Japan - China: a turbulent nuclear comeback

For only a few weeks, Japan was able to celebrate its return to nuclear power: the agreement to restart the world's largest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, and, with the IAEA's green light, the start of the discharge of decontaminated Fukushima water into the sea. But he was soon disillusioned. The legitimacy of the discharges was severely questioned by China, and on January 1^er 2004, the NOTO earthquake, 65 kilometers from the epicenter, destroyed the insufficiently protected Shika nuclear power plant. He had to acknowledge that not all the lessons of the Fukushima disaster had been learned. It had to be more rigorous and update its safety standards.  A moment of lucidity that should inspire nuclear states the world over. 

‍

_{IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): the International Atomic Energy Agency is an international organization under the aegis of the United Nations. It submits an annual report to the UN General Assembly and whenever requested by the Security Council.} 

_{APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is an intergovernmental economic forum designed to facilitate economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region.}

_{RNA: Nuclear Regulation Authority - Japan's nuclear safety authority.}

_{FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation.}

_{TEPCO: Tokyo Electric Power Company. It is a major electric power company in Japan, best known for its role in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011.}

_{FACTS: Nuclear power is once again persona-grata in Japan.} 

• _{On August 24, 2023,  the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings  TEPCO*?. can begin discharging the 1.33 million tonnes of water contaminated by the Fukushima plant.} 
• _{On December 27, the Nuclear Regulation Authority? RNA ?,gave the go-ahead for the restart of the world's largest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.} 
• _{On January 1, 2024, RNA* reported on the resilience of Japan's power plant fleet during the powerful earthquake on the Noto peninsula.} 

_{A return to nuclear power that delights Japan, but that Asia does not appreciate, and that China greets with unqualified condemnation A lack of confidence in Japanese nuclear power that needs to be explained}.

Safe discharge

Before initiating the discharge of polluted water from the stricken Fukushima power plant, Tokyo waited until it had obtained the green light from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Following an exhaustive investigation, the IAEA^* declared that the procedures adopted by Japan to eliminate almost all radioactivity from the water met safety standards. Discharges complying with international standards would be no different from those discharged by operating nuclear power plants, and would have a negligible radiological impact on the population and the environment¹ .

‍

To this reassuring opinion, we can add a remark of common sense: the panoramic view of the storage area shows that if the volumes to be dumped are beyond human scale, they are insignificant compared to the immensity of the ocean.

‍

‍

Irrational fears exploited for political ends

Nonetheless, for many, nuclear power is a frightening prospect. As soon as the word is uttered, people see their lives threatened. For the opposition, it's an opportunity to make their voices heard. A conventional comedy is played out, as in recent days in South Korea.

While Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, in support of Japan, declared that he saw no scientific problem with the water discharge, he was quick to add that he did not approve. After all, he has to allay the concerns of the majority in his country. A Gallup Korea poll revealed that seven out of ten people are concerned about the impact of the discharge on seafood.

Opposition parties, civil society groups and religious communities can therefore go ahead and denounce the government's ambiguous stance. "We intend to hold the government to account for failing in its duties," says Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party, before describing the dumping as an "act of terror". Yoon Suk-yeol is also sparing no effort. After banning the import of seafood from the waters off Fukushima, he announced an 80 billion won ($61 million) credit to promote the consumption of seafood. And he can be seen shopping at a large fish market before lunch² .

No doubt, but for the scientific community, for engineers, it's all much ado about nothing.

‍

Up to the presidency, China is quick to condemn

Not for nothing for China, which takes advantage of this political niche to loudly protest against releases it knows to be harmless.

As a diplomat, Xi Jinping first raised the issue of discards with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at an APEC meeting^* . He asked him to take the international community's concerns seriously, and to manage the problem responsibly and constructively, as the issue concerned the health of all mankind, the global marine environment and the public interest³ .

The spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs took up the baton, but in an entirely different tone, declaring: "The release of contaminated water is a major issue. Its impact goes beyond Japan's borders. Since mankind began using nuclear energy, there have been no precedents or universally recognized standards for the discharge of contaminated water into the ocean, yet it can be the cause of catastrophe for the local population and the whole world."

‍

‍

He continued: "The Japanese government has failed to prove the legitimacy and legality of discharging the water into the ocean, or to guarantee the long-term reliability of the purification plant. It has failed to prove that ocean discharge is safe and harmless for the marine environment and human health. Nor has Japan carried out thorough consultations with other stakeholders when the ocean belongs to all mankind. To forcibly begin ocean dumping is an extremely selfish and irresponsible act, a disregard for the global public interest. It is passing on an open wound to future generations of mankind. Japan has become a saboteur of the ecological system and a polluter of the global marine environment. It has placed itself in the dock before the international community and will face international condemnation for many years to come⁴ ."

