NE/NEFW/2013
ORIGINAL: English

Preliminary Summary Report

The Follow-up IAEA
International Mission onremediation of large
contaminated areas off-site theFukushima Daiichi NuclearPower Plant
Tokyo and Fukushima Prefecture, Japan
14 – 21 October 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In October 2011, the IAEA conducted an International Mission to Japan to support theremediation of large contaminated areas off-site TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Plant (NPP). In response to the request made by the Government of Japan, in October 2013,
the IAEA organized a follow-up International Mission on remediation of large contaminatedareas off-site TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPP (hereinafter referred to as the “Follow-upMission” or the “Mission”) with the main purpose of evaluating the progress of the on-going
remediation works achieved since the previous mission in October 2011.
The Follow-up Mission Team involved 13 international experts. Additionally, 3 experts ofthe Working Group 5 (Subgroup 5.2, Remediation) in charge of preparing the IAEA
Comprehensive Report on TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Accident accompanied the Mission asobservers, to obtain first-hand information for the comprehensive report.
The Follow-up Mission had the following three objectives:
1. To provide assistance to Japan in assessing the progress made with the remediation of
the Special Decontamination Area (not included in the previous mission of 2011) andthe Intensive Contamination Survey Areas;
2. To review remediation strategies, plans and works, in view of the advice provided by
the previous mission on remediation of large contaminated off-site areas; and3. To share its findings with the international community as lessons learned.
The Mission was conducted through the assessment of information provided to the Team andprofessional and open discussions with the relevant institutions in Japan, including national,
prefectural and local institutions. The Japanese authorities provided comprehensive
information on their remediation programme. The Mission Team also visited the affectedareas, including several sites where activities on remediation were conducted and some
temporary storage sites for radioactive waste and soil generated in the remediation activities,
as well as a survey area for the interim storage facility for radioactive soil and waste, and ademonstration facility for incineration of sewage sludge.

Overview
The Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Radioactive Pollution (“the Act onSpecial Measures”) was enacted in August 2011 and took full effect from January 2012 as
the main legal instrument to deal with all remediation activities in the affected areas, as wellas the management of materials removed as a result of remediation activities. The Basic
Principles based on the Act were published in November 2011, thus creating an institutionalframework to implement remediation activities.
According to the Act on Special Measures, the affected areas have been rearranged into two
categories:
Special Decontamination Area. This area consists of the “restricted areas” locatedwithin a 20 km radius from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi NPP, and “deliberateevacuation areas” where the annual cumulative dose for individuals was anticipated toexceed 20 mSv. The national government promotes decontamination in these areas.

Intensive Contamination Survey Area. This area includes the so-called
Decontamination Implementation Areas, where an additional annual cumulative dose
between 1mSv and 20mSv was estimated for individuals. Municipalities implement
decontamination activities in these areas. In all these areas the average air dose rate
exceeded 0.23µSv/hour.

In a more pragmatic approach for the remediation programme, the Special Decontamination
Area is further divided into the three following categories as shown in figure 2:
Area 1 (Green). Estimated annual dose level is below 20mSv (and above 1mSv)

Area 2 (Yellow). Estimated annual dose level is between 20 and 50mSv

Area 3 (Red). Estimated annual dose level is over 50mSv, and the annual cumulative
dose is expected to be more than 20mSv within five years

This Mission focused on remediation in the Special Decontamination Area, as it was notconsidered under the scope of the previous Mission, and on following up on progress
regarding the advice provided by the previous mission to enhance remediation planning andimplementation in all the affected areas.

Soma City
Date City

IitateVillage

Kawamata
Town
M inamisoma
City

Nihonmatsu
City

Katsurao
Village

Namie
Town

FutabaTown

Tamura
City
Okuma
Town

LegendMeasurement by car (mSv/Yr)

TomiokaTown

150 or more
100-150
50-100
20-50
10-20
5-10
1-5

KawauchiVillageAe rial measurement (mSv/Yr)

NarahaTown

150 or more
100-150
50-100
20-50
10-20
5-10
1-5
Areas

Iwaki City
Areas affected by tsunami

Deliberate evacuation
areas
Restricted areas

HironoTown

Figure 1: Restricted areas and areas to which evacuation orders have been issued around TEPCO’s Fukushima
Dai-ichi NPP (5 November, 2011) .

