【Text/Observer.com, Wang Kaiwen, Editor/Yu Wenkai】
On July 4, local time, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Grossi met with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo to submit the IAEA's assessment report on Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea, and also unexpectedly announced the conclusion of the plan favorable to Japan.
Immediately, some Japanese media disclosed that the Japanese government plans to start discharging Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea as early as August.
Whether the Japanese data is complete, whether the test samples are sufficient, whether the water contains other radionuclides that cannot be treated, what are the potential threats to marine ecology... Japan is still unable to dispel doubts before 1.33 million tons of nuclear-contaminated water is about to be discharged into the sea.
Grossi also stressed that the IAEA report is not an "endorsement" of Japan's decision-making, and how to solve these "ALPS (multi-nuclide treatment system) treated water" is Japan's "national decision".
Why does the IAEA recognize that Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea "meets relevant international safety standards" on the one hand, while denying that Japan "endorses"? Is Japan's discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea in violation of international law? Can international law stop Japan from going its own way? What are the difficulties? If we can't stop it, what do we do?
The Observer invited Wang Hanling, an expert on the law of the sea of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Qin Tianbao, director of the Institute of Environmental Law of Wuhan University, to interpret and comment on relevant issues.
On January 20, 2023, local time, Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, the nuclear-contaminated water storage tank of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant of Tokyo Electric Power Company Source: Visual China
"This is not a recommendation, nor an endorsement"
As of April this year, the total amount of so-called "treated water" at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant had reached 1.33 million tons. According to the IAEA assessment report submitted by Grossi to Japan on the 4th, the IAEA believes that the methods and actions adopted by Japan to discharge "ALPS treated water" "meet relevant international safety standards." In addition, according to the current planning and assessment of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the radioactive effects on people and the environment of the controlled and gradual discharge of "treated water" into the sea are "negligible".
However, Grossi stressed in the report that the discharge of so-called "treated water" stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is a "national decision" by the Japanese government, and that the content of the IAEA report is neither a "recommendation" nor an "endorsement" of the policy.
According to Reuters, Grossi told reporters at the Japan Press Club that night, "We must recognize that such incidents have never happened before." He stressed that the drainage operation would last 30 to 40 years, and that Japan had the "final say" on it.
Wang Hanling, an expert on the law of the sea at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the observer that the IAEA did not have the authority to approve the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, and that the Japanese government took the initiative to ask it to make an assessment report.
In Wang Hanling's view, this report cannot show that Japan's nuclear-contaminated water is safe to discharge into the sea, because the samples and data it has obtained are not comprehensive, and it cannot guarantee that its test results are comprehensive, accurate and objective.
"And the Japanese government has changed the concept, using the IAEA's supervisory power as the approval power and the reports it issues as a 'talisman'." "According to the IAEA Statute, the IAEA's responsibilities include assistance, information exchange, expert training, and construction of facilities, but they do not include approving and deciding on the discharge of nuclear pollutants," Wang said. Moreover, it is not the only international monitoring body for the discharge of nuclear pollutants into the sea, and agencies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Maritime Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD are also authorized to supervise. ”
On July 4, local time, IAEA Director-General Grossi delivered the IAEA's assessment report on Japan's nuclear contaminated water into the sea to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo. Source: IAEA website
"Therefore, the IAEA's initiative to clarify that the content of its report is neither a 'recommendation' nor an 'endorsement' reflects the IAEA's complex and delicate mentality of wanting to support Japan's nuclear-contaminated water discharge without taking responsibility." Wang Hanling said.
He also mentioned that in 2021, when the Japanese government decided to discharge the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea, Grossi immediately issued a statement welcoming Japan's decision. This shows that the Japanese government has unilaterally communicated with Grossi in advance, who welcomed it without a scientific assessment of Japan's contaminated water. Many countries, institutions and people are critical of this. ”
According to Qin Tianbao, director of Wuhan University's Institute of Environmental Law, the IAEA is one of the most important international organizations on nuclear issues, and its willingness to evaluate plans to drain the sea may also be a demonstration of this competence.
