IAEA Final Report on Recycling of Removed Soil etc. Arising from Decontamination Activities (Vol. 7)

Hello, everyone. My name is Daichi, an expert providing the information about the radiation issues in an easy-to-understand manner.

Regarding the review made by the IAEA, for the volume reduction and recycling of removed soil arising from remediation activities, which has been promoted by the national government, this article covered the background of the review made by the IAEA, this article covered the overall evaluation made by the IAEA.

In addition, the detailed evaluation was covered in each article: this article covered the ‘Chapter III: Regulatory aspect’, this article covered the ‘Chapter IV: Volume reduction and the managed recycling of removed soil’, this article the ‘Chapter V: Final disposal of removed soil and waste’, and this article covered the ‘Chapter VI: Public communication and stakeholder engagement’.

So far all of the contents of the final report have been explained, therefore, at last here I would like to express my personal opinion with regard to the relationship and difference between the IAEA final report on recycling of removed soil etc. and other IAEA reports on remediation after the accident of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as impact on Japan and international society made by this report and the ‘true meaning’ of this final report.

In other words, this article will cover the following questions:

-　How is the IAEA final report on recycling of removed soil etc. related with other reports, and how is it different with other reports?
-　How does the IAEA final report make impact on Japanese and international society toward the future?
-　What is the true meaning of the IAEA final report?

Table of contents of this article

I have been involved with the radiation-relevant issues, like the policy on the decontamination activities and the management of the Interim Storage Facility, after the accident of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011.

I received a doctorate in the field of radiation, while working in Fukushima.

IAEA Final Report on Recycling of Removed Soil etc. Arising from Decontamination Activities (Vol. 7)

First, this article covers the relationship and difference between this IAEA final report on recycling etc. of removed soil and other IAEA reports associated with off-site remediation as well as release of ALPS treated water, especially focusing on the recycling of removed soil.

After that it describes my personal view on impact on policies in Japan and international society, as well as ‘true meaning’ of this report.

Relationship and difference between the IAEA final report for the volume reduction and recycling of removed soil and other IAEA reports

So, let’s take a look at the relation and difference between four IAEA reports on off-site remediation and the release of the ALPS treated water.

Report of IAEA international mission on off-site decontamination (2011 and 2014)

The IAEA international mission on off-site decontamination was conducted in October 2011, in response to the request from the Japanese government, with the aim of provision of necessary support to Japan, with regard to the strategy and plan for off-site remediation.

October 2011 was the point of time, when around 6 months had passed from the accident, and the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Pollution by Radioactive Materials (the Act on Special Measures) (in Japanese) was promulgated (August 2011), which has underlain the implementation of remediation, but not fully taken into effect (January 2012).

Therefore, as mentioned in the Final Report of the International Mission, it was the period of time, when large-scale remediation activities by the national and local governments had not been implemented, but instead the small-scale remediation activities were implemented, for example, in schools by PTAs.

However, in the Final Report of the International Mission, the IAEA mission already mentioned concern about the generation of a large volume of removed soil arising from remediation, as well as recycling of waste generated as follows:

Point 1: 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 contribute to the reduction of exposure doses. This goal could be achieved through the practical implementation of the Justification and Optimization principles under the prevailing circumstances. Involving more radiation protection experts (and the Regulatory Body) in the organizational structures that assist the decision makers might be beneficial in the fulfillment of this objective. The IAEA is ready to support Japan in considering new and appropriate criteria.

Point 5: It is important to avoid classifying as “radioactive waste” waste materials that do not cause exposures that would warrant special radiation protection measures. The Team encourages the relevant authorities to revisit the issue of establishing realistic and credible limits (clearance levels) regarding associated exposures. Residues that satisfy the clearance level can be recycled and reused in various ways, such as the construction of structures, banks and roads. The IAEA is ready to support Japan in considering new and appropriate criteria.

