14 years after the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: Where is politics and justice headed?
11 March 2025
This year, 14 years after the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident, the Seventh Strategic Energy Plan, which sets the basic direction of the country’s energy policy, was approved. The Plan includes a policy of the active use of nuclear power. The phrase “reduce dependency on the nuclear power as much as possible” which had been included, even if it were a mere formality, in the Strategic Energy Plans since the 3.11, was deleted. This is a huge change of direction. The government has explained this by saying, “The policy has not changed, but the change has been made at the request of local governments where nuclear power plants are located and the nuclear industry.” The draft plan in which this change was introduced generated over 40,000 public comments, but the Cabinet approved the draft almost as is, ignoring the voices of opposition from so many people.
Following the release of ALPS treated water, which contains radioactive materials that cannot be fully removed, from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) into the ocean, begun in 2023, discussion is now underway on the recycling of the “removed soil” generated from decontamination work that removed topsoil contaminated by the nuclear accident. Recycling allows soil with concentrations of up to 80 times higher than that considered necessary to be treated as radioactive material to be used nationwide under certain controlled conditions.
Both the discharge of ALPS treated water into the ocean and the recycling of removed soil violate the principle of centralized management of radioactive materials and could expose large numbers of citizens to unnecessary risks of radiation exposure. Radiation exposure, which has no benefit to the people who are exposed to the risks, is being promoted without consideration for the voices of opposition from the public in the name of the reconstruction of Fukushima, on the grounds that it is an “existing exposure situation” as defined by the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), and because the IAEA has confirmed the safety of the radiation exposure.
This month, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeals of the prosecutor’s designated lawyer in the case of three TEPCO executives, except for one whose charge was dismissed due to his death. They were indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death or bodily injury, but were found not guilty. Initially, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office had decided not to prosecute the case. However, the case was determined to be appropriate for prosecution by the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, selected by lot from among the people, and was thus contested in court. This verdict can be taken as a message that companies pursuing economic activities need not be held criminally responsible even if they bring about major accidents. The gap dividing civil and judicial values has become increasingly obvious in recent years.
The trial retrieval of fuel debris carried out last year highlighted the progress being made toward decommissioning. At the same time, although an image of the final state of the decommissioned FDNPS is indispensable when discussing the reconstruction of Fukushima, this final state is not yet clearly seen. What is the final condition of the site that is aimed for? Will it be possible to retrieve all the fuel debris? Moreover, apart from the fuel debris, where will the various levels of radioactive wastes, estimated at around 7.84 million tons, generated from the demolition of buildings, from decontamination, and water treatment waste, be stored or disposed of? Will there be regions that will accept it? At the same time, it must be remembered that the work of decommissioning that has been continuing with no certain goal, requires sacrifice on the part of workers who are exposed to radiation.
Rather than prioritize requests from the “Nuclear Village” (faction promoting nuclear), what the government needs to do is provide real relief to those affected by the nuclear accident, face up to the voices of civil society, and proceed with realistic deliberations toward the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
