Effects, Verification, and Risk Communication of Decontamination
5.1. Status of Implementation of Decontamination Projects
The whole area decontamination of Special Decontamination Areas based on decontamination
implementation plans was completed at the end of FY2016 (i.e., March 31, 2017).
In a total of 11 municipalities with Special Decontamination Areas, the cumulative total number ofworkers was about 13 million persons and the budget was about 1.3 trillion yen (as of January 31, 2017).
Also, the proportion of workers in Fukushima Prefecture to total workers was estimated at about 40%(according to the Japan Federation of Construction Contractors).
A total of 23,000 residential lots, 8,700 hectares of farmland, 7,800 hectares of forest, and 1,500 hectaresof roadways had been decontaminated.
Monitoring of decontamination was carried out before and after decontamination, and conducted at about
470,000 measurement points in 11 municipalities.
As of November 2017, there were 252 temporary storage sites, and the generated amount of removed soil
was about 9 million m3, of which the amount delivered to Interim Storage Facility or temporary
incineration facilities was about 1.6 million m3.
Table 5-1 Decontamination work implemented (as of September 30, 2017)
Municipality

Residential

Farmland

Forests

Roads

areas
Tamura City

about 150

Date evacuation order
liftedabout 140ha

about 280ha

about 29ha

April 1, 2014

about 830ha

about 740ha

about 170ha

September 5, 2015

sites
Narahaabout 2,800

Town

sites

Kawauchiabout 170

Village

sites

Okuma

about

Town

220sites

Katsurao

about 480

Villagesites

Kawamata

about 450

Town

sites

Futaba Town
Iitate Village

about 130ha

about 210ha

about 38ha

about 170ha

about 200ha

about 31ha

(Former: Preparation
Areas for Lifting of
Evacuation Orders)
October 1, 2014
(Former: Habitation
Restricted Areas)
June 14,2016－

about 570ha

about 690ha

about 95ha

June 12, 2016

about 610ha

about 730ha

about 71ha

March 31,2017

about 97 sites

about 100ha

about 25ha

about 8.4ha－

about 2,100

about

about

about 330ha

March 31,2017

sites

2,400ha2,100haTomiokaabout 6,200

about 750ha

about 790ha

about 170ha

April 1, 2017

Town

sites
273

Municipality

Residential

Farmland

Forests

Roads

Date evacuation orderareas
Namie Town

liftedabout. 5,900

about

about 510ha

about 230ha

March 31, 2017

sites

1,400haMinamisoma

about 4,700

about

about

about 280ha

July, 12, 2016

City

sites

1,600ha

1,600haTotalabout 23,000

about

about

about

－

sites

8,700ha7,800ha

1,500haNote)
1. The lifting of evacuation orders is limited to the Preparation Areas for Lifting of Evacuation Ordersand Habitation Restricted Areas.
2. “Residential areas” include schools, parks, cemeteries, and large facilities. “Farmland” includes
orchards. “Forests” include slopes, grasslands and lawns.

Rate of Number of Residential area Decontamination

Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Mar.
FY2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY2015FY2016

Figure 5-1 History of decontamination work implemented (residential areas)
Rate of Number of Farmland Decontamination

Jul. Oct. Jan.
FY2012

Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan.
FY 2013

FY 2014

Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Mar.
FY2015FY2016

Figure 5-2 History of decontamination work implemented (farmland area)274

Rate of Number of Forest Decontamination

Jul. Oct. Jan.
FY2012

Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan.
FY 2013

FY 2014

Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Mar
FY2015FY2016

Figure 5-3 History of decontamination work implemented (forest area)

Rate of Number of Road Decontamination

Jul. Oct. Jan.
FY2012

Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan.
FY 2013

FY 2014

Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Mar
FY2015FY2016

Figure 5-4 History of decontamination work implemented (roadways area)275

Total number ow workers (people)
15,000,000
Total numberof workers

Monthly600,000
number of workers

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)12,500,000

400,000

10,000,000

300,000

7,500,000

200,000

5,000,000

100,000

2,500,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

500,000

)

)

0

0

1

3

5

7

9 11 1

3

2012年

5

7

9 11 1

3

2013年

2012

5

7

9 11 1

3

2014年

2013

5

7

9 11 1

3

5

2015年

2014

7

9 11 1

2016年

2015

3

5

7

2017年

2016

9 11 1
2018年

2017

2018

Figure 5-5 History of the number of decontamination workers (total for 11 municipalities)
Note) Since there were times when work could not be done due to snowfall in winter, the number ofworkers decreased.

Monthly number of workers
40,000

田村市における除染等工事の作業員数推移

Total number of workers
140,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)35,000120,000

30,000100,000
25,000(80,00020,00060,00015,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

)

20,000

5,000

0

0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2012年

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2013年

2012

2013

Figure 5-6 History of the number of decontamination workers (Tamura City)
276)

40,00010,000Monthly number of workers
90,000Total number of workers

楢葉町における除染等工事の作業員数推移

1,200,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)1,000,000

60,000800,000

45,000600,000

30,000400,000

15,000200,000

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

75,000

(

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

)

)

0

0
1

3

5

7

9 11

1

3

2012年

5

7

9 11

1

3

5

2013年

2012

7

9 11

1

3

2014年

2013

5

7

9 11

1

3

2015年

2014

5

7

9 11

1

3

2016年

2015

5

7

9 11

2017年

2016

1

2018年

2017

2018

Figure 5-7 History of the number of decontamination workers (Naraha Town)

Monthly number of workers
月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number of workers

川内村における除染等工事の作業員数推移

累積作業員数(人)Total number ow workers

18,000160,000

16,000140,000

14,000120,000

12,000100,000
10,00080,000
8,000

)

)

6,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

60,000

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

40,0004,000

20,000

2,000

0

0
1

3

5

7

2012年

2012

9

11

1

3

5

7

2013年

2013

9

11

1

3

5

7

2014年

2014

9

11

1

3

5

7

2015年

2015

9

11

1

3

5

7

9

11

2016年

2016

Figure 5-8 History of the number of decontamination workers (Kawauchi Village)277

Monthly number of workers
35,000Total number of workers

大熊町における除染等工事の作業員数推移

600,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

累積作業員数(人)Total number ow workers
30,000500,000

25,000400,000
20,000300,000
15,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

)

)

200,000

10,000100,000

5,000

0

0
1

3

5

7

9 11 1

3

5

2012年

7

9 11 1

3

5

2013年

2012

7

9 11 1

3

5

2014年

2013

7

9 11 1

3

2015年

2014

5

7

9 11 1

3

2016年

2015

5

7

9 11 1

2017年

2016

2017

2018年

2018

Figure 5-9 History of the number of decontamination workers (Okuma Town)

Monthly number of workers
80,000Total number of workers

葛尾村における除染等工事の作業員数推移

1,000,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)900,000

70,000800,000

60,000700,000
50,000600,000

40,000500,000

30,000

)

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

400,000

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

)
300,000
20,000200,000
10,000100,000

0

0
1

3

5

7

2012年

2012

9 11

1

3

5

7

2013年

2013

9 11

1

3

5

7

9 11

1

3

2014年

5

7

2015年

2014

2015

9 11

1

3

5

7

2016年

2016

9 11

1

3

5

7

2017年

2017

9 11

1

2018年

2018

Figure 5-10 History of the number of decontamination workers (Katsurao Village)278

Monthly number of workers

Total number of workers

川俣町における除染等工事の作業員数推移
70,0001,400,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)50,0001,000,000

40,000800,000

30,000600,000

20,000400,000

10,000200,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

1,200,000

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

60,000

)

)

0

0
1

3

5

7

9

11

1

3

2012年

5

7

9

11

1

3

2013年

2012

5

7

9

11

1

3

5

2014年

2013

7

9

11

1

3

5

2015年

2014

7

9

11

1

3

5

2016年

2015

7

9

11

2017年

2016

1

2018年

2017

2018

Figure 5-11 History of the number of decontamination workers (Kawamata Town)

Monthly number of workers
10,000Total number of workers

双葉町における除染等工事の作業員数推移

180,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)9,000

160,000

8,000

140,000

7,000

120,000

100,000
5,000
80,000

4,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

6,000

)

)

60,0003,000
40,0002,000

20,000

1,000

0

0
1

3

5

7

2012年

2012

9

11

1

3

5

7

2013年

2013

9

11

1

3

5

7

9

11

1

2014年

3

5

7

2015年

2014

2015

9

11

1

3

5

7

2016年

2016

9

11

1

3

5

7

2017年

2017

9

11

2018年

2018

Figure 5-12 History of the number of decontamination workers (Futaba Town)

279

1Monthly number of workers

Total number of workers

飯舘村における除染等工事の作業員数推移

200,000

3,500,000
月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)120,000

2,100,000

80,0001,400,000

40,000700,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

2,800,000

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

160,000

)

)

0

0
1

3

5

7

9

11

1

3

2012年

5

7

9

11

1

3

2013年

2012

5

7

9

11

1

3

2014年

2013

5

7

9

11

1

3

2015年

2014

5

7

9

11

1

3

2016年

2015

5

7

9

2017年

2016

2017

11

1

2018年

2018

Figure 5-13 History of the number of decontamination workers (Iitate Village)

Monthly number of workers
140,000

Total number of workers

富岡町における除染等工事の作業員数推移

2,450,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)2,100,000

100,000

1,750,000

80,0001,400,000

60,0001,050,000

40,000700,000

20,000350,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

120,000

)

)

0

0
1

3

5

7

2012年

2012

9 11 1

3

5

7

2013年

2013

9 11 13

5

7

9 11 1

3

2014年

5

7

2015年

2014

2015

9 11 1

3

5

7

2016年

2016

9 11 1

3

5

7

2017年

2017

9 11 12018年

2018

Figure 5-14 History of the number of decontamination workers (Tomioka Town)

280

Monthly number of workers

Total number of workers

浪江町における除染等工事の作業員数推移

120,000

1,800,000
月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers

Total number ow workers
累積作業員数(人)1,500,000

80,0001,200,000

60,000900,000

40,000600,000

20,000300,000

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

100,000

(

)

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

)

0

0
1

3

5

7

9

11

1

3

2012年

5

7

9

11

1

3

5

2013年

2012

7

9

11

1

3

5

2014年

2013

7

9

11

1

3

5

2015年

2014

7

9

11

1

3

5

2016年

2015

7

9

11

2017年

2016

1

2018年

2017

2018

Figure 5-15 History of the number of decontamination workers (Namie Town)

Monthly number of workers
120,000

Total number of workers

南相馬市における除染等工事の作業員数推移

3,000,000

月別作業員数(人)Monthly number of workers
累積作業員数(人)Total number ow workers

2,500,000

80,0002,000,000

60,0001,500,000

40,0001,000,000

20,000500,000

累
積
作
業
員
数
人

(

(

月
別
作
業
員
数
人

100,000

)

)

0

0
1

3

5

7

2012年

2012

9

11

1

3

5

7

2013年

2013

9

11

1

3

5

7

9

11

1

2014年

3

5

7

2015年

2014

2015

9

11

1

3

5

7

2016年

2016

9

11

1

3

5

7

2017年

2017

9

11

1

2018年

2018

Figure 5-16 History of the number of decontamination workers (Minamisoma City)

281

Whole area decontamination of Intensive Contamination Survey Areas based on the decontamination
implementation plan was completed in March 2018.
In a total of 92 municipalities with Intensive Contamination Survey Areas, the cumulative total numberof workers was about 17 million persons and the budget was about 1.3 trillion yen (including about 1.2
trillion yen inside and about 50 billion yen outside Fukushima Prefecture) (as of January 31, 2017).
As of March 31, 2017, there were 847 temporary storage sites and 150,000 in-situ storage sites, thegenerated amount of the removed soil, etc., was about 7.2 million m3 (including about 6.8 million m3 inside
and about 400,000 m3 outside Fukushima Prefecture), and the amount of carried out was about 1.1 million
m3.

Numberof Munucipalities（市町村数）

Cumulative total number ofmunicipalities where whole area
decontamination was completed
完了市町村数累計

面的除染完了市町村数累計

90
80
70
60
50

40
30
20
10
0
H24.9 H24.12 H25.3 H25.6 H25.9 H25.12 H26.3 H26.6 H26.9 H26.12 H27.3 H27.6 H27.9 H27.12 H28.3 H28.6 H28.9 H28.12 H29.3 H29.6 H29.9 H29.12

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Figure 5-17 Cumulative total of municipalities where whole area decontamination was completed

完了率
Rate of completed area

面的除染完了市町村率

Percentage
100%
90%
80%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

20%
10%
0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Figure 5-18 Cumulative percentage of whole area decontamination completed282

Commentary

Implementation status of housing decontamination in Fukushima Prefecture

Decontamination byyard surface removal

H24.5
H24.7
H24.9
H24.11
H25.1
H25.3
H25.5
H25.7
H25.9
H25.11
H26.1
H26.3
H26.5
H26.7
H26.9
H26.11
H27.1
H27.3
H27.5
H27.7
H27.9
H27.11
H28.1
H28.3
H28.5
H28.7
H28.9
H28.11
H29.1
H29.3
H29.5
H29.7
H29.9

450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,0000Decontamination by
washing roofs

History of numbers of houses
decontaminated in Intensive Contamination
Survey Areas in Fukushima Prefecture

Table 5-2 Progress status of decontamination in the pollution status priority research area
Number of outsourced
Fukushima
Prefecture
Rate ofCompleted
Planned(as of Sept. 30, achievement
numbernumber2017)(%)
Housing
100
418,582
418,582(houses)Public facility
100
11,653
11,653(facilities)
Roads (km)100
18,80418,804
Farmland・
100
31,252
31,252
Grassland (ha)Forests(residential area)
100
4,396
4,396
(ha)
OutsideFukushima
Prefecture(as of Mar. 31,
2017)
Housing (houses)
School・Nurseryetc. (facilities)
Parks・Sports
Facility (facilities)
Other facility(facilities)
Roads (km)Farmland・
Grassland (ha)Forests (in living
areas) (ha)Number of achievement
Rate ofCompleted Planned
achievement
numbernumber(%)
99.9

418,574

418,582

99.4

11,584

11,653

92.5

17,38518,80499.6

31,13931,252

97.0

4,266

4,396

Number of achievement

Number of outsourced
Rate ofachievement(%)

Number ofachievement

Numberof planRate ofachievement
(%)

100

147,656

147,656

100

147,656

147,656

100

1,592

1,592

100

1,592

1,592

100

3,936

3,936

100

3,936

3,936

100

6,275

6,275

100

6,275

6,275

100

5,399

5,399

100

5,399

5,399

100

1,588

1,588

100

1,588

1,588

100

300

300

100

300

300

283

Number of Number
achievement of plan

Table 5-3 Status of decontamination in Intensive Contamination Survey Areas(as of September 30,2017)
Municipalities designated as Intensive Contamination Survey Areas
Municipalities with decontamination
Number ofPrefecture
progress rate of 100%
Measures continued
municipalities(Underline: measures completed
municipalities
municipalities)
Shirakawa City, Sukagawa City, Soma City, Fukushima City、
Tamura City, Date City, Koori Town,
Koriyama City、Iwaki
Kunimi Town, Kawamata Town,
City、Nihonmatsu City、
Kagamiishi Town, Tenei Village,
Minamisoma City、
Aizubange Town, Yugawa Village,
Motomiya City、Otama
Aizumisato Town, Nishigo Village,
Village、Kawauchi Village
Fukushima
36
Izumizaki Village, Nakajima Village,（8）
Yabuki Town, Tanagura Town, Samegawa
Village, Ishikawa Town, Tamagawa
Village, Hirata Village, Asakawa Town,
Furudono Town, Miharu Town, Ono Town,
Hirono Town, Shinchi Town（28）Ichinoseki City, Oshu City, Hiraizumi
Iwate
3
Town
Shiroishi City, Kakuda City, Kurihara City,
Shichikashuku Town, Ogawara Town,
Miyagi
8
Marumori Town, Watari Town, Yamamoto
Town
Hitachi City, Tsuchiura City, Ryugasaki
City, Joso City, Hitachiota City, TakahagiCity, Kitaibaraki City, Toride City, Ushiku
Ibaraki
19
City, Tsukuba City, Hitachinaka City,
Kashima City, Moriya City, Inashiki City,
Tsukubamirai City, Tokai Village, Miho
Village, Ami Town, Tone Town
Kanuma City, Nikko City, Otawara City,
Tochigi
7
Yaita City, Nasushiobara City, Shioya
Town, Nasu Town
Kiryu City, Numata City, Shibukawa City,
Midori City, Shimonita Town, Takayama
Gunma
8
Village, Higashiagatsuma Town, Kawaba
Village
Saitama2
Misato City, Yoshikawa City
Matsudo City, Noda City, Sakura City,
Chiba
9
Kashiwa City, Nagareyama City, AbikoCity, Kamagaya City, Inzai City, Shiroi City
Total
92
84 (measures completed municipalities 30)8Note) Cancellation of designation of Intensive Contamination Survey Areas (12 municipalities): Showa
Village, Mishima Town, Yamatsuri Town, Hanawa Town, Yanaizu Town (Fukushima Prefecture: 5municipalities), Katashina Village, Minakami-Town, Nakanojo Town, Annaka City(Gunma
Prefecture: 4 municipalities), Ishinomaki City (Miyagi Prefecture: 1 municipality), Hokota City
(Ibaraki Prefecture: 1 municipality), Sano City (Tochigi Prefecture: 1 municipality)284

5.2. Effects of Decontamination
Effect of Dose Reduction due to Decontamination

According to the monitoring results of decontamination in Special Decontamination Areas to June 30,
2017, the average value of the air dose rate after decontamination of residential land, farmland and roads
was about 40 to 60% lower than that before decontamination, and from post decontamination monitoring
it was about 60 to 70% lower than before decontamination. For decontamination in forests, it was 27%
lower than before decontamination, and in post-decontamination it had decreased by 46% compared tobefore decontamination. In addition, after decontamination, overall air dose rates were about 53% lower
after decontamination, and with supplemental monitoring they were about 67% lower compared with
before decontamination, confirming the reduction effect of wide area decontamination.
The reduction rate of forest decontamination shows the effectiveness of removing deposited organic
matter such as fallen leaves, etc., from the viewpoint of reducing the radiation dose in the living
environment of residents near forests.

Figure 5-19 Reduction of air dose rate in each decontamination target(Special Decontamination Areas)
Source : MOENote) Average air dose rate for residential areas, farmland, forests, roads (aggregation of measurement
point data)
The residential areas include schools, parks, cemeteries, and large facilities; farmland includes
fruit orchards; forests include slopes, grasslands and lawns.
After half a year to one year after decontamination, post decontamination monitoring was carriedout to verify the decontamination effect.
The post decontamination monitoring data for each municipality aggregates the latest results (firstor second time)[Period of implementation] Measurement before decontamination : Nov. 2011 to Oct. 2016;
after decontamination : Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2016,
post decontamination monitoring : Oct. 2014 to June 2017285

【Number ofmonitoring
points】

Average value of the latest decontamination
monitoring 0.44µSv/h
Average value after decontamination 0.62µSv/h
Average value before decontamination
1.31µSv/h
53% Reduction
67% Reduction

Before decontamination
After decontamination
Post-decontamination
monitoring【Air dose rate (µSv/h】

Figure 5-20 Air dose rate before and after decontamination(Special Decontamination Areas)
Note) Average air dose rate for residential areas, farmland, forests, roads (aggregation of measurement
point data)
The residential areas include schools, parks, cemeteries, and large facilities; farmland includes
fruit orchards; forests include slopes, grasslands and lawns.
(The measurements are carried out at about 10 points of each area in residential areas in order tograsp the average dose.)[Period of implementation]
Measurement Before decontamination: Nov. 2011 to Oct. 2016,
After decontamination measurements: Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2016,
Post decontamination monitoring: Oct. 2014 to June 2017
Source: MOE

According to the results of decontamination of municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture conducted until
February 2016, when comparing the average value of the air dose rates before and after decontamination,
in residential areas they were reduced by 42%, in schools and parks by 55%, and in forests by 21%, andthis confirmed the reduction effect of whole area decontamination.

286

Air dose rate at the 1m above ground[µSv/h]Before decontamination※Only in areas with the data in ICSA in
Fukushima Prefecture.

After decontamination

21% Reduction
55% Reduction

42% Reduction

Residential areas

Schools・Parks

ForestsNote) Averages of air dose rates of residential area, schools ･ parks, and forests (aggregation of
measurement point data)[Period of implementation][Residential areas] Before decontamination: July 2011 to Feb. 2016
After decontamination : July 2011 to Feb. 2016
[Schools and Parks] Before decontamination: June 2011 to Mar. 2015
After decontamination: June 2011 to Aug. 2015
[Forests] Before decontamination: Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2015
After decontamination: Dec. 2011 to Feb. 2016
Figure 5-21 Reduction rate of air dose rate by decontamination work (Fukushima Prefecture
Intensive Contamination Survey Areas)
Source: MOE【Number ofmonitoring
points】

Average value after decontamination 0.30µSv/h

Before decontamination

Average value before decontamination
0.53µSv/hAfter decontamination

42% Reduction【Air dose rate (µSv/h)】

Figure 5-22 Air dose rate of residential area before and after decontamination (Fukushima
Prefecture Intensive Contamination Survey Areas)
Source: MOE

287

Beforedecontamination

Afterdecontamination

Post decontamination
monitoring (1st time)

Post decontamination
monitoring (2nd time)

LegendAverage value of air dose rate at the 1m above the ground(µSv/h)≦0.23
0.23< ≦0.50
0.50< ≦0.75
0.75< ≦1.0
1.0 < ≦1.9
1.9< ≦3.8
3.8< ≦5.7
5.7< ≦9.5
9.5< ≦19
19<

Figure 5-23 Results of measurement before and after decontamination and post decontamination
monitoring (example data of Naraha Town)
Source: Decontamination Information Site Material288

According to measurement results after decontamination in Special Decontamination Areas to June 30,
2017, after decontamination the air dose rate 1 m above the ground surface compared to before
decontamination was reduced by 60% in residential areas, 58% in farmlands, 27% in forests, and 42% on
roads compared with the dose rate. The latest monitoring reduction rate was 73% in residential areas, 68%
in farmlands, 46% in forests, 61% on roads.
By dose band, the higher the air dose rate before decontamination, the higher the reduction effect bydecontamination tended to be. In addition, as for the effect of reducing the air dose rate and the amount ofremoved soil per unit of area, the reduction rate tended to increase as the amount of removed soil increased.
Table 5-4 Decontamination effect by land use and dose zone
Dose band（μSv/h）
Land use※Beforeclassification
decontaminati
onless than 1
1～3.8
Residentialarea
3.8or more
Total
less than 1
1～3.8
Farmland
3.8or more
Total
less than 1
1～3.8
Forest3.8or more
Total
less than 1
1～3.8
Roads
3.8 or more
Total

Numberof points
123,797
124,813
10,077
258,687
48,27432,531
1,698
82,50331,16335,823
2,077
69,06338,871
21,907
1,248
62,026①
Beforedecontamination(μSv/h)
0.50
1.99
4.84
1.39
0.61
1.86
4.67
1.19
0.65
1.77
4.68
1.35
0.55
1.85
4.70
1.09

②
After
decontamination(μSv/h)
0.30
0.75
1.36
0.56
0.36
0.68
1.23
0.50
0.50
1.29
3.22
0.99
0.36
1.01
2.19
0.63

③
Latest post
decontaminati
on monitoring(μSv/h)
0.21
0.52
0.80
0.38
0.28
0.51
0.91
0.38
0.37
0.93
2.41
0.72
0.27
0.65
1.27
0.43

Note 1. Before decontamination data : Nov. 2011 to Oct. 2016,
After decontamination data : Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2016
Post decontamination monitoring : Oct. 2014 to June
2. Residential area include schools, parks, cemeteries, and large facilities.
Farmland include orchards.
Forests include grasslands, lawn yard and slopes.

289

Reduction rate①→②Reduction rate
①→③

41％
62％
72％
60％
42％
63％
74％
58％
23％
27％
31％
27％
33％
46％
53％
42％

57％
74％
83％
73％
54％
73％
81％
68％
43％
47％
49％
46％
50％
65％
73％
61％

Removed soil volume per unit area

Air dose rate

Air dose rate

Air dose rate

Municipalities (Special Decontamination Areas)

Figure 5-24 Change of air dose rate - Removed soil volume per unit area
(By municipalities・Special Decontamination Areas)
Note) Removed soil volume [m3] per 1,000m2 : Removed soil volume / area of decontamination(Total value of residential area, farmland, forests and roads)
Source: Material created by TEPCO, edited by MOE
Residential areas
・Data for residential areas includes dirt yards, grassland, gravel, and concrete paved surfaces, etc., andalso includes schools, parks, cemeteries, and large facilities, etc. In the yards of residential areas the
topsoil or other surface was removed, except in low dose areas.
・The observed dose range before decontamination was less than 1 μSv/h, and 1 to 3.8 μSv/h were almost
the same number, accounting for over 95% of all residential area data.
・The reduction rate of all residential areas (average value of reduction rate when comparing before withafter decontamination) was about 60%.
・Where the dose rate was less than 1 μSv/h before decontamination, the reduction rate was about 41%.
The reduction rate increased for higher air dose rates and reached about 72% where the dose rate was 3.8
μSv/h or more before decontamination.
Farmland・Data for farmland includes orchards and meadows, but most of them were data of the fields (deep plowing,
top soil stripping). Under the circumstances where air dose rate exceeds 2 μSv/h, most of the data derived
from the top soil stripping.
・Regarding the dose range before decontamination, the low dose range of less than 1 μSv/h was the most290

frequent, accounting for over 50% of whole farmland data
・The reduction rate of the farmland as a whole (average decline rate when comparing before with after
decontamination) is about 58%, which is almost the same level as the housing.
・Where the dose rate was less than 1 μSv/h before decontamination, the reduction rate was about 42%.
The reduction rate increased as the air dose rate increased and reached about 74% at the dose rate was 3.8
μSv/h or more before decontamination.
Forest・Data for forests includes data of slope, grassland and lawns. For forests, most of the data refers to theremoval of forest litter such as fallen leaves, but in some areas with high dose rates, residue below thelitter was also removed in order to further reduce the dose rate.
・Compared to other land categories, the dose range before decontamination was distributed somewhat
higher, with the dose range of 1 to 3.8 μSv/h being the most frequent, accounting for over 50% of allforest data.
・The reduction rate for all forests (average reduction from before to after decontamination) was about 27%
lower than for residential areas, farmland and roads.
・Where the dose rate was less than 1 μSv/h before decontamination, the reduction rate was about 23%.
The reduction rate increased where the air dose rate was higher, and reached about 31% where the dose
rate was 3.8 μSv/h or more before decontamination.
・Forests near residential areas were decontaminated from the viewpoint of reducing the radiation dose in
the living environment of residents who lived near forests. Therefore, the reduction of air dose rate within
the forest does not necessarily directly indicate a reduction of the air dose rate in residential areas near
forests.
Roads
・Data for roads includes data of paved roads, gravel or crushed stone roads, and dirt roads, etc. Most of
the paved roads were decontaminated by cleaning and high pressure water washing, etc. Crushed stone
and dirt roads, etc., were decontaminated by removing and scraping the surface depending on the dose
rate zone.
・The dose range before decontamination of less than 1 μSv/h was the most frequent, accounting for over
60% of all road data.
・The reduction rate of roads overall (average reduction from before to after decontamination) was about
42%.
・Where the dose rate was less than 1 μSv/h before decontamination, the reduction rate was about 33%.
The reduction rate increased as the air dose rate increased and reached about 53% where the dose rate
was 3.8 μSv/h or more before decontamination.

291

【Number of monitoring points】

Average value after decontamination 0.56µSv/h
Average value before decontamination
1.39µSv/h

Before decontamination
After decontamination

60% Reduction【Air dose rate (µSv/h)】

Figure 5-25 Air Dose Rate (1 m above ground) of Special Decontamination Areas (Residential areas)【Number of monitoring points】

Before decontamination

Average value after decontamination 0.50µSv/h

After decontamination

Average value before decontamination
1.19µSv/h

58% Reduction【Air dose rate (µSv/h)】

Figure 5-26 Air Dose Rate (1 m above ground) of Special Decontamination Areas (Farmland)【Number of monitoring points】

Before decontamination

Average value after decontamination 0.99µSv/h

Average value before decontamination
1.35µSv/hAfter decontamination

27% Reduction【Air dose rate (µSv/h)】

Figure 5-27 Air Dose Rate (1 m above ground) of Special Decontamination Areas (Forest)292

【Number of monitoring points】

Average value after decontamination 0.63µSv/h

Before decontamination
After decontamination

Average value before decontamination
1.09µSv/h

42% Reduction【Air dose rate (µSv/h)】

Figure 5-28 Air Dose Rate (1 m above ground) of Special Decontamination Areas (Roads)
Note) Before decontamination data : Nov. 2011 to Oct. 2016,
After decontamination data : Dec.2011 to Dec. 2016.

Figures 5-29 and 5-30 show estimated average air dose rates after decontamination in residential areas
and farmland in Special Decontamination Areas, and in residential, school and park areas in Intensive
Contamination Survey Areas.
Estimated dose values (taking into consideration natural decay and weathering) as of March 2018 inSpecial Decontamination Areas were reduced by approximately 59% compared with where
decontamination was not implemented.
Where decontamination was not implemented, it was estimated that the dose rate would fall to 0.32 μSv/h
in 2036. Therefore, it could be estimated that the reduction had been achieved 18 years ahead of scheduleby decontamination.
Also, the reduction rate was estimated at about 38% compared with where decontamination was not
carried out as of March 2016 in Intensive Contamination Survey Areas.

293

Air dose rate(µSv/h)① Estimated from approximately 340,000 points data that are the before decontamination

monitoring data conducted from November 2011 to October 2016 and the after
decontamination monitoring data conducted from December 2011 to June 2017.
② The average of estimated dose in August
2011, considering natural decay and weathering
Estimated value when not decontaminatedbased on the before decontamination
Estimated value when decontamination wasmonitoring data (about 340,000 points).
conducted③ Change of dose rate was estimated based on the before

decontamination monitoring data (about 340,000 points) considering
only natural decay and weathering, and the reduction effect bydecontamination was not considered.
④ Change of dose rate was estimated by approximately 340,000

points data with considering the effects of natural decay andweathering considering the effect of dose reduction bydecontamination.
The average dose is reduced by about 59%
compared to the case of not decontaminating.
If not decontaminated. It will take about 18
years to go down to 0.32 µSv/h.
Reduction effect bydecontamination

Figure 5-29 Estimation of average air dose rate in Special Decontamination Areas(Residential areas and Farmland)
Source: Material created by TEPCO, edited by MOE.
Air dose rate(µSv/h)① Estimated from approximately 126,000 points data that are the before decontamination

monitoring data conducted from June 2011 to February 2016 and the after
decontamination monitoring data conducted from June 2011 to February 2016
② The average of estimated dose in August
2011, considering natural decay and weathering
Estimated value when not decontaminatedbased on the before decontamination monitoringdata (about 126,000 points).
Estimated value when decontamination was
conducted③ Change of dose rate was estimated based on the before

decontamination monitoring data (about 126,000 points) considering
only natural decay and weathering, and the reduction effect bydecontamination was not considered.
The average dose is reduced by about 38% in
March 2016, compared to the case of notdecontaminating.
④ Change of dose rate was estimated by

Reduction effect bydecontamination

approximately 126,000 points data withconsidering the effects of natural decay andweathering considering the effect of dose
reduction by decontamination.

Figure 5-30 Estimation of average air dose rate in pollution status in ICSA ( Fukushima
Prefecture) (Residential areas, School and Parks)
Source: Material created by TEPCO, edited by MOE.

294

Outcomes and Social Effects from Decontamination

Regarding Areas under Evacuation Orders, the evacuation orders were sequentially lifted from regionsin which it had been confirmed that the requirements for lifting evacuation orders in “For Accelerating theReconstruction of Fukushima From the Nuclear Disaster” ( December 20, 2013, amended June 12, 2015,
Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters ) had been satisfied. By April 1, 2017 in the ninemunicipalities other than Okuma town and Futaba town, the evacuation orders of the Habitation Restricted
Areas and the Preparation Areas for Lifting of Evacuation Orders were lifted except for Areas where
Returning is Difficult.

Public investment has stayed at a high level in Fukushima Prefecture where earthquake disaster recovery
efforts such as decontamination work are proceeding. The impacts of decontamination work on theeconomy and employment seems to be significant, according to the high level of the Fukushima Prefecture
construction industry diffusion index (D.I.) trend since FY2011.
Under these circumstances, the effective offers-to-applicants ratio has exceeded the national ratio since
the earthquake disaster, and employee incomes also improved by the inflow of contractors and workers
from other prefectures. In addition to the high level of housing investment and corporate profits, capital
investment has been steadily increasing, and this has led to the recovery of the prefecture’s economy.

year-on-year rate (%)

year-on-year rate (%)
100

Fukushima
Prefecture
Whole
Country

75

80

60
42

40
34

17

20
0
▲ 20
▲ 40
▲ 60

▲ 59

▲ 80

3

6

9 12 32010

6

9 12 32011

6

9 12 32012

6

9 12 32013

6

9 12 32014

6

9 12 32015

6

9 12 3

2016

6

9 12

2017

Figure 5-31 Trend of public construction contracts

Figure 5-32 Trend of diffusion index (D.I.9) forover the previous year (2010 to May 2017)

Fukushima Prefecture construction industry

Source: "East Japan Construction & Public Security Co., Ltd.

Source: "Bank of Japan Fukushima Branch Material"

Other materials"

295

the active opening ratio(ratio)Fukushima Prefecture

May: 1.47
times

Whole Country

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Figure 5-33 Trend of the active opening ratio (2010 to May 2017)
Source: "Fukushima Labor Bureau, MLWH"

296

5.3. Verification of Decontamination
Verification by MOE

Article 5 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling ofEnvironment Pollution by Radioactive Materials states that “When three years have passed since theenforcement of the Act, the status of enforcement of this Act shall be reviewed and necessary measurestaken based on the results.”
Based on this, MOE set up a “Investigative Committee on the Status of Enforcement of the Act on Special
Measures concerning the Handling of Environment Pollution by Radioactive Materials” for the purpose of
examining the implementation status of various measures based on this Act. Five meetings by experts wereconducted after March 31, 2015, and the “Summary of the Status of Enforcement of the Act on Special
Measures concerning the Handling of Environment Pollution by Radioactive Materials” was published on
September 30, 2015.
The evaluation of this summary regarding initiatives to date based on the Act on Special Measures wasthat due to factors such as a lack of technical expertise and practical experience, a lack of education about
radiation, and the time taken to build relationships of trust locally, partial delays in the initial response andcurrent progress were observed. It was also evaluated, however, that a certain degree of progress had been
made, thanks to an accumulation of expertise and knowhow in the national and local governments thatwere the implementation bodies for the initiatives.
On the other hand, a number of issues were pointed out, as follows.
- Decontamination work is an important precondition for reconstruction, and it should be completed asplanned by the end of FY2016, by accelerating work through various means including greater transparency.
- Flexibility should be shown in the projections for construction of Interim Storage Facility.
- Regarding the treatment of designated waste outside of Fukushima Prefecture, more effort should bemade to provide careful explanations and dialogue.
- Education about radiation should be tackled comprehensively not just by MOE but by the whole
government.
- The national and local governments should cooperate with each other more than ever with a strong
sense of awareness of their roles.
After that, the “Investigative Committee on the Progress of the Act on Special Measures” held meetings
three times (6th - 8th meetings).

297

Table 5-5 Meetings of the “Investigative Committee on the Status of Enforcement of the Act on Special
Measures”
No.

Date

Venue

Main Agenda

1stMarch 31,
2015

TKP
Conference center(Tokyo St.)
Hall A

1. How to proceed
2. Outline of the Act, etc.
3. Outline of enforcement situation of the Act
4. Other

2nd

May 26,2015

TKP
Conference center(Akasaka St.)
Hall C

3rd

June 26,
2015

Nippon Express
Worker’s Union
Conference Room A

4thAugust31, 2015

5th

September
24, 2015

6th

July 28,2017

Nippon Express
Worker’s Union
Conference Room A
Nippon Express
Worker’s Union
Conference Room A
TKP Garden City
Nagata-cho
1st Floor Banquet Hall
1C

1. About the implementation status ofdecontamination work
2. Dissemination of knowledge, survey research,technology development, etc.
3. Status of response to technical problems related todecontamination
4. Results of municipal questionnaire survey, etc.
(part concerning decontamination)
5. Other
1. Current situation of Interim Storage Facility
2. About the implementation status of designatedwaste, etc.
3. Results of municipal questionnaire survey, etc.
(part concerning Interim Storage Facility andcontaminated waste)
4. Other
1. On the outline of summary
2. Other

7th

October
12, 2017

Nippon Express
Worker’s Union
Conference Room A

8th

January
22, 2018

Nippon Express
Worker’s Union
Conference Room A

1. On the summary
2. Other
1. How to proceed
2. Regarding the enforcement status of the Act since
FY2015 summary (related to decontamination)
3. Summary of FY2015 concerning thecorrespondence to each issue (related todecontamination)
1. Regarding the enforcement situation of the Act
after FY2015 summary (related to interim
storage)
2. Summary of FY2015 concerning thecorrespondence to each issue(related to interim storage)
3. Regarding the enforcement situation of the Act
after FY2015 summary (related to contaminatedwaste)
4. Summary of FY2015 concerning thecorrespondence to each issue(related to contaminated waste)
1. Regarding the enforcement status of the Act after
FY2015 summary(cross-sectional matters (technology development,risk communication etc. ))2. Summary of FY2015 concerning the298correspondence to each issue(cross-sectional matters (technology development,risk communication etc.))
3. About matters pointed out that we have received
4. Outline of summary (draft)<Investigative Committee on the Status of Enforcement of the Act on Special Measures>(Honorific titles omitted)
Name
Naoto Asano (Chair)
Masahiro Osako

Affiliation
Project Professor, Law School, Fukuoka University
Director, Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research,
National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Tadashi Otsuka

Professor, Waseda University

Mitsumasa Okada

Professor, The Open University of Japan, Professor Emeritus, Hiroshima
University

Shinichi Sakai

Professor, Director, Environment Preservation Center, Kyoto University

Kazuhiko Sakamoto

President, Center for Environmental Science in Saitama

Yuko Sakita

Journalist, Environmental Counselor

Masaru Tanaka

Director, Sustainability Research Institute, Tottori University ofEnvironmental Studies

Osami Nakasugi

Former Professor, Graduate School of Global Environment Studies, Sophia
University

Ikufumi Nimi

Professor, Meiji University

Hisaoki Mori

Technical Advisor, Interim Storage Department, Japan Environmental Storage& Safety Corporation

Table 5-6 Summary of the Status of Enforcement of the Act on Special Measures concerning theHandling of Environment Pollution
1. Issues and future directions
・Measures based on the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Environment Pollution
were intended to be done within about three years after the accident, but in reality it took more timethan anticipated. However, at the present time, the situation is on track or making progress.
・The basic framework of the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Environment Pollution
is working effectively, but it requires some adjustments going forward including institutionalarrangements for the smooth cancellation of the designation of Intensive Contamination Survey Areas
and Special Decontamination Areas, and for steady implementation of volume reduction and recyclingof removed soil.
・In parallel with promoting measures, under the existing framework, the national government should
clarify its policies regarding the technical and practical issues, develop the necessary ministerial299

ordinance and guidelines, and conduct inspections at the time of completion of decontamination
implementation plans. In addition, necessary institutional arrangements should be implemented, forsmooth completion of a series of measures under the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handlingof Environment Pollution.
・ It should be noted that one characteristic of radioactive materials is that the concentration ofcontamination in the materials themselves decreases with time.
・ Rational responses should be made based on scientific safety assessments, considering thecharacteristics of radioactive cesium in the environment and the latest findings, such as the fact that
there is little risk that cesium will migrate to groundwater, etc., since it is strongly adsorbed by the soil
and the majority of cesium is transferred to surface soil in forests, etc.
・As lessons learned from efforts based on the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling ofEnvironment Pollution, in explaining and responding to residents in dealing with unprecedented
environmental pollution, in order to accelerate and facilitate the measures, it is essential for national
and local governments to cooperate with each other more than ever and with a strong awareness of theirroles.
(1) Decontaminationa) Special Decontamination Areas (areas decontaminated by the national government)
・This should continue and be accelerated under the current laws and institutions and basic framework.
b) Intensive Contamination Survey Areas (areas decontaminated by municipalities)
・The national government should encourage the acceleration of decontamination while making moretransparent the progress of decontamination and future prospects for each municipality.
c) Proper management of temporary storage sites
・Temporary storage sites, etc., have been adequately managed by storage standards established throughdiscussion by the Committee on Environmental Remediation as well as by thorough inspections andrepair. Further communication with the residents concerning safety is required.
・It is necessary to continue to implement proper management of temporary storage sites, etc.
・Thorough risk management measures should be taken for any container bags placed temporarily not at
temporary storage sites but on-site at any decontamination site in a flood hazard area. This could include
prioritizing their transfer to temporary storage sites, etc., or to higher ground if heavy rain and flooding
are expected, or using rope to secure them to heavy machinery, etc. It is necessary to develop systems
that can grasp the number of container bags, etc., on a daily basis.
d) Response to technical issues related to decontamination
・The long-term goal of an “additional exposure dose of 1 mSv/y or less” is separate from the annual
cumulative dose of 20 mSv/y or less, which is one of requirements for lifting of evacuation orders, andin itself is not the target of decontamination. It is a long-term goal to be achieved in the context ofresidents’ lives, not through decontamination alone but through comprehensive and proper managementof radiation risks, including monitoring, food safety management, and risk communication, etc.
・In communications, understandable explanations should be provided for each approach to dose level(e.g., 1 mSv/y and 20 mSv/y), and it should be clearly stated that any level of individual exposure dose300

in the range of 1 to 20 mSv/y is consistent with international standards.
・In designating Intensive Contamination Survey Areas and setting decontamination implementation
areas, the air dose rate of 0.23 μSv/h is used as a standard. It was used, however, in order to implement
decontamination promptly, for convenience and based on conservative conditions by replacing theannual additional exposure dose 1 mSv/y with the air dose rate.
・It should be clearly explained that the average additional exposure dose of residents in the area does not
actually exceed 1 mSv/y even in areas where the average value of the air dose rate exceeds 0.23 μSv/h.
・Some directions on technical and practical tasks such as disposal standards for removed soil and policies
for measures to deal with radioactive materials in forests away from areas where people live are still
undetermined.
The government policy should be clarified and it is necessary to respond by establishing the necessary
ministerial ordinances and guidelines, etc.
・Considering the latest scientific knowledge, such as the characteristics of cesium (cesium is so strongly
adsorbed to soil, that there is little possibility of transition to groundwater, etc., radiation is shielded toa considerable extent by appropriate covering, etc.), it is necessary to consider that decontamination
practitioners can respond to local circumstances when formulating the disposal criteria for removedsoil.
・It is necessary to develop ministerial ordinances and guidelines, etc., by obtaining advice from expertson technical and practical issues such as disposal standards for removed soil and policies for measuresagainst radioactive substances in forests in areas away from where people live.
・In order to consider impacts on trees and entire ecosystems, and to prevent sediment runoff due to heavy
rain, etc., it is important to strengthen the forest functions of preventing sediment disasters (landslides,etc.).
It is also necessary to clarify policies that integrate with forest and forestry revitalization in cooperation
with the relevant ministries and agencies, and to disseminate information.
In addition, it is necessary to provide easy-to-understand information concerning the possibility of therun-off of radioactive materials and dispersion from forests.
・Regarding the effects of supplemental decontamination, it is important to note that the effects aremaintained as a whole and that it has been shown that additional effects cannot be expected even if
repeated whole area decontamination is performed.
・In carrying out supplemental decontamination, the direction of reasonable and effective supplemental
decontamination of residential areas within Habitation Restricted Areas should be shown and it isnecessary to proceed conscientiously with risk communication to respond to voices of concern fromresidents.
(2) Cross-sectional mattersa) R&D and training and securing human resources
・Measures against radioactive substances are issues requiring long-term research, and it is necessary toreflect the latest scientific knowledge on environmental dynamics, etc., in measures.
・It is necessary to carry out monitoring and research on the influence of radioactive substances on wild301

animals and plants, and to provide conscientious explanations including the interpretation of
information.
b) Passing on experience and sharing internationally・Efforts should be made to accurately record the sequence of events, experiences and reflections on
decontamination work performed based on the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling ofEnvironment Pollution, as well as the development of Interim Storage Facility and treatment of
decontamination waste, and this should be passed on in preparation for future emergency accidents andbe a part of Japan’s international contributions.
c) Information dissemination, sharing and risk communication
・It is necessary to transmit accurate information and deal conscientiously with the concerns of residents.
Also, it is necessary to deepen mutual communication, among local residents, government and experts
including local universities and research institutions, etc., while also using the Counselor System, etc.
・For real reconstruction including eliminating damage from negative rumors, it is indispensable that the
government as a whole, including not only MOE but also other related ministries and agencies, engage
in efforts for comprehensive education about radiation, including the promotion of understanding of
natural radiation and information dissemination about work progress and the outlook for reconstruction
work.
d) Comprehensive discussions, including legal system
・It is important to implement the institutional arrangements required for the smooth completion of awhole set of measures based on the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Environment
Pollution.
・It is important to accurately record the sequence of events, experiences, and reflections on measures
performed based on the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Environment Pollution,
to pass them on and communicate them to others.
2. Conclusion
・Despite some delays in initial responses and current progress due to a lack of technical knowledge andpractical experience, a lack of education about radiation, and the time required to build trust in thecommunity, etc., some progress has been made thanks to the accumulation of knowledge and knowhow in the national and local governments, which are the implementation bodies.

