23-8-2023 (TOKYO) It has been over a decade since the devastating tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster struck Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant. While clean up and decommissioning efforts have been underway since 2011, the crippled facility remains a source of worry as its operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), prepares to discharge over 1.2 million tonnes of treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean beginning this week.
The plan, which was given the green light by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after almost two years of review, has faced significant criticism from some of Japan’s neighbors. China in particular has been very outspoken in its condemnation, extending its ban on seafood imports from certain Japanese prefectures and questioning the effectiveness of decontamination procedures. Within Japan as well, concerns have been raised by fishermen worried about the potential impacts on their livelihoods.
As TEPCO begins pumping the treated water out through a kilometer-long underwater pipeline this week, the big question remains – is it truly safe? While international and domestic scientific bodies assert that the wastewater has been thoroughly treated and diluted to levels well below recognized radiation limits, anxieties linger. For even with reassurances from experts, very little is actually understood by the general public about the long term effects of radiation exposure through ingestion of even minute amounts.
The wastewater presently being stored in over 1,000 tanks at the power plant site is the result of ongoing cooling efforts needed to prevent the melted nuclear fuel from overheating at the three destroyed reactors. As exposed fuel continues to generate heat and radiation even a decade later, vast quantities of contaminated water continue to accumulate. TEPCO estimates tank capacity will be reached by early 2024, necessitating the start of the controlled release into the ocean as outlined in the government’s plan.
The treatment process involves use of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to remove almost all radioactive isotopes with the notable exception of tritium. As tritium is chemically similar to water, current technology is unable to separate it out. While tritium emits a weak form of radiation that cannot penetrate the skin, concerns focus on potential impacts if ingested through seafood. TEPCO and Japanese authorities aim to allay these fears through rigorous monitoring of radiation levels and testing of fishery products.
However, memories linger of TEPCO’s early failures at the plant that saw tons of highly contaminated water discharged untreated into the sea in the aftermath of the disaster. The company also resisted acknowledgement of groundwater contamination for years, damaging public trust. For experts who remain unconvinced of decontamination claims or question TEPCO’s transparency, the planned release into the environment triggers understandable wariness.
While Japan emphasizes adoption of a science-based approach endorsed by technical experts and organizations like the IAEA, nuclear issues are as much about building relationships and consensus as scientific facts. Geopolitics have undoubtedly influenced reactions, from US support relating to the American design of the Fukushima reactors to European lifting of food import restrictions in line with the IAEA review.
For its part, China has taken a particularly firm stance, stressing the need for approval from neighboring countries and attacking the integrity of data supplied. However justified concerns over transparency or long term impacts may be, the intensity of China’s objections arguably says more about deep-seated tensions with Japan than the nuclear question itself. As a rising competitor, China risk failing to acknowledge objective scientific assessments risks undermining its own international aspirations in the commercial nuclear sphere.
As TEPCO commences the controversial wastewater release, dealing with this complex problem represents just one piece of the immense four decade decommissioning challenge ahead.
