Behind Japan's Nuclear Wastewater Discharge Crisis: One Bill, Two-Year Term, Three "Big Mountains"

On April 13, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga held a cabinet meeting at which it was formally decided to discharge nuclear sewage from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea, saying that it would take about two years for Japan to actually discharge nuclear sewage containing "tritium" into the sea due to the need to build new facilities and conduct safety inspections.

In this regard, China and South Korea, as Japan's close neighbors, are resolute in their attitude. China's Foreign Ministry made it clear that it "strongly urges Japan to recognize its responsibilities." The issue of nuclear wastewater disposal at the Fukushima nuclear power plant should be revisited and the discharge of seawater should not be initiated without authorization until it has been fully consulted and agreed upon with the various interested states and the International Atomic Energy Agency. China will continue to work closely with the international community to follow developments and reserves the right to respond further. ”

Relevant experts pointed out that whether from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or customary international law, Japan's decision will face challenges. Once implemented, it will be subject to economic, legal and moral pressures, "Japan should pay attention to the fact that if it really insists on discharging or secretly dumping emissions, the impact on Japan's international image will never be positive." ”

<h4>One bill: The cost of dealing with a huge nuclear accident? </h4>

On the 13th local time, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga held a small ministerial meeting at the prime minister's residence, held talks with Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Hiroshi Kajiyama and other cabinet members, and formally made a decision to discharge nuclear sewage from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea.

Suga said at the meeting, "The treatment of nuclear wastewater is an inevitable problem in the decommissioning process of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. We ensure that safety standards are widely recognized and take steps to prevent reputational damage. It is reported that due to the need to build new facilities and conduct safety inspections, it will take about two years for Japan to actually discharge nuclear sewage containing "tritium" into the sea.

In March 2011, a triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear leakage occurred in Japan, causing serious casualties and leaving behind a series of harmful substances that are difficult to treat, such as nuclear sewage, reactor waste, and fuel debris. The so-called nuclear sewage, Liu Xinhua, chief expert of the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, has stated that there are three main sources of radioactive wastewater (nuclear sewage) at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, the original coolant of the reactor, the newly injected water after the accident to continuously cool the core, and a large amount of groundwater and rainwater that seeped into the reactor.

Over the years, the Japanese government has been committed to using the Advanced Liquid Handling System (ALPS) to treat radioactive material in nuclear wastewater, but the tritium in it is still impossible to remove the existing technology. However, the Japanese government still stresses that treated nuclear effluent will not cause safety damage to people and the environment.

According to the Japanese government's plan, the tritium in nuclear sewage will be diluted to 1500 becquerels per liter before discharge, which is 1/40 of the concentration allowed by Japanese safety standards and 1/7 of the World Health Organization's drinking water standard. But it is worth noting that the EU safety standard is 100 becquerels per liter.

Previously, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, had said that it expected the water tank storage capacity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to run out as early as next fall. It is understood that Tokyo Electric Power Company has built a thousand storage tanks for the storage of nuclear wastewater, and so far 90% of the storage tanks have been filled, and the nuclear sewage in the storage tanks has reached 1.25 million tons. The Japanese government believes that "the disposal of nuclear sewage cannot remain unresolved" and finally made an uproaring decision today.

Experts noted that Japan's decision may be closely related to the cost of processing. Cui Cheng, an associate researcher at the Macroeconomic Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission and a former first-class secretary of the Chinese Embassy in Japan, said in an interview with the 21st Century Business Herald that Japan's decision has a lot to do with the cost of follow-up treatment of nuclear accidents, "which not only includes nuclear sewage, but also covers a series of treatment problems such as contaminated soil and waste reactor cores, and the amount involved is a huge number." ”

In 2017, the Japan Center for Economic Research made an estimate of the disposal costs of reactor scrapping, decontamination, and compensation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, and the results showed that the total would reach 50 trillion to 70 trillion yen (about 3 trillion to 4 trillion yuan).

Choi pointed out that Japan, especially TEPCO, has so far put its own economic interests first, and "this neglect of international responsibility may bring irreversible and sustained harm to Japan itself and even the world." ”

<h4>Two-year period: Import restrictions on Japan will be tightened</h4>

Although Suga said it will take about two years for Japan to actually discharge nuclear waste containing "tritium" into the sea. However, as soon as this decision came out, it immediately triggered multiple opposition waves.

On the afternoon of April 11, the day before the cabinet meeting, people in Fukushima Prefecture and other parts of Japan held a rally near the port of Komeihama in Iwaki City, holding signs such as "Don't let sewage pollute the oceans" and opposing the government's discharge of nuclear sewage into the sea. The Japanese citizens' group "Atomic Power Citizens' Committee" said on the 12th that they collected 64,431 signatures from 88 countries and regions and submitted a petition to the government to oppose the discharge of nuclear sewage into the ocean. A poll in Japan late last year also showed that more than half, or 55 percent, of those surveyed opposed to discharging nuclear sewage into the sea.