302

Verification by Local Governments in Areas under Evacuation Orders

Purpose
Although the positioning is somewhat different depending on each local government, the “Committee
for the Verification of Decontamination” were held to verify the results of decontamination, which is oneof the requirements for the lift of evacuation orders, and to indicate the situation and future prospects forinfrastructure such as water and sanitation, electricity, roads, railways.
The Committee were held to comprehensively convey the situation to residents, as well as to ask
opinions and suggestions of experts based on reports from the national government, etc., on arrangements
such as medical care, nursing care, and welfare facilities, schools, shops, public housing, etc., necessary
for living after returning home, as well as the lifting of evacuation orders, and reconstruction.
Contents and features of main discussions
The Committee’s main discussions on decontamination included presentations of the following objective
and quantitative data (listed below), a summarization of the results of decontamination based on comments
and recommendations of experts and others, and review of the necessary guidelines going forward.
- Colored mesh maps indicating changes in whole area doses in areas where decontamination has been
performed- Changes in average dose for each administrative district or land use category (residence, farmland,
forest, road)- Dose histogram for each measurement point- Results of post-accident monitoring and supplemental decontamination- Storage condition at temporary storage sites, etc., and peripheral radiation doses
The main guidelines presented by experts at the verification committee, etc., are as follows:- Management of individual exposure doses- Radiation protection measures (external and internal)- Supplemental decontamination of areas with comparatively high doses and areas where
decontamination effect is not maintained- Consultation and risk communication on radiation dose anxiety and livelihood insecurity
In some cases, with interventions by experts the anxiety of the residents was resolved and understanding
was improved.
As a characteristic of the discussion, different circumstances, demands, and countermeasures werepointed out according to dose and region. For example:- There were differences such as what kind of decontamination measures were taken to reduce theadditional exposure dose, etc., in low-dose areas (mainly Preparation Areas for Lifting of Evacuation
Orders), areas with a slightly higher dose (mainly Habitation Restricted Areas), and areas with relatively
higher doses (mainly adjacent to Areas where Returning is Difficult).
- There were many requests for decontamination to be performed in forest near residential areas indensely-populated areas.
- There were concerns about the resumption of farming in areas with a lot of farmland.
303

Also, Kawauchi Village, Kawamata Town, and Minamisoma City had Special Decontamination Areas
where the national government implemented decontamination, as well as “decontamination
implementation areas” where the municipality implemented decontamination, so there were discussions
about the differences between the decontamination measures in both types of area.
Situations of each municipality① Naraha Town
In Naraha Town, various committees held meetings, including the Committee for the Verification of
Decontamination, a radiation health committee, and a nuclear emergency disaster countermeasureexamination committee, etc. The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination held a total of nine
meetings starting in 2013 and published a report in March 2015.
Table 5-7 Implementation status of The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination(Naraha Town)
No.
1st

date
November26, 2013

Venue
Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room

2nd

January 28,
2014

Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room

3rd

January 28,
2014

4th

March 25,2014

Isotope Science
Center, The
University ofTokyo, 1st floor
conference room
Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room

5th

November25, 2014

Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room

6th

February 25,
2015

Information
Technology
Center, The
University ofTokyo, 3rd floor

Main Agenda
1. About Naraha Town decontamination committee
2. On-site inspection
3. Recovery situation in Naraha Town
4. Current status of Naraha Town (decontamination andmonitoring)
1. About the contents of the agenda of 1st Committee
2. Opinions and requests from residents
3. Condition of decontamination temporary place in Naraha
Town
4. Accelerating Fukushima Reconstruction from nuclear
disasters
5. Site visit
6. Current situation in Naraha Town (situation of
decontamination / monitoring etc.)
7. Report explanation from each committee
1. About the contents of the agenda of the second
committee
2. Current report
3. Future consideration · Direction of summary
1. Mayor's greetings and greetings on behalf of thechairperson
2. On decontamination results
3. About the first report of the Naraha Town
Decontamination Verification Committee
1. About decontamination
2. Site inspection and review
3. About safety and security of water
4. About monitoring
1. About decontamination
2. About monitoring
3. About Secondary Report on Naraha Town
Decontamination Verification Committee

304

7th

August 21,
2015

8th

March 17,
2016

9th

March 16,2017

conference room
Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room

1. About the situation of supplemental decontamination in
Naraha Town
2. About efforts towards relief of tap water supplied by
Koyama Purification Plant
3. Background of the counselor system
4. On the progress of radiation health care committee
1. Results of ex post monitoring in Naraha Town
2. About radiation dose survey such as monitoring

Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room
Naraha Town
Office, 3rd floor
conference room

1. Results of ex post monitoring in Naraha Town
2. About radiation dose survey such as monitoring
3. Working Group Report<The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination>
Name(Honorific titles omitted)

Affiliation

Tatsuhiko Kodama
Sho Shiozawa
Toshio Nitami
Nobuyoshi Akimitsu
Toshihiro Oka
Kenji Sato
Norio Nogawa

Professor, Isotope Science Center, The University of Tokyo
Professor, Graduate school, The University of Tokyo
Associate professor, Graduate school, The University of Tokyo
Associate professor, Isotope Science Center, The University of Tokyo
Professor, Graduate school, Fukui Prefectural University
Professor, Iwaki Meisei University
Project Professor, Fukushima Future Center for Regional Revitalization,
Fukushima University
Yuzo Manpuku
Principal Investigator, The National Agriculture and Food Research
Organization
Source: Naraha Town “Naraha Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination” meeting material(1st ~ 9th)
Table 5-8 Report on the “Priority measures for return and restoring the lives of townspeople”
Contents of report
1. Recovery of safe living environment(1) Restoration of peace of mind by continuing decontamination and radiation health management aimed atachieving the long-term goal of the national government① Decontamination efforts
・Regarding the decontamination of the residential area, there are areas where the air dose rate is relatively highin whole area of town. In order to reduce the dose by supplemental decontamination, it is necessary to respondwith detailed consideration of equity, efficiency and effectiveness, taking into consideration thetownspeople’s intention to return to the town.
・In addition to requesting to enrich the consultation desk system of the national government that can respondconscientiously to the doubts and concerns from households that are not subject to the supplemental
decontamination of the national government, it is essential for the town to strive to solve the townspeople’s
doubts and concerns about radiation through utilization of the counselor system.
In some cases, according to the circumstances, it is also necessary for the town office to play a role ofcoordinating between the national government and the townspeople.
・Regarding trees and bushes such as yard trees, although the effect of reducing the air dose rate in the living
305

area by logging is limited, studies of mechanisms and measures that are possible to respond to requests andconcerns vigorously should be promoted in order to relieve the concerns of townspeople.
・Regarding the forests decontamination, it is necessary to develop long-term and systematic countermeasures
such as processing and utilization, and it is desirable to plan based on socio-economic considerations, taking
into account the relationship with the measures for forestry conservation and restoration.
② About various monitoring・Regarding the air dose rate maps created by MOE showing the decontamination effects, it is desirable tocontinue to prepare and publish the air dose rate maps while reflecting the effects of supplemental
decontamination. To utilizing them for efficient implementation (priority) of supplemental decontamination,etc., it is also required to positively utilize them as a tool for risk communication to townspeople.
・It is necessary to continue carrying out the air dust sampling and the monitoring of community roads that the
town was doing independently and to effectively use the findings as detailed data closely related to the livesof the townspeople. Efforts should be made to communicate information to the townspeople in an easy-tounderstand manner by effectively utilizing data both from the town and from the national government.
・In some cases, radioactive cesium may be detected exceeding the standards for radioactive substances in foodsuch as wild vegetables other than rice and vegetables, plus river fish and game meat, but for such foods
collected from outdoors, it is important to conduct awareness-raising to ensure that measurements are done
properly using testing equipment. Regarding monitoring of foods, it is also necessary to consider responses
depending on the situation, such as selective use of simplified measurements taken independently by thetown, versus accurate measurements entrusted to specialized agencies.
・For individual exposure dose control, it is considered that the current external dose in the town is not at alevel at which health effects are concerned, but it is important to continue to measure in the future for further
peace of mind. The value of this long-term target is not an absolute standard for evacuees to return, and thejudgment of each townsperson should be respected regarding returning.
・With respect to internal exposure dose control, the number of persons being examined using a Whole Body
Counter (WBC) has been decreasing year by year. But in order to obtain peace of mind by accumulating data,
for example, it is required to consider systems for improving the examination rate, such as asking a WBC
examinations at the time of regular health checkups for returning town residents.
・The decontamination waste temporary storage sites are being rigorously managed, with not only monitoringand measurements being taken by the national government but also by townspeople themselves conducting
surveillance activities. However, these sites are ultimately intended to be only temporary, so as a fundamental
solution it is important to arrange safe transfer to other locations as soon as possible, in order to reduce theanxiety of townspeople who have refrained from returning home.
・Regarding the volume reduction of decontamination waste, accumulation of knowledge of the national
government and technological progress can be seen by demonstration tests and full-scale operations, etc.,
being advanced in various places.
Proper treatment of decontamination waste by efficiently and effectively introducing facilities is desired,appropriately reflecting these results in the establishment and operation, etc., of volume reducing facilities
planned to be built in the town.
・It is important that the concerned ministries and agencies and local governments make an effort to share306sufficient and detailed information about future relocation plans for Interim Storage Facility.
・Regarding the transport of waste, it is hoped that careful consideration will be given to transport routes andtiming in order to avoid any negative impacts on general transportation and the living environment ofcommunities along the routes.
・Since it is expected that it will take several years to relocate temporary storage sites to Interim Storage Facility,
consideration of roadmaps should begin now, for a combination of various measures to reduce the burden on
residents during the interim, such as installation of incinerators and volume reduction.
Also, in response to problems that may occur at current temporary storage sites due to the passage of time, it
is important to devise proactive measures, such as transferring the contents of any deteriorated flexible
containers into new bags.
③ Safety and security of drinking water・Data from vertical turbidity measurements in the Kido Dam reservoir, turbidity measurements of the intake
weir, and time-series data on radioactive cesium concentrations in intake weir water do not indicate any
noticeable disturbance of radioactive materials from bottom sediment during heavy rains and typhoons.
However, it is necessary to continue measuring to obtain these basic data.
・Safety is ensured for water supplied from the Kido Dam and Koyama Water Purification Plant by various
measures taken by the national government and a water supply consortium, etc.
However, since the anxiety of the townspeople has not yet been dispelled, for the foreseeable future it will
be important to continue providing conscientious and easy-to-understand explanations for them to gain anunderstanding of safety.
Specifically, it is necessary to seek understanding of the townspeople’s water safety, by reviewing andimplementing initiatives such as a safety management system including a monitoring system and active
dissemination of actual tap water measurement results.
・Radioactive substances continue to be present at the reservoir bottom of Kido Dam. Therefore, in the future,
to ensure greater security of drinking water, consideration should be given to the feasibility of more impactfulmeasures by using future technological innovation.
・As for the simple water service using stream water, the townspeople using this may feel uneasy as it is being
measured only three times a week at present. However, since it is difficult to raise the current measurement
frequency, it is necessary to engage in more risk communication to gain the townspeople’s understanding of
the current policy.
2. Enhancement of support for livelihood reconstruction(1) Strengthening consultation systems (radiation, livelihood reconstruction, etc.)
From the viewpoint of promoting environmental improvements for evacuees to return to their town, it isimportant to develop a consultation system that will respond in detail to the concerns of individual
townspersons, including concerns about radiation.
・Consideration should also be given to the establishment of a third party (advisory) body to advise the town
about health management relating to radiation and risk communication methods, etc. To establish such abody, it will be important to proactively address the requests to the parties concerned.
Source: Naraha Town “Naraha Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination: Second Report”(March 2015)307

② Kawauchi Village
In Kawauchi Village, for the return of evacuees, the Committee for the Verification of Decontamination
held a meeting in 2014, and the report was published in December 2016.

Table 5-9 Implementation status of the “Committee for the Verification of Decontamination”(Kawauchi Village)
No.

Date

1st

July 10,
2014

Venue

Main Agenda

Community center
annex "Nakayoshikan"

1. Progress of decontamination
2. Evaluation of radiation measurement results<The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination>
Name(Honorific titles omitted)
Affiliation

Noboru Takamura
Tadashi Inoue
Fuminori Tamba

Professor, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University
Advisor, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Associate professor, The Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Fukushima University
Division of Social Communication System for Advanced Clinical Research,
Masaharu Tsubokura
Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo
Shinichi Endo
Decontamination sector, Industry Promotion Section, Kawauchi Village
Source: Kawauchi Village “Kawauchi Village Committee for the Verification of Decontamination (1stmeeting materials)”

Table 5-10 Recommendation for return of evacuees
Contents of recommendation
1. Decontamination
・For decontamination, if the aim is to further reduce dose rates, it is necessary to decontaminate nearby
forests, etc., and to consider the wishes of residents while also considering cost effectiveness.
In addition, it is important to respond appropriately with regard to “hotspots” where doses are higher,
giving consideration to the lifestyles of residents.
Regarding decontamination and dose rates, it is also necessary to disclose information to enable
residents to exercise appropriate judgment.
2. Health effects of radiation (external exposure, internal exposure, thyroid tests)
・To date, external exposure doses evaluated by individual exposure dosimeters are generally at a low
level. All evacuation orders in the village have been lifted, and it will be important to continue offering
assessments of external radiation doses for residents who wish to return in the future.
It is necessary to properly respond to occupational exposure of residents who are in charge ofreconstruction and restoration of industries of Kawauchi Village such as forestry workers anddecontamination workers.

308

・Currently, the internal exposure in Kawauchi Village has maintained a sufficiently low level, and it isbelieved to still be possible to maintain the low level through food inspection and controlling food
distribution going forward. Meanwhile, contamination is present in some foods, and internal exposure
may increase through continuous ingestion, so continued testing and information provision will benecessary going forward.
・For thyroid testing, it is important to continue securing access to proper consultation for those whowant to undergo examination.
In the future, some examinees are expected to leave the village and/or the prefecture by going on tohigher education or employment. In cooperation with Fukushima Prefecture, it will be necessary toprovide information on access to thyroid testing and guidance for consultation to age groups expected
to have increased migration out of prefecture.
3. Recovery status of infrastructure and daily services indispensable for daily life
・Restoration and maintenance of infrastructure and daily services indispensable for daily life are importantfor future reconstruction and development of Kawauchi Village. Based on population vision trends, it will
be important to highlight the attractiveness of life in Kawauchi Village while promoting wide-areacooperation with other local governments. In addition to confirming the results of efforts for restoration
and reconstruction from the earthquake disaster, it is necessary to construct a “Kawauchi-style” ofsustainable community in context of the ongoing decline of population numbers in Japanese society.
4. Medical infrastructure
・Since the earthquake disaster, the provision of medical services at clinics and emergency transportation
have steadily improved through cooperation with other medical institutions in the region, and the rangeof access is expanding. However, as the needs will continue to exist and demand for services is expected
to grow with the aging of society, it will be necessary to enhance the functions of clinics and further
strengthen collaboration with other medical institutions in the region.
・Improvement of childcare environment is also extremely important to prepare for the return of the younger
generation of evacuees to the village. In addition, to encourage more new residents to move to the village,
it will be important to support the revitalization of Kawauchi Village by emphasizing the benefits thatfamilies with children can enjoy from medical and welfare services.
Source: Kawauchi Village Committee for the Verification of Decontamination “Kawauchi Village
Committee for the Verification of Decontamination Report” (December 2016)309

③ Iitate Village
In Iitate Village, meetings were held by the Committee for the Verification of Decontamination, acommittee on livelihoods, and an expert committee on reconstruction hub projects, and so on. The
Committee for the Verification of Decontamination held five meetings in 2017 and its recommendations
were published in June 2017.
Table 5-11 Implementation status of the “Committee for the Verification of Decontamination”(Iitate Village)
No.
1st

Date
February 8,
2017

Venue
IitateVillage
Office

2nd

February 28,
2017

IitateVillage
Office

3rd

March 30,
2017

IitateVillage
Office4th

April 26, 2017

IitateVillage
Office5thJune 23, 2017

IitateVillage
OfficeSub
mit

June 23, 2017

IitateVillage
OfficeMain Agenda
1. On the election of the chairperson and vice chairperson
2. About the purpose of the committee
3. About the committee's schedule
4. About the current situation of decontamination
5. Materials concerning analysis and verification
1. About the 1st meeting minutes
2. Current status of decontamination
3. Monitoring of residential land and farmland
4. Measurement and prediction of individual doses
5. Relationship between Space Dose Rate and Personal Dose
6. About rice plants, vegetable demonstration cultivation results
7. About farmland and agricultural water
8. Proposal proof of the report
1. About the 2nd Minutes
2. About verification of decontamination
3. Monitoring of residential land and farmland
4. About farmland and agricultural water
5. On the movement of cesium from the forest
1. About the 3rd Minutes
2. Monitoring of residential land and farmland
3. Results of soil radioactivity measurement
4. About the implementation status of intermediate storage
facilities
5. Concept of Rice Cropping
6. Measures against radioactive materials at irrigation pond
7. Recommendations and report (draft)
1. About the 4th meeting minutes
2. Monitoring of residential land and farmland
3. Results of soil radioactivity measurement
4. About recommendations and report
5. Schedule of submission of report
Recommendation and Report submission<The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination>
Name
Junichiro Tada
Kazuto Endo
Makoto Miyazaki
Yuzo Manpuku(Honorific titles omitted)
Affiliation

Director, Specific Nonprofit Corporation Radiation Safety Forum (RSF)
Principal Investigator, Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management
Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
Assistant, Radiation Disaster Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University
Principal Investigator, The National Agriculture and Food Research
Organization
310

Kenichi Okoshi
Chairman, Iitate Village Administrative District Presidency Congress
Source: “Iitate Village Committee for the Verification of Decontamination” meeting material (1st ~ 5th)
Table 5-12 Recommendation of Committee for the Verification of Decontamination
Contents of recommendation
1. Continue consultation with the national government in response to requests of villagers forenvironmental restoration.
2. Strongly demand the national government to accelerate the removal of decontamination waste that
can interfere with regular life.
3. Further promote efforts to let the individual villagers to know the dose they are receiving.
4. Strongly demand the national government to promptly restore sites that were borrowed or damaged
in decontamination work.
5. Issue guidance to properly maintain potassium content in soil when resuming farming.
6. Continue consultations with national government concerning environmental restoration in Areas
where Returning is Difficult.
Source: Iitate Village Committee for the Verification of Decontamination “Iitate Village Committee for the
Verification of Decontamination Report” (June 2017)④ Minamisoma City
In Minamisoma City, meetings were held by the Decontamination Promotion Committee, theEnvironment Recovery Promotion Committee, and the Community Planning Committee, etc. The
Decontamination Promotion Committee held a total of 11 times starting in 2014 and published a report in
December 2016.

Table 5-13 Implementation status of the Decontamination Promotion Committee (Minamisoma City)
Year
No.
date
Venue
Main Agenda
FY2014
1stJune 26,
City Hall main 1. Progress of living area decontamination of2014
building, 4thMinamisoma City
floor the Diet
2. Progress of the decontamination of farmland inmembers' room
Minamisoma City
Investigation on occurrence factors of brown rice
standard excess in Minamisoma City
2nd
November City Hall east
1. Results of decontamination and progress of
28, 2014
building, 2nd
agricultural land decontamination in Minamisoma
floor, 1stcity
conference
2. On the results of the whole rice bag inspection
room
conducted in 2014
3. Results of decontamination of living area
(Report）
3rd
February
City Hall main 1. Results of living zone decontamination and local
19, 2015
building, 4th
decontamination using PSF.
floor floor the
2. About change of decontamination plan (report)
Diet members'
3. Others · Response from Nuclear Regulatoryroom
Agency (Report)
FY2015
1stApril 17,
Odaka area,
1. About the decontamination situation of Special
2015
UkifuneDecontamination Areas (MOE)
Cultural
2. About the demands and opinions of the residents
Center,of the evacuation area (Report City Office)Training Room · Outline of citizen's explanatory meeting and311

FY2016

2nd

September
17, 2015

Hara Town
Public healthcenter

3rd

December24, 2015

Hara Town
Public healthcenter4th

February15, 2016

the Diet
members' room

1st

July 11,
2016

Hara Town
Public healthcenter2nd

October27, 2016

Hara Town
Public healthcenter

3rd

December21, 2016

City Hall mainbuilding, 4thfloor the Diet
members' room

4th

February
20, 2017

Hara Town
Public healthcenteropinion exchange meeting in FY2014· Consolidated result of free-list intention survey in
Odaka area
1. Status of decontamination in Intensive
Contamination Survey Areas
2. Decontamination situation of Special
Decontamination Areas
3. Requirements for decontamination, etc., for liftof evacuation order
4. About "decontamination and resumption offarming"
1. Response of the State and the City to the
Minamisoma City Decontamination Promotion
Committee Statement on September 10 and 11,
September 20, 2015, suffering heavy rain damage
2. Verification of decontamination effect in Special
Decontamination Areas
3. Current Status and Issues of Decontamination
Initiatives to lift evacuation order.
1. About the decontamination situation in
Minamisoma City ( Special Decontamination
Areas) (MOE)
2. Verification of decontamination effect in Special
Decontamination Areas
3. Report on Radiation Protection Measures forlifting evacuation order area
4. Results of forest decontamination test construction
around farmland in decontamination area
1. Post-monitoring results and supplemental
decontamination
2. About volume reduction of removed soil
3. "How do mountain of flexible container get lost
(possibility of reuse and reduction in Minamisoma
City)"
1. On the results of decontamination of farmland in
Minamisoma City
2. Estimated radioactivity concentration of removed
soil by decontamination
3. About volume reduction and recycling of removed
soil stored in temporary storage sites* Proposal on recycling treatment of radioactive
waste (draft)
1. About the Chairperson's Comment
2. Estimated radioactivity concentration of removed
soil* Add Special Decontamination Areas
3. On issues of volume reduction and recycling
1. Result of decontamination of farmland· On the result of farmland decontamination· Minamisoma City agriculture, forestry andfisheries revitalization plan
2. Providing information by Manpuku committee
member· Return municipalities Initiatives for revitalizing
agriculture
3. Efforts towards the use of recycled materials

312

<The Decontamination Promotion Committee>
Name(Honorific titles omitted)
Affiliation

Tatsuhiko Kodama
Sho Shiozawa
Kaname Miyahara

Professor, Isotope Science Center, The University of Tokyo
Professor, Graduate school, The University of Tokyo
Director, Fukushima Environmental Safety Center, Fukushima ResearchInstitute, Sector of Fukushima Research and Development, Japan Atomic
Energy Agency
Tadashi Inoue
Director charged in Fukushima, Atomic Energy Society of Japan
Yuzo Manpuku
Principal Investigator, The National Agriculture and Food Research
Organization
Jinichi Nagatsuka
Director, Department of Reconstruction Planning , Minamisoma City
Minoru Tanaka
Director, Department of General Affairs Department, Minamisoma City
Yukio Sato
Director, Department of Civic Life, Minamisoma City
Masanori Watanabe
Director, Department of Economic Department, Minamisoma City
Source: Minamisoma City “Minamisoma City Decontamination Promotion Committee” meeting material(FY2014~FY2016)

Table 5-14 Recommendation of Decontamination Promotion Committee
Contents of recommendation
Promoting separation and recycling of removed soil, etc., generated from decontamination
It is predicted that there will be as many as two million large container bags packed with removed
soil, etc., generated by decontamination, and temporary storage sites have been set up at 51 locationsin the city to store them in Minamisoma City.
Large container bags are subject to deterioration and breakage due to long-term storage. Also landlease contracts for temporary storage sites may end up having to be considerably longer than originallycontracted due to delays in the construction of Interim Storage Facility. As a result, it is an importanttask to eliminate a large amount of removed soil and temporary storage sites as early as possible.
The committee proceeded with consideration of how to deal with these challenges to restore
Minamisoma’s beautiful environment to what existed before the accident.
In Minamisoma City and elsewhere in Fukushima Prefecture, long-term measures and immediate
measures are both needed to restore the environment to what it was before the accident, taking into
consideration the situation of extensive contamination caused by radioactive substances.
The city needs to prepare a road map based on citizens’ requests, and implement both long-term andimmediate measures.
Based on surface dose rates, soil removed from the Intensive Contamination Survey Areas (outside
a 20 km radius) and stored in temporary storage sites in Minamisoma City is estimated to have 30%of the total volume below 3,000 Bq/kg, 50% between 3,000 Bq/kg and 8,000 Bq/kg, and about 20%
above that. Soil removed from Special Decontamination Areas (within a 20 km radius) and stored in
temporary storage sites is estimated from surface dose rates to have 10% of the total volume below
3,000 Bq/kg, 20% from 3,000 Bq/kg to 8,000 Bq/kg, and about 70% above that.
313