As for why he expressed caution, Qin Tianbao made three points of analysis. First, according to publicly released information, the scope of the IAEA's assessment seems to be strictly limited by Japan, which only allows it to assess the safety of the sea drainage option. Therefore, the agency's assessment is only for the plan to remove the sea, rather than comparing the plan with other options to conclude that it is "recommended" for the discharge plan.
Second, Japan's large-scale nuclear contaminated water discharge plan is unprecedented, and this kind of nuclear contaminated water is not the same concept as the wastewater generated by the normal operation of nuclear power plants. There are no widely accepted rules and standards for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water involved in the discharge plan, and the IAEA can only make an assessment with reference to relevant safety standards.
Finally, it is reported that the IAEA's expert assessment team members did not unanimously agree with the assessment conclusions, and there seems to be no internal consensus on the safety of the drainage plan, which is a matter of scientific uncertainty.
Reuters reported: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency hinted at disagreements within the expert team
"Many scientists believe that the data provided by the Japanese side is incomplete"
The "safety" of Japan's discharge of nuclear-contaminated water seems to be "recognized" by the IAEA, but scientists around the world are still worried.
"Many good scientists believe that the data provided so far [in Japan] is incomplete." Azby Brown, principal investigator at Safecast, an independent radiation monitoring group, told The New York Times.
He argues that although the risk to human health posed by the discharged nuclear-contaminated water is "thousands of times lower than the risk of daily exposure to radiation," the entire process is still not transparent enough. It is not broad enough, nor comprehensive enough. ”
Japan has repeatedly assured that the treated water is safe enough and says it has filtered out most of the isotopes, but it still contains traces of tritium and small amounts of carbon-14 and iodine-129.
"What's in the water? We really don't know. Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, an expert in low-concentration radioactivity measurements at the Monterey School of International Studies at Middlebury University in the United States, has questioned. He noted that TEPCO pumped only a small amount of water from a quarter of the tank, testing tritium concentrations and other limited radionuclides. He fears that other radionuclides may "slip away."
Veres, one of the international scientists commissioned by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to assess Japan's plans to discharge contaminated water into the sea, revealed in a May interview with The Korea Times that the level of cooperation by the Japanese government was unsatisfactory, and on one occasion they asked Japan for data on nuclear-contaminated water storage tanks, which took 54 days to provide.
Robert H. Richmond, director of the University of Hawaii at Manoa Marine Laboratory, which is also a PIF commissioned scientist, told Time earlier this year that the lack of critical, foundational data that could help make sound decisions was "extremely worrying" when scientists were trying to get more data from the Japanese.
In March 2022, the Pacific Islands Forum announced the appointment of an independent panel of experts on nuclear issues, with Robert Richmond in the middle and Darnoki Veres from the right
Wang Hanling pointed out that Japan has not fully responded to the concerns of the outside world on the issue of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, and has failed to convince the public on many issues.
Qin Tianbao said that although Japan has accepted the supervision of the IAEA, from the announcement of the plan to the laying of the pipeline of the discharge system, to the trial discharge in June this year, Japan has not fully respected the views of others in implementing the plan to drain the sea.
"If, as Japan claims, the contaminated water will be treated in a scientific, safe and transparent manner, and subject to strict international scrutiny, then there should be no progress on the entire project until the IAEA reports it." Qin Tianbao said.
How has Japan "washed" nuclear-contaminated water over the years?
The Japanese government has been planning for years to discharge the contaminated water into the sea, occasionally venting the media to test public feedback and trying to appease political and social forces with opposing views in the country before the official announcement is made.
In February 2021, the Reconstruction Agency, which is in charge of post-disaster reconstruction and nuclear accident management, requested a budget of 2 billion yen to remove the image damage caused by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, a fourfold increase from the original 2020 budget of 500 million yen.
