[INTERVIEW] IAEA chief says water dump the 'most logical plan'

The head of the world's nuclear watchdog dispelled speculation that the agency was acting on behalf of Japan when it approved Tokyo's plan to discharge treated radioactive water into the ocean...

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, speaks with the JoongAng Ilbo at the Four Seasons Seoul on Saturday. [KIM JONG-HO]

The head of the world's nuclear watchdog dispelled speculation that the agency was acting on behalf of Japan when it approved Tokyo's plan to discharge treated radioactive water into the ocean.

“My job was not to recommend something to the government of Japan,” Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the JoongAng Ilbo on Saturday. “No, they had a plan and they said look at my plan and tell me if my plan is in conformity with the international standards or not. This is a very important difference.”

Grossi was in Seoul from Friday to Sunday, flying in after his trip to Japan to submit the IAEA’s final assessment report to the Japanese government. The agency said Japan's plan to release treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site conforms with internationally accepted nuclear safety standards.

Grossi dismissed claims from liberal Democratic Party members and civic groups that the IAEA was biased toward Japan.

“We looked at all the options,” Grossi said, referring to other methods of disposing of the treated water from the ruined Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, including burying it underground or vaporizing it.

“We came to the conclusion that the option that has been retained, to be very honest with you, is the most logical one because it’s the one that [has been] used,” he said.

The following are edited excerpts of the interview with Grossi in Seoul.

Q : Why did you decide to visit Korea after your trip to Japan?

A : First of all, because I was invited. The prime minister came to Vienna and he invited me to come to Seoul as soon as possible after the comprehensive report [was] issued. I am very glad to be here to talk to the government, the opposition party and the different interlocutors. I know this issue is getting a lot of attention here so I think it’s very important, it’s my responsibility to come here and engage in dialogue, and hopefully have a constructive exchange of views.

Q : You were met with some very strong protests at the airport in Incheon.

A : I recognize that this is a very sensitive issue. Korea is a democracy and people express themselves. My response to that wouldn’t be to hide away, or be dismissive or despising, but to try to have a good conversation, a respectful, civil conversation, to talk about the issues, the substance, what are the doubts and try to provide the answers.

Q : Are you willing to meet with civic groups or NGOs if they request a meeting with you?

A : I am able to meet with anybody. Of course, we do not accept insults or disqualifications that are unfair, but whoever has legitimate concerns, or doubts, of course, it is my responsibility to talk to everybody.

Q : What are your objectives when you meet with members of the DP, who have strongly opposed the plan by Japan to release its treated radioactive water?

A : I will explain what we are doing and why we arrived at certain conclusions. And if there are doubts or points they wish to raise, they can do so. I guess the opposition wants to become the government, and when they become the government, they will have to deal with the IAEA.

Q : Tell us more about the IAEA’s plan to have a permanent monitoring station in Japan.

A : I said to the Japanese government, I will assess your plan, but I want to do something more. How about me staying when you start implementing your plan? Because a plan could be very nice, but it’s just a plan. If you have the IAEA there, checking, reviewing, monitoring permanently, until the end, then if there are doubts along the way the IAEA is there.

Q : Some in Korea have criticized the IAEA for not considering alternate options for the water’s discharge into the sea.

A : First of all, my job was not to recommend something to the government of Japan. Had Japan asked me to, well that’s another story. No, they had a plan and they said look at my plan and tell me if my plan is in conformity with the international standards or not. This is a very important difference.

We looked at all the options and we came to the conclusion that the option that has been retained, to be very honest with you, is the most logical one because it’s the one that is used. There are only two which have been tried, because there were other options that have been mentioned by some experts, but they were never tried anywhere. I don’t think anybody will be comfortable with a sort of guinea pig, let’s try something new here [type of approach].

So conservatively, they concentrated on two options that are being used — vapor release or water discharge. And the one that is more used by far is water release because with vapor there is rain, you can get back some of the pollution. [The water discharge] is the one that is more controllable.

Q : Koreans are growing increasingly concerned that the IAEA's support for Japan's plan could embolden Tokyo to press Seoul to lift its import ban on seafood from Fukushima.

A : Food import bans are a national regulation and a national responsibility so it’s not in the realm of the IAEA. What we can say is that this plan, when implemented, is not going to contaminate fish in any way. Nobody should say that because of this plan, fish is being contaminated, because this is not scientifically correct. On the contrary, they may want to review that — the fish in Fukushima is very good, I ate it the other day.

Q : How was your meeting with the fishing community in Fukushima?

A : Let me tell you, they are as unhappy as many people are in Korea. Because they have the same fears — their livelihoods depend on fishing, and they were hit very hard already by the accident 12 years ago. And now it’s like they are reviving the whole thing. So, I had to go and explain and face a lot of skepticism and concern and anxiety. But it’s my responsibility, to go and explain and tell them this is what is going to happen, we are going to be there checking, and [that] they can call me anytime. I mean, any concern in good faith is something I cannot ignore. If there is somebody with a political agenda, that is a different thing. But if you are a common citizen and people tell you there’s radioactive water that the Japanese are going to dump [and you are concerned], we need to explain in a way that is very understandable.

Q : Do you have any updates about a reportedly impending nuclear test in North Korea?

A : They have everything in place for a nuclear test. Unfortunately, my experts were forced to leave in 2009. So it’s been a very long time since the last inspector of the IAEA was there. We of course have a very good idea with the satellite imagery and other intelligence sources of what is going on there. We’ve seen that there is a massive growth [in] the nuclear arms program, which in the past used to be based on the plutonium from the Yongbyon reactor. Now they have moved also into uranium enrichment capacities which is going to allow them to have many more nuclear weapons, so it is extremely concerning. What is the most concerning is that at the moment there is no dialogue at all, no exchanges, no contacts of any type. I have always said that the IAEA is ready to play a role to extend a hand to the North Koreans to talk about the safety of their nuclear program, to start incrementally a process of dialogue, because complete isolation could be very, very dangerous.

BY KANG TAE-HWA, PARK HYUN-JU AND ESTHER CHUNG [chung.juhee@joongang.co.kr]