Figure 2: Current arrangement of the areas to which evacuation orders have been issued (7 August, 2013)

Main findings
This report presents the main results and conclusions of the Mission.
The Team considers that the remediation of large contaminated areas represents a huge effort
and recognizes that Japan is allocating enormous resources to developing strategies and plans
and implementing remediation activities, with the aim of enhancing the living conditions of
the people affected by the nuclear accident, including enabling evacuated people to return.
The Team also considers that, as result of these efforts, Japan has achieved good progress in
the remediation activities and, in general, has well considered the advice provided by theprevious Mission in 2011. The Team was pleased to see good progress in the coordination ofremediation activities with reconstruction and revitalisation efforts.
The report also provides conclusions from the assessment of specific topics in theremediation programme, including the twelve points where the previous Mission provided
advice for improvement. It highlights important progress in all areas to date and offers advice
on several points where the Team feels it is still possible to further improve current practices,taking into account both international standards and the experience of remediation
programmes in other countries, which will further help to increase public confidence. WhileJapan continues its current remediation efforts, it is encouraged to take into consideration theMission's advice for further optimisation of remediation activities.

Highlights of important progress
Highlight 1: The Team acknowledges the institutional arrangements implemented by Japan toaddress the remediation needs of the areas affected by TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi accident.
The Team appreciates that Japan makes enormous efforts to implement the remediation
programme in order to reduce exposures to people in the affected areas, to enable, stimulateand support the return of people evacuated after the accident, and to support the affectedmunicipalities in overcoming economic and social disruptions. The review Team recognizes
the involvement of a wide range of ministries and agencies, as well as institutions of themunicipalities, to support remediation by providing financial resources, technical guidance
and institutional assistance.
Highlight 2: Overall, the Team has seen many examples of good practice in stakeholder
involvement, with demonstrable evidence that successful communication and engagement
processes are being adopted at the national, prefectural and municipal level. It is clear that insome instances, key local community figures have been motivated to lead on engagement
issues, gaining the trust of their communities. National government is encouraging local
authorities to conduct extensive consultations with local communities, and is respecting theiroutcome.
Highlight 3: The Team acknowledges that a large amount of crucial information (especiallyin relation to dose rates) has been produced since the accident that will help to drive decisionmaking processes. It is clearly important to foster confidence both in the accuracy of theinformation itself and in how it is interpreted, especially in terms of safety perceptions. Thisis particularly effective where trusted intermediaries are used, such as doctors and otherindependent experts.

Highlight 4: The Team believes that the Decontamination Information Plaza in Fukushima
and its associated outreach activities are a valuable asset in the overall stakeholder
engagement process.
Highlight 5: The Team acknowledges that the NRA has set up a team to conduct a study on‘Safety and Security Measures towards Evacuees Returning Home’. It is beneficial tocontinue the measurement of individual external exposure doses for Fukushima prefecture
residents, to confirm the expected decreasing trend and justify the remediation decision as
noted in Point 4. Some measures, not only for decontamination but for exposure reduction
measures, health management and rebuilding daily life, can be undertaken after evacuation
orders are lifted, until additional individual dose exposure decreases gradually towards thelong-term dose reduction goal of 1 mSV/y.
Highlight 6: The Team welcomes the critical evaluation of the efficiency of the removal ofcontaminated material compared with the reduction in dose rate offered by different methodsof decontamination, recognizing that this is an important tool in the application ofdecontamination 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 to conclude that an additional 1 mSv/y is more applicableto long-term dose reduction goals.
Highlight 7: The mission Team welcomes the new approach for the comprehensive
monitoring and management of data coordinated by the NRA for the purpose of assessing thestatus of environmental contamination.
Highlight 8: Good progress has been made in the remediation of affected farmland in theIntensive Contamination Survey Area. Furthermore, the intensive monitoring of foodstuffs
has shown that much of the land can produce food below the reference level for permissible
radioactivity, and that remediation measures such as the application of potassium fertilizer
are effective. This result suggests that top soil removal is not necessarily the optimal solution
to ensure food safety in the Intensive Contamination Survey Area.
Highlight 9: Comprehensive implementation of food safety measures has protectedconsumers and improved consumer confidence in farm produce, reflected in an increase in
the economic value of the crops.
Highlight 10: Remediation of forests has been implemented in a limited manner by theremoval of material under the trees in a 20-meter buffer strip adjacent to residences, farmland
and public spaces, in response to public concern. The Mission Team acknowledges that theauthorities in Japan have implemented a practical option for remediation of the forest areas.
Highlight 11: A comprehensive aquatic monitoring programme is ongoing. It includes
environmental concentrations in water, sediment and suspended sediment, as well asextensive food monitoring of freshwater fish (wild and cultivated), with concentrations
generally decreasing since 2011.
Highlight 12: The Mission Team found significant progress in the development andimplementation of temporary storage 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 facilities by the National Government with the cooperation of municipalities and localcommunities.