On April 13, 2021, the day the Japanese government officially decided to discharge the contaminated water from Fukushima, a cartoon image of tritium appeared on a leaflet released by the Japan Reconstruction Agency. Japanese media said that the goal of "mascoticizing" the radionuclide tritium, which is difficult to filter in Fukushima's nuclear-contaminated water, is to "create a sense of closeness for tritium" and publicize the safety of nuclear-contaminated water.
Screenshot of Japanese media reports
Reuters previously disclosed that on the eve of Japan's decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, a senior Japanese official emailed the media asking not to use the word "contaminated" (to describe sewage) in the report, saying that the term was misleading.
Some Japanese media have also tried to confuse the public, confusing the nuclear wastewater produced by ordinary nuclear power plants in various countries with the contaminated water from Fukushima. However, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident is the highest level of nuclear accident, and the contaminated water produced is completely different from the normal operation of the nuclear power plant wastewater.
Under the relentless propaganda of the Japanese government, the support rate of the Japanese public for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water has gradually increased. Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao noted that a poll conducted by the Asahi Shimbun in March this year showed that, for the first time, more people approved of Japan's plan to discharge contaminated water into the sea, with 51% in favor and 41% disagreed. In the previous two polls, the proportion of those who agreed and disagreed was equal.
A survey released by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in February also showed that support among residents in Fukushima Prefecture for discharging nuclear-contaminated water has increased to 51% from 46% in September 2022, and from 44% to 46% in the rest of the country.
Maxime Polleri, an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at Laval University in Canada, believes Japan is very careful to shape its narrative of discharging "radioactive water" into the Pacific Ocean.
In June, Bolery wrote in The Diplomat, pointing out that the Japanese government and the IAEA rarely use terms such as "dumping wastewater" into the sea, but rather terms such as "discharge," "disposal," and "dilution." When talking about water contaminated with tritium, they also prefer to use highly technical terms such as "ALPS treated water" rather than words like "pollutants" and "wastewater."
Such language brings the discussion of pollution into the realm of technology, transforming the unwelcome practice of "waste dumping" into a plausible policy of "managing treated water," thereby creating public trust in the authorities. In addition, scientific terminology is also "hierarchical" between ordinary people and experts, and when Japanese fishermen express concerns, they run the risk of being described as "people who do not understand the science behind the policy."
The "lobbying" continues
On the eve of the IAEA's final report, the Japanese government seized the opportunity to make a "final dash." According to NHK, Kishida held a meeting with several cabinet officials on June 30 to request measures to prevent the spread of rumors and carefully explain and disseminate information at home and abroad.
After visiting Japan and issuing the IAEA's "final report," Grossi's mission has not yet been completed, and he will visit South Korea from 7 to 9 to meet with Yoo Guok-hee, chairman of the Korean Atomic Energy Safety Commission, South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin, and others. This will be followed by visits to New Zealand and the Cook Islands, the Chairman-in-Office of the Pacific Islands Forum.
Yonhap News Agency said that there is a view that Grossi's visit to South Korea means that the South Korean government's scientific and technical discussions on Japan's discharge of nuclear-contaminated water are also nearing the end. South Korea's first director of the State Adjustment Office, Park Buy-ran, said on the 4th that the Korea Atomic Energy Safety Commission and the IAEA are both regulatory bodies, and it is necessary to share information on technical matters such as Japanese emission facilities and cooperate with each other, and the South Korean government will also release its own comprehensive assessment report at a later date.
On July 4, local time, Lee Jae-myung, leader of South Korea's largest opposition Democratic Party, and lawmakers collectively protested against Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharged into the sea Source: Visual China
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), a group of 18 countries and territories, has been expressing "grave concern" about Japan's discharge of nuclear-contaminated water. Some island countries have been nuclear test sites for the United States, Britain and France, and fishing is a major industry, making them very sensitive to nuclear pollution.
