Provoking International Dispute on Nuclear Contamination

International Atomic Energy Agency submitted the government of Japan a report on the safety of discharging “treated water” from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, which is still on its process of decommissioning after the severe accident caused by Great East Japan Earthquake twelve years ago. While it evaluated Japan’s discharging plan as relatively safe, saying “the discharge of the ALPS treated water -- will have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment,” a large skepticism spread inside and outside Japan. By inviting the international organization in the dispute over the uncontrollable by-product of cooling the broken reactors down, the Japanese government seems to have made the issue international problem.

 

The 130-page report was issued with request of the Japanese government to review its discharging plan in 2021, when Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga announced that the diluted contaminated water would be released into the sea, because the storage tanks in the site of FDNPS were reaching the limit of its capacity. IAEA accepted the request and established a task force with international experts. The review was conducted through the analysis of documentation provided by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), Nuclear Regulation Agency of Japan and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Accordingly, the report is not an assessment of political impact of discharging, but simply a scientific analysis of data provided by Japan.

 

The report has concluded that the approach to the discharge of treated water processed by the system named Advanced Liquid Processing System, or ALPS, and the associated activities by TEPCO, NRA and the government of Japan are consistent with relevant international safety standards. Meanwhile, IAEA notes that once any discharges begin, many of the technical topics reviewed and assessed by the task force will need to be revised by the IAEA. IAEA Secretary General, Rafael Grossi, insisted to the residents in Fukushima during his visit there in July, saying “We’ll be here until the last drop is safely discharged.”

 

The main concern in Japan on the treated water is about the substance called tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope, remaining even after the processing through ALPS. The IAEA report analyzes the annual amount of tritium, limited to 22 TBq in Japan’s plan, to be as low as the pre-accident level and much lower than the annual production on the planet due to natural processes. According to the report, the biological half-time of tritium in humans is 10 and 40 days, while its physical half-time is 12.3 years. The report emphasizes that the discharging has limited impacts on people and environment.

 

It is nothing strange for IAEA to support Japan’s idea, because the organization was established to promote the use of atomic energy with an initiative of former President of Unites States Dwight Eisenhower. When Japan was not able to find the way to dispose increasing contaminated water in 2015, it was IAEA, under the leadership of Japanese Secretary General, that recommended Japan to discharge the water into the sea. It is reasonable for IAEA to be on the side of Japanese government.

 

Fumio Kishida administration is willing to regard the report as a major cause for deciding the date of starting the discharge. A few days after the report was published, NRA issued an approval to the facilities for discharging on its safety. The government recognizes that the last hurdle for releasing the water is cleared. METI has already announced that the discharge will be started around this summer.

 

The IAEA’s endorsement caused immediate international responses to its conclusion supporting Japan. Actually, Korean protesters chanted not to approve Japan’s discharging plan toward Grossi, when he was entering in and exiting from the building in Tokyo where he held a press conference early July. The parliamentary members of an opposition party of Republic of Korea argued in their press conference in Tokyo that releasing “contaminated water,” never calling it treated water, would violate international laws such as United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea or London Convention and Protocol on prevention of marine pollution, and declared consistent protests until Japan stops the discharging, even if it is started. Although Yoon Suk-yeol administration showed its credibility on Japan’s plan, the people’s anxiety against the contaminated water is causing a sharp political dispute in South Korea.

 

China is firmly against the release of the water. Soon after the IAEA report was issued, Chinese government announcedthat the review of IAEA “should not be the ‘shield’ or ‘green light’ for Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean.” The government considers strengthening inspection on imported seafood from Japan, if Japan starts dumping the contaminated water into Pacific Ocean.

 

When the buildings containing nuclear reactors exploded, losing external electricity by tsunami, TEPCO has been using water to cool the reactors down, instead of burying them. Ever since, the crippled plant keeps on producing contaminated water. Although it made various measures to reduce the risks, including purifying process through ALPS system, blocking the water flow with underground frozen walls set around the site, or lifting the water up before it reaches the site, the contaminated water, even though processed, is still increasing in the tanks built in FDNPS site. The words of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s speech for 2020 Tokyo Olympic bid, that the contaminated water in Fukushima is “under control,” have never been implemented.

 

The reason raised by TEPCO why the water has to be discharged into the sea is because the tanks are going to be filled soon. But the company had been building new tanks when they became full. If there is no more space in FDNPS, TEPCO can build new ones in their own lands anywhere. That is the point the neighbor countries are complaining. TEPCO’s justification sounds like that Japan is risking the environment of this planet for saving their money. Kishida shows no sign of raising any objections against those criticisms so far.