As an immediate countermeasure, it is necessary to thoroughly control radiation in temporarystorage sites with constant air and groundwater monitoring. In such cases, to the extent possible it isimportant to reduce the volume of combustibles by incineration. Meanwhile, as a short-term measure,based on observations of the behavior of radioactive cesium in soil in Fukushima Prefecture to date, it
is believed that removed soil with relatively low concentrations can be recycled as a material forembankments in public works such as the Joban Expressway and coastal disaster prevention forestry
projects in areas where long-term management is possible. This is because of the low possibility ofleaking into groundwater and releases to the atmosphere by adsorption to fine grains.
When promoting recycling, it is essential to have proper separated treatment of the contents in thelarge container bags.
On the other hand, for removed soil with relatively high-concentrations, it is becoming possible torecycle material by separating and concentrating cesium.
Separation can be cited as one such technology. Based on the characteristic of cesium that it adheres
easily to fine grains (silt and clay) in the soil, the soil can be separated into fine grains (resulting inhigher concentration than before classification) and sand and gravel (resulting in lower concentration
than before classification).
After the separation process, sand and gravel can be prepared and mixed as required by the purposeof recycling.
The second measure is heat treatment. After reaction accelerator is added to soil with relatively highconcentrations (soil removed for decontamination), radioactive cesium is sublimated by heat treatment,
and then recovered by cooling to 200°C or lower. Radioactive cesium is briefly volatilized andseparated, then cooled and collected.
The heat treated soil becomes civil engineering material with extremely low radioactive
concentration and the condensed radioactive cesium requires appropriate management“Technology Development Strategy for Volume Reduction & Recycling of the Removed Soil” April
2016, MOE

For long-term environmental restoration, it is necessary for anything generated by reclaiming
materials to have lower than 100 Bq/kg of clearance standards based on the Nuclear Reactor
Regulation Act. The recycled materials below the clearance standard can be reused as general materials
without requiring special management.
In a demonstration experiment at Warabidaira in Iitate Village, it was reported that the removed soil
can be brought to a radioactive concentration below the clearance standard by using volume reduction
technology based on separation and concentration technology.
(Summary of report of demonstration experiment at Warabidaira in Iitate Village, FY2016)
If volume reduction and recycling of these removed soils are realized, the prospects for treatment of314

removed soil, etc., in Fukushima Prefecture as a whole will also be greatly improved, which will leadto a reduction of the area needed for Interim Storage Facility. Thus, it is necessary to have initiatives
to utilize recycled materials produced by separation and heat treatment, and facilities to process them.
Separated and concentrated radioactive cesium needs to be stored in containers that have a shielding
function, in preparation for being transported from Interim Storage Facility for disposal outside the
Fukushima prefecture within 30 years.
Next, it is important to have this volume reduction and recycling materialization facility become abase for environmental recovery as a facility that is environmentally friendly and culturally appealing.
For example, an incineration facility in Meguro-ku, Tokyo has a park and cultural facilities in thevicinity of residential buildings, and also offers a service for returning benefits to residents as water
heated by heat generated by waste treatment. Moreover, the facility accepts visits of residents.
It is also necessary to consider setting up treatment facilities in mountainous area where many
removed soils with high doses are being stored.
In addition to considering the increase in traffic volume by truck transportation, it is essential tohave a wide range of consultation with the residents, as well as securing the availability of roads for
inbound and outbound transport, separate from the community roads.
Based on the above discussion, this committee proposes that the city take measures for sorting
treatment of waste soil, etc., and treatment for recycling material, and requests the city to start
discussions as soon as possible about measuring recycling materials.
Source: “Proposal of Committee on Promotion of Sorting and Recycling Processing of Removed Soils
from Decontamination” (Minamisoma City Decontamination Promotion Committee, December
2016)

315

⑤ Katsurao Village
In Katsurao Village, the reconstruction committee held 12 times since 2011 and has also been
considering decontamination.
Table 5-15 Implementation status of the “Reconstruction Committee ” (Katsurao Village)
Year
No.
date
Venue
Main Agenda
1st December
FY2011
Miharu Common 1. Proposal for "Katsurao Village Reconstruction
7, 2011
Building
Vision"(draft)
2nd December
Miharu Common 1. Reflecting the discussion results to "Katsurao
19, 2011
Building
Village Reconstruction Vision"
3rd January 12, Miharu Common 1.Summarize the "Katsurao Village
2012
Building
Reconstruction Vision"
4th February
Miharu Common 1.Decision of the "Katsurao Village
13, 2012
Building
Reconstruction Vision"
5th March 19,
Miharu Common 1. Reconstruction measures based on "Katsurao
2012
Building
Village Reconstruction Vision"
1st May 17,
FY2012Miharu Common 1.About “Reconstruction Plan (First)” draft
2012
Building
2nd November
Miharu Common 1.Summarize the “Reconstruction Plan (First)”
14, 2012
Building
1st June 27,
FY2013
Katsurao Village 1. About the “Reconstruction Plan of Katsurao
2013
Miharu Branch
Village”
office2. About decontamination plan
3. On the issue of reconstruction planning
4. On how to proceed with reconstruction planning
based on villagers' intent
2nd November
Katsurao Village 1. On the progress of restoration project (report)
20, 2013
Miharu Branch
2. On the progress of decontamination (report)
office3. Results of district councils etc. and how toproceed (Report)
4. About the project of reconstruction community
development (explanation exchange)
3rd March 24,
Katsurao Village 1. Outline of main point for Katsurao Village's
2014
Miharu Branch
reconstruction (draft) and exchange of opinions
office4th May 30,
FY2014
Katsurao Village 1. About the “Katsurao Revitalization Strategy
2014
Miharu Branch
Plan (draft)” (explanation)
office· Positioning of the draft plan and future plans· Presentation of draft plan
· Outline of results such as public comment andreflection policy
2. Opinions etc. on the proposed plan (exchange of
opinions)
1st
FY2015
December
Katsurao Village 1. About the situation of reconstruction and3, 2015
Miharu Branch
restoration project
office2. About "population vision"

316

<The Reconstruction Committee >(Honorific titles omitted)

Name

Affiliation

Kazunori Akutagawa
Professor, Fukushima College of Technology
Hisao Matsumoto
Chairman, Katsurao Village Administrative District Congress
Source: Katsurao Village “Katsurao Village The Reconstruction Committee ” meeting material(FY2011~FY2015)⑥ Kawamata Town
In Kawamata Town, there have been meetings of a verification committee on decontamination in the
Yamakiya area, and a smart community promotion committee, etc. The verification committee on
decontamination in the Yamakiya area held a total of six times since 2015, and recommendations were
published in March 2016.

Table 5-16 Implementation status of the “Committee for the Verification of Decontamination”(Kawamata Town)
No.

Date

Venue

1st

April 16, 2015

Kawamata Town
Health Center
Multipurpose Hall

2nd

May 11, 2015

3rd

June 15, 2015

4th

July 3, 2015

5th

March 5, 2015

Kinki University
Tokyo Center
Fukushima
Reconstruction
Bureau Special
Conference Room
Kawamata Town
Health Center
Multipurpose Hall
Kinki University
Tokyo Center

6th

March 29,2016

Kawamata Town
Central PublicHall temporary
2nd conferenceroom

Main Agenda
1. Inside of evacuation area inspection
2. About the committee's schedule
3. Materials related to analysis and verification
4. Exchange of opinions on draft proposals for interim
report
1. Discussion on draft Interim Report
1. About the Interim Report (draft)

1.About the Interim Report
1. About the wording that "If the farmland
decontamination around the residential area ispromoted, the dose reduction effect in the further
residential area can be expected "2. Overall Evaluation
1. About the Final Report317

<The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination>
Name(Honorific titles omitted)

Affiliation

Tetsuo Ito
Hirokuni Yamanishi
Akihiko Kondo
Makoto Miyazaki
Kazuo Imanishi

Professor, Atomic Energy Research Institute, Kindai University
Professor, Atomic Energy Research Institute, Kindai University
Professor, Center for Environmental Remote Sensing, Chiba University.
Assistant, Radiation Disaster Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University
Associate professor, The Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Fukushima University
Junichiro Tada
Director, Specific Nonprofit Corporation Radiation Safety Forum (RSF)
Source: Kawamata Town “Kawamata Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination” meeting
material (1st ~ 6th)
Table 5-17 Recommendation of Committee for the Verification of Decontamination
Content of Recommendation
1. Realistic radiation protection map
・As routine methods of radiation protection, there are means such as every meal inspection of foodingredients, carrying a dosimeter at any time, but it is difficult to carry out in reality.
First of all, voluntary protection by creating a large-scale radioactive contamination map and knowing
the situation of pollution is efficient.
For that purpose, it is necessary to have a system to continuously monitor the distribution of the air dose
rate and the radioactivity concentration of foods. By collecting the measured results as “map of thearea,” residents can use it for radiation protection.
Technically, the creation of this “map of the area” is established as a geographical information system(GIS), and it could be a powerful tool of radiation protection.
As for the sharing and disclosure of obtained information, it is necessary to formulate a sufficientagreement to operate it.
2. Countermeasures against radioactivity in forests where people routinely enter - Requirements andpossibilities
・From the traditional practical use of satoyama (community managed lands) in the Yamakiya area, there
is a need to implement radiation control measures in the forest in order to restore the area, including
livelihoods and agriculture.
Because the forest is so extensive, it is necessary to have a mechanism to continuously implement
countermeasures, including isolation and containment, by prioritizing according to the relationshipwith people’s livelihood for each satoyama as the smallest unit of the living area, instead of uniform
decontamination.
It is necessary to consider careful measures in forest areas in order to make effective use of satoyama,
which are an important part of livelihoods in mountain villages.
3. Consultation
・Although a certain dose reduction due to decontamination was confirmed, it takes some time for thecomplete recovery of the environment in the Yamakiya area.
Therefore, a mechanism is necessary to respond to the questions, anxiety and concerns of residents in astraightforward manner until the achievement of the reconstruction of the Yamakiya area.
From now on, various tasks are anticipated including the restoration of the business.
It is necessary to secure experts who can provide appropriate advice on these problems and to promoterealization of one stop service for various tasks under the cooperation system of the government and the
district.

318

4. Accelerate environmental recovery on daily life
・There are several realistic issues with living in the Yamakiya area, which are clear from surveys ofresident’s opinions, etc. It is necessary to accelerate efforts based on these issues.
・About half of households whose representatives are in their 50s or older have an intention to return to thearea. Considering this situation, it is necessary to think about how to restore the environment in daily
life.
・When implementing projects aimed at restoring the environment of daily life, it is necessary to
sufficiently listen to the residents’ high intention requests for medical and welfare-related, housingrelated, and commercial facility-related, and to proceed with resumption and maintenance systematically.
・Because temporary storage sites give anxiety and discomfort to many residents, they are hindrance to thereturning intention of residents and business, especially farming resumption, so it is necessary to realize
improvement including provisional relocation, removal, reduction of the sites as soon as possible, and topromote the development of agricultural infrastructure for resuming farming.
・It is desirable to arrange food radioactivity measurement equipment in Yamakiya area so that residents
can measure whenever they want to measure. Moreover, it is desirable to prepare a system that can takeintake measurements by whole body counter whenever concerned about the intake of radioactive
cesium.
5. Measures for domestic and foreign markets
・Although five years have passed since the accident of TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS, rumors still
exist. When Yamakiya area products such as agricultural products are shipped, it is necessary to aim forrealization a mechanism not to receive disadvantageous treatment in the market by cooperation with thenational government etc.
Source: Kawamata Town Yamakiya District Verification Committee on Decontamination, etc. “Report ofthe verification committee on decontamination of Kawamata Town Yamakiya District” (March,
2016)

319

⑦ Namie Town
In Namie Town, meetings were held by the Committee for the Verification of Decontamination and thereconstruction plan formulation committee, etc. The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination
held a total of eight times since 2016.
Table 5-18 Implementation status of the “Committee for the Verification of Decontamination”(Namie Town)
Year
FY2016

No.
1st

date
June 3, 2016

Venue
Namie Town
OfficeNihonmatsu
branch office

2ndJuly 4, 2016

Namie Town
Officeconference
room

3rd

August 26,
2016

Namie Town
Officeconference
room

4th

October 21,
2016

Nihonmatsu
WelfareCenter5th

November 14, Namie Town
2016
Officeconferenceroom
December 20, Namie Town
2016
OfficeNihonmatsu
branch office

6th

FY2017

1stJune 19, 2017

2nd

August 21,
2017

Namie Town
Officeconferenceroom
Namie Town
Officeconference
room

320

Main Agenda
1. About Namie Town Decontamination
Verification Committee
2. About decontamination situation in Namie
Town
3. About future directions
1. About the decontamination implementation
status of Kiyohashi district
2. Opinions about decontamination from districts
About questions
3. Field inspection
4. Response to decontamination unaided person
1. About the decontamination implementation
status in Namie Town (Namie-Town 6 areas)
2. Opinions and questions about decontaminationfrom districts
3. Field inspection
1. About the decontamination implementation
status of the Gongendo area
2. Opinions and questions about decontaminationfrom districts
1. About the decontamination implementation
situation in Namie Town (Karino/ Obori area)
2. Opinions and question about decontaminationfrom districts
1. About the progress and effectiveness of
decontamination
2. Concerning specific measures for each issue
3. About the situation of decontamination etc. in
Namie Town
1. About Namie Town decontamination result
report in FY2016
2. Investigation on the dynamics of the Forestry
Agency due to the Jumanyama field fires
1. A survey on the dynamics of Fukushima
Prefecture accompanying the Jumanyama fieldfires
2. On Namie East junior high school and about thesituation of Namie Nijiiro nursery school

<The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination>
Name(Honorific titles omitted)

Affiliation

Junichiro Ishida
Senior Advisor, Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Tadashi Inoue
Honorary Advisor, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Hirofumi Tsukada
Vice Director, Institute of Environmental Radioactivity, Fukushima University
Shinji Tokonami
Professor, Institute of Radiation Emergency Medicine, Hirosaki University
Source: Namie Town “Namie Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination” meeting material(FY2016~ FY2017)⑧ Tomioka Town
In Tomioka Town, meetings were held by the Committee for the Verification of Decontamination, acommunity development review committee, and a life improvement committee, etc. The Committee for
the Verification of Decontamination held a total of 11 times since 2015, and recommendations were
published in October 2016.
Table 5-19 Implementation status of the “Committee for the Verification of Decontamination”(Tomioka Town)
No.

Date

Venue

Main Agenda

1stSeptember 1,
2015

Tomioka
Town Office,Kuwanobranch office
Tomioka
Town Office(HealthCenter)1. Outline report of Tomioka Town
2. Report on decontamination status in Tomioka Town
3. Confirmation on how to proceed with Tomioka Town
decontamination verification committee
1. Pioneering Action Plan for Tomioka Town
Reconstruction and Development
2. On the effect of decontamination in Tomioka Town
3. On the result of gamma ray visualization camera (interim
report)1. About the Interim Report
2. Recommendations from the Committee
3. Matters to be considered by the verification committee(4th and later)
4. Results of the air dose rate survey (interim report)
1. On the verification of decontamination effect at thepresent time from the result of decontamination ofresidential area
2. About the contents of supplemental decontamination
3. About forest decontamination
1. About Forest Decontamination
2. About the soil survey etc. carried out by the town
3. About dose map
1. About the interim report (2nd) of Tomioka Town
Decontamination Verification Committee
2. Results of decontamination in FY2015
3. About survey of dose etc. carried out by town
1. Outline report of Tomioka Town
2. Report on decontamination status in Tomioka Town
3. Confirmation on how to proceed with Tomioka Town

2nd

October 13, 2015

3rd

December 22,
2015

Tomioka
Town Office,
Koriyama
office (annex)

4thFebruary 22,
2016

Tomioka
Town Office,Kuwanobranch office

5thMarch 29, 2016

Tomioka
Town Office

6th

May 9, 2016

Tomioka
Town Office

7thSeptember 1,
2016

Tomioka
Town Office,Kuwano321

8thAugust 9, 2016

9th

October 4, 2016

10th

December 27,
2016

11th

March 17, 2017

branch office
Tomioka
Town Office

Tomioka
Town Office,
Koriyama
officeTomioka
Town Office(HealthCenter)Tomioka
Town Office,
Koriyama
officeDecontamination Verification Committee
1. About the implementation status of supplemental
decontamination
2. About Tomioka Town Decontamination Verification
Committee Report (draft)
3. Future dose prediction
1. Report from MOE
2. About the Decontamination Verification Committee
Report1. Status of decontamination implementation in Tomioka
Town
1. Confirmation of previous consideration (the 10th
meeting minutes summary)
2. Progress of decontamination
3. About the last field survey (the 10th)
4. On radiation dose prediction
5. About Tomioka Town Decontamination Verification
Committee schedule<The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination>
Name(Honorific titles omitted)

Affiliation

Associate Professor, Division for Environment, Health and Safety, The Universityof Tokyo
Advisor, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Tadashi Inoue
Manager, Office for the Impulsing Paradigm Change through Disruptive
Reiko Fujita
Technologies Program, Japan Science and Technology Agency
Junichiro Ishida
Senior Advisor, Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Kencho Kawatsu
Project Professor, Faculty of Symbiotic Systems Science, Fukushima University
Source: Tomioka Town “Tomioka Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination” meeting
Takeshi Iimotomaterial (1st ~ 11th)
Table 5-20 Recommendation of the Committee for the Verification of Decontamination
Content of Recommendation
1. Recommendations for safety and security of townspeople· Implementation and public announcement of radiation dose monitoring in town
For the safety and security of the townspeople, it is necessary to continue carrying out air dose
surveys and soil surveys in the town, and to make the results easy to understand, and publish themusing the town press newsletter and website etc.
· Construction of exposure dose management system
It is important to utilize individual cumulative dosimeters etc., owned by the town, to carry out
continuous radiation dose management of townspeople, and monitor health of the townspeople fromlong-term perspective.
· Establishment of consultation desk and promotion of risk communication activities
It is recommended to set up a consultation desk related to radiation, provide conscientious responses
322

from the perspective of townspeople.
It is important to hold periodically workshops or roundtable meetings, etc., on radiation to improve
the knowledge of townspeople and to promote understanding.
Source: Tomioka Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination “Tomioka Town Committee for
the Verification of Decontamination Report” (October, 2016)

Column“Verification by Tomioka Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination”
Mr. Kencho Kawatsu, member of committee

Tomioka Town is situated in the south to southwest within 20 km of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi
NPS. Its area was 68.47 km2, and population was 15,830 people (end of Mar. 2011). The entire town
was forced to evacuate due to the nuclear power station accident.
The Tomioka Town Committee for the Verification of Decontamination was launched on September
1, 2015 when full-scale decontamination has begun. The purpose was to collect and review
information on decontamination projects of MOE, consider if contamination was being reduced
effectively, and to have the work analyzed and verified by the town’s own initiative. Members of theverification committee were all experts on radiation. In addition, stakeholders from MOE, theReconstruction Agency, Fukushima Prefecture and Tomioka Town participated as observers.
Although the committee received explanations from MOE on the implementation of
decontamination works and exchanged opinions and verified things on-site, it was the common
understanding of members that “discussions would take the townspeople’s perspective.“
There was a big gap between the thinking toward scientific safety versus feelings of security of thetownspeople, but the discussion always considered how the townspeople think and feel, as well as
listening to the opinion of the town authorities.
In theprocess the committee

madeurgentrecommendations twice to Mr. Miyamoto, mayor of
Tomioka Town.
The recommendation included that Habitation
Restricted Areas (HRA) that were decontaminated andAreas where Returning is Difficult (ARD) that were notdecontaminated were separated by a single road in
residential areas, and during the period of consideration for lifting of evacuation orders, the residents
adjacent to the ARD were likely to hesitate to return, so it is necessary to conduct a certain degree of
decontamination work on areas adjacent to ARD. Also, there were places where high doses werelocally found in previously decontaminated residential areas, so the re-decontamination of those places
was requested.
With regard to these recommendations, Mayor Miyamoto made a request to MOE, and as a result,
MOE is promoting decontamination projects based on the intention of the town authorities andresidents, such as decontaminating 20 m from the living area of ARDs adjacent to HRAs.

323

The verification committee met nine times up to October 2016. It verified progress of
decontamination work and verified the recommendations, and the summarized report was submitted
to Mayor Miyamoto on October 4, 2016.
In this report, as a general review, the reduction of air dose rate by decontamination was confirmed
to a considerable extent, and it was acknowledged that the recovery of the environment for thetownspeople who wanted to return early was largely being done.
After that, this report was also reported to the “Tomioka Town Committee to Discuss Returning”
organized by stakeholders in the town, and it became important material for the decision as a town toaccept the lifting of the evacuation order in April 1, 2017.
Tomioka town lifted the evacuation order excluding the ARD on April 1, 2017, and the number oftownspeople returning to Tomioka town is gradually increasing, coupled with the development of
infrastructure and living environment
The Committee for the Verification of Decontamination will continue to discuss the following issues
which are important for the townspeople.
・ Issues affecting the lives of townspeople who have returned.
・ Decontamination of farmland, irrigation ponds, and forests.
・ Decontamination of ARD.

324

Purpose
Regarding decontamination, it was regarded as an important matter for the town under evacuation order,
and discussion was held in the form of all members of the town council, rather than creating a committee.
At the all members’ council, MOE provided explanations on proceeding with the decontamination, theimplementation status and impacts, etc.
Contents and features of main discussion
At the all members’ council, many reports were provided for the planning of the decontamination
implementation, and report also covered the status of progress and results of decontamination, and theresults of post decontamination monitoring and supplemental decontamination.
Reporting and discussions at the all members’ council fostered local understanding and helped topromote an understanding of local circumstances.
As decontamination and discussions on the lifting of evacuation orders progressed, the all members’
council often discussed decontamination as a part of discussions about the lifting of evacuation orders,along with infrastructure restoration and environmental improvements.

PurposeIn conducting decontamination, it is necessary to agree on the provision of temporary storage sites anddecontamination implementation, so it is necessary to give local residents prior explanations to seek theircooperation and understanding regarding decontamination towards the lifting of evacuation orders, post
decontamination monitoring, and supplemental decontamination, etc., so these were conducted in the formof direct dialogue with the residents at places of evacuation, etc.
Contents and features of main discussion(a) Special Decontamination Areas
It was necessary both to promptly start decontamination, and to conscientiously explain to residents toobtain their understanding. Therefore, meetings were held several times in each area, and in some cases,
held in areas where there were many evacuees.
The center of discussion at the beginning of the briefing sessions for residents was securing temporarystorage sites. Initially, areas such as national forests were used through cooperation between governments,
but various difficulties arose, including the amount of time required to prepare temporary storage sites,
securing roads for transport, and the yield of storage amounts. As a result, there were examples of being
able to accelerate decontamination work by returning to local residents seeking their cooperation to allow
farmland to be utilized for temporary storage sites.
Also, in conducting decontamination, it was necessary to obtain individual consent from each landowner,
but by explaining the decontamination method, etc., beforehand at community meetings, etc., it was325possible to shorten the time for individual consent acquisition. Through this, some municipalities made it
possible to start decontamination quickly.
On the other hand, there are strict opinions such as unconvinced decontamination method, insufficientdecontamination, reparation should be ahead, etc. In order to restore confidence for the government, notonly by the staff in charge but also with the cooperation of risk communication experts a great effort wasmade to provide explanations. Similar to the discussions at meetings of the Committee for the Verificationof Decontamination and the all-member council, community meetings also highlighted differences indemands in relation to different doses and regional circumstances. For example, the desire to have dam
reservoirs dredged was strong in municipalities that have a dam, but residents were able to better
understand the situation thanks to the efforts of municipalities and water management organizations
responsible for ensuring water quality. Also, upon requests by owners of pastureland to plant their own
seeds at the appropriate time and manage the pastures after topsoil removal, an enabling framework was
created by providing compensation.
(b) Intensive Contamination Survey Areas
In Intensive Contamination Survey Areas as well, where it was decided that discussion with residents
was necessary for the municipality to promote decontamination going forward, some municipalities heldcommunity meetings and explanatory meetings, similar to what was done in municipalities in Special
Decontamination Areas. In one city, the decontamination schedule was decided in advance by holding aworkshop-style decontamination implementation study meeting with the participation of the leaders of
local community organizations, etc. Based on the schedule, residents’ briefing sessions were held to obtainthe understanding of residents for the decontamination plan in each area.

