During the more than 9 years since the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident, the air dose rate has steadily decreased due to the proceeded decontamination work and the radioactive decay of some radionuclides with short half-lives. However, it is not decided to discharge the removed soil stored in the Interim Storage Facilities in Fukushima to a final disposal site and a recycling site because it has not fostered social acceptance. Under the circumstance, the Fukushima Prefectural Government (FPG) carried out the pilot disposal project based on our previous study in the outside decontamination area. In this project, the radionuclide-contaminated soil (except generated from the decontamination work) was treated applying the Soil Washing and Wet Classification method to decrease the amount of temporary storage soil in the residential area outside decontamination area. Then, FPG showed that volume reduction of the radionuclide-contaminated soil is possible. However, various discussions arose regarding the handling of the radionuclide-contaminated soil in the residential area regardless of its concentration. From the verification of the pilot project and the analysis of the social environment, this study clarified the issue of social acceptability toward the realization of final disposal of the radionuclide-contaminated soils treated by the Soil Washing and Wet Classification method.
TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures), in its final report in June 2017, recommended the understanding and disclosure of the impact of business and assets on future climate change. In response to this, Japan has become active in analyzing the risks of climate change using the Climate VaR proposed in the United States. Climate VaR can implement efficient risk management in response to TCFD recommendations. On the other hand, although there are various risks due to climate change, when examining recent natural disasters in Japan, it is necessary to evaluate Climate VaR in consideration of flood risk and utilize it for risk management. However, the details of Climate VaR are not always clear. Therefore, this paper examined the mathematical meaning of Climate VaR and its difference from other risk indicators used in risk finance. In addition, we show the way of thinking that the flood risk calculated from the engineering method is reflected in the evaluation of Climate VaR, and made a trial calculation with the idea that the way of thinking will materialize in the future.