Some analysts pointed out that the focus of criticism in Japan is not only on the safety concerns of nuclear sewage (including the harm of tritium-containing water to human health, whether it can ensure the removal of radioactive materials other than tritium" and so on), but also accuses the government of not responding to the problem of damage to the reputation of marine products.

On April 7 this year, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga met with Hiroshi Kishi, president of the Japan National Fisheries Synergy Association, at the Prime Minister's Office in Tokyo, where he called on the government to take measures to address the problem of mistrust of aquatic products in the affected waters, in addition to opposing the discharge of nuclear sewage to the sea.

It is understood that the "3.11" disaster has been ten years long, but there are still 15 countries and regions to implement import restrictions on Japanese agricultural products and fishery products, the European Union and Russia and other 9 countries and regions require the submission of relevant testing reports, causing a great impact on the local fisheries, in 2020, The total amount of offshore fishing in the coastal fisheries of Fukushima Prefecture is less than 20% of the pre-nuclear accident.

Therefore, the Japanese fishery community has always been strongly opposed to the Japanese government's decision to discharge nuclear sewage into the sea, and the Japan National Fisheries Cooperative Association has stated that it is "the opinion of all fishermen that it is firmly opposed to the discharge of (nuclear sewage) into the sea."

Cui Cheng believes that the impact of this decision on Japan's fishing industry is huge. "In particular, Japan is also a country where marine products are the main meat food, which has a direct impact on the local people's food consumption and fishing and marketing. Once nuclear sewage is discharged into the ocean, not only will current activity affect the spread of radioactive materials leading to marine safety issues, but its conduction and accumulation through the food chain itself will also pose multiple risks to marine life and marine ecosystems. Cui Cheng also mentioned that in the face of this situation, import restrictions on agricultural and aquatic products from fukushima and other places and even Japan in many countries, including China, are likely to continue to tighten.

According to a German marine scientific research institute, the Fukushima coast has the strongest ocean current in the world, and within 57 days from the date of discharge, radioactive material will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean and 10 years later to the global sea.

Cheng Baozhi, an associate researcher at the Shanghai Institute of International Studies, also stressed that the ocean itself is a state of mobile connectivity, and hopes that Japan will consider the issue of nuclear sewage discharge and take into account the vital interests of Neighboring countries such as China and South Korea, "Which may affect the subsequent development of bilateral economic and trade relations." ”

<h4>Three "mountains": facing the triple pressure of economy, law and morality </h4>

What kind of international pressure will Japan face once this decision is implemented?

Cheng Baozhi pointed out to the 21st Century Business Herald reporter that whether from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or customary international law, Japan's decision will face doubts.

In the context of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the relevant provisions on the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment explicitly refer to "toxic, harmful or health-impairing substances, in particular persistent substances, released from land-based sources, from or through the atmosphere or as a result of dumping". As a party to the Convention, Japan's discharge of nuclear sewage clearly violates this measure requirement.

From the perspective of customary international law, As a maritime (economic) power, Japan itself should also abide by the provisions of customary international law on international responsibility and assume obligations for the safety of life and food safety of all mankind.

In addition, there is the 1972 London Dumping Convention in international law, fully known as the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Dumping Of Wastes and Other Substances. In November 1993, representatives of 37 members of the London Convention voted in London in favour of a total ban on the dumping of nuclear waste at sea, and several radioactive wastes were directly included in the dumping "blacklist". The Protocol to the Convention also explicitly refers to "in principle, the cost of anti-fouling shall be borne by the polluter".

On the whole, if Japan really wants to implement the decision to discharge nuclear sewage, it will not only bear the corresponding liability for damages in the future, but also may also bear international legal and moral responsibilities.

"The Japanese side should note that if it really insists on discharging or secretly dumping emissions, the impact on Japan's international image will never be positive." Cheng Baozhi stressed.

Zhou Yongsheng, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, reminded that for these pressures, the international community is also facing two major challenges: investigation and compensation.

First, there must be a professional organization to assess the actual marine hazards caused by nuclear sewage. "For the identification of harmful substances in the ocean, the investigation of 'small comings and goings' has played little role."

In addition, in Zhou Yongsheng's view, there are also difficulties in determining compensation. Most of the relevant ocean conventions do not have a very procedural claims process for compensation. Therefore, "the pursuit of responsibility for Japan's nuclear sewage discharge requires a certain amount of resource investment." Zhou Yongsheng said.