In 2014, three years after the earthquake disaster, it was confirmed that in addition to the effects ofdecontamination work, air dose rates had also declined due to physical decay and weathering effects.
On the other hand, some issues were pointed out, as follows:(a) Implementation of decontamination and a reduction in the air dose rate have not necessarily led tothe elimination of residents’ anxiety. Especially, the idea that the numerical value of 0.23 μSv/h was thegoal of decontamination had spread widely and was causing anxiety.
(b) The scope and method of decontamination may differ depending on the municipality, which is one
reason for the sense of unfairness and distrust among residents.
(c) In order to further accelerate reconstruction, it is necessary for local governments’ policy not to focus
only on decontamination but also on environmental restoration and reconstruction.
For this reason, the government (MOE and Reconstruction Agency) and four cities (Fukushima City,
Koriyama City, Soma City, and Date City) collaborated to obtain advice from experts and summarize thefindings to date. A study group was organized to discuss opinions on decontamination and other aspects ofradiation protection, and a discussion meeting with experts was held on June 15, 2014. On August 1, 2014,
an “Interim report of the efforts of the four cities and the national government toward acceleration of
decontamination and reconstruction” was issued. Based on the discussions and consultation of opinions at326

the study meetings and meetings with experts, it compiled information on the effects of decontamination,
the relationship between air dose rate and individual exposure dose, and the decontamination goals
indicated by the government, and summarized the improvement of radiation protection focused on
individual exposure doses, enhancing risk communication, resolving anxiety about reconstruction andenvironmental remediation, and the overall promotion of radiation prevention measures.
In addition, fact books were made that organized related findings with an interim report.

327

Verification by International Institutions

IAEA International Mission
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an international organization, came to Japan in
October 2011 to review decontamination work in Japan and provide advice. Its findings were summarized
in the report “IAEA International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-Site the
Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP.”
The report covers 9 highlights of important progress and 12 points of advice.
Table 5-21 Examples of 9 fields showing important progress and 12 points of advice in “IAEA
International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-site the Fukushima Daiichi NPP”
【Examples of nine highlights of important progress】
The team appreciates that Japan has been going forward very quickly and with the allocation of thenecessary resources (legal, economic and technological) to develop an efficient programme for
remediation to bring relief to the people affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Priority
has been given to children and to those areas where they typically spend most of their time.
· The Fukushima Decontamination Promotion Team, consisting of resident staff in Fukushima from
the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Local Emergency Response HQs and the Japan
Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), shares information and coordinates with the relevant ministries
and agencies, communicating with and providing technical support to the Fukushima Prefecture
and relevant municipalities. The Team welcomes the Japanese efforts to establish a practicalcatalogue of remediation techniques.
· The team believes that using demonstration sites to test and evaluate various decontamination
methods is a very useful tool to support the decision-making process.
【Examples of 12 points of advice】· The Japanese authorities involved in the remediation strategy are encouraged to cautiously balance
the different factors that influence the net benefit of the remediation measures to ensure dose
reduction. They are encouraged to avoid over-conservatism which could not effectively contributeto the reduction of exposure doses. This goal could be achieved through the practicalimplementation of the Principles of Justification and Optimization under the prevailingcircumstances. Involving more radiation protection experts (and the Regulatory Body) in theorganizational structures that assist the decision makers might be beneficial in the fulfillment of
this objective. The IAEA is ready to support Japan in considering revised , new and appropriate
criteria.
· It is appropriate to consider further strengthening coordination among the main actors through theestablishment of a more permanent liaison between the organizational structures of theGovernment of Japan and the prefectural and municipal authorities.
· Before investing substantial time and efforts in remediating forest areas, a safety assessment
should be carried out to indicate if such action leads to a reduction of doses for the public. If not,efforts should be concentrated in areas that bring greater benefits. This safety analysis should make328

use of the results of the demonstration tests.

IAEA International Follow-up Mission
In October 2013, an international follow-up mission team came to Japan for the main purpose ofevaluating the progress of the on-going remediation works achieved since the previous mission in October
2011. The report was published on January 23, 2014.
Table 5-22 Example of 13 items highlighting important progress and eight points of advice in “TheFollow-up IAEA International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-site the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant”【Examples of 13 highlights of important progress】· The Team acknowledges the institutional arrangements implemented by Japan to address theremediation needs of the areas affected by TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. The Teamappreciates that Japan makes enormous efforts to implement the remediation programme in orderto reduce exposures to people in the affected areas, to enable, stimulate and support the return ofpeople evacuated after the accident, and to support the affected municipalities in overcoming
economic and social disruptions. The review Team recognizes the involvement of a wide range ofministries and agencies, as well as institutions of the municipalities, to support remediation by
providing financial resources, technical guidance and institutional assistance.
· The Team welcomes the critical evaluation of the efficiency of the removal of contaminated material
compared with the reduction in dose rate offered by different methods of decontamination,
recognizing that this is an important tool in the application of decontamination methods. In
addition, the Team notes a welcome change from guiding remediation efforts based on surface
contamination reduction, to a reduction in air dose rates. This is leading some municipalities toconclude that an additional 1 mSv/y is more applicable to long-term dose reduction goals.
· The Mission Team found significant progress in the development and implementation of temporarystorage facilities by municipalities and the national government for contaminated materials
generated by on-going remediation activities. In addition, the Mission Team notes the progress
made towards the establishment of Interim Storage Facility by the national government with thecooperation of municipalities and local communities.
【Examples of 8 points of advice】· Japanese institutions are encouraged to increase efforts to communicate that in remediation
situations, any level of individual radiation dose in the range of 1 to 20 mSv/y is acceptable and inline with the international standards and with the recommendations from the relevant internationalorganizations, e.g. ICRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR and WHO. The appropriate application of the
optimization principle in a remediation strategy, and its practical implementation, requires abalance of all factors that influence the situation, with the aim of obtaining the maximum benefit
for the health and safety of the people affected. These facts have to be considered in communication
with the public, in order to achieve a more realistic perception of radiation and related risks among
the population. The Government should strengthen its efforts to explain to the public that an329

additional individual dose of 1 mSv/y is a long-term goal, and that it cannot be achieved in a shorttime, e.g. solely by decontamination work. A step-by-step approach should be taken towards
achieving this long-term goal. The benefits of this strategy, which would allow resources to bereallocated to the recovery of essential infrastructure to enhance living conditions, should be
carefully communicated to the public. The IAEA – and very likely also the international scientificcommunity – is ready to support Japan in this challenging task.

Director’s Report on Fukushima Daiichi Accident
On August 31, 2015, the IAEA published the final report of the Director General that summarizes
TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. For the restoration of the off-site environment affected by
the accident, the following summary has been prepared.
Table 5-23 Summary of “Director General’s Report on the Fukushima Daiichi Accident”• The long term goal of post-accident recovery is to re-establish an acceptable basis for a fully
functioning society in the affected areas. Consideration needs to be given to remediation of the areas
affected by the accident in order to reduce radiation doses, consistent with adopted reference levels.
In preparing for the return of evacuees, factors such as the restoration of infrastructure and theviability and sustainable economic activity of the community need to be considered.
· Prior to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, policies and strategies for post-accident remediation were
not in place in Japan, and it became necessary to develop them in the period after the accident. The
remediation policy was enacted by the Government of Japan in August 2011. It assigned
responsibilities to the national and local governments, the operator and the public, and created thenecessary institutional arrangements for the implementation of a coordinated work programme.
• A remediation strategy was developed and implementation began. The strategy specifies that priority
areas for remediation are residential areas, including buildings and gardens, farmland, roads andinfrastructure, with emphasis on the reduction of external exposures. External dose fromradionuclides deposited on the ground and other surfaces is the main pathway of exposure. The
remediation strategy is therefore focused on decontamination activities to reduce the levels ofradiocesium present in priority areas, thereby reducing the potential for such exposures. Internal
doses continue to be controlled by restrictions on food, as well as through remediation activities on
agricultural land.
• Following the accident, the authorities in Japan adopted a ‘reference level’ as a target level of dose
for the overall remediation strategy. This level was consistent with the lower end of the range
specified in international guidance. The application of a low reference level has the effect ofincreasing the quantity of contaminated materials generated in remediation activities, and thereby
increasing the costs and the demands on limited resources. The experience obtained in Japan could
be used in developing practical guidance on the application of international safety standards in postaccident recovery situations.
• Two categories of contaminated areas were defined on the basis of additional annual doses estimatedin the autumn of 2011. The national Government was assigned responsibility for formulating andimplementing remediation plans in the first area (the ‘Special Decontamination Area’) — within aradius of 20 km of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi site and in areas where additional annual doses

330arising from contamination on the ground were projected to exceed 20 mSv/y in the first year after
the accident. The municipalities were given responsibility for implementing remediation activities in
the other area (the ‘Intensive Contamination Survey Area’), where the additional annual doses were
projected to exceed 1 mSv/y but to remain below 20 mSv/y. Specific dose reduction goals were set,
including a long term goal of achieving an additional annual dose of 1 mSv/y or less.
IAEA-MOE Experts Meeting on Environmental Remediation
The MOE received experts from the IAEA and conducted total four expert meetings up to November
2017, in order to effectively implement environmental remediation efforts such as decontamination, toobtain knowledge and advice from international and professional perspectives, and to share the experiencesof Japan with the international community.
After each meeting, a summary report was published by the IAEA, and the summary of the meeting andrecommendations on future environmental recovery activities of affiliated authorities in Japan were made.
Table 5-24 Implementation status of IAEA-MOE Experts Meeting on Environmental Remediation
No.
1st

Date
February 2016

2nd

November 2016

3rd

April 2017

4th

November 2017

Major agenda·Environment recovery in Fukushima Prefecture and neighborhood after
TEPCO nuclear power station accident· Status of examination concerning volume reduction and recycling
technology etc. of decontamination soil
·About treatment of designated waste·"Report on decontamination" (prepared in FY2014)·Environment recovery in Fukushima Prefecture and neighborhood after
TEPCO nuclear power station accident· Status of examination concerning volume reduction and recycling
technology etc. of decontamination soil
· Knowledge management on environment recovery (knowledge
management)·Environment recovery in Fukushima prefecture and neighborhood after
TEPCO nuclear power station accident·Lessons learned from environmental conservation (1) - What does the data
in Date City speak?
·Lessons learned from environmental conservation (2) - How should theeffect of full-scale decontamination be evaluated?
· Lessons learned from the environment (3) - How to share relevant
technologies and lessons to the international community。
•Latest status of environmental recovery activities and plans for the future•Lessons learned from environmental recovery activities (Decontamination
business magazine)•Communication of local stakeholders in the decision making process andenvironmental restoration activities to the international community•Follow-up the recommendations of the IAEA experts at the 3rd expert
meeting331

After each meeting, the summary report was made public by the IAEA, summarizing the results of themeeting and recommendations for relevant Japanese authorities on future environmental recovery
activities.
Table 5-25 Summary Report of the 3rd IAEA-MOE Experts Meeting on Environmental Remediation(excerpt)· The overall process of environmental remediation was strongly influenced by interactions withstakeholders to facilitate the return of evacuees to their homes and the provision of sustainable living
conditions.
· A broad range of techniques were used in the remediation strategies according to the specific objects
being decontaminated (e.g., houses and buildings, gardens, roads, schoolyards, farmlands, forests).
· The IAEA team concluded that MOE has made significant progress with the remediation in the offsite
areas affected by the accident, and that steady progress on the ISF construction and soil/wastetransportation to this facility has been made. The milestone, namely, the completion of the “full-scale”
decontamination in the SDA was achieved by MOE, and because of this achievement, manymunicipalities in the SDA have had their evacuation orders lifted.
· The remediation process in the ICSA was implemented by the municipalities with the support of MOE.
In this regard, the accumulated experience and the ways of remediation work might have differed frommunicipality to municipality depending on prevailing circumstances in each of them.
· The IAEA team views that it is important for MOE to continue its efforts to share its experience of the“full scale” decontamination with both national and international communities through developing aseries of decontamination reports.
· Immediately after the accident, the mayor of Date City, with the support of the local community,
decided to use municipality funds to implement immediate remediation works to protect the citizens
from exposure to ionizing radiation and to promote the return of the citizens to their normal lives assoon as possible. The decisions were made in the absence of pre-established laws or guidelines. The
creation of the first Temporary Storage Site took place in October 2011 after an intense process ofengagement with the technical experts (invited by Date City) and local stakeholders. At the present
moment, there are 50 Temporary Storage Sites totaling 29 ha in inhabited areas.
· The IAEA team is of the opinion that experience accumulated by the municipalities regarding theengagement with the communities and interaction with the national government is of high relevanceto illustrate practical aspects of stakeholder-related issues in a mass scale remediation effort after amajor nuclear accident.
· The IAEA team believes that the remediation efforts implemented in Date City, in particular, the early
initiation of the decontamination of the school yards and houses are worth being highlighted. In thisrespect, the IAEA team notes that the Mayor’s leadership and support from members of the public
were the important factors that together contributed to the expedient implementation of protective andremedial actions.
· There were some key aspects of the remediation programme in Date City, such as: an objective toreturn to normal life as soon as possible being shared among the Mayer, municipal government and332

the citizens; the active role of the Decontamination Promotion Centers; the direct involvement oftrusted and recognized experts; and the availability of financial resources within the local budget.
· It was also reported by the officials of Date City that the municipality faced various challenges toimplement the remediation works, including the lack of proper national remediation policy andresponse framework; the influence of sometimes contradicting information in mass media; and the lackof practical experience in remediation and management of large volumes of the residual radioactive
materials.
· The MOE explained that it would continue to manage the removed soil and to monitor the effects ofremediation, and, whenever necessary, implement supplemental remediation and measures for
reducing radiation doses in forests· It would be more useful if the data of different cities (under different circumstances) could bepresented, so that a better understanding of the variability in the effectiveness of the work done could
be captured and subsequently analyzed.
· The classification of the amounts of soil according to the radioactivity concentration intervals was
based on information about where the soils came from and not on individual determinations of theradioactivity concentration of the materials contained in each bag. It is advisable to consider theadequateness of establishing straightforward procedures for sampling and analyzing soils in the bags.
· Reduction in ambient dose rates did not necessarily lead to proportional reductions in individual doses,
due to variability in the living habits of citizens in the affected areas and the spatial distribution of thecontamination.
· The IAEA team emphasized the need to consider individual doses, as measured with personal
dosimeters, to support remediation decisions. It would be appropriate to recommend an optimized
monitoring programme to follow the behavior of the affected media (soil, vegetation, etc.).
· The IAEA team learned from the experience of the “Investigation Committee” created by Tomioka
Town to examine and verify the results of remediation works carried out by MOE in that municipality.
The Japanese presenter explained that, upon return, the evacuees would likely resume their normal
activities, including farming and the consumption of locally produced food items.
· In all actions implemented by MOE, the stakeholder engagements were an essential part of theremediation process. Many of the decisions were driven by the stakeholders, especially in the Intensive
Contamination Survey Areas where the municipalities were in charge of remediation. Some of the
adopted decisions are being reconsidered by the stakeholders in terms of their appropriateness· The IAEA team noted that it would be helpful for 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.
· It is evident that progress is continuously being made with the remediation activities in Japan, and amilestone for completing the planned decontamination has been met on the timescales originallyforeseen. Major challenges remain in the future management of the decontamination wastes and soils.

333Japan has arrangements with the United States, United Kingdom, France, Ukraine and Belarus throughbilateral agreements and joint declarations signed at bilateral summits, regarding strengthening
cooperation when Japan is engaged in decontamination and reactor decommissioning. For each bilateral
partner, Japan holds meetings with government officials and experts participating about once a year.
Each time, MOE also dispatches personnel to share information with these countries on progress andprospects on decontamination and interim storage projects as well as experience and knowledge gained
through these projects.
With regard to the United States, three experts from that country were hosted by MOE in Japan in
February and March 2013, as part of cooperation on decontamination.
The three experts visited decontamination sites and related organizations and received information on
the current status of decontamination in Japan. They also provided expertise and advice based on
experiences in the U.S.
In addition, in July 2013, a “Japan-US Workshop” was held with the aim of sharing the latest technology
and knowledge between Japan and the United States, for the purpose of future use for decontamination,etc. The government officials and experts from Japan and the US shared knowledge and exchanged viewson themes such as the behavior of cesium in the environment, stakeholder communication, monitoring anddata management, and decontamination and environmental restoration processes. The findings obtained
here were reported at the Committee on Environmental Remediation in August of the same year and were
utilized for examining policies for decontamination.

334

Situation After Decontamination

In Fukushima City, starting in FY2011, municipalities have been ascertaining radiation doses frompersonal dosimeters, mainly for children and pregnant women.
The annual individual dose is decreasing from year to year, and about 99.4% 45 (sample size about
3,000 persons)in Fukushima City were found to have a rate of 1 mSv/y or less in FY2017.
0.2 mSv or less

0.3 mSv or more

FY2014FY2015FY2016FY2017

Figure 5-34 Annual trend in 3-month additional exposure dose for all ages 45

Measures against radioactive substances in drinking water and well water① Tap water
Regarding tap water, the World Health Organization (WHO) indicates a guidance level for radioactive
substances in drinking water, and Japan uses the same control target value of 10 Bq/L (total of 134Cs and
137Cs).
Currently, tap water is inspected for radioactive substances by each water supplier, and according tomonitoring inspection results 46 so far, radioactive cesium exceeding 10 Bq/L has not been detected in tap
water (purified water) since June 2011, and not in raw water since May 2011.
In addition, radioactive cesium was detected in dam reservoir sediment, which raised concerns about tap
water safety.
For example, at the Koyama Water Purification Plant managed by the Futaba Regional Water Supply
Corporation, monitors radioactive substances, and no radioactive substances have been detected frompurified water to date.
② Well water
According to an urgent survey 47 conducted on groundwater in the affected areas in Fukushima
Prefecture, neither radioactive iodine (131I) nor radioactive cesium (134Cs, 137Cs) were detected.
Also, from the measurement results 48 of radiation monitoring action plans for Preparation Areas for45

Fukushima Prefecture, “FY2017 Summary of Fukushima City Glass Badge Measurement Result” (March, 2018).
Fukushima Reconstruction Station "Drinking water monitoring result / related
information"(http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/ps-drinkingwater-monitoring.html)
47
MOE "Measurement results of radioactive substance concentration in monitoring survey of groundwater quality in
Fukushima Prefecture (1st report - 4th report)" (June 21, July 7, July 14, August 4, 2011 )48
MOE, “Radioactive Substance Monitoring Action Plan.” (http://www.env.go.jp/jishin/monitoring/actionplan.html)
46335

Lifting of Evacuation Orders (FY2012, drinking well water, etc., in Minamisoma City, Tamura City),
radioactive cesium was not detected exceeding a reference value (10 Bq/L ) from the drinking wells.
③ Stream water
It was decided to strengthen the monitoring of stream water used by residents in Special
Decontamination Areas in the report of “On the immediate arrangement of future decontamination
methods in forests” (September, 2012 Committee on Environment Remediation), so a monitoring surveyof radioactive substances in stream water49 was started for the purpose of confirming safety starting in
December 2012.
Radioactive cesium exceeding the target value (10 Bq/L) of drinking water has not been detected instream water since September 2013.

Figure 5-35 Example of sampling point of stream water (Iitate Village)
Thorough food inspection system
Considering dietary habits and population age in Japan, the standard value of radioactive materials infood is set lower than in Western countries as a value to ensure safety regardless of what kind of food, andthorough examination is carried out so as not to distribute foods that exceed standards.
Standard value of radioactive cesium in foodJapan
Standard(.2012.4~)

Codex
Alimentary
Commission

EU

USA

Korea

Drinking
water
Milk
Food
Baby
food
unit: Bq/kg

Figure 5-36 Standard value for food safety
Source: MOE, National Institute of Radiological Sciences “Unified basic data on radiation health effects, etc.
Part I Basic knowledge of radiation and health effects (2014 revised edition, edition July 2015)49

MOE “ Monitoring results of stream water”

http://www.env.go.jp/jishin/monitoring/results_r-mr.html）

336

Fukushima Prefecture constructed systems that allow only safe agricultural, forestry and fisheryproducts to be distributed and consumed by conducting emergency environmental radiation monitoringsuch as agricultural, forestry and fishery products by national guidelines, and inspection of radioactive
substances of agricultural, forestry and fishery products including full inspection of rice bags.
According to the results of over 10,000 monitoring tests of vegetables, fruits, livestock, and theinspection of more than 400,000 bags of brown rice in FY2016, nothing exceeded the regulated standards
except for one case of vegetables and· fruits, one case of wild vegetables and mushrooms, and two casesof fish from rivers and lakes.

Figure 5-37 Example of inspection result of radioactive materials of agricultural, forestry and fisheryproducts
Source: Fukushima Prefecture ‘History of Fukushima Reconstruction’ Summary Edition <21st Edition>‘(November, 2017)337

Explanation

Changes in public perception of the safety of the air and water environment in Fukushima
Prefecture

According to public opinion polls conducted by Fukushima Prefecture, it is becoming clear thatpublic perceptions about the safety of the water and atmospheric environment are recovering to levels
that existed before the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS accident, although there were some differencesin perception depending on the region.

FY2010FY2014FY2011FY2015Whole area of
Fukushima Pref.

Aizu area

FY2012FY2016FY2013Naka-dori area

Hama-dori area

The Fukushima Prefectural opinion polls asked, “Do you think that a safe living environment issecured with respect to environmental pollution such as water and the atmosphere where you live?”
Graph shows the percentage of respondents answering “Yes” or “Somewhat yes” (respondents under
20 years of age and non-responses are excluded).
Note that the bar for FY2010 indicates survey results before the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Source: Fukushima Prefectural Center for Environmental Creation

338

5.4. Risk Communication
Risk Communication Initiatives
Risk communication involves mutual communication with all stakeholders, such as citizens, industry,
government, etc., and its purpose is not to convince others to accept one’s own opinion.
Also, it is not necessarily intended to result in consensus among all parties concerned. Rather, risk
communication is a process of deepening trust and understanding. 50
Decontamination, etc., can be better promoted with an understanding and the cooperation of not only
landowners and other stakeholders, but also local residents, municipal councils, administrative districts,
and mayors, etc.
It was also important to pay particular attention to the media response that may affect it.
The MOE and municipalities both worked on risk communication in Special Decontamination Areas,
and the municipalities did so in Intensive Contamination Survey Areas.
It was decided to hold explanatory meetings for residents, etc., at each stage of formulation of
decontamination implementation plans, Temporary Storage Site selection, monitoring, decontamination
implementation, control of removed soil, etc., and verification of effectiveness, etc. There was repeateddialogue with the residents. Depending on the scale and contamination situation of municipalities, anddepending on the municipality, explanatory meetings for residents, plus round-table meetings, andworkshops, etc., were carried out more than once a week and more than 100 times a year, using weekday
evenings and weekends.
Selection of the Temporary Storage Sites was the biggest challenge in radiation risk communication, but
it was a valuable experience for the communities to promote decontamination, since the government andthe residents shared issues with each other, established relationships to cooperate in the selection ofcandidate sites, and monitoring of temporary storage sites, etc.
The Decontamination Information Plaza (now the Environmental Regeneration Plaza) was establishedin January 2012 as a base for accurate information on radiation and decontamination, jointly by MOE andFukushima Prefecture, and its management was entrusted to a private company.
It could conduct projects such as public relations relating to decontamination and the dispatch of experts
in a different position from the government, and take on the role of experts, facilitators, etc., in risk
communication.
Below is an introduction of the details of what was implemented by the national government, prefecture,etc., as systems to support risk communication implemented on site by cities, towns and villages, etc., plus
information tools created for risk communication.
Since the circumstances surrounding radioactive contamination countermeasures (decontamination),including the understanding and anxiety about radiation have been changing since the occurrence of theaccident in March 2011 to the present, for the sake of convenience, the description of the societal situation
surrounding radiation and responses to it are divided into stages based on the period of the decontamination
work.
・Emergency Response Period ~ Preparation Period for Decontamination (from TEPCO Fukushima

50

MOE "Chemical Substance Advisor Certification Review Text (2008 version)”

339

Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident to enforcement of the Act on Special Measures: from March toaround December 2011)
Areas under Evacuation Orders were set up and concern about the radiation of the whole prefecture
continued, it was thoroughly requested to provide basic and correct information on radiation to reduce
anxiety.
・Decontamination Initial Period ~ Decontamination Promotion Period (from after the Act on
Special Measures enforcement to Revision of Decontamination Implementation Plan: from January
2012 to December 2013)
Full implementation of the Act on Special Measures, review of Areas under Evacuation Orders, andformulation of Decontamination Implementation Plans, etc., were conducted and preliminary
decontamination, whole area decontamination, securing Temporary Storage Sites, etc., were started.
・ Decontamination acceleration period (previous term) (from after revision of decontamination
plan to Lifting of Evacuation Orders started: from January 2014 to around September 2015)
In Special Decontamination Areas, the workers engaged in decontamination peaked at an average ofabout 20,000 per day from the summer to fall of 2014.
Reorganization of Areas under Evacuation Orders, etc., was carried out, pilot transportation, etc., toInterim Storage Facility, etc., started.
・ Decontamination acceleration period (late stage) (From Lifting of Evacuation Orders start toCompletion of whole area decontamination: from October 2015 to around March 2017)
Whole area decontamination of the municipalities in some Areas under Evacuation Orders wascompleted and the return of residents began.
・ Supplemental period after decontamination (from end of whole area decontamination onward:
from April 2017 to date)
In Special Decontamination Areas, whole area decontamination was completed, and evacuation orders
were lifted in nine municipalities that were under evacuation orders, excluding Areas where Returning is
Difficult.
In Intensive Contamination Survey Areas, decontamination was completed in most areas.

