IAEAからの提言　f_zebraさんより

Highlight 10: Remediation of forests has been implemented in a limited manner by the
removal 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 the
authorities 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 as
extensive 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 and
implementation 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 local
communities

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 to
meet emission standards for limiting public exposure.

Point 1: To further improve the effectiveness of the institutional arrangements and public
confidence 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 the
definition of relevant radiological remediation criteria and the review of the related safety
assessments, 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 the
development and implementation of temporary storage facilities between Municipalities, and
also between Municipalities and the National Government.

Point 2: 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 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, 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 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 to
be reallocated 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 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 and
provide greater confidence in the decisions being made. Promoting a holistic view would also
facilitate opportunities to plan key stakeholder engagement activities in advance, allowing the
process to be proactive rather than reactive. It may be beneficial to formalise a process for
sharing such initiatives between the Municipalities, in order to determine whether these could
be applied elsewhere. Such an approach might result in greater public confidence and
contribute to enabling more people to return to their homes outside restricted areas.