Deficiencies in the TEPCO plan to discharge
contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean
Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.,
President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
December 16, 2022
Based on the Expert Panel Memorandum to the Pacific Islands Forum ofAugust 11, 2022
www.ieer.org
arjun@ieer.org

hijani

December 19, 2013
Annapolis, MD

OUTLINE
There are issues and deficiencies in four areas: The deficiencies in the understanding of the contentsof the tanks and the scientific protocols associatedwith that; An inadequate assessment of whether the ALPS
system will perform as required without repeatedtreatment of the water Deficiencies in ecosystem impact analysis; Lack of full consideration of alternatives.

Sampling deficiencies
Only nine of 64 radionuclides routinely sampled.
 In the data the Expert Panel saw a maximum of 19
radionuclides were sampled.
 Sampling was inadequate in quantity – just one 30liter sample per tank group Sampling was unrepresentative – always taken fromthe last batch before tanks were full.
 Only about 20 percent of the tanks have beensampled.
Inadequate sampling: total
radionuclides = 64.

Measurement deficiencies anduncertainties
Large variability in Sr-90/Cs-137 ratios – so far
unexplained; No identified measurements of impact of sludge on
radionuclide concentrations, particulateconcentrations; The problem of tellurium-127: It should havedecayed away completely a couple of months after
the accident – but measurements were reported in2019.
Sr-90/Cs-137 unexplained variability. Is there a problem with
ALPS treatment? Irregular performance? Varied sources of water?

Will ALPS work well?
Potential for difficulties with ALPS High variability in Sr-90/Cs-137 ratios
 Presence of sludges
 Potential stirring up of particulates in tanks with sludges
when water is pumped out
Such problems may result in multiple passes being required –raising cost, creating delays, and risking system breakdown.
Plan: 40 years of discharges. Could it run to 80 years?
It is risky to decide to proceed without adequate knowledge ofthe source term. And TEPCO’s knowledge if not adequate.

Inadequate ecosystem assessment
Organically bound tritium (OBT) has been ignoredin the TEPCO environmental assessment.
 The assumption that OBT will behave the same wasa tritium impact on humans when it is in drinking
water is wrong.
 Bioconcentration of radionuclides, notably strontium90 is not well considered.
 Intergenerational and transboundary impacts are
not given due attention.
AlternativesWhile some alternatives were considered, some critical ones werenot.
 ALPS treatment followed by storage in seismically safe tanks – different

than just continued storage. ALPS+ storage in safe tanks would allow
storage to decay and consideration of alternatives such as the next two.
 ALPS treatment + use of water to make concrete that has little potential
for human contact.
 Bioremediation.
In all of these impacts would be orders of magnitude lower andtransboundary impact would be avoided.
TEPCO and Japan have refused to consider even after Expert Panelproposed that they be studied.
Expert Panel was disappointed at the lack of attention to critical issues by
the IAEA.

Questions?

End