340

(From the accident to enforcement of the Act on Special Measures: from March to around December
2011 )
Societal situation surrounding decontamination and radiation
In the first experience of having to cope with radioactive substances and radiation released into theenvironment, confusion occurred due to contradictory information or the lack of information provided tosociety and residents.
Also, since the reliability of the radiation measuring instruments was not necessarily high, there was
confusion, including a lack of confidence in measurement results from the national and prefectural
governments.
Therefore, it was important to properly communicate the situation of the radiation in the environment,such as how people were affected, how to protect oneself from released radioactive substances, and how
to remove radioactive substances, and there was a need to promptly provide information and takecountermeasures against such things through trial and error in various places.
In particular, prefectural officials, municipal officials, districts, chairpersons of neighborhood
associations, etc., who were in direct contact with the residents, conducted vigorous explanations on thecurrent situation and provided advice for reducing radiation exposure to residents through explanatory
meetings, etc., referring to the information from the national government / prefecture or the opinions ofexperts who have personal connections, without sufficient information themselves.
Prior to the start of full-scale decontamination work by the national and local governments, it wasnecessary to arrange and provide methods for reducing the radiation dose with details that can be
implemented by residents and volunteers who wanted to support Fukushima.
Main efforts(a) Establishment of call centers
In December 2011, MOE opened call centers in Tokyo and Fukushima in order to respond to inquiries
concerning decontamination and waste from the people in and outside of the disaster area.
In order to promptly and uniformly respond to various inquiries, a system was set-up to respond by usinga Q & A manual and report the contents of the response to MOE by daily report.
Immediately after the establishment of the call centers (from opening in December 2011 by March 31,2012), there were 2,233 inquiries ranging from decontamination, radiation, and air dose, to disaster waste.
From June 2017, it has been operating as the “Contact Desk for Decontamination and Interim Storage
Facility.”(b) Other efforts
Fukushima Prefecture compiled information necessary for decontamination work, etc., as “Guidelines”
and disseminated information so that prefectural residents themselves can decontaminate living spaces
close to schools such as school routes.
In addition, a regional dialogue forum was held in collaboration with the Atomic Energy Society ofJapan and various cities in the prefecture in order to resolve residents’ anxieties and doubts concerning341

radiation influences and decontamination, and to foster safety and security.
Fukushima Prefecture dispatched experts, etc., to gatherings at neighborhood associations, etc., assupport for holding explanatory meetings for residents from October 2011 onward.
In Intensive Contamination Survey Areas, municipalities conducted explanations on decontamination.
Each municipality responded to questions about radiation, provided basic information on radiation,
explained the situation of radiation dose, gave advice for radiation protection, and promoted theunderstanding of radioactive materials released into the environment and their countermeasures(decontamination), through explanatory meetings for residents, etc., while referring to information fromthe national government and prefecture, opinions of experts, etc.
Table 5-26 Main information providing tool list during emergency response period todecontamination preparation period
Publisher

Name of tool

Fukushima
Prefecture“Guidance on
countermeasuresagainst radiationdose reduction inlivingspace“ (overview
brochure, detailed
version)Overview
A brochure compiled inan easy-to-understandmanner so that it can beutilized fordecontamination work offamiliar living space sothat the residents candecontaminate
themselves.

First
production
date

July 2011(From the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures to the revision of the Decontamination Implementation
Plans: from January 2012 to around December 2013 )Societal situation surrounding decontamination and radiation
Full implementation of the Act on Special Measures, review of Areas under Evacuation Orders, andformulation of Decontamination Implementation Plans, etc., were conducted, and preliminary
decontamination, whole area decontamination, securing temporary storage sites, etc., were started. Under
such circumstances, it was important to explain decontamination about method, removal soil treatment,
storage (temporary storage sites), etc. Regarding radiation it was necessary to explain the dynamic behaviorof radioactive cesium in the environment in an easy-to-understand manner and provide information, easy
to understand, based on their structure, measured data, dynamics of radioactive cesium, etc. to a wide target
for responding questions and anxiety about the safety of temporary storage sites that is how much radiation
effect to the air and groundwater by the construction. It was necessary to deal with the concern about
improper decontamination.

342

Table 5-27 Main comments heard at Decontamination Information Plaza (2012)· When will my house be decontaminated?

I want it to be decontaminated sooner.

· There is a high dose spot in my neighborhood. Please remove it promptly.
· I understand the necessity of decontamination, but I do not want the temporary storage site to beconstructed a nearby my house.
· How far along is the decontamination now?
· What is thinking of decontamination of forests and rivers?
· How will the decontamination be done in each municipality?
· How many years will decontamination take?
· Why is it different in progress among each municipalities?
· Is there any decontamination method that we can do ourselves by learning the basics about
decontamination and radiation?
· At school, decontamination including replacement of soil in the schoolyard has been completed, butwhat should be done about trees?
· For decontaminating the route to school by the community, I want guidance and advice.
· How long will it take to decontaminate a house?
· I would like you to disseminate more publicity and information about the progress of
decontamination.
· I would like you to transmit more about correct knowledge information regarding radiation.
And so on

343

Table 5-28 Main comments heard at Decontamination Information Plaza (2013)· I think that young people will not return home even after decontamination.
· Decontamination seems to be ineffective, so I think I will refuse decontamination of my home. Is it
really effective?
· I am watching to see the air dose in Fukushima every day on television, and it exceeds 1 μSv/h every
day, so decontamination has no effectiveness.
· I am afraid the water from decontaminating of the roadside gutters is flowing downstream andcontaminate rivers and the sea.
· I am afraid the radioactive cesium blows from mountains, not decontaminated, and re-contaminates
the area.
· Regarding progress of the decontamination under the direct control of the government, acquiringconsent has been taking time.
· Decontamination in each municipality has not advanced much.
· I’ve heard that decontamination is not progressed because the places for temporary storage sites
cannot be found.
· It seems that decontamination of areas where municipal government and residents get along well is
progressing.
· I’ve heard that there is lack of decontamination workers.
· It is strange that the decontamination method is different from each municipality in Fukushima
Prefecture. The government should decide the most complete way, and it should be done uniformly
under the responsibility of the government.
· The degree of contamination in Fukushima don’t have to be required decontamination. This should
be strongly publicized. You should focus on education.
· The national government should take the responsibility to more strongly publicize the safety ofFukushima.
And so on.

Main efforts① Establishment of Decontamination Information Plaza
In collaboration with Fukushima Prefecture, MOE opened “Decontamination Information Plaza” (DIP,
now the Environment Restoration Plaza ERP) in January 2012 near Fukushima Station for the purpose ofproviding accurate and up-to-date information on decontamination and radiation promptly and clearly, andestablished a steering committee consisted of experts.

344

Municipalities, Communities, School etc.

Decontamination Information Plaza
Dispatch ofProvideexperts
information on
Mobileradiation anddecontamination. exhibition

Communication
with thecommunity

Steering Committee for Decontamination Information Plaza[Collaborating organization:
Japan Atomic Energy
Agency(JAEA)]

MOE Fukushima
Regional
Environmental Office

Fukushima Prefecture

Figure 5-38 Structure of the Decontamination Information PlazaThe Plaza began efforts to promote communication with the community through various activities. For
example, it provided displays and materials on decontamination and radiation; organized workshops anddiscussion meetings; dispatched experts to local governments and local communities; provided support tolocal governments engaged in decontamination to explain things to residents; and responded to inquiries
from the community.
For the general public and businesses, as well as prefectural, municipal and educational personnel, thePlaza also started to make presentations on radiation and decontamination, provide on-site advice, offer
movable displays, and promote the exchange of opinions (Positive Cafe) by residents and local non-profit
organizations. It also prepared and distributed publications entitled “For Volunteers Participating in
Decontamination” to answer concerns of volunteers.
Experts from the Cleanup Subcommittee of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan volunteers on weekends
and holidays, totaling a cumulative 800 volunteers from March 2012 to the end of 2017.
The Plaza also interviewed people involved in decontamination and other Fukushima recovery efforts,
and published the “Decontamination Activity Report.”345

Figure 5-39 Example of “Decontamination Activity Report”
Currently, through exchanging opinions with local governments in the prefecture, the Plaza is fulfillingthe function of sharing and developing good practices related to decontamination with other local
governments and provides materials and information necessary for municipalities to explain
decontamination to residents, and has been supporting in public relation to explain decontamination andunderstanding of radiation.
In addition, as the decontamination work progresses, the information necessary for local residents has
gradually changed from explanations on decontamination and radiation, etc., and in recent years, it has
become necessary to foster a radiation protection culture in society as a whole (improvement of radiation
literacy), establishing and strengthening the explanation, advice, and awareness-raising functions by local
governments and familiar persons (counselors, local government officials, school teachers, workers andorganizations, community leaders, etc.) who have gained the trust of residents, and continuing activities
such as dispatching experts under the cooperation of related organizations such as Atomic Energy Societyof Japan.

346

Table 5-29 Number of visitors to the “Decontamination Information Plaza”
FY2011
Number of visitors

FY2012

1,001

FY2013
1）

5,899

6,699

FY2014FY2015FY2016FY2017

4,027

3,560

2,648

546

Note:1. From February to March 2014, students from 47 prefectures visited the“Decontamination Information Plaza” as part of the “Kikkake Bus 47”
project.
2. From February 2012 to June 30, 2017

Source: Decontamination Information Plaza “Plaza’s activity record (January 20, 2012 to June 30, 2017)”

Table 5-30 Trend of number of Experts dispatched by Decontamination Information Plaza
Attendance
attributes

Main contents

FY2011FY2012

Advice atdecontamination
30 cases
2 cases
1,311
Municipality site
78 persons
Training session
persons
on radiation
Training session
6 cases 14 caseson radiation
460
800
Company
Support for
persons
persons
monitoring100
9 cases
GeneralTraining session
cases
532
on radiation
4,786
publicpersons
persons
Training session
1 case59 caseson radiation
40
4,672
Educator
Support for
persons
persons
monitoring
Training session
1 case6 casesonradiation,
150
415
Prefecture
decontamination persons
persons
209
19 cases
cases
Total
1,260
11,984
persons
personsNote) from January 20, 2012 to June 30, 2017

FY2013

FY2014FY2015FY2016FY201743 cases
1,434
persons

90 cases
1,960
persons

38 cases918
persons

37 cases
1,654
persons

3 cases68
persons

8 cases372
persons

5 cases134
persons

1 case34
persons

18 cases762
persons

0 case0 person

88 cases
2,721
persons

30 cases824
persons

51 cases2,148
persons

40 cases
1,859
persons

5 cases105
persons

80 cases
5,288
persons

18 cases
1,740
persons

33 cases
1,510
persons
208
cases
11,073
persons

3 cases50
persons

114
cases
5,987
persons
4 cases23
persons257
cases
10,537
persons

99 cases
7,139
persons
33 cases
1,382
persons257
cases
11,439persons

140
cases
10,732
persons
32 cases
1,781
persons262
cases
15,613
persons

29 cases
1,963
persons

Source: Decontamination Information Plaza “Plaza's past activity record (from January 20, 2012 to June 30, 2017)”

Table 5-31

Trend of number of mobile exhibition by Decontamination Information PlazaFY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Number of
87
106
143
102
78
7
venuesOpening days
166
123
166
115
92
8
Number of

18,821
visitors
Note) from July 2012 to June 30, 2017

10,624

10,633

9,328

5,232

728

Source: Decontamination Information Plaza “Plaza's past activity record (from January 20, 2012 to June 30, 2017)”

347

② Establishment of Decontamination Information Website
In order to disseminate information mainly to residents, MOE launched a website entitled “Information
Site on Environmental Contamination by the Radioactive Materials” (currently the Decontamination
Information Website) in January 2012, and presented it as a portal site to aggregate and transmit
information and tools on decontamination work, updated daily. The website design and functions were
updated and enhanced to respond to information needs.
This website provided visual material on the purpose and methods of decontamination, progress of
decontamination, handling of processed material, and provided information on seminars and conferences,
guidelines, etc., with the aim of being a one-stop source of information. Pamphlets and other referencematerials and links to the relevant government websites were also posted.
[Main contents of Decontamination Information Website]· Decontamination progress map, progress and supplemental on decontamination work, Interim
Storage Facility information, etc.
· Programs, events, etc. (TV, radio, Internet, etc.)· Policy documents and guidelines· Links to relevant government agencies and municipalities

Figure 5-40 Decontamination Information Website
Source: MOE “Decontamination Information Website348(http://josen.env.go.jp/)

In January 2013, MOE launched an English version of the “Decontamination Information Website” as“Off-site Decontamination Measures” (now: “Environmental Remediation”) to distribute information
overseas.

Figure 5-41 “Environmental Remediation” English version of “Decontamination Information
Website”
Source：MOE「Environmental Remediation」http://josen.env.go.jp/en/349

③ Public relations via media
As it was necessary to transmit information on decontamination in an easy-to-understand manner, MOE
planned and produced 30-minute special programs on four subjects of high interest to residents and provided
them through the familiar medium of television. Also, in order to communicate in a spontaneous and easyto-understand manner, MOE used two local radio stations to provide information.
In order to gain understanding about decontamination, it is necessary not only to respond to questions
concerning anxiety and decontamination of radiation, but also information on the progress of
decontamination and the effect of decontamination on onsite change for environmental recovery, MOE put
advertisements titled “Fukushima Saisei” (“Fukushima Revitalization”) more than 100 times in two local
newspapers from June 2012.

Figure 5-42 Examples of “Fukushima Saisei” (“Fukushima Revitalization”Report)

350

④ “Inappropriate Decontamination #110” (reporting hotline)
In January 2013, MOE established a consultation desk for receiving information by telephone or Internet
when local people witnessed an activity suspected of improper decontamination work.
If there was a report to the “Inappropriate Decontamination # 110” or a media report (newspaper, television,etc.) concerning inappropriate decontamination, the information collection, decision of response policy,
investigation of facts, and public reporting were handled as follows.

Director

Responder
Reports

Improperdecontaminati
on emergency
call No110
etc.

ReportSummarize ofreports(Head
office)Consultation on
response policy

InformDecisionofresponse
policyHeadofficeInstructionofInvestigati
on

Investigati
on

(each
(Fukushimaoffice)Environme
ntal
Restoratio
Report n Office) Report

Confirmationof facts

Creation list of cases

・Publication of case (Publication via MOE’s HP)
・Report to Decontamination Optimization Promotion Committee

Figure 5-43 Response system for reports of improper decontamination⑤ Establishment of decontamination consultation desk
In Special Decontamination Areas, decontamination consultation desks were set up in each municipality
starting in February 2012, and about 2,593 cases of consultation had been received as of March 31, 2017.

Table 5-32 Decontamination consultation desks (Special Decontamination Areas)
Number of
consultation(cases)

June 1, 2012

Fukushima Office forEnvironmental
Restoration
central and south branch
OfficeReception
MethodStation desk or
Phone

65

KawauchiVillage

July 2, 2012

Kawauchi Village Office291

Tamura City

March 1, 2014

Fukushima Office forEnvironmental
Restoration
central and south branch
OfficeStation desk or
Phone
Station desk or
Phone

19

Iitate Village

April 1, 2014

Iitate Village Office

Station desk or
Phone

unknown

Municipality

Established date

Installed place

Katsurao
Village351

Municipality

Established date

Installed place

Naraha Town

August 1, 2014

Naraha Town Office

Namie Town

November 4, 2014

Namie Town Office

Reception
MethodStation desk or
Phone
Station desk or
Phone
Station desk or
Phone

Number of
consultation(cases)
about 1,000
197

Kawamata
Kawamata Town Office,August 31, 2015
unknown
Town
Yamakiya branch Office
Tomioka
Tomioka Town Health
October 1, 2015
Station desk
1,021
Town
Center Office
Minamisoma
Minamisoma City Odaka
Station desk or
May 20, 2016
unknownCityarea Office
Phone
Okuma
Town
Futaba Town
Total
about 2,593
Note: No decontamination consultation desk was established in Okuma Town and Futaba Town.

⑥ Actions by decontamination contractors
・Launched a website and distributed a mini-communication paper created in collaboration with local
governments as part of information disclosure on decontamination status and progress, etc.
・Set up a residents’ consultation desk and call center on decontamination work and carefully responded torequests and questions from residents.
・Tried to eliminate anxiety by making staff in charge more visualize.
・At the time of preliminary meeting on decontamination, they explained decontamination specifications to
the residents. MOE staff also attended and carefully explained in detail what can and cannot be done.
・In all resident evacuation areas, they conducted an on-site tour for each district.
・At temporary storage sites, they had residents confirm that the air dose is lower than the surrounding area
after the set-up of temporary storage sites, and tried to reduce the anxiety about the safety of the temporarystorage sites.
・On-site inspections and explanatory meetings were carried out for owners of houses and others duringdecontamination work.
・ While conducting local employment and community contribution activities, they strove to build
understanding for decontamination work and trusting relationships with residents.

352

Figure 5-44 Reducing public anxiety by

Figure 5-45 Example of Call Center

introducing real workers(Photo by Taisei Corporation)(Photo by Maeda Corporation)

Figure 5-47 Example of Home Page

Figure 5-46 Example of “Kawara Ban”
made jointly with a town
(Photo by Maeda Corporation)⑦ Other efforts
To gain public support and understanding for the temporary storage sites, MOE and Fukushima
Prefecture offered explanations at many community briefing sessions and on-site tours, shared know-how
about other successful cases in municipalities such as Date City, and prepared and distributed images andvideos showing the design, safety, and safety management of temporary storage sites.
In order to promote the decontamination works, since the understanding of the press was important,
MOE held study sessions and on-site tours for reporters, and discussions between the Minister of theEnvironment and the WAIHAN Club (an association that is consisting of leaders in newspaper companies,
communications companies, and a broadcasting companies based in Fukushima Prefecture ) were held
periodically.
Fukushima Prefecture created a “picture-story show” and its supplemental reader, in order to respond to
the needs that the curriculum of radiology education is incorporated after the second semester of 2012 andteaching materials taught to children in easy to understand format from school education scenes, etc. Also,in order to promote residents’ understanding on decontamination and temporary storage sites, Fukushima

353

Prefecture tried to show things understandably in photos and videos, and posted them on the Fukushima
Prefecture’s website “Fukushima Reconstruction Station.”

Figure 5-48 Sample content
In addition, Fukushima Prefecture held on-site inspection tours a total of eight times starting in July
2012, in order to deepen the understanding about temporary storage sites, eliminate concerns, and promote
the installation of temporary storage sites.

Prior explanation

Dose measurement
福Figure 5-49 On-site inspection tour of Temporary Storage Sites(Photo by Fukushima Prefecture)

Various teaching materials and supplies, visual and easy-to-understand materials, etc., were created asrisk communication tools. Some are available to public through the website of the “Environmental
Regeneration Plaza.

354

Table 5-33 Main information providing tool list during decontamination commencement period todecontamination promotion period (Handbook etc.)（1/2）
Publisher

MOE

Name of tool

Overview

First
production
dateBasic knowledgeof Radiation
measurement inliving space"(Handbook)

Explanation about measurement
method of radiation etc.

August2012

Measurement
result recording
sheet

Record for residents to grasp the air
dose rate and its transition in living
space.

August2012

How isdecontaminationdone?

For residents in Fukushima Prefecture
Explain necessity and procedure ofdecontamination, cases ofdecontamination of municipalities inan easy-to-understand manner.

October2012~ Beforedecontamination
begins ~ I wantto know,
Decontaminationof our house

What should We
know about
radiation anddecontamination?

For Special Decontamination Areas(for residents who are scheduled todecontaminate at home from now)
Explain in an easy-to-understandmanner the basic knowledge onradiation and decontamination,
procedure of decontamination, how tostore and remove after
decontamination.
For residents of Fukushima prefecture
Intensive Contamination Survey Area.
Explain in an easy-to-understandmanner on radiation characteristics,
health effects, protection methods,
decontamination subjects anddirections, decontamination cases etc.

October2012

December
2012

What is the needof a storage site?
~ Storage on
decontaminationsite ~(Handbook)

Clearly explained about storage atdecontamination site.

March
2013

What is the needof a storage site?
~ Storage at
Temporary
Storage Site~(Handbook)

Clearly explained about storage at
Temporary Storage Site.

March
2013

355

Table 5-33 Main information providing tool list during decontamination commencement period todecontamination promotion period (Handbook etc.)（2/2）
Publisher

Name of tool

Overview
Fukushima Prefecture
distribute information on"What is Fukushima doing
now?" such as the status of
support for evacuees and the
movement for reconstruction,on the web for the residents
who are evacuated inside andoutside Fukushima Prefecture
and those concerned with thevictims and evacuees.
Explanatory material to the
doubts of residents.
"Why is the value measured
by the measuring instrumenton hand different from themonitoring post installed inpublic facilities?"

Newspaperthat inform
Fukushima
now
Fukushima
Prefecture"For properuse ofradiationmeasuringequipment"(brochure)

Decontamination
Information
Plaza

First
production
dateAugust 2012

February2013

To everyone
participatingindecontaminati
on volunteers

For decontamination
volunteers
Explanation about precaution(safety, diffusion prevention)of decontamination work.

March 2012

How do you
think about the
influence ofradiation?

For residents in Fukushima
Prefecture.
Commentary on radiation
characteristics, health effects,
protection methods, etc.

December
2012

Examine andGrasp Note

It focuses on fundamental
knowledge about radiation,
and applies it to events indaily life and invites interest.

March 2013

Picture-cardshow ” Whatis theradiation?

Picture-card show for middle
and high elementary school.
A picture-story show thattells the story of question
related to radiation.