Point 6: The Team draws the authorities’ attention to the potential risk of misunderstandings that could arise if the population is only or mainly concerned with contamination concentrations [surface contamination levels (Bq/m2) or volume concentrations (Bq/m3)] rather than dose levels. The investment of time and effort in removing contamination beyond certain levels (the so-called optimized levels) from everywhere, such as all forest areas and areas where the additional exposure is relatively low, does not automatically lead to a reduction of doses for the public. It also involves a risk of generating unnecessarily huge amounts of residual material. The Team encourages authorities to maintain their focus on remediation activities that bring the best results in reducing the doses to the public.

Point 12: The Mission Team encourages the Japanese authorities to actively pursue appropriate end-points for the waste in close cooperation with stakeholders. The national and local governments should cooperate in order to ensure the provision of these facilities. A lack of availability of such an infrastructure would unduly limit and hamper successful remediation activities, thus potentially jeopardizing public health and safety.

After that, in order to evaluate the progress made after the mission in 2011, the follow-up mission was implemented in October 2013.

Talking about October 2013, it was the time when remediation had been implemented in full-scale and very actively all over the affected areas, and covered areas for remediation (e.g. forest, river) were also actively considered and discussed.

In the Final Report of the Follow-up International Mission, there are no specific descriptions for the recycling of removed soil, but instead the reduction of generated removed soil can be seen, taking account of aforementioned situation as follows:

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.

Point 5: The Team notes that by taking into consideration the natural processes leading to reduced availability of radiocaesium to crops, there is potential to further optimize the application 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 that needs 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 areas that 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 concerns of residents. The impacts on erosion and radionuclide behaviour should be evaluated using models for radiocaesium in forests. Current research efforts by Japanese research centres are recommended to be included in this evaluation.

At that time, the full-scale remediation had not started, or just begun, therefore, these reports had meanings rather to provide the Japanese Government with advice and support for the measures of the Japanese Government, which had not had yet enough experience for remediation, in stead of evaluating these measures.

That is the difference with the Final Report on volume reduction and recycling of removed soil, which evaluated the measures of the Japanese Government in light with the IAEA Safety Standards.

IAEA DG report on the accident of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (2015)

IAEA DG report on the accident of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is the report, which then DG Amano announced his policy for its development in the IAEA General Conference in September 2012.

Based on a large amount of information obtained, the report summarizes the accident and its causes, the progress made following the accident and lessons learnt and so forth.

It consists of the DG report and five technical documents.

In the technical document No. 5: Post-accident recovery, measures of off-site remediation are introduced, and the recycling of removed soil is also mentioned, although it is not in detail.

In addition, in the Report by the Director General, the volume reduction of generation of removed soil is touched upon as follows:

ー Remediation strategies need to take account of the effectiveness and feasibility of individual measures and the amount of contaminated material that will be generated in the remediation process.
Having established reference levels for residual radiation doses and contamination levels, it is essential to control carefully the amount of contaminated material generated by implementing the remediation strategy in order to minimize the amount of waste to be managed. The absence of preparations for recovery from a nuclear accident in Japan meant that, initially, large volumes of potentially contaminated material were generated. As time elapsed and planning developed, remediation actions were optimized, leading to improved control of the amount of waste to be managed.
Pilot projects were useful in determining both the effectiveness of particular remediation techniques and the amount of waste generated by particular techniques. Pilot projects also contributed to establishing procedures for the radiation protection of workers.

2015, when this report was published, was the time when three years had passed after the full-scale remediation began, and the evacuation orders were also lifted in some municipalities.

And the pilot project of transportation to the Interim Storage Facility also started in March, and the remediation activities had come to its peak and the following second half, and at the same time, the full-scale transportation project would start soon.

This report seemed to have an intention to summarize measures and lessons learnt of four years after the accident, and to share them with international society, therefore it didn’t seem to have an objective to evaluate in detail the measures.

IAEA comprehensive report on expert meetings on off-site remediation (2023)

Afterwards the IAEA and the MOEJ implemented 4 IAEA Experts Meetings on environment remediation in 2016 and 2017, in order to discuss in depth off-site remediation.