However, PIF member states are not "monolithic". Radio New Zealand (RNZ) website on June 30 quoted Duncan Currie, an expert on international and environmental law, as saying that under Article VII of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga), signatories are obligated to "prevent anyone from dumping radioactive waste and other radioactive material in their territorial waters," but that some Pacific leaders "undermined the objectives of the Treaty of Rarotonga by not speaking out against Japan's plans." ”
The Observer noted that late last year, an organization asked the New Zealand government to take legal action against Japan's plan to discharge contaminated water into the sea, but it was rejected. A spokesman for New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade responded at the time: "This issue is complex and involves nuclear security, not nuclear weapons or nuclear disarmament. Japan is engaged in dialogue with its Pacific partners ... New Zealand supports the continuation of this dialogue. ”
"If they (the Pacific island nations) unite, the Pacific will become strong. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to exploit their vulnerability. Currie said.
Can Japan still be stopped?
Wang Hanling pointed out that according to general international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation to take all measures to avoid environmental pollution, to notify and fully consult with potentially affected countries, to assess and monitor environmental impacts, to take preventive measures to ensure that risks are minimized, to ensure transparency of information, and to carry out international cooperation.
However, Japan's attempt to shirk its responsibilities and evade its obligations under various pretexts, and without fully studying and demonstrating various disposal options, decided to dump the nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean out of its own selfish interests. Japan's move violates at least Articles 194, 195, 200 and 204-206 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Qin Tianbao pointed out that throughout the process of Japan's plan to dump nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean, it seems that it has not fulfilled its obligations of cooperation with countries in the affected region, including China, and has not formulated effective contingency plans. In addition, the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea could cause irreversible damage to the marine environment. Under such circumstances, Japan will be suspected of violating a series of provisions related to marine environmental protection and pollution prevention and control, including articles 192, 195, 198 and 199 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
On April 12, 2021, local time, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, fishermen fishing in the port Source: Visual China
In fact, whether or not the IAEA publishes its report, Japan is determined to release the contaminated water into the sea. In this case, can international law prevent Japan's actions?
Qin Tianbao believes that at this stage, it is difficult to rely on international law alone to prevent Japan's nuclear-contaminated water from being discharged into the sea. "The most effective legal means of proceeding to the sea is to file a lawsuit or request an advisory opinion before an international judicial body. However, one of the difficulties lies in forming a strong chain of evidence on the impact of Japan's nuclear contaminated water on the marine ecological environment and human health, as well as the proof of causation. ”
Qin Tianbao pointed out that considering the harm of nuclear radiation to human health, the mainland's primary response at present should be to formulate comprehensive and effective emergency plans and preventive measures to protect people's right to health. At the same time, it is necessary to improve the monitoring capacity and level of the marine environment, strengthen relevant research, determine the threshold of radiation content in the marine environment, timely discover and deal with all kinds of nuclear pollution problems, and ensure the safety of the coastal ecological environment. On the one hand, the above-mentioned monitoring information is a necessary basis for the mainland's response measures, and on the other hand, it can also be used as scientific evidence needed in future international judicial channels.
In Wang Hanling's view, the international community currently lacks an international enforcement agency to stop Japan's nuclear pollution emissions, and although many Western scientific research institutions and professionals consider this harmful and oppose it, Western countries have almost collectively lost their voices for political purposes. China has always urged Japan to face up to the legitimate concerns of the international community and its own people, to dispose of nuclear-contaminated water in a safe manner consistent with international obligations, international safety standards and international good practices, and to avoid transferring unpredictable risks to the international community.
Wang Hanling pointed out that there is a view at home and abroad that the issue of discharging Japan's nuclear contaminated water into the sea should be referred to the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. However, international litigation such as this requires, first and foremost, consensus and firm political will on the part of the States or international organizations concerned. Second, this kind of litigation is relatively difficult to collect evidence, the litigation takes a long time, and there are many political and technical obstacles.
"Under such circumstances, the mainland should continue to use diplomatic channels, based on relevant international law, to join the more seriously affected countries and the international community in urging Japan to stop its plans to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea." At the same time, China should ban imports of nuclear-contaminated seafood and other products from Japan and other countries, and consider imposing sanctions on Tepco and related personnel. Wang Hanling said.