March 2013

Materials for middle and highelementary school.
Commentary on importantmatters and children's doubtsthat come out in the picturestory show "What is
Radiation!"

March 2013

Side Reader“Examine andGrasp Note”

356

Table 5-34 Main information providing tool list during decontamination commencement period
to decontamination promotion period (Video contents)
Name of tool

MOE・
United Nations
University

Living in
Fukushima: A
story about
decontamination
andreconstruction

Video from the view point ofmothers, farmers, community
leaders, evacuees, include how
decontamination is done in theliving, what wishes are put inthe reconstruction of
Fukushima.

What isdecontamination?
~ Removal ~A video explaining using
model about "Removal"
which is one way of
decontamination.

July
2012

What isdecontamination?
~ Intercept ~(Cases in parks,
grounds, etc.)

A video explaining by using
model about “Intercept”(deep plowing) which is one
way of decontamination.

July
2012

Basic structure of
temporarystorage sites

Video describing the basic
structure of temporarystorage sites using
illustration.

July
2012

State oftemporarystorage sites
installation

Video showing the state of
temporary storage sites
setting using slide.

July
2012

Safety of
temporarystorage sites(Distance
version)
Safety of
temporarystorage sites(Intercept
version)A live video explaining
about "to reduce radiationdose by keeping away"
which is one of temporarystorage sites safety measures.
A live video explaining
about "radiation dose islowered by intercepting"which is one of temporarystorage sites safety measures.

Let's observe
radiation in
Wilson chamber

A video of the state ofobservation of invisible
radiation with "Wilson
chamber".

Decontamination
Information
Plaza

Overview

First
producti
on datePublisher

357

October2013

October2012

October
2012

March
2012

(From the revision of the decontamination implementation plans to the start of lifting of evacuation
orders: January 2014 to around September 2015)
Societal situation surrounding decontamination and radiation
Whole area decontamination was implemented, Areas under Evacuation Orders were reorganized, and pilot
transportation to Interim Storage Facility, etc. began.
With the decontamination almost complete, it was necessary to provide the information such as actual exposure
doses, the relationship between the reduction of the air dose by decontamination and the actual exposure dose
including individual dose based on decontamination effects, and actions after decontamination.

Table 5-35 Main comments heard at Decontamination Information Plaza (2014)· Three years have passed since the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident. I
want you to do decontamination measures so that the dose will fall further.
· We had a rough concrete surface in our residence decontaminated, but the dose did not decreasesufficiently.
· There was consultation on logging of trees around our residence, and I consented. But I received nocontact after that. When will it be logged?
· Some places on my roof have a high dose, but I was told, “We do not do roofs, only gutters.” But thedose is more than 0.23 μSv/h and it should be decontaminated.
· Why is decontamination of houses not proceeding? I want you to tell them to proceed soon.
· Although they said the aim is 1 mSv/y, it is ambiguous because there is no time line. I cannot accept
it when they say that the personal dose is important and tell me to make my child wear a dose meter.
· Each municipality makes each “decontamination manual”. It should be uniformly.
· What will be the progress of decontamination in the future?
· Although there are places where decontamination is necessary, I feel that most places have no
meaning to be decontaminated.
· I think the funds for decontamination should be used for other purposes..
· I wonder if the radiation dose would rise even after decontamination.
· How is the monitoring result of temporary storage sites being announced?
· How long is the in-situ storage going to last?
· What should be done if there is no place to store the removed soil?
· How is temporary storage being monitored?
· We are storing in-situ storage. Wouldn’t it be better to not make temporary storage sites and instead
take the removed soil to the Interim Storage Facility?
· When will the operation of ISF start?
· It is called “decontamination,” but because radiation does not really go away, isn’t it really just“relocating the contamination”?
· Is decontamination really useful? Is it really solving the problem?

358

Table 5-36 Main comments heard at Decontamination Information Plaza (2015)· I found out what I can feel relief about by looking at data, but there are still some things to watch outfor.
· It seems that the progress of decontamination on farmland is behind that of residential land, roads andforests for decontamination in SDA. Is decontamination on farmland technically difficult?
· I’d like you to change the contractor of decontamination.
· It seems that the air dose is reduced to about half by being decontaminated, but can’t you lower the dosemore?
· The decontamination work in Fukushima City is very carefully done and appreciated.
· I only worry about hot spot decontamination. Should not you peel off the entire surface?
· I would like to know more information on the Interim Storage Facility.
· I would like you to disseminate more information about decontamination efforts to other prefectures(nationwide).
· Four years have passed since the earthquake disaster, but decontamination is still not making progress.
It still takes time and effort.
And so on.
Main efforts① Exhibitions (Decontamination Information Plaza)In the Decontamination Information Plaza, in the summer of 2014, a new exhibition to understand thecharacteristics of the local areas was established. First exhibition focused on Iitate Village and introduced
traditional events such as village culture and history, festivals. It also showed us that the evacuees from thevillage continued practicing traditional dances and singing, and making traditional crafts.

Table 5-37 Exhibitions organized
Title
Iitate Village
Tomioka Town
"East Japan Great Earthquake / Nuclear Emergency Disaster"
Panel Exhibition*the scale is reduced and same time holding is underway after
March 3, 2015.
From decontamination to reconstruction ~ various initiatives ~(same time holding)Hamadori Traditional Performing Arts Culture Introduction"Jangara Nembutsu Odori"
Hamadori Traditional Performing Arts Culture Introduction"Shika mai, Shishi mai and Noma oi"
Hamadori Traditional Performing Arts Culture Exhibition"Futaba Town's "Jangara Nembutsu Odori" and Okuma Town’s“Kumagawa Chigo Shika mai”
Now of the after decontamination area Naraha Town
359

Period2014/8/25～2014/11/3
2014/11/11～2015/2/11
2015/2/3～in progress

201411/11～2015/3/3
2015/3/3～2015/5/10
2015/5/12～2015/8/2
2015/8/4～2015/11/1
2015/11/3～2016/2/26

Fukushima regeneration. Cheering message exhibition (same time
holding)
Public awareness on decontamination and radiation at educational
sites
Namie Town

2015/11/3～2016/2/26
2016/2/27～2016/10/10
2016/11/2～2017/2/5

Decontamination Information Plaza Planning Exhibition "Work2017/2/7～in progress
Exhibition"Note) August 2014 to June 30, 2017
Source: Decontamination Information Plaza “Plaza's past activity record (from January 20, 2012 to June30, 2017)”② Counselor system
In the “Basic Concept of Safety and Security Measures for Returning (To Realize the Protection
Measures According to the Dose Level)” (Recommendation of the Nuclear Regulatory Committee,
November 20, 2013), recommendations were made that it is indispensable to have so-called counselors in
the vicinity of residents who choose to return, in order for them to understand individual doses after
returning, to take measures to reduce radiation based on the results, and to live while facing radiation.
Also, these recommendations said that it is indispensable to provide systematic and continuous support
from the scientific and technological perspectives for the counselor to do activities, and a support system
is necessary that can respond to the needs of the residents that are difficult to solve with counselors alone,and challenges that are difficult to solve by each municipality alone.
In response to this, the counselor system was enacted to support the dissolution of radiation anxiety
concerning the returning residents in close vicinity in “Toward the acceleration of Fukushimareconstruction from nuclear disasters” (December 20, 2013 Cabinet Decision). The MOE set up a
“Radiation Risk Communication Counselor Support Center” in Iwaki City in 2014, in order to support
activities from the scientific and technological perspectives such as individual consultation correspondence,dispatch of experts, holding training in response to needs of counselors (hereinafter referred to as “radiation
counselors”) and local municipal officials who worked in 12 cities, towns and villages where theevacuation instructions were issued at the time of the accident.
After that, the “Basic Guidelines for Accelerating Reconstruction of Fukushima from Nuclear Disasters”(December 20, 2016, Cabinet Decision) recommended that support be strengthened for the “Radiation Risk
Communication Counselor Support Center,” to improve the consultation system by local governments. In
addition to radiation counselors, as well as those who have many points of contact with residents such asliving support counselors and school teachers, and that training on radiation knowledge would be offered,and a backup support system of experts would be also created.
In response to these recommendations, since FY2016, the “Radiation Risk Communication Counselor
Support Center” has been providing assistance not only radiation counselors but also living counselors,
who may be asked about radiation.

360

③ Other initiatives
Differences in concepts of radiation risk assessment among local governments caused confusion.
In order to respond to diverse concerns, MOE unified the information of related ministries and agencies
on scientific knowledge of radiation and health effects by radiation and summarized it all in publications
such as “Basic Knowledge and Health Effects.” The “Decontamination Information Plaza also dispatched
the radiation experts to the meetings to share the correct information of radiation with local residents.
Fukushima Prefecture conducted the lectures and practical trainings for the students to understand theradiation correctly and share the radiation knowledge with the public through showing the current situationof decontamination projects.
・FY2014: Number of Schools：2
Number of participating students：101
・FY2015: Number of Schools：2
Number of participating students：61
・FY2016: Number of Schools：1
Number of participating students：17
Photo by Fukushima Prefecture
Figure 5-50 State of practice
Since it is necessary to transfer the information that is accurate and easy to understand about radiation,
MOE made the tools for accurate and easy-to-understand information for radiation. For example, MOE
made the booklets in cartoon (manga), using the data and detailed explanation.

361

Table 5-38 Main information providing tool list during decontamination acceleration period(first period) (Handbook etc.)
Publisher
MOE
NIRS(National
Institute ofRadiological
Science)

Name of tool

Overview
Basic knowledge of radiation,scientific knowledge onradiation health effects, andinformation on related ministries
and agencies as "unified basic
materials".

Basic knowledgeof radiation andhealth effects
How do I
decontaminate
the forest near
my house?
~ About Forest
Decontamination~
ExamineandGrasp Radiation

MOE

Comic "Nasubi’s
Question"Radioactive
healtheffectversionReconstruction
AgencyFebruary 2014

Explain the current pollution
situation of the forest and themethod and question of forest
decontamination.

January 2014

Revised radiation learningmaterial "Examine and Grasp
Note" and explain on basic
information on decontamination
and radiation clearly.

December 2014

Explanation on the everyday
question (radioactive substancearound us) concerning
decontamination and radiation,
comic is easy to understand,detailed explanation based on
data.
Explanation on the everyday
question (health effects)
concerning decontamination andradiation, comic is easy tounderstand, detailed explanation
based on data.

Comic "Nasubi’s
Question"Radioactive
substance around
us version

First
production date

December 2014

December 2014

Comic "Nasubi’s
Question" FoodversionExplanation on the everyday
question (food) concerning
decontamination and radiation,
comic is easy to understand,detailed explanation based on
data.

March 2015

Transportationof removed soil
etc. to Interim
Storage Facility

Explanation of the contents of
the "Basic Transportation Plan"
stipulated for transportationfrom temporary storage sites toInterim Storage Facility.

January 2015

Basic
information onradiation risk

In comprehensive
comprehension of the basic
information necessary to explain
radiation health risks accurately
and easily in risk communication
activities.

December 2014362

Table 5-39 Main information providing tool list during decontamination acceleration period(first period) (Video contents)
Publisher

Name of tool

Overview

The way ofradioactive
materials
decrease:
Half-life anddecontamination
Decontamination
Information
Plaza

KFB
(Fukushima
Broadcasting)First
production
date

Describe themechanism by whichradioactive substances
decrease.

March 2014

Where isradioactive
cesium now?

Describe the propertiesof radioactive cesium
and wastewater
treatment fordecontamination.

March 2014

Fukushima,decontamination
now

Explanation about
radiation reduction bydecontamination.

March 2014

Video “Nasubi's
Question”

TV mini-series in which
Mr. Nasubi reports
various question related
to decontamination andradiation.

February
2014~
Now

363

(From the start of lifting of evacuation orders to the end of whole area decontamination: October 2015
to around March 2017)
Societal situation at that time
Whole area decontamination of the municipalities in some Areas under Evacuation Orders wascompleted and the return of residents began.
It was necessary to provide comprehensive information including how to reduce anxiety at the time of
returning, including not only measures against radiation anxiety, but also how local communities
regenerate the environment and recover from the decontamination as a foundation.
In addition, it was mentioned in the media that bullying of children of Fukushima became apparent, andhow to promote understanding for young people was required, and it was necessary to respond to theseissues.

Table 5-40 Main comments heard at Decontamination Information Plaza (2016)· Although the dose rate exceeds 0.23 μS/h, why didn’t you decontaminate our home only once?
· As there seems to be progress being made with property sales contracts with landowners for Interim
Storage Facility, interim storage is moving ahead?
· Even after decontamination, why will the air dose rate not return to levels as that of before theaccident? If you do the work thoroughly, isn’t it supposed to return to the original levels?
· Some people think that the forests should be decontaminated so that people can again eat mushrooms
and wild vegetables, but what are your plans about that?
· If it is really possible to reduce the dose by decontaminating Areas where Returning is Difficult,shouldn’t you start decontamination now and encourage people to return.
· It turned out that the air dose rate in some houses exceeded 0.23 μSv/h. I am concerned that this may
be due to substandard decontamination work.
· If there is an air dose rate target after decontamination, why can’t you do decontamination work untilthat target is achieved?
· Do you really think you can say it is safe to lift the evacuation orders for places that exceed 0.23
μSv/h and let residents return there?
· What is the contamination status of radioactive materials in forests and satoyama?
· Decontamination is coming to an end, and public relations communications are necessary about
interim storage, homecoming and returning to the village.
· To make it possible for people outside the prefecture to see the information, you should promote PR
activities in places where many people in Tokyo gather. You should continue to disseminate
information, and so on.
And so on.

364

Main efforts① Fukushima Prefectural Center for Environmental Creation
Fukushima Prefecture opened the “Center for Environmental Creation” in July, 2016, giving it fourfunctions: (1) monitoring, (2) research and investigation, (3) information gathering and dissemination, (4)education, training and interaction. This is as a base facility for promoting environmental restoration from
nuclear disasters and for the prefectural people to live safely for the future and working on recovery andcreation of the environment, under the support of the national government.
The community building of the “Environment Creation Center” (known as Commutan Fukushima) isused as a facility to understand the radiation and environmental problems from a familiar viewpoint andto deepen the awareness of environmental recovery and creation, as a facility to answer concerns andquestions of the citizens, in addition to the exhibition on the current situation of Fukushima environment,
it has a 360 degree global type theater, a hall capable of accommodating 200 people, etc. This center aimed
for a place for children and various organizations sharing the knowledge, deepening consciousness
obtained from learning and experiences here, and to be a catalyst for thinking, creating and disseminating
the future of Fukushima from their respective positions.
The number of visitors to “Commutan Fukushima” exceeded 100,000 in about one year from the opening
in July 2016 to August 2017, and 185 schools, about 40% of all the elementary schools in Fukushima
Prefecture, visited in FY2016.
In the future, in addition to establishing as a learning facility for children in Fukushima, visitors fromoutside Fukushima Prefecture will be encouraged and it will be expected to be utilized as a nationwide
facility for the purpose of dispelling of bad rumors about Fukushima.

From Fukushima 3.11
(Looking back at the theater, chronology, newspaper
reports etc.)

Fukushima Environment Now(Dispatch Fukushima environmental restorationand creation with numerical value and video)

Radiation laboratory(Foster the ability to know about radiation and makea proper judgment)

Environment Creation laboratory(Efforts aimed at creating a society that is safe,
secure and sustainably developable)365

Messages from Children(Children's messages for Fukushima's environment
and the future)

Environment Creation Theater(360 degree global type theater. Introducing radiation,
natural science, etc. Introduced by video)

Figure 5-51 Status of “Commutan Fukushima”
Source: “Commutan Fukushima Home Page” (Fukushima Prefecture)② Other efforts
In Fukushima Prefecture, education about radiation is carried out for about 2 to 3 hours a year in orderto present correct knowledge on radiation at all elementary and junior high schools and to judge and act
on their own, but some schools struggle with how to explain things, so many schools utilize experts’
dispatch from the “Environment Regeneration Plaza.”
As there are few teaching materials that can be utilized to educate about decontamination and basic
knowledge of radiation to residents including children and their parents, Fukushima Prefecture created anddistributed information on radiation education tools (picture-card show, electronic picture-card show)
taking into consideration the developmental stages of children.

366

Table 5-41 Main information providing tool list during decontamination acceleration period (second
period) (Handbook etc.)
Publisher

MOE
NIRS(National
Institute ofRadiological
Science)

Name of tool

Overview
Unified basic data of thecountry.
Basic knowledge ofradiation and health effects,
accident situation andradiation release,environmental monitoringand pollution situation,
radioactive concentration infood, efforts to recoverfrom accident, idea of
decontamination, radiation
exposure and prefectural
health survey results.
Slide for junior high school
students and above.
Explanation on TEPCO
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Station accident,
decontamination,
Fukushima Prefecture food,and environment impact
Three volumes of picturecard show for lower
elementary school (1st to
2nd grade).
Explanation about TEPCO
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident, decontamination,
Fukushima prefecture foodand influence.
Electronic picture-cardshow for middle and higher
elementary school students
and junior high school
students.
Explanation about TEPCO
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident, decontamination(nature of radioactive
cesium, decontamination
method and effect),
temporary storage sites,
Interim Storage Facility.

Unified basic
data on thehealth effects ofradiation etc.
Part I. Basicknowledge ofradiation andhealth effects(2014 edition)"Learn and thinkabout
decontamination
and radiation""Professor Owl's
Learning
Radiation Class"
MOE"Let's study
decontamination"

367

First production
date

December 2015
(revised edition)

August 2016

February 2016

February 2016

Table 5-42 Main information providing tool list during decontamination acceleration period (second
period) (Video contents.)
Publisher

Name of tool

KFB
(Fukushima
Broadcasting)

TV special
number"Home to life
revitalization ~Minamisoma
City ~"

FCT(Fukushima
Central
Television)

TV special
number"Children
returning totheir home andto the future ~KawauchiVillage ·Katsurao
Village now ~"KFB(Fukushima
Broadcasting)

TV special
number"Decontaminati
on and soil andhome town"

Overview
The introduction of
Minamisoma City Odaka
area traditional event(Nomaoi, fire festival), thestate of evacuation order
lifted, interview with
Mayor of Minamisoma,
return to Minamisoma,
decontamination by
residents activity, andintroduction about theefforts of regional
revitalization.
Introduction of residents'
efforts toward holding
Kawauchi Village's
festival, decontaminationand food inspection
situation etc. In addition,
introduction on thesituation of the evacuation
order of Katsurao Village,
the situation after lift, theefforts of children of
Katsurao elementary
school named "Be
Kataribe" telling stories
from the village history to
the present as a storyteller.
Introduction about
decontamination,
preliminary placement andInterim Storage Facility,
explanation by site staff
and experts and efforts torevitalize the area at thePrefectural Hobara HighSchool's "Flower for
Rubbles Project".

First
production
dateNovember
2016

January 2017

February
2017(After the end of whole area decontamination: April 2017~)
Societal situation surrounding decontamination and radiation
After the whole area decontamination was completed, evacuation orders were lifted in 9 municipalities,
excluding Areas where Returning is Difficult.
While the decontamination was completed, even in areas where evacuation orders were lifted, there was acontinuing need to respond closely to concerns that there were cases where the radiation dose was relatively368

high compared to previously lifted areas, as generally there was still a potential and vague concern thatradiation still remains.
In addition, the situation of environmental restoration in Fukushima is not correctly communicated outside
the prefecture and overseas, so there is a need to further strengthen information dissemination, about how torevitalize and restore the environment of local communities based on decontamination, with strengthened
responses for the decontamination final stage.
Table 5-43 Main comments heard at Decontamination Information Plaza (2017)· Although decontamination has been completed on 89% of the farmland in the prefecture, trees were
washed in orchards, but there has been limited progress in decontamination of the topsoil to prevent
exposure.
· I had them decontaminate the property I own, but the air dose rate still exceeds 0.23 μSv/h, so I wantsomething to be done.
· Every month I go home for a while and I am trying to maintain the conditions such as mowing, but there
is still a pile of flexible containers (storing contaminated material) in the temporary storage site near
my home, so my dream of early return is being broken.
· I want you to take decontaminated soil away to Interim Storage Facility as soon as possible.
· To eliminate damage caused by rumors, it is necessary to send out more communication about foodsafety, etc. You need to enhance education on radiation.
And so on.

Main efforts
The Decontamination Information Plaza has been renamed to “Environmental Restoration Plaza” inaccordance with the establishment of the “Environmental Regeneration and Material Cycles Bureau” at MOE,
which centralizes work on decontamination, designated waste and interim storage. The Plaza has beenredesigned and has permanent displays with comprehensive information on decontamination, radiation,interim storage, the history of Fukushima’s environmental recovery, etc.

Figure 5-52 Environment Regeneration PlazaThe MOE cooperates in the production of nationwide and overseas broadcasting programs in order towidely disseminate the situation of Fukushima which is currently undergoing environmental recovery andthe information that we would like people to understand in order to dispel rumors.

369

Table 5-44 Main information providing tool list during emergency response to supplemental
decontamination period (Handbook etc.)
Publisher

Name of tool

Overview

First
production
date

MOE

Comics“Nasubi no
Gimon”
History ofenvironmental
revitalization
versionCommentary on the daily question
related to decontamination andradiation (the history ofenvironmental regeneration),comic is easy to understand anddetailed explanation based on
data.

December
2017

Table 5-45 Main information providing tool list during emergency response to supplemental
decontamination period (Video content)
Publisher

Name of tool

Discovery
channelFukushima
Diaries

TUF(TV-U
Fukushima)

Fukushima
Today

Overview
Three overseas bloggers are
dispersed in different
destinations in Fukushima
Prefecture in search of subjectsof interest. Inform viewers thefindings and impressions ofvisitors.
As the main caster of the
program, setting key person invarious fields to convey
Fukushima's current situation
where environmental restoration
and reconstruction areprogressing. Inform the current
state and charm of Fukushimabased on the theme suitable foreach key person.