<h4>International Voice: Third-Party Agency Oversight Raises Doubts </h4>

On the 13th, the spokesman of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement on the Japanese government's decision to dispose of the nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident by means of marine discharge, in which it clearly pointed out that the Japanese side unilaterally decided to dispose of the nuclear wastewater of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident by discharging the sea without exhausting the means of safe disposal, disregarding the doubts and objections at home and abroad, and without full consultation with neighboring countries and the international community, which is extremely irresponsible and will seriously damage the international public health safety and the vital interests of the people of neighboring countries.

Liu Xinhua said that the wastewater of the Fukushima nuclear power plant that the Japanese government intends to decide to discharge into the ocean is treated wastewater. However, these wastewaters still contain radionuclides such as tritium, strontium, cesium, and iodine. After a large amount of wastewater from Fukushima is discharged into the Pacific Ocean, it will inevitably lead to the enrichment of radionuclides in marine sediments and marine life in the sea near the discharge point, and some nuclides will migrate and spread to other sea areas with ocean currents.

He also pointed out that Japan is a close neighbor of our country, and whether Japan discharges wastewater from near shore or in the open ocean public sea, radionuclides will spread along with ocean currents in the North Pacific, and the waters under China's jurisdiction will inevitably be affected by transboundary pollution of radioactive materials.

South Korea, another close neighbor, is equally adamant about this. South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choi Jong summoned Japanese Ambassador to south Korea Koichi on the 13th to lodge a solemn protest over Japan's decision to discharge nuclear sewage from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea.

According to South Korean media, after Japan officially announced this decision, the South Korean government urgently convened a meeting of the vice ministers (vice ministers) of relevant departments to discuss its position and countermeasures against the Japanese government's announcement that the fukushima nuclear power plant sewage will be discharged into the sea. At a press conference held after the meeting, The Rok-rok would convey to the Japanese side its public opinion opposing the decision and asked the Japanese side to take concrete measures to ensure the safety of South Korean citizens and protect the marine environment from pollution.

The U.S. State Department, on the other hand, supported Japan's response to the decision. On the State Department's official website, State Department spokeswoman Ned Price said in a statement that the United States is aware that "in this unique and challenging situation, Japan has weighed various options and implications, remained transparent about its decisions, and appeared to have adopted an approach that meets globally recognized nuclear safety standards." We look forward to continued coordination and communication with the Government of Japan and monitoring the effectiveness of this approach."

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga also confirmed that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other third parties will be involved in the plan to ensure transparency in its implementation. In March, Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Hiroshi Kajiyama held a video conversation with IAEA Director-General Grossi. The Japanese side said it hoped that the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency would conduct a scientific and objective review of water treatment methods and openly express its views to the international community. In response, Grossi said that the IAEA is ready to fully support Japan and believes in Japan's determination to solve the problem of purified water and the technical ability to achieve this goal.

When meeting with Ambassador Wang Qun, China's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Vienna, on the 12th, Grossi said that he was "willing to actively promote the evaluation and supervision of the institution in a fair, objective and scientific manner." In this process, the Agency stands ready to strengthen communication with various stakeholders.".

However, Liu Xinhua stressed that "at present, there is no provision for international third-party agencies to inspect and then discharge nuclear wastewater after treatment, and there are no relevant inspection procedures and standards." He pointed out that nuclear accidents in history, such as the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear accidents, were all atmospheric releases, and there were no nuclear accidents similar to the Fukushima nuclear accident that produced a large amount of wastewater, so there is no precedent for the discharge of wastewater into the ocean after the treatment of the nuclear accident.

South Korean media revealed that the South Korean side will also convey to the IAEA the position of the South Korean side that it is deeply worried about this matter, and ask the international community to conduct scientific tests on Japan's treatment of nuclear wastewater. "If the Korean side finds problems through international inspection agencies or domestic monitoring systems, it will file a claim and terminate the emissions request."

"Japan's trust endorsement of the IAEA is based on the influence of this national institution over the years, which will have some convincing power for the public." Zhou Yongsheng believes that Japan's search for supervision by third-party agencies is actually to have "legitimacy and rationality" to promote the implementation of this matter. Cui Cheng believes that Japan's request for supervision by third-party institutions is more likely to be "passing on responsibility", but this "transfer" will not help Japan avoid public doubts.

Cheng Baozhi pointed out to reporters that as a high-level form of international cooperation, international organizations should assume their own roles and roles, and be completely objective and fair in the process of supervision. "In addition to the general intergovernmental international organizations, other environmental NGOs should also actively speak out and intervene, because this is a matter that concerns the common destiny of all mankind."

For more information, please download the 21 Finance APP