~~ recommended by emil karpo ~~
Critics remain over IAEA's Fukushima water release approval
While Japan insists that the nuclear wastewater release is safe, other countries say not so fast
South Korean fishing boats take part in a local protest to demand Japan withdraw its decision to release contaminated water into the sea from its crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, in April 2021. | REUTERS
- Jul 7, 2023
The International Atomic Energy Agency has approved Japan’s plan to discharge treated water from the Fukushima nuclear disaster site into the Pacific Ocean.
While Japan insists that the release is safe, an assessment with which the nuclear watchdog agrees, some other countries, China most vocally, complain that the proposal is a danger and threatening to the marine life that populates regional waters and to dependent industries.
IAEA approval is important but Japan must work harder still to win public support for its plan, both at home and abroad. Trust is vital to the success of this effort. A bureaucratic process will not deliver that outcome.
Since the March 2011 accident that resulted in reactor core meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, the facility’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, has had to constantly cycle in water to cool the nuclear fuel and other debris that is at the site. Combined with groundwater and rainwater that flow into the reactor buildings, roughly 100 tons of contaminated water is generated each day. In the 12 years since the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, Japan has accumulated 1.3 million cubic meters of wastewater, the equivalent of about 500 Olympic-size swimming pools.
The roughly 1,000 tanks that store the water are about 98% full and will reach capacity between February and June next year. TEPCO claims that additional tanks cannot be added because space is needed for other parts of the decommissioning process. Storage is also risky given the frequency of earthquakes in Japan.
In 2021, Japan announced that it would release the wastewater into the Pacific Ocean after processing to remove most radioactive elements. The treatment, known as an advanced liquid processing system (ALPS), will reduce the radioactivity of the contaminated water to about 1/40th of the national regulatory standard and one-eighth the World Health Organization’s guideline for drinking water quality. It will, however, still contain tritium, a radioactive material with a half-life of over 12 years.
The treated water will then be pumped through an undersea tunnel about 1 km offshore from the nuclear power plant before it is discharged into the ocean. That distance is intended to ensure that the released water will be far from fishing areas. The waste will be discharged over a 40-year period, which will further contribute to its dilution. While this may sound strange, the release of water from nuclear power plants is a standard procedure.
Soon after the plan was formulated, Japan asked the IAEA to conduct a detailed “review of the safety related aspects of handling ALPS treated water stored at (Fukushima facilities) applying the relevant international safety standards.” The multinational team went to work in September 2021 and it has conducted five review missions, produced six technical reports and held numerous task force meetings.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi traveled to Japan this week to issue the final report, met with Japanese officials, including Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, visited affected areas and talked to interested groups there such as local fishermen. He opened a local IAEA office in Fukushima, which will monitor the discharges and decommissioning process, promising that IAEA personnel will be stationed at the plant to monitor the operation “until the last drop of treated water is discharged safely.” He pledged that relevant information will be provided to the fishermen and the public in a transparent manner. After visiting Japan, Grossi went to South Korea to discuss his agency’s findings with top officials.
The final report concluded that Japan’s plan is “consistent with relevant international safety standards” and that “the discharge of the ALPS treated water, as currently planned by TEPCO, will have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.” In addition, “the total amount of tritium … to be released each year in the discharge of ALPS-treated water will be well below the amount of these radionuclides produced by natural processes each year, such as interaction of cosmic rays with gases in the upper atmosphere.”
That approval has not satisfied neighboring countries. While the South Korean government seems to be onboard — Prime Minister Kishida is expected to again make his case to South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol at a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the July 11-12 NATO summit in Lithuania — other groups in that country remain concerned. Opposition parties have called on Japan to cancel the plan and instead build new storage facilities. There have been protests outside the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.
China has been much more full-throated in its criticism. Last month, a Foreign Ministry spokesman complained that the ocean is “not Japan’s private sewer,” adding that the discharge plan “puts the common interests of all humanity in jeopardy.” China’s ambassador to Japan, Wu Jianghao, warned that there is no precedent for wastewater being released into an ocean after a nuclear accident. While discharge of reactor water may be commonplace, “that water has not been exposed to a reactor core that has melted.” China has also questioned whether the IAEA is the right body to assess Japan’s disposal plan, distinguishing its nuclear energy expertise from that of disposing the byproducts of those operations.
Chinese complaints ring hollow given Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, according to Japan Forward, estimates that discharge from one of China’s nuclear power plants can contain 6.5 times the amount of tritium of those from Fukushima.
South Pacific nations are also concerned. The Pacific Islands Forum, a group of 18 countries that includes Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, urged Japan to consider alternative disposal options and called for more discussion of the risks. Its head, Cook Islands former Prime Minister Henry Puna, called on Japan to not discharge the wastewater “until all parties agree that it is verifiably safe to do so.”
Winning public support is essential. The South Korean government’s backing of Japan’s plan is undercut by public skepticism. In a May survey, 84% of South Korea respondents opposed the discharge; in another poll, nearly 75% didn’t trust a delegation of experts that had been dispatched by the government earlier this year to assess the Japanese plan. The South Korean government has released its own report from that trip; hopefully that will ease those anxieties.
Fishermen, including those who work the waters near the plant, worry that the discharge will undo their efforts since the accident to rebuild trust in their product. The Fukushima prefectural fisheries association remains opposed to the plan.
Twelve countries currently restrict Japanese food imports for fear of contamination, a number anticipated to drop to seven. South Korea maintains a ban on imports of seafood from the area around the Fukushima plant and opposition leaders warned that “It could be 10 years, it could be 100 years — until the public is assured, seafood imports from Fukushima will be banned.” China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao also restrict imports. The European Union too has restrictions on imports of Japanese food products but they are reportedly to be lifted soon — perhaps this summer — in a show of support for Japan’s food safety measures. (In fairness, even Japan restricts shipments of 44 species of fish from around the area.)
The nation must restore confidence in its nuclear energy program if the country is to have any chance of reaching clean energy targets or substantially reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. All that demands public support for the disposal plan. That work is just beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment