Comments in general

It seems in the taxonomy there are no terms like external electric power source, batteries, vent, which seems to be of the keywords in the case of Fukushima Accident. Isn’t it any problem with the taxonomy? 

It seems that there are no items or terms appropriate to subjects of water treatment for radioactive liquids mentioned below (although said to be planned to add some items or terms appropriate in 5-A-3-2, isn’t it proper if considering water treatment to be the key struggling for Fukushima Accident?)
- Water treatment technologies (Reverse Osmosis (RO), dechlorination/desalination, etc.), 
- Material characteristics of tanks, containers, other parts of equipment.

There is no items or terms corresponding with material accountancy and safeguards regarding Fukushima Accident. Necessary soon after the occurrence of the Accident has been to confirm that accountancy for nuclear material changes from ‘item (assembly)’ to ‘bulk (diffusing)’ and that the base of concept to handle and detection means of nuclear material changes as well.  This does not correspond with ‘fuel management’ indicated in the taxonomy.  On the other hand, ‘5-A-5-7-2 Damaged fuel decommissioning program Synonyms & related terms: FCM management program’ is not suitable for it either. It is seemingly indispensable to fully refer to the investigation of material accountancy for fuel debris targeted by IAEA (views on means and measurement of safeguards), in order to be a struggle for the Accident. So items or terms for material accountancy and safeguards should be assigned appropriately into the both ‘emergency preparedness and response’ and ’towards the long term recovery’.  

Most of information, for which I’m responsible to assign appropriate terms of the taxonomy, are of ‘emergency response (step 1)’ as well as of ‘coping with the recovery of the Accident (step 2)’, resulting that the most of the information are assigned to ‘2-A-1 SITE CONDITION’ and ‘4-A-2-2 On-site Emergency Response’.

There is no appropriate items or terms to information of ‘contaminated water’, ‘water treatment’ etc., which has been of the issues biggest in the case of Fukushima Accident in 2013.  

The taxonomy has an obvious feature in line with time series of major accidents (following accidental progress, ‘before’, ‘during (emergency)’, ‘after’ accident), while there are lots of information of Fukushima Accident, which are valuable but ruled out if following the feature of time series of the taxonomy. Not to miss such valuable information of Fukushima Accident, it would be reasonable to categorize such by means of the taxonomy regardless of its limited time series. 
For example:
- to categorize information of Fukushima Accident relevant to newly established nuclear regulation authority/agency, even if being in effect “after or in the aftermath of accident”, such as ones of additional/new severe accident measures for ultimate heat sink,  new/stricter safety guidelines, as some of items or terms of regulation (1-A) of the taxonomy, which are for ‘before accident’ and for ‘for emergency phase’,
- to categorize information of Fukushima Accident relevant to site conditions, design and operation of reactors, even if being in effect “after or in the aftermath of accident”, as some of items or terms of nuclear installation status (2-A) of the taxonomy, which are  for ‘before accident’,
In some cases as mentioned above, it should be accounted for to ignore the viewpoint of time series (‘before’, ‘during (emergency)’, ‘after’ accident) of the taxonomy,  not to miss valuable information of Fukushima Accident that would be lessons learnt and transferred to the next.  

It seems that the following should be mentioned obviously in the taxonomy, being thought that those are of important lessons that should be learnt from Fukushima Accident:
- provision/assistance of risk-based/related matters such as risk-informed criteria/clearance setting, risk-informed decision making/assessment, information transparency, risk perception, (crisis) communication(s),  
- multiplicity of extreme natural disasters or accidents/incidents at once,
- safeguards and material accountancy on radioactive material (fuel containing material, etc.) derived from melted fuels.
 
Also it seems that the following should be mentioned/added into the taxonomy regarding Fukushima Accident, to collect information responding to scientific and technological trials struggling for issues to which no technological solution exists, inexperienced by human being and specific to cases of Fukushima Accident:
- monitoring/analysis/removal technology on debris (corium) of melt-through fuels,
- coping with (storage, site selection, disposal etc.) radioactive wastes derived from the debris (corium).
 
It is better to add the items or terms for ‘sub-consequences of other nuclear facilities affected by accidents’, which include revision of safety standards, stress tests etc., into ‘6-A-5 SOCIAL & ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES’ of the taxonomy. 
In case regarding possible other opinions that the targets are not of other nuclear facilities and that this addition is not preferable, a rule not to take any information of other nuclear facilities for the taxonomy should be made. 
 
Robotics will be used for not only MONITORING TOOLS but also decontamination, waterproofing, taking debris. Therefore, it seems that the title of 5-A-4 should be "ROBOTICS FOR DECOMMISSIONING" 

There is no appropriate items or terms appropriate to the analysis of nuclides moving in the port and groundwater moving.

There is no appropriate items or terms appropriate to the waterproofing technology of building (frozen ground barrier, etc.).

Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip