후쿠시마 오염수 방류를 통해 생각해보는 월경성 환경문제 협의방안 - 에스포협약을 중심으로 - (A Consultative Approach to Transboundary Environmental Issues: Considering the Fukushima Contaminated Water Discharge - Focusing on the Espoo Convention -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 전북대학교 동북아법연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 동북아법연구 / 17권 / 4호 / 23 ~ 50페이지
· 저자명 : 박지현

초록

2023년 일본의 원전 오염수 방류는 월경성 환경문제이다. 1991년 에스포협약은 월경성 환경영향평가수행에 관한 내용을 담고 있다. 국가가 계획 초기 단계에 특정 활동에 대한 환경영향평가를 수행할 의무를 명시하고 있으며, 국경을 넘어 환경에 중대한 영향을 미칠 가능성이 있는 주요 프로젝트로 정하여 부록 I에 포함한 활동에 대해 국가가 서로 통보하고 협의해야 하는 일반적인 의무를 규정하고 있다. 대상이 되는 활동목록은 개정을 거치면서 구체화하였는데 특히 원자력분야는 범위를 확대하는데 성공하였다. 유럽은 에스포협약을 이미 800건 이상의 사회간접자본투자에 적용하였고, 연간 100건 이상씩 적용하는 유용한 절차로 평가하고 있다. 하나 이상의 국경을 마주하는 국가가 많은 유럽의 지정학적 특성도 에스포협약의 유용성에 영향을 미쳤겠지만, 객관적인 기준과 적절한 절차가 도입되는 경우 오히려 국가사업을 안정적으로 집행하고 환경적으로 예측하지 못한 영향을 다수의 당사자가 고민함으로써 정쟁이 아닌 실질적으로 부정적 영향을 줄이거나 대안을 마련하는데 실질적인 도움이 되었다는 평가를 받고 있다. 후쿠시마 원전의 일차적인 사고와 이차적인 오염수 방류를 둘러싸고 주변국으로써 자국 환경에 미치는 영향에 대해 국가적 논의를 할 매개체가 존재하지 않음으로써 사전협의와 양해 모두 건너뛰고 IAEA의 보고서를 받아들여야 하는 상황에 이르렀다. 에스포협약과 같은 월경성 환경 영향평가협약이 도입되었더라면 일본이 국내법과 IAEA의 안전협약, 원자력사고의 조기 통보에 관한 협약에 따라 재해대책본부를 발족하고 주변국에 통보하는 것에 더하여 사고 10년이 지나서 새로이 피해를 야기하게 된 월경성 환경문제에 대하여는 주변국으로 구성된 공동환경영향평가위원회를 구성하여 논의하였을 것으로 생각된다. 우리 정부도 열차 등 동북아개발과 관련하여 에스포협약의 내용과 절차를 그대로 담은 보고서를 발간하기도 하였다. 2010년 초반에 이루어지다가 중단되었다. 유엔유럽경제위원회에서는 2019년에 에스포협약과 동일한 내용과 절차를 담은 동북아국가들을 위한 가이드라인을 이미 제시하였다. 다시 한번 아시아형 에스포협약의 규범을 도입하거나 에스포협약에 가입하도록 하여 월경성 환경문제에 대응할 필요가 있다. 특히 에스포협약은 활동목록에 원자력 관련활동을 명시하고 있으며 유럽국가들간의 원자력발전소건설과 재처리 등 활동에 에스포협약을 적용한사례가 다수이다. 우리나라 대법원은 2003년 원전 냉각수 순환시 발생되는 온배수 배출은 사람의 활동에 의해 자연환경에 영향을 주는 수질오염 또는 해양오염으로 환경오염에 해당한다고 판단하고 손해배상을 결정하였다. (2001다734판결). 만약 국가간 사전협의체가 구성되었다면 국내법으로 개념화되어 있는 원전사고 오염수에 대한 배출이 국내법상 손해배상책임의 범위 내에 있다는 점도 지적할 수 있었을 것으로 본다. 전 세계 국가들은 자국의 이해관계에 중대한 영향을 받는 행위에 대해 협의할 기회가 주어지지 않았다는 점에 대하여도 호소할 곳이 없었다. 월경성 환경문제에 대응할 협약이 필요하다.

영어초록

The meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in March 2011 was the second class 8 nuclear accident in human history. Ten years later, in 2021, the Japanese government announced its decision to release the accumulated contaminated water into the ocean. The earlier release of contaminated water into the ocean without any technical filtering immediately after the accident was met with concern and protests from neighbouring countries at the time of the 2011 accident. However, the announcement in 2021 that the discharge would continue for more than 30 years shocked the world. The announcement was made unilaterally, without consultation with neighbouring countries. The Japanese government submitted a report on the discharge plan to the IAEA, which organised its own expert advisory group, reviewed it four times and issued the final report. The content of the final report states that the levels of radioactivity are safe. The 1991 Espoo Convention, which began as a regional agreement in Europe and became an international agreement when it was opened to UN member states, deals with the conduct of transboundary environmental impact assessments. It specifies the obligation of states to conduct EIAs for certain activities at an early stage of planning and establishes a general obligation for states to notify and consult each other on activities listed in Annex I, which are defined as major projects likely to have significant transboundary environmental impacts. The list of covered activities has been refined over the course of the amendments, and the nuclear sector in particular has succeeded in expanding its scope. With 20 articles and seven annexes, the Convention has been applied by Europe to more than 800 infrastructure investments and is considered a useful procedure, with more than 100 applications per year. The geopolitical nature of Europe, with many countries facing more than one border, may have affected the usefulness of the ESPO Convention, but it is considered a useful tool with objective criteria and an appropriate procedure. It not only helps to stabilise the implementation of national projects, but also prevents unforeseen environmental impacts that concern several parties. This means that negative impacts are actually reduced or alternatives are prepared, rather than being politicised. The lack of a national forum to discuss the environmental impact of the primary accident and secondary contaminated water discharges at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the neighbouring country led to a situation where it was forced to accept the IAEA report, bypassing both prior consultation and understanding. If a transboundary environmental impact assessment agreement such as the Espoo Convention had been introduced, I wonder whether Japan would not have established not only a disaster response centre in accordance with its domestic laws, but also a joint environmental impact assessment committee composed of neighbouring countries. If the forum had been available to neighbouring countries, they would have participated for 10 years. It would not have been a mere notification to neighbouring countries on the issue of discharge of contaminated water, which would have been different a decade after the accident. It would have been better if we had a mechanism of the Espoo Convention. The Korean government also published a report on the development of Northeast Asia that reflected the content of the Espoo Convention. This was done in the early 2010s and then stopped. In 2019, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has already proposed guidelines for Northeast Asian countries with the same content and procedures as the Espoo Convention. Once again, it is necessary to respond to transboundary environmental problems by adopting the standards of the Asian version of the Espoo Convention or by acceding to the Espoo Convention. In particular, the Espoo Convention includes nuclear-related activities in the list of activities to which it applies, and there are many examples of European countries applying the Espoo Convention to activities such as nuclear power plant construction and reprocessing. In 2003, the Korean Supreme Court ruled that the discharge of hot water from the nuclear power plant's cooling water circuit constituted environmental pollution as water pollution or marine pollution affecting the natural environment due to human activities, and awarded damages (2001 Da 734). If prior consultations had been organised, it would have been possible to point out that the discharge of contaminated water from a nuclear accident, as conceptualised in domestic law, falls within the scope of liability for damages under Korean domestic law. In 2003, the Korean Supreme Court ruled that the discharge of hot water from the nuclear power plant's cooling water circuit constituted environmental pollution as water pollution or marine pollution affecting the natural environment as a result of human activities, and awarded damages (2001 Da 734). If prior consultations had been organised, it would have been possible to point out that the discharge of contaminated water from a nuclear accident, as conceptualised in domestic law, falls within the scope of liability for damages under Korean domestic law. The announcement that the discharge was expected to last for 30 years, and the unpredictable project that it could be extended beyond that to 40 years, was so casual that countries around the world could not complain that they were not given the opportunity to consult on an act that would significantly affect their interests. The fact that opposition was voiced in newspapers and media around the world did not change the timing, method or procedure of Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water was enough to highlight the problem. Nuclear contaminated water is a transboundary environmental issue. We need a convention to deal with transboundary environmental problems.

참고자료

· 없음