the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research and management challenges following soil and landscape decontamination at the onset of the reopening of the Difficult-To-Return Zone, Fukushima (Japan)
Abstract. Twelve years after the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011, radiocesium contamination (with a large dominance of 137Cs, with a 30-years half-life) remains a major concern in various municipalities of Northeastern Japan. The Japanese authorities completed an unprecedented decontamination programme in residential and cultivated areas affected by the main radioactive plume (8953 km²). They implemented a complex remediation programme scheme relying on different decision rules depending on the waste type, its contamination level and its region of origin, after delineating different zones exposed to contrasted radiation rates. The central objective was not to expose local inhabitants to radioactive doses exceeding 1 mSv yr-1 in addition to the natural levels. At the onset of the full reopening of the Difficult-to-Return Zone in Spring 2023, the current review provides an update of a previous synthesis published in 2019 (Evrard et al., 2019). Although this ambitious remediation and reconstruction programme is almost completed, in the 12 municipalities of Fukushima Prefecture in which an evacuation order was imposed in at least one neighbourhood in 2011, from the 147,443 inhabitants who lived there before the accident, only 29.9 % of them had returned by 2020. Waste generated by decontamination and tsunami cleaning/demolition work is planned to have been fully transported to (interim) storage facilities by the end of 2023. The cost of the operations conducted between 2011–2020 for the so-called ‘nuclear recovery’ operations (including decontamination) was estimated by the Audit Board of Japan in 2023 to 6122.3 billion yen (~44 billion euro). Decontamination of cropland was shown to have impacted soil fertility, and potassium fertilization is recommended to limit the transfer of residual radiocesium to new crops. In forests that cover 71 % of the surface area of the Fukushima Prefecture and that were not targeted by remediation, radiocesium is now found in the upper mineral layer of the soil in a quasi-equilibrium state. Nevertheless, 137Cs concentrations in forest products (including wood for heating and construction, wild plants, wildlife game, mushrooms) often keep exceeding the threshold values authorized in Japan, which prohibits their exploitation in the area affected by the main plume. Radionuclides from forest were shown to be exported in dissolved and particle-bound forms to downstream river systems and floodplains, although multiple monitoring records showed the continuous decrease in radiocesium concentrations in both river water and sediment across the main plume between 2011–2021. Fish contamination is now generally found below the threshold limits although reputational damage remains a major concern for local fishing communities. The remobilisation of radiocesium from sediment accumulated in reservoirs of the region is also of potential concern as it may lead to secondary contamination of fish or irrigation waters supplied to decontaminated fields. Overall, this synthesis demonstrates the need to continue monitoring post-accidental radiocesium transfers in these environments and to keep sharing data in order to refine our predictive understanding of radiocesium mobility and consolidate the tools available to model contaminant transfers in ecosystems. In forests in particular, novel countermeasures and wood uses remain to be developed and tested. Furthermore, the hydrologic connectivity between ecosystems is of great influence on long term radiocesium transport. The consequences of extreme phenomena (e.g., typhoons, forest fires) that may become more frequent in the future as a result of global change in these contaminated environments should be further anticipated.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1667 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1667 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-743', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 May 2023
This is a really excellent holistic synthesis of the decontamination carried out in Fukushima areas. The synthesis is comprehensive, balanced, and insightful. This study will be a key literature that tells us about the decontamination measures taken in Fukushima and their impact/consequences.
General comment:
Scope Agreed?
I believe the content of this manuscript is within the scope of SOIL; however, I feel that the manuscript should probably be a bit more SOIL-centric context, by at least inserting some texts explaining why soil matters and plays a key role in the decontamination in the radioactive contamination problem, also in the abstract, purpose and conclusion, if possible, in the main text as well. No need to change the structure of the manuscript.
Specific comments:
“Japanese characters”
The use of Japanese characters for some keywords is very unique. I like it. Probably, to accurately translate (convey) the key terms. Right?
Line 65-67 (Lyons et al., 2020): typo
Too many (Lyons et al., 2020)s.
Line 181, 799, “Fukushima Reprun”
Probably “Reprun Fukushima” would be correct.
Line 163 Board of Audit of Japan (会計検査院)
I don’t understand why you emphasize this by with Japanese characters.
Line 187 Clean Centre (クリーンセンター)
I don’t understand why you emphasize this by with Japanese characters.