370

First
production
dateNovember
2017

November2017Column“Building the path to decontamination, environmental restoration and reconstruction with
the Decontamination Information Plaza
Ms. Yuko Sakita, member of committee■ Timely opening of Decontamination Information Plaza
The situation of radiation spreading in the general environment due to nuclear power station accident on
March 11, 2011 was an unexpected event not only for citizens but also for the legal system.
Having experience with risk communication in both the environmental and energy sectors, after theearthquake, with other proponents I set up a voluntary meeting “Environment Recovery Study Group”(joint representation with professor Yuichi Moriguchi of the University of Tokyo) that connects various
stakeholders such as experts in the field of environment and nuclear energy, administrative staff of thenational government and region, and NGOs. We have been continually striving to share information andexchange opinions, such as predicting radiation effects, decontamination and waste management, andconsideration for residents, etc.
Under the promulgation of the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Environment
Pollution, I participated as a committee member in the “Investigative Committee on Remediation”
established by MOE in September of that same year. In order to promote decontamination andenvironmental restoration, I have made comments on information disclosure and participation ofresidents for recovery of trust. I appreciate the prompt decision to open the “Decontamination
Information Plaza” as an information base of the joint project by Fukushima Prefecture and MOE in
January 2012.
Since then I have been involved as a member of the Steering Committee for “Decontamination
Information Plaza.”■ Communication with the community
I believe that risk communication is an initiative that involves (1) disseminating “information”
scientifically assessed for risk, (2) conducting “dialogue” aiming at deepening understanding, (3)fostering the “trust” of concerned parties, “aiming for risk management and reduction together.”The “Decontamination Information Plaza” has promoted (1) information dissemination on the status ofprogress of decontamination by municipalities, decontamination done under the direct jurisdiction of thenational government, and easy to understand information on radiation, (2) dialogue and deepening ofunderstanding based on that information by “dispatching experts” and mobile exhibitions” inmunicipalities.
After that, we (3) opened the “Positive Cafe” to support information exchange of organizations
promoting voluntary radiation measurement activities and other activities starting in 2013, and set up a“Corner introducing the evacuation area’s traditional culture” starting in 2014. The Plaza believes that
communication with the community is important.
“Positive Cafe,” initially held in the Nakadori region, was held in the coastal area (Hamadori) in 2015
as decontamination progressed.
With the spread of interest in topics from decontamination to environmental restoration andreconstruction, an experience event “Kurumaza Cafe Fukushima Michi Sagashi” was opened in 2016,
utilizing the participating organizations’ event, that is an “experience event sharing information of people
who started efforts to regain everyday feelings in the face of radiation concerns.”
Tours such as “Food Safety Measures and Looking for Delicious of Fukushima” are also being conducted
to visit those who have resumed agriculture and forestry.
■ Building ”model strategies in case of emergency” based on learning from challenges
It was meaningful that the “Decontamination Information Plaza” has been thoroughly promoting a trust
relationship by disseminating information on decontamination and radiation and dialogue, and closely
supporting the voluntary efforts of residents living with radiation.
However, I think that the meaning of Plaza has been widely received by residents and evacuees inFukushima Prefecture and evacuees outside the prefecture, but unfortunately the issues that emerged are371

great.
Because there has been little information and education in the general society about radiation so far, there
is a great sense of concern about radiation risk, so it is important to share information and educate in theusual way, and important to consider dissemination of information about emergencies.
Especially, many people adopted a long-term decontamination goal to keep below an additional annual
dose of 1 mSv/y, as an early target to relieve the intensity of concern, but some municipalities still cannot
declare the end of decontamination even if the dose has gotten low.
Also, considering that the air dose 0.23 μSv/h has been emphasized as a guide to consider 1 mSv/y,sufficient consideration from the information dissemination stage in the first place is necessary, and it isnecessary to respond based on this experience, such as developing a “Model Strategy for Risk
Communication” regarding providing information on emergencies, dialogue and risk management, andreduction activities in cooperation with the community.
■ Information base for the future of Fukushima
As more people choose to return from evacuation due to the progress of decontamination, humanresources close to the concerns of people living face to face with radiation are more important.
In 2013, a “Counselor System” was established which directly responds to the need for consultation, andin 2014, MOE opened the “Radiation Risk Communication Counselor Support Center” to support
counselors in Iwaki City.
In 2016, the “Fukushima Prefectural Center for Environmental Creation” was established in Miharu
Town with a “Research building” and a “Community building” as space for information sharing andeducation about radiation.
A specialized system closely responding to radiation concern and a permanent facility for informationexchange, etc. have been established, and the “Decontamination Information Plaza,” served as an
information base on decontamination and environmental restoration after the accident. I think that it isalso an important role of Plaza to connect these efforts.
In 2017, the Plaza was renamed the “Environment Restoration Plaza,” and in the future, information on
the transportation of contaminated soil to Interim Storage Facility will become important.
On that occasion, regional information aiming for reconstruction and “plant decommissioning
information” for TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS, are closely related to Fukushima in the future, etc. I
hope the Plaza will continue to promote “road making” that flexibly responds to changes in the situation
as an institution that is close to responding to crisis, and responding to decontamination, environmental
restoration and reconstruction.

Photos: Decontamination Information Plaza

372

Commentary Trends and contents of media reporting on decontamination
The total number of media reports on decontamination totaled 3,426 cases in local newspapers(Fukushima Minpo, Fukushima Minyu), and 2,777 cases in national newspapers (Asahi, Mainichi,
Yomiuri, Sankei, Nikkei, Tokyo) in 2012 (calendar year).
The following year, the number of news reports on decontamination tended to decrease in both local andnational newspapers.
4000

3426

3500

2777

3000
2500

2507
2253

2000
1500

1602
1469

12851280

1000

1160
959

906 812

500
0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

地元2紙（福島民報・福島民友）
Two local newspapers (Fukushima Minpo, Fukushima Minyu)

Five central newspapers (Asahi, Mainichi, Yomiuri, Sankei, Nikkei), Tokyo
中央5紙（朝日・毎日・読売・産経・日経）、東京新聞

Trends in the number of press reports on decontamination (EL Searching articles、
Number of postings including "decontamination" in title and body)
The media coverage in 2012 pointed out that the prospects of the construction of Interim Storage Facility
was unclear, it was difficult to secure temporary storage sites, “decontamination was delayed,” otherproblems of radiation insecurity and low dose exposure, and there were questions about the goalconcerning the target of additional annual exposure dose 1 mSv/y.
Based on these circumstances, the Fukushima Environmental Revitalization Office (at that time) held a“First Study Meeting for Reporters” with the media in Fukushima in December 2012.
Since then, a study meeting with the prefectural administration press conference and the WAIHAN Club
(see 5.4.1 (2)) has been held annually to build relationships with the media and provide accurate
information on decontamination projects.
Since around 2014, the number of articles related to decontamination and reconstruction, such as articles
on restarting farming in the area after decontamination has been on the increase.
Although the news value of the decontamination work seems to be relatively lower while the current
situation of Fukushima is headed toward “reconstruction” seven years since the earthquake disaster, newtopics such as milestone features and recycling of decontaminated soil continue to be media coveragethemes.
At the end of March 2017, the whole area decontamination was completed in Areas under Evacuation
Orders (Special Decontamination Areas) of 11 municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture excluding Areas
where Returning is Difficult, but in order to return, the needs for themes such as “Request for re373

decontamination,” “Expansion of range of forest decontamination,” and others are high.
In addition, articles on draft development plans of the reconstruction base in Area where Returning is
Difficult are increasing.
In Fukushima, due to efforts such as decontamination, the air dose rate has drastically decreased
compared to when the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident occurred, andevacuation orders were lifted in some municipalities where decontamination was completed, so news
coverage occurs with progress of the recovery.

374

Activities Contributing to the Local Areas

Major efforts
Major efforts by MOE are shown in the table.
Table 5-46 Main efforts by MOE
Munucipalities
Tamura City

Date, Period
2012～June 2013

Kawamata
Town

2012～2015

Namie Town

May 16, 2014

Naraha Town

May 22, 2016

Activity
The Tamura City MOE team created communication
newspaper named “To Yamagara-no-Sato " to inform theprogress of decontamination and acquiring consent regarding
decontamination to everyone who is evacuated from the area
subject to decontamination. We struggled to report effort tomake feel secure by visualizing the progress of
decontamination work.
The Minister and Deputy Minister at that time participatedin the rice planting and harvesting event with Mayor, Town
Council Chairperson and farmer, we conducted activities tohelp PR of the Fukushima that is confirmed safety by full bag
inspection all . In addition, the harvested rice was confirmed tobe safe by whole bag inspection and brought to theheadquarters of MOE, Tokyo and tasted cooked rice. We
advertised the taste throughout the country.
The Minister of the environment (at that time) demonstrated
cultivation at the paddy field in Sakata area of Namie Town,
planting the seed of “Koshi-hikari” and “Ten no Tsubu” while
was taught rice planting from local farmers, and sweat withlocals towards the first step of reconstruction.
The Minister of the Environment (at that time) operated arice planting machine while learning how to operate from local
farmers at there started paddy fields of Naraha Town, and sent
message of the safety of rice in Naraha Town.

Action Plan to Boost Confidence in Decontamination Contribute to the Region
In collaboration with relevant organizations in accordance with the “Action Plan to Boost Confidencein Decontamination Contribute to the Region,” MOE is leading efforts to promote reconstruction for the
return of residents, safety of life, harmony with the community, and support for businesses that contributeto the region.

Figure. 5-53 Efforts of “Action Plan to Boost Confidence in Decontamination Contribute to the
Region”
375

ONE Fukushima: “Thanks Helmet”
In FY2014, from the perspective of fostering community understanding regarding decontamination anddecontamination workers, the “ONE Fukushima” consortium of 8 media organizations in Fukushima
Prefecture (newspaper, television, radio) collaborated on an advertising campaign known as “Thanks
Helmet.”Other efforts“Futaba World 2015 in Naraha” held in Naraha Town on October 10, 2015 created opportunities forreunion and communication of residents of 8 towns and villages in the Futaba District, whose residents
had been evacuated to places inside and outside of Fukushima Prefecture. It has been held since 2014 asan event aiming at reconstruction of “Furusato Futaba” by reconnecting people and community.

In decontamination and other work contracted by MOE in Special Decontamination Areas, in somecases decontamination contractors implemented the following community contribution activities, throughcommunication with decontaminating contractors, local people, local governments, etc.
· Support for local residents to inspect their property (e.g., decontaminating workers carry elderly
residents on their backs to inspect their property).
· Inside the Areas under Evacuation Orders, “Lounge Rooms” where residents who came home
temporarily can drop in, and “Toilets for townspeople only” are offered.
· In response to local requests that “To make town a bright city for safety and security,” offices were lit
up along national highway Route 6 in Naraha Town.
· Cooperation for crime prevention was conducted by blue crime prevention patrols and rescue
cooperation to handle traffic accidents.
· Patrols were done by safety patrol cars (including checking the litter situation), as well as patrols invillages and patrols of security of lodgings.
· As a traffic safety measure, a traffic safety banner is installed in a curve with bad visibility and areduced width section.
· As part of the image improvement of temporary storage sites, there are cases where painting was
performed on the temporary storage enclosure and cases where high school students painted pictures.
· A banner was set up stating that decontamination work is underway along the road in areas under
decontamination work.
· Christmas with temporary house residents, Mochi-tsuki and golf tournament, etc.
· Participation and sponsorship in regional sponsored festivals and marathon events.
· Planting of flowers along local roads along with local people, releasing sweet fish fry, yamame andsalmon into local rivers. At workplaces, events for recovery, such as barbeque events, displaying decorative
carp streamers, and Tanabata festival decorations.
· Snow removal activities, helping senior citizens.
· Search activities for tsunami victims, and cleaning activities on highways, such as national highway
Route 6.
376

·Offered study sessions for local corporate staff aiming to acquire national qualifications such as“Radiation handling coordinator,” and carried out indirect support for qualification acquisition.
In order to contribute to the smooth execution of decontamination works and construction of Interim
Storage Facility more efficiently and quickly, the Decontamination Subcommittee (now the Interim
Storage and Decontamination Subcommittee) of the Japan Federation of Construction Contractors
created leaflets and pamphlets, and distributed understandable information to the national and local
governments, and the public, etc., explaining how construction contractors and many workers are active indecontamination work.

Table 5-47 Major regional contribution activities by decontamination companies
Municipalities

Tamura City

Naraha Town

KawauchiVillage

Iitate Village

Minamisoma

Companies

Activity· Employment of workers living in Tamura City.
· Tamura City company is used as a procurement source formaterials and daily necessities.
· Sponsoring for “Tamura specialty lantern and firework
display.”· Sponsoring Tamura Municipal Green Elementary School‘Green Illumination’.
· Patrolled by safety patrol cars (including checking the litter
situation), patrol in town, patrol security of lodgings.
· Actively utilize local shops as a luncheon for JV staff andworkers and a daily goods procurement place.
· We have mutual communication from day to day, build up fromsmall things, build trust relationship.
·Maeda/Konoike JV · Joined the cheering team ‘Flowers and Greenery Project’.
Implementation of planting and flower beds along the national
highway.
· Participated in “Naraha Town Spring Cleanup Strategy.”
Cleanup activities in the town were carried out.
· Participation in the event to be held in the community,
sponsorship / support.
· Volunteer activities by JV staff in the Kawauchi marathon .
·Obayashi/Toa JV· Participate in the “Mochi-tsuki” event.
·Obayashi· Association to enjoy “Shin-Soba and Cha-no-yu” held at/Toa/Morimoto/Kawauchi Village Emergency temporary housing
Fujita/Tobu JV· Cooperation to host the 1st "Kawauchi Township marathon".
· Collect aluminum cans generated at rest areas and donate thewheelchairs (3 units) they got to local people.
· JV and workers involved in the Hiso district Environmental
beautification activities of the whole Hiso district.
·Taisei/Tokyu/Rinkai· Clean roads by Armadillo.
Nissan/Muramoto· Mowing in places where the visibility is bad such as near the
JVintersection.
·Taisei/Seibu/· Garbage picking activity in the administrative district.
Honma/Aomi JV· Take stairs at the intersection with the banner of the campaign duringcommuting time and enlighten traffic safety.
· Young players participate in the Mikoshi Festival at the Kawamata
Fall Festival.
·Taisei/Goyo/· Cleaning of garbage on public roads in each administrative·Kajima/Mitsui
Sumitomo /Hitachi
Plant Technologies
JV·Okumura/Nishimatsu/Daiho
JV

377

City

Kokudo/Satokogyo/Mitsubishi
Materials JV

Katsurao
Village·Okumura/
Nishimatsu/Daiho
JV

Kawamata
Town

Namie Town

Okuma Town

district within Odaka-ku.
· Help of the Noma oi Festival.
· Participation in disaster prevention drills sponsored by Odaka ku (fire fighting training etc.).
· Employees and workers participate in National Highway No. 6
Cleaning Volunteer sponsored by NPO Happy Road Net (HRN).
· Participation in the planting festival sponsored by Minamisoma
City Reforestation Citizen Tree Planting Festival Executive
Committee.
· Participation in "Symposium to consider safety and security offood in the future" by Minamisoma City Living Environment
Section.
· "Katsurao village sports festival 2016", "Katsurao village
reconstruction festival", "Katsurao village summer ambassadorial
baseball tournament", "First Katsurao village Bon Odori", "Tokiwa
Obon dinner", "Miharu Bon Odori", sponsorship to "Futaba world
2016 in Katsurao.
· Picking up garbage in the commuting route from Tamura city to
Katsurao village in the accommodation place.
· Improve manners up by greeting to commuters.
· Participation in the villagers Indiana competition.
· Participation in the "Heisei 28 Safety Challenge".
· Participation in "Village Grand Recovery Memorial Recreation
Softball Tournament"· Participate in road cleaning service work as a monthly event on roadinteraction.
· Co-hosted the Katsurao Village Grand Reconstruction Memorial
Recreation Softball Tournament.
· Participated in "Dispatch ceremony" accompanying traffic safety
movement of autumn in FY2016.
· Cleaning activities around the dormitory were conducted according
to the national occupational health sanitation week.
· Participated in the 2nd KSC Cup soft volleyball competition.
· Participated in "Dispatch ceremony" accompanying the accident
prevention campaign for the year-end and new year of 2016.
· Participated as a JV staff team at the goodwill ball game sponsoredby the Katsurao village chamber of commerce and industry youth
division.

· Voluntary crime prevention patrol conducted by vehicles equipped·Taisei/Tekken/
with blue turning lights.
Seibu/Honma Aomi · Pick up garbage in Roadside, sidewalk, road side belt of Route 114.
· Blue patrol team participated in the exercise ceremony of Year-end
JV
New Year's Day accident prevention campaign·Conductedcleaning of the roads around the dormitory installation·Hazama Ando/siteaccompanying
Minamisoma City spring clean day.
Toda/Fudo· Minamisoma City reconstruction project etc. As part of the
Tetra/Asanuma/
activities of the Regional Safety Liaison Committee, "Traffic
Iwata Chizaki
Safety Street Enlightenment Activities (sentinels)" was held at
Kensetsu JVintersections near business establishments.
·
Participated in National Highway No. 6 Cleanup Volunteer·Shimizu
organized
by NPO Happy Road Net
corporation· Volunteer participation in the search activities of local residents who·Shimizu/Kumagaiwere missing due to the tsunami.
/Toyo/Takenaka· Decontamination project voluntary crime prevention patrol car
JV
equipped with a blue rotating lamp inside the construction area.
·Shimizu/· Traffic safety sentinel for improving traffic manners, measurement
Obayashi/Kumaga
and guidance of legal speed for construction related vehicles.
378

· Purchase equipment and materials for construction, daily
necessities etc. from the store which Okuma Town commerce
association subscribes.
· Implemented crime prevention patrol activities in Tomioka Town
(in conjunction with site safety guidance).
· Participation in the frying event of Iwana and Yamame sponsored by
Tomioka River Fishery Cooperative Association.
· Traffic safety campaign was carried out under the guidance of police
officers OB in collaboration with "Prefectural People's Government
Campaign to Prevent Traffic Accidents in the Summer of Heisei 28".
·Kajima/Hitachi/·
Flower planting on the flower bed of Information Center (“Hotto
Tekken/Tobishima
Station”)
was held to welcome town residents who are temporarily
JV
home
returning
during summer vacation.
·Shimizu/·Participation of crime prevention patrol corps in the falling ceremony
Takenaka/Tokyoof FY2016 traffic safety incident campaign.
Power Technology · Employees and workers participate in National Highway No. 6
JVCleanup Volunteer organized by NPO Happy Road Net (HRN).
·Obayashi/Toa/· Flower planting on the flowerbed of "Hotto Station" opposite to theMorimoto/Daiwa
opening, according to the opening of Tomioka Town complex
Odakyu/Toubu JV
Sakura Mall.
· At “Hotto Station”, "6 years of Tomioka Town. Photo exhibition"(tentative name) held.
· Flower planting on the flowerbed of a regional arterial roadseparation belt (several times).
· Set up "Koinobori" and "Tanabata decoration" according to theseason in the front plaza at the site office· When dispatching traffic accidents in public roads, we dispatchedheavy machinery and personnel from the construction site
immediately after the accident, greatly contributing to the earlycancellation of the road closure of the national road.
· Opening "Fure-ai Hiroba" in Futaba Maeda JV office during the day
to secure the resting place of town residents who are temporarily·Maeda/Okumura/home to Futaba Town even during the “Bon” holiday period (holiday
Tanaka JV
in summer vacation).
·Maeda/Konoike/· When Fukushima Prefectural Police, scheduled for August 11,
Tanaka JV
searches for missing persons, we dispatched a "toilet car" to thesearch place and cooperated with the search activities.
· Participation by staff and workers participate in the National Road
No. 6 Cleaning Activities sponsored by Happy Road Net, a nonprofit organization (NPO).
i JVTomioka Town

Futaba Town

379

Photo by Taisei Corporation

Photo by Taisei Corporation

Traffic induction and attention alerting toprevent traffic accidents (Iitate Village)

Donation 3 wheelchairs to the local social
welfare council

Photo by Okumura Corporation

Photo by Okumura Corporation

Participation in regional softball event(Katsurao Village)

Participation in regional clean up activity

Photo by Taisei Corporation

Photo by Taisei Corporation

Participation in regional festivals (Kawamata
Town)

Participation in the revitalizing citizen tree
planting festival (Minamisoma City)

Photo by Kajima Corporation

Releasing sweet fish fry, yamame and salmon into
local rivers (Tomioka Town)

Photo by Maeda Corporation

Planting of flowers along local roads(Futaba Town)

Figure 5-54 Examples of community contribution activities

380

Credits Maeda Corporation
Photos by Obayashi Corporation

Figure 5-56 Example of establishment of safety
specialized organization andimplementation of patrol

Figure 5-55 Example of communication withlocal community

Photos by Maeda Corporation
地域との共生Photos by Maeda Corporation

宿舎の運営・管理

Figure 5-57 Examples of crime prevention (bluesecurity patrol)
宿舎・村内の巡回警備
ＪＶの自主的活動
・宿舎の巡回警備対象：三春熊耳宿舎、船引砂子田宿舎、常葉宿舎、滝根宿舎
頻度：月曜日～日曜日 場内を不定時に２巡回、滝根は夕～深夜
・村内の巡回パトロール
対象：葛尾村内（破砕施設他）
頻度：日曜日、村内を終日巡回

・「安全パトロール車」による巡回：毎月第一・第三金曜日

・巡回箇所：県道５０号線、国道３９９号線、田村市広域農道

安全パトロール車

ポイ捨て状況確認

滝根宿舎警備状況
工事車両等の交通安全対策

Photos by Okumura Corporation

村内巡回ルート

Photos by Okumura Corporation
5

通勤車両等の交通安全対策
通勤車両等の交通安全対策
通勤車両等の交通安全対策

村内の交通安全対策
地域共生活動
地域共生活動Figure 5-58 Example of Safety Patrol and RoundPatrol
地域共生活動・交通マナーアップ活動：毎月第一週月～水
月～水
・交通マナーアップ活動：毎月第一週
・交通マナーアップ活動：毎月第一週
月～水

葛尾村内への交通安全のぼり設置
・国道３９９号、県道５０号、落合浪江線：９か所２１本・村道、林道：１４箇所３０本

・秋の交通安全週間：田村署出陣式参列（9/20）
・秋の交通安全週間：田村署出陣式参列（9/20）
・秋の交通安全週間：田村署出陣式参列（9/20）
交通安全のチラシ配布（9/27）
交通安全のチラシ配布（9/27）
交通安全のチラシ配布（9/27）ｚ

敷井畑地区（見通しの悪いカーブ）

落合交差点でのマナーアップ

大笹地区（幅員減少部）

落合交差点でのマナーアップ
落合交差点でのマナーアップ

Photos by Okumura Corporation

田村署交通安全週間出陣式

田村署交通安全週間出陣式
田村署交通安全週間出陣式

Photos by Okumura Corporation6
6

6

Figure 5-59 Example of traffic safety banner, campaign activities to promote exemplary traffic
behavior

381

Photo by Maeda Corporation

Figure 5-60 Example of image up of Temporary Storage Site

Photo by Maeda Corporation

Figure 5-61 Example of education for workers of local companies

Photo by Maeda Corporation

Figure 5-62 Example of Futaba Fure-ai Town Square (Appearance, Inside)

Photo by Maeda Corporation

Figure 5-63 Example of light-up event in Naraha Town

Figure 5-64

Photo by Japan Federation of Construction Contractors

Leaflet etc. on efforts for decontamination and reconstruction382

A letter of appreciation has been awarded from MOE to decontamination contractors that have carriedout regional contributions and campaign activities to promote exemplary behavior.

Table 5-48 Commendations of excellent providers for regional contributions and campaign
activities to promote exemplary behavior
・FY2014 Iitate Village Decontamination Works (Part 1):

Taisei, Tokyu, Rinkai Nissan,
Muramoto JV

・FY2014 Iitate Village Decontamination Works (Part 2):

Taisei, Seibu, Honma , Aomi JV・FY2014 Katsurao Village Decontamination Works (Part 2):

Okumura, Nishimatsu, Daiho JV・FY2014 Tomioka Town Decontamination Works (Part 2) :Shimizu, Takenaka, Tokyo PowerTechnology JV・FY2014 Tomioka Town Decontamination Works (Part 3):

Obayashi, Toa, Morimoto, Fujita,
Tobu JV・FY2014 Futaba Town Point Decontamination Works:

Maeda Corporation Tohoku Branch

・FY2015 Okuma Town Point Decontamination Works:

Shimizu, Kumagai, Toyo, Takenaka
JV・FY2015 Kawamata Town Decontamination Works (Part3):

Taisei, Tekken, Seibu, Honma, Aomi
JV・FY2015 Namie Town Decontamination Works (Part4):

Hazama Ando, Toda, Fudo Tetra,
Asanuma, IwataChizaki kensetsu JV・FY2015 Naraha Town Decontamination Works (Additional): Maeda, Konoike JV・FY2015 Futaba Town Decontamination Works :Maeda, Okumura, Tanaka JV・FY2015 Minamisoma City Decontamination Works (Part4): Taisei, Goyo, Kokudo, Sato JV
・FY2015 Minamisoma City Decontamination Works (Part5): Taisei, Goyo, Kokudo, Sato,
Mitsubishi Material JV・FY2016 Tomioka Town Decontamination Works (Part4):

Kajima, Hitachi, Tekken, Tobishima
JV・FY2016 Naraha Town Decontamination Works :383

Maeda, Konoike JV