The IAEA team then met with Mayor of Date City. This meeting was arranged to discuss the current
challenges within the city regarding response to the radioactive contamination. The Mayor explained
to the IAEA team that the first challenge concerns decontamination activities. Date City took different
approaches for different contamination level areas, dividing the city into three different areas
according to cumulative exposure dose (A area for higher than 20 mSv per year, B area for 5 – 20 mSv
per year, and C area for 1 – 5 mSv per year). The A area was decontaminated in full scale. The B area
was decontaminated for high dose rate areas, and the C area was decontaminated only for identified
hotspots. It was explained by the Mayor that the city’s decision on the decontamination approach was
based on the amount of waste generation and temporary storage site availability in the city. Currently,
the city is communicating with the residents to establish that the current approach is safe enough toprotect the public health and the environment and full scale decontamination all over the city is notnecessarily needed to achieve this goal.
The second reported challenge by the Mayor was the waste transportation to the ISF from temporarystorage sites within the city boundary. The total amount of decontamination waste is approximately
6270,000 m3, and these wastes are stored at 253 different locations. Currently, 20,000 m3 waste from13 temporary storage sites have been transported to the ISF. Citizens are urging the Mayor to remove
the waste and close the storage site as soon as possible.
After the meeting with the Mayor of Date City the IAEA Team visited the Site for demonstrating soil
recycling in Minamisoma City. The MOE briefed the IAEA experts at the embankment test site,
including the importance of soil recycling and the integrity of the test site.
The last step of the site visit was a meeting with the Mayor of Minamisoma City. The Mayor’s interest
focused on promotion of recycling the removed soil as construction material that also helps to reducethe cost of the decontamination activities.
The Mayor first explained that the city managed to recycle the disaster debris for reconstruction after
the series of communication with the MOE. The Mayor’s interest then turned to recycling soil. The city
asked the MOE to assess the options to recycle removed soil for construction purpose. Most of theradioactivity containing soil generated from the city showed radiation levels below 3,000 Bq per kg.
Further, the Mayor pointed out that the radioactivity level for designated waste is 8,000 Bq per kg,
and the Ministry of Agriculture’s guidance on farmland soil removal is 5,000 Bq per kg. The Mayor andhis team were confused with these different regulatory levels and asked the MOE why the city’s
removed soil could not be used for reconstruction.
The Mayor also expressed his hope that the on-going demonstration project will help justify using the
low-level removed soil for reuse in construction. The need to clear farmland from temporary storagesites, in a timely manner, was also mentioned.
Both Mayors in the meetings with the IAEA team emphasized the importance and the necessity ofproper radiation education at national level and appropriate risk communication with the local
communities, particularly given the fact that some residents have not come back to their home landbecause of perceived concerns against radiation.

C. Conclusions
This was the last of a series of four meetings in which representatives of the MOE and other Japanese
authorities and professionals had the chance to discuss with the IAEA team of experts on specificpoints related to the remediation of off-site areas affected by the Fukushima Daiichi accident. As
major conclusions from the 4th Experts Meeting the following findings and recommendations can behighlighted:The IAEA team noted that it would be helpful for the MOE to continuously assess the effectivenessof the stakeholder communication methods and strategies that the MOE adopts for more efficientapproaches. In this regard, the IAEA team found that social media (called SNS in Japan) is now a
popular method for communication in Japan, and that social media could be one of effective
communication methods with national and international stakeholders.
The IAEA team suggested that the MOE carefully assess the potential of delays of ISF construction
and soil/waste transportation due to the simultaneous construction project.

7





The IAEA suggested that the MOE continue working on gathering technical and safety data andspecifications for potential soil recycling/reuse with other relevant agencies. It was also suggestedby the IAEA team, in doing so, to gather public input on a variety of policy options for ensuring
protection of public health and the environment.
The IAEA team suggested that the MOE consider the IAEA team’s input for the MOE’s preparation
works of the Decontamination Project Report. It was suggested by the IAEA team that technicalterms in the Report be used in a consistent way following the IAEA terminology; or alternatively,
the key technical terms may be clearly defined in the Report. The IAEA team further noted thatlessons learned could follow individual chapters instead of being gathered in the independent
chapter at the end of the Report.

The IAEA’s idea of the Table of Contents for the proposed “Consolidated Meeting Summary Report”
was presented to the MOE during the meeting. The objectives of the proposed report are toconsolidate the discussions over four meetings between the MOE and the IAEA, to share theexperience and the knowledge obtained during the meetings with the international community, andto thereby enhance the understanding of different stakeholders on the different aspects related toenvironmental remediation. The scope of the report will be restricted to the topics and discussions
covered during the meetings.

8