Line 354: The Japanese characters here.
These two Japanese characters mean “debris”. The correct one is shown in line 790.
Line 440: “fuel break”
This term would be new for readers of SOIL. Add an explanation or rephrase it.
Line 567 “salmon”
I am not a specialist of fish, but “salmon” sounds like a sea fish. Is this correct?
References still need to be refined in terms of format. (137)Cs, for example. Please check them again.
Finally, again, I thank the authors for this excellent synthesis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging comments and for these suggestions that we will carefully take into account to revise the manuscript, should the editor give us this possibility.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-743', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2023
## General commentsThis review, which aims to inform the rest of the world about the unparalleled and proactive contamination measures taken by Japan, will be of great value as a preparation for future nuclear disasters.While many of the materials are written only in Japanese, I believe that the situation is adequately grasped and the necessary information is widely presented.However, there are a few points that could be improved before publication.Although the authors state that they do not deal with caesium migration (L129), the first half of Section 5 is mainly about caesium migration, which is contradictory.Rather, as it relates to the theme of this review, it is necessary to consider the resumption of agriculture and forestry and their social and economic impact.For example, two discussions by Kimura on the forestry economics impact of the accident would be helpful. (Unfortunately, it is in Japanese.)https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjfs/103/1/103_13/_pdf/-char/jahttps://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjfs/105/3/105_96/_pdf/-char/jaFrom the number of citations, it would be inferred that a significant part of the description of forest impacts and measures relies on information from a book of Hashimoto et al. (2022).Presumably there are similarly reviews of other sections (e.g. in the agricultural section) that the authors have referred to.Therefore, not only a review of caesium migration (Table 1) but also a review of the social impact of caesium contamination in each landscape should be listed.## specific commentsL65 (Lyons et al. 2020) -> ICRP citation is appropriate here.Section on agricultural land (L228-272)Measures, additional contamination and current situation of transfer factor in agricultural landscapes are well reviewed.However, an explanation of the resulting actual concentrations in crops and the evolution of shipping restrictions would be essential.L328 It should be mentioned that there are no restrictions on its use as a building material.L348 Girdling is certainly worth trying as a means of reducing concentrations and increasing timber utilization.However, it should be noted that it is not expected to be a solution, given the additional costs involved in Japan's difficult forestry management situation and the fact that pollution of cedar and other building materials is not a major problem.As mentioned in the general comments, priority will be given to pointing out issues related to the forestry economy, etc.L354 Confirmation on Japanese language errors. "瓦礫" -> "板葺".Table 2 “Sawdust for mushroom cultivation” -> “Sawdust medium for mushroom cultivation”L403 It should be mentioned that wood-logs have more stringent standards than sawdust and that the concentration of sawdust can be adjusted by changing the formulation.L411 Kobayashi -> Kanasashi et al 2020https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X19307374L417 It is unclear which parts are distinguished as (i) and (ii)L445 Hashimoto et al. state that the reason for the increase in wild boar and deer populations is not solely due to a decrease in the number of hunters (capture pressure).Fig. 6.14 in Hashimoto et al. shows that the number of captures has increased in line with the decrease in the number of hunters.Although the graph does not show the number of individuals, it should be understood that the estimated number of individuals has increased as well, and that the increase in the number of individuals has exceeded the pressure of captures.The 137th reference cited in Hashimoto et al. has been revised and the content changed, but previous versions can be downloaded from the following link.https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/plan/plan3-2a/chpt2.pdf (Japanese)Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging comments and for these suggestions that we will carefully take into account to revise the manuscript, should the editor give us this possibility.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-743', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 May 2023
This is a really excellent holistic synthesis of the decontamination carried out in Fukushima areas. The synthesis is comprehensive, balanced, and insightful. This study will be a key literature that tells us about the decontamination measures taken in Fukushima and their impact/consequences.
General comment:
Scope Agreed?
I believe the content of this manuscript is within the scope of SOIL; however, I feel that the manuscript should probably be a bit more SOIL-centric context, by at least inserting some texts explaining why soil matters and plays a key role in the decontamination in the radioactive contamination problem, also in the abstract, purpose and conclusion, if possible, in the main text as well. No need to change the structure of the manuscript.
Specific comments:
“Japanese characters”
The use of Japanese characters for some keywords is very unique. I like it. Probably, to accurately translate (convey) the key terms. Right?
