The government has decided on a basic policy direction for the huge volume of contaminated soil resulting from the 2011 triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The two main measures are to recycle some of it and to eventually dispose of all the soil outside of Fukushima Prefecture.

However, no course for those measures has been laid down because of difficulties in finding a location to serve as a final disposal site.

This is a grave issue that society as a whole must squarely face.

Soil removed during decontamination work within Fukushima Prefecture has been accumulating at an interim storage facility near the nuclear plant so as not to interfere with reconstruction efforts in the prefecture.

The equivalent volume of 11 Tokyo Domes has been collected.

In order to obtain local understanding, the government has proposed moving that soil outside of Fukushima for final disposal by 2045.

The Fukushima governor accepted that proposal, but said it was an “agonizing decision.”

Many blocs in the Diet supported a legal revision that clearly stated it was the central government’s responsibility to dispose of the soil outside of Fukushima.

There is major significance to the promise made to disaster-stricken areas that were forced to shoulder serious environmental pollution and the bitterness of losing one’s hometown.

Because there were doubts about whether that goal could be realized, it is also a fact that politicians made a decision before thorough discussion was conducted.

With only 20 years before the deadline for final disposal, the most pressing issue will be recycling the soil so the volume for final disposal is reduced.

The plan is to use about three-fourths of the total volume with radiation concentration levels under 8,000 becquerels per kilogram of soil in public works projects in various parts of Japan.

In the recently decided basic policy, one measure included was using the soil in shrubbery planted within the grounds of the prime minister’s office as a sign the central government was taking the lead in the matter.

To ensure sufficient safety, the government has said the radiation exposure of workers handling the soil would be kept under international standards and that measures would be taken to prevent the soil from becoming airborne or spilling out from the work site.

But understanding will not deepen if only scientific safety is emphasized.

The Environment Ministry’s plan for experimental use of the soil in the Tokyo metropolitan area never got off the ground because of opposition from local residents.

When the government recently sought out views about the recycling soil standard, many concerns and doubts were submitted.

There was a sharp difference of opinion regarding the radiation risk from the nuclear plant accident in relation to farm products and the release of treated water into the ocean.

Rather than imposing its views, the government has the responsibility of making every effort to achieve social agreement by removing concerns through civil dialogue with local governments and citizens.

Now is also the time to enter into serious discussions about final disposal that will come after recycling.

There are many issues to discuss, such as the cost and burden, including recycling of the soil, and what plans the government has for the areas around the nuclear plant once final disposal is completed.

The handling of the removed soil is an especially difficult matter for the processing of the nuclear accident.

According to an Environment Ministry study, only one in four respondents outside of Fukushima Prefecture know about the policy of final disposal outside of that prefecture. That is much lower than the slightly more than half of the Fukushima Prefecture respondents who are aware of that policy.

The accident of 14 years ago occurred while Japanese society continued to use nuclear power under a “safety myth.”

The electricity generated at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was mainly used in the Tokyo metropolitan area.

There is a need for deep and careful consideration about how to achieve a resolution to the issue by having the entire nation tackle the task of dealing with the aftereffects.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 4