Highlight 13: The Mission Team acknowledges that incineration is being used as an effective
technology for volume reduction of contaminated material, with the adoption of measures tomeet emission standards for limiting public exposure.

AdvicePoint 1: To further improve the effectiveness of the institutional arrangements and publicconfidence in these arrangements, the relevant institutions in Japan are encouraged to assess
the benefits that could be derived from a more active participation of the Nuclear Regulation
Authority (NRA) in the review of remediation activities, with special consideration to thedefinition of relevant radiological remediation criteria and the review of the related safetyassessments, particularly those required for the long term. The Mission Team also encourages
the establishment of a mechanism and platform for learning and sharing the lessons from thedevelopment and implementation of temporary storage facilities between Municipalities, andalso between Municipalities and the National Government.
Point 2: Japanese institutions are encouraged to increase efforts to communicate that inremediation situations, any level of individual radiation dose in the range of 1 to 20 mSv per
year is acceptable and in line with the international standards and with the recommendations
from the relevant international organisations, e.g. ICRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR and WHO. The
appropriate application of the optimisation principle in a remediation strategy, and its
practical implementation, requires a balance of all factors that influence the situation, withthe 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 amore realistic perception of radiation and related risks among the population.
The Government should strengthen its efforts to explain to the public that an additional
individual dose of 1 mSv/y is a long-term goal, and that it cannot be achieved in a short time,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 tobe reallocated to the recovery of essential infrastructure to enhance living conditions, shouldbe carefully communicated to the public.
The IAEA – and very likely also the international scientific community – is ready to support
Japan in this challenging task.
Point 3: The Team believes that communicating the entire remediation and reconstruction
programmes, and how the various components interact (for example, trade-offs between
reducing exposure and increasing waste volumes), could reduce some uncertainties andprovide greater confidence in the decisions being made. Promoting a holistic view would also
facilitate opportunities to plan key stakeholder engagement activities in advance, allowing theprocess to be proactive rather than reactive. It may be beneficial to formalise a process forsharing such initiatives between the Municipalities, in order to determine whether these could
be applied elsewhere. Such an approach might result in greater public confidence andcontribute to enabling more people to return to their homes outside restricted areas.
Point 4: There needs to be a continued movement towards the use of the individual doses, asmeasured with personal dosimeters, to support remediation decisions. As the Nuclear
Regulatory Authority is planning to coordinate a study that focuses on individual dose, it isrecommended that the dose study include a background population and also tie individual
dose measurements to decontamination efforts at the homes of the monitored individuals.
Point 5: The Team notes that by taking into consideration the natural processes leading toreduced availability of radiocaesium to crops, there is potential to further optimize theapplication of remediation measures and still produce safe foods. This will have the added
benefit of conserving the nutrients in the soil and reducing the amount of removed soil thatneeds to be disposed of.
Point 6: The Team recommends continuing the optimization of the remediation of forest
areas around residential areas, farmland and public spaces by concentrating efforts in areasthat bring greatest benefit in reducing doses to the public and avoid damage to the ecological
functioning of the forest where possible. The occupational hazards for remediation workers
should be balanced against the benefit of the procedure in terms of dose rate and the concernsof residents. The impacts on erosion and radionuclide behaviour should be evaluated using
models for radiocaesium in forests. Current research efforts by Japanese research centres arerecommended to be included in this evaluation.
Point 7: The Team recommends continuing the monitoring of freshwater and marine
environments, and suggests that these data be interpreted within the context of processes
known to affect the concentrations of radiocaesium in water, sediment and biota. Monitoringdata and further research may form the basis for consideration of site-specific remediation ofaffected areas.
Point 8: The mission Team encourages the responsible organization(s) to carry out
appropriate demonstrations of the safety of the facilities and activities for the management ofcontaminated materials, in particular for long-term activities, and to allow for their
independent evaluation.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Mission TeamMISSION TEAM MEMBERS

Juan Carlos Lentijo

Team Leader
Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology

Gerhard Proehl

Deputy Team Leader
Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety

Reno Alamsyah

Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency of Indonesia

Peter BoothHylton Environmental

Gerard Bruno

Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety

Gerd Dercon

Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food andAgriculture

Igor Gusev

Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety

Akira Izumo

Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology

Horst Monken-Fernandes

Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology

Risto Paltemaa
Susanta Kumar Samanta

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland
Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology

Kevin Taylor

AECOM Technical Services Inc

Gill Tudor

Division of Public Information

Experts of the Working Group 5 (Subgroup 5.2, Remediation) in charge of preparing
the IAEA Comprehensive Report on TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Accident
WORKING GROUP 5 MEMBERS

Brenda Howard

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Natural Environment
Research Council

Irena Mele

Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste TechnologyDavid Rowan

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.