Line 65-67 (Lyons et al., 2020): typo
Too many (Lyons et al., 2020)s.
Line 181, 799, “Fukushima Reprun”
Probably “Reprun Fukushima” would be correct.
Line 163 Board of Audit of Japan (会計検査院)
I don’t understand why you emphasize this by with Japanese characters.
Line 187 Clean Centre (クリーンセンター)
I don’t understand why you emphasize this by with Japanese characters.
Line 354: The Japanese characters here.
These two Japanese characters mean “debris”. The correct one is shown in line 790.
Line 440: “fuel break”
This term would be new for readers of SOIL. Add an explanation or rephrase it.
Line 567 “salmon”
I am not a specialist of fish, but “salmon” sounds like a sea fish. Is this correct?
References still need to be refined in terms of format. (137)Cs, for example. Please check them again.
Finally, again, I thank the authors for this excellent synthesis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging comments and for these suggestions that we will carefully take into account to revise the manuscript, should the editor give us this possibility.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-743', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2023
## General commentsThis review, which aims to inform the rest of the world about the unparalleled and proactive contamination measures taken by Japan, will be of great value as a preparation for future nuclear disasters.While many of the materials are written only in Japanese, I believe that the situation is adequately grasped and the necessary information is widely presented.However, there are a few points that could be improved before publication.Although the authors state that they do not deal with caesium migration (L129), the first half of Section 5 is mainly about caesium migration, which is contradictory.Rather, as it relates to the theme of this review, it is necessary to consider the resumption of agriculture and forestry and their social and economic impact.For example, two discussions by Kimura on the forestry economics impact of the accident would be helpful. (Unfortunately, it is in Japanese.)https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjfs/103/1/103_13/_pdf/-char/jahttps://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjfs/105/3/105_96/_pdf/-char/jaFrom the number of citations, it would be inferred that a significant part of the description of forest impacts and measures relies on information from a book of Hashimoto et al. (2022).Presumably there are similarly reviews of other sections (e.g. in the agricultural section) that the authors have referred to.Therefore, not only a review of caesium migration (Table 1) but also a review of the social impact of caesium contamination in each landscape should be listed.## specific commentsL65 (Lyons et al. 2020) -> ICRP citation is appropriate here.Section on agricultural land (L228-272)Measures, additional contamination and current situation of transfer factor in agricultural landscapes are well reviewed.However, an explanation of the resulting actual concentrations in crops and the evolution of shipping restrictions would be essential.L328 It should be mentioned that there are no restrictions on its use as a building material.L348 Girdling is certainly worth trying as a means of reducing concentrations and increasing timber utilization.However, it should be noted that it is not expected to be a solution, given the additional costs involved in Japan's difficult forestry management situation and the fact that pollution of cedar and other building materials is not a major problem.As mentioned in the general comments, priority will be given to pointing out issues related to the forestry economy, etc.L354 Confirmation on Japanese language errors. "瓦礫" -> "板葺".Table 2 “Sawdust for mushroom cultivation” -> “Sawdust medium for mushroom cultivation”L403 It should be mentioned that wood-logs have more stringent standards than sawdust and that the concentration of sawdust can be adjusted by changing the formulation.L411 Kobayashi -> Kanasashi et al 2020https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X19307374L417 It is unclear which parts are distinguished as (i) and (ii)L445 Hashimoto et al. state that the reason for the increase in wild boar and deer populations is not solely due to a decrease in the number of hunters (capture pressure).Fig. 6.14 in Hashimoto et al. shows that the number of captures has increased in line with the decrease in the number of hunters.Although the graph does not show the number of individuals, it should be understood that the estimated number of individuals has increased as well, and that the increase in the number of individuals has exceeded the pressure of captures.The 137th reference cited in Hashimoto et al. has been revised and the content changed, but previous versions can be downloaded from the following link.https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/plan/plan3-2a/chpt2.pdf (Japanese)Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging comments and for these suggestions that we will carefully take into account to revise the manuscript, should the editor give us this possibility.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-743-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Olivier Evrard, 02 Jul 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
272 | 102 | 13 | 387 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 102
- XML: 13
- Total: 387
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Olivier Evrard
Thomas Chalaux Clergue
Pierre-Alexis Chaboche
Yoshifumi Wakiyama
Yves Thiry
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1667 KB) - Metadata XML