Abstract
Decommissioning efforts are underway at the reactor where the accident occurred, namely the damaged Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP). However, a large amount of groundwater flowing into the site has become contaminated with radioactive substances and is stored in tanks on site, which has hampered the decommissioning work. Although the inflow of groundwater has been greatly reduced through measures such as the construction of frost walls, approximately 170 m3 of water treated by the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) is being stored in tanks, each day. The tanks used to store this treated water are expected to become full by around the summer of 2022. It is not easy to get people to understand the efforts of all concerned parties, and providing clear information to these concerned parties is also a challenge. Questions have also been raised regarding whether other alternatives have been fully explored in the ALPS subcommittee. Some people have commented that the answers to the questions raised regarding the biological effects of tritium transmutation are inadequate. Some suspect that the answers are too detailed and incomprehensible, and that the respondents may be manipulating the public with some malicious intent. In any case, each possible plan presents both advantages and disadvantages, depending on the people who are involved. That makes it an ethical and vexing issue that can sway decisions, as perspectives change. While the environmental release plan is scientifically safe, it may represent a painful alternative. On the other hand, a more careful and imaginative approach to the idea of continued storage in tanks or other forms of storage may reveal some troublesome hidden disadvantages. Under these circumstances, experts must be prepared to answer people’s questions in a comprehensive and robust manner.