At that time, the full-scale remediation called ‘the areal decontamination’ in Japanese, came to the completion phase and the evacuation orders were lifted one after another, and in Fukushima Prefecture transportation project to the ISF was implemented in full swing.

And also, a demonstration project to explore the possibility for recycling of removed soil with relatively low radioactivity concentration, out of the removed soil with the estimated volume of around 14 million m³, had started in Minamisoma City. (Please visit　this website (in Japanese) for detailed information.

The achievement of the four Experts Meetings are published as the consolidated report in 2023.

The situation in the report is updated, because it took time after the fourth (last) meeting to the publication, in the conclusion (the Chapter IX), the importance of the recycling is mentioned in detail as follows (provisional translation by myself):

The nature of decontamination waste (which is mostly comprised of relatively low activity material consisting of contaminated soil, vegetation etc.) necessitates the application of specifically tailored waste treatment processes, storage and disposal technologies. In view of the large amount of waste, it is crucially important to consider segregation and treatment of decontamination waste for volume reduction to minimize interim and (especially) disposal volumes.

It is equally important to work out practical, safe and socially acceptable waste and soil recycling approaches in view of the large amount of material containing relatively low levels of contamination. In particular, contaminated soil recycling is of crucial importance in view of the need to minimize the volume waste requiring final disposal.

As you can see above, this report includes in-depth information about recycling, and it is published somehow as a report which summarizes 10-year achievements after the accident, by adding subsequent information, although it is still basically based on the discussion during Experts Meeting in 2016 and 2017.

On the other hand, the consistency with the IAEA Safety Standards was not discussed, because at that time it was not the time for the MOEJ to consider in depth institutional arrangement for the recycling, and also because the Department of Nuclear Energy of the IAEA was responsible for the Experts Meeting.

IAEA comprehensive report on ALPS treated water (2023)

At last, the report which has been often referred, is the IAEA comprehensive report on the ALPS treated water, to compare with the IAEA report on recycling of removed soil etc.

For detailed information, please visit the website of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (in Japanese) and the website of the IAEA, but in the Executive Summary of the comprehensive report, it is evaluated as follows:

Based on its comprehensive assessment, the IAEA has concluded that the approach and activities to the discharge of ALPS treated water taken by Japan are consistent with relevant international safety standards.

As is the overall evaluation explained in this article, this is the comprehensive expression associated with the consistency with the relevant IAEA Safety Standards, and very important part describing the international evaluation from the IAEA.

This is one of the reasons, why the IAEA final report on recycling of removed soil is often compared with the IAEA comprehensive report on the ALPS treated water, but still there seems to be some differences.

For exmple, one of the differences is the targeted subjects (i.e. ALPS treated waster and removed soil), and in addition, the ALPS treated water is released into ocean and it becomes an international issue, also by involving neighboring counrties.

On the other hand, regarding the recycling of removed soil, (so far) it is treated as a domestic issue, and the issue of the ALPS treated water has seemed to attract more attention.

Therefore, I think that in fact the system of the Japanese government and the IAEA to address the issue are well in place, as well as the coverage of mass media, is larger for the issue of the ALPS treated water, compared with the issue of the recycling of the removed soil.

However, it seemed to take a similar approach, from the viewpoint, that both of them were discussed in terms of technical and social point of view, by taking a lot of time, and that it came to the conclusion with regard to the consistency with the IAEA Safety Standards.

Impact on policies inside and outside of Japan made by the IAEA final report on volume reduction and recycling of removed soil

The report on recycling of removed soil etc. was published in September 2024, and here I would like to describe a bit my view on influence on domestic and international policies toward the future, made by this report toward.

Impact on policy in Japan

When looking at situation within the Japanese government, it appears that this final report has made a great impact on policies of the recycling etc. of removed soil.

After the publication of the final report, in addition to the Review Meeting on the Technology Development Strategy for Volume Reduction and Recycling of Removed Soil and Waste under Interim Storage (in Japanese), the Review Meeting on Environmental Restoration (in Japanese) and other working groups positioned under these Review Meetings were vigorously held.

Based on the contents of the final report, I think that the MOEJ was able to more accurately grasp its current position from an international perspective, in terms of what has been achieved and what is still lacking, and it seems that this had further accelerated the consideration of full-scale implementation of recycling and final disposal.

In addition, as covered in this article, before the target fiscal year of the end of 2024 (end of March 2025), the compilation of the achievement of the Technology Development Strategy, the development of the technical guidelines, the amendment of the Ministerial Ordinance and the development of the future policy to proceed with this project were conducted (Please refer to the Press Release of the MOEJ on 28 March) (in Japanese).

Moving forward, it is expected for these measures to be more accelerated, toward the full-scale implementation of recycling projects.

Impact on international society

On the other hand, I would say that impact on the international society is still unclear.

Without the doubt the measures for the recycling and the final disposal of removed soil are unprecedented case in the world, looking back the history of the management of radioactive waste, and this will be a good reference, in the event some similar cases happen in somewhere in the world.

It is required to share continuously the information with the international society including the IAEA, but from my personal point of view, I would like to expect the reflection to guides of the international organizations, like the recommendations of the ICRP (please visit this article) and the IAEA Safety Standards (please visit this article).

What is “the true meaning” of the final report on volume reduction and recycling of removed soil?

So, what is ‘the true meaning’ of the IAEA final report?

Of course, I would say that this final report itself is a great achievement, and one of the meanings of this Experts Meeting.

From the MOE’s point of view, which asked for the review, it hoped that the IAEA could support its policy for the recycling, which the MOE has promoted, and in fact there are a lot of parts in line with their hope.

However, the review was conduct from the neutral point of view, therefore, it was possible for the MOE to receive comments that could require the MOE to make additional measures, which the MOE would not like to address.

In fact, there are a couple of specific points which were pointed out and need to be addressed in the future, e.g. the independence of regulatory function elaborated in this article, and long-term safety assessment for recycling and final disposal, elaborated in this article and this article.

From my personal point of view, there is another true meaning.

Actually there are not so many opportunities to have serious discussion with the international society.

There are opportunities sometimes to participate in international conferences to make short presentations, but it is rarely to have opportunities to exchange views with experts, several times over the course of more than a year, and I believe that was a very good opportunity for both sides.

It is not easy to find the point, which both sides can agree with, sometimes by expressing different views and opinions, and understanding each other’s position.

However, the report made after the discussions, is really sophisticated and it sometimes conveys its passion.

After the completion of the challenging project, much stronger relationship with trust is built than ever before, but in order to maintain the relationship, continuous communication is needed.

This report works its true value, by continuing and deepening the relationship of trust, instead of finishing only as one project, and leaving people, who will be involved with this project for the next generation.

I believe that it is the true meaning of this final report to use it as a starting point toward the future.

Summary

This time, regarding the final report of IAEA Experts Meetings on recycling etc. of removed soil, as a complementary item, I wrote my personal views on relationship and difference between other reports, impact on policies within Japan and international society, and the ‘true meaning’ of this final report as a wrap-up.

Even though one-fourth of 21st century has almost come to the end, but situation of the world has not shown to settle down, but military conflicts are occurring all around the world.

It is necessary to pay attention to natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunami, but possibilities need to be also taken into account, for the nuclear related facilities to be affected by man-made impacts, that might cause large-scale environmental contamination.

Of course it is necessary to make efforts to prevent from such events from happening, but it is important to make preparation in advance to minimize the impact, in the unlikely event that they happen.

For that, it is necessary to leave system and people, which enable it.

It would be appreciated, if this final report will be a trigger for the efforts, and I would like to continue taking action with my own life’s cause, “From Fukushima to the world, and from the world to Fukushima,” in mind.

You can read the same article in Japanese here.

Thank you very much for reading this article.

See you next time!