‍

Global responsibility

In doing so, Beijing is opening up a debate on the assessment of atomic risk. Since the consequences of nuclear accidents can have a global impact on health and the environment, while the IAEA's opinion is necessary, it is not sufficient.

A careful reading of the agency's statutes shows that it can only issue a technical opinion, and cannot go so far as to authorize the discharge of radioactive water into the sea. 

• For Beijing, article 2 of the IAEA statute^* , stipulates that the agency has no other objective than to accelerate and increase the contribution of atomic energy to peace, people's health and prosperity in the world. The IAEA^* may not grant assistance to members subject to political, economic or military conditions incompatible with the provisions of its statutes. This restriction limits the work of the IAEA^* to technical functions. 
• According to the Chinese interpretation of the statutes, the IAEA^* must consult and collaborate with the relevant UN bodies and specialized agencies when establishing or adopting safety standards for health protection.  At least with the FAO^* which is responsible for ensuring food safety worldwide, and ensures that fish products are free from contamination⁵ .

By attacking Japan, an ally of the United States, China is warning of a risk that is set to increase. The number of nuclear power plants in the world is set to multiply, all of them entailing extreme risks, the scale of which Chernobyl, not Fukushima, has demonstrated. What controls will they have to meet if we are to remain reassured as we move towards global nuclear power?

Confidence is still a long way off

Let's move on to the Noto earthquake of January 1^er . An opportunity for Japan to congratulate itself, since the very next day the Nuclear Safety Authority declared: "No irregularities have been detected in the seven operating reactors⁶ . No doubt, but this was only a half-truth.

After all, an earthquake of magnitude 7.6 - the original Fukushima quake had a magnitude of 9.1 - soon revealed damage to a nuclear power plant, Shika, caused by the same negligence as at Fukushima.

• Insufficient protective enclosure (primary cause of the tragedy). The protective dike at the Shika power plant was only four meters high, but according to the Hokuriku Electric Power Company, the sea level rose by three meters over a fifteen-minute period, and as a result, the protective dike at reactor no. 1 was "tilted" by several centimeters⁷ .
• Just 65 km from the epicenter, two of the plant's reactors experienced accelerations in excess of the maximum levels expected for the facilities, giving rise to two significant incidents: 

• Extensively damaged, two of the external power transformers leaked 19,800 liters and 3,500 liters of oil, which would have shut down the reactors had they been in service. It is not known when the power supply system will be restored; 
• On a less serious note, with no radiological consequences, the fuel storage pools at the Shika and Kashiwazaki-Kariwan power plants overflowed.

It's hard to believe that these attacks could have been, and were for a time, overlooked.

Admittedly, the Fukushima disaster dispelled the myth of safety shared by the government and nuclear-related companies, and in 2012 the Japanese government created an independent watchdog, the Nuclear Regulation Authority. It promulgated new regulatory standards equivalent to the world's most stringent requirements. But this has not been enough, and there can be no doubt that the safety of Japanese nuclear facilities is still not sufficiently assured.

Nuclear Regulatory Authority Director Shinsuke Yamanaka agrees: "What we have learned from this latest earthquake must be taken into account when updating our safety standards." 

What he says here also applies to countries other than Japan.

1. IAEA concludes that Japan's plan to discharge treated water from Fukushima into the sea meets international safety standards, 04/07/2023.
2. Fukushima's radioactive water in the sea, protests and criticism in Korea, Fides.org, 24/08/2023.
3. Xi says Japan should properly handle discharge of nuclear-contaminated water in responsible manner, Global News, 17/11/2023.
4. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Statement on the Japanese Government's Start of Releasing Fukushima Nuclear-Contaminated Water into the Ocean, 24/08/2023.
5. Global bodies must stop Japan's water release?, Global Times, 07/11/2023.
6. No Irregularities Identified At West Coast Nuclear Power Plants, Says Regulator, nucnet.org, 02/01/2023. 
7. Japan's Noto quakes fuel nuclear safety concern, reignite anti-nuclear sentiment, Xinhua, 09/01/2023

‍

Box 1

Discharge of treated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

Since the accident in March 2011, insofar as they have not yet been disposed of, the plant's nuclear fuel remains have had to be permanently cooled by water. Groundwater and rainwater also seep into the site, and when they come into contact with the fuel and radioactive debris, the particles they carry, irradiated in turn, are a source of radiation. They must therefore be treated.

‍

After storage, the water is chemically purified by an "Advanced Liquid Processing System" (ALPS), and radioactive particles are removed.

‍

‍

The only remnant of radioactivity is water molecules, whose nuclei have passed through radioactive zones, absorbing the neutrons circulating in them and giving rise to tritium. Unstable, tritium decays by radiating. After 12.3 years, half the atoms in a tritium sample will have decayed into helium, which is stable.

‍

‍

The chemical properties of tritium are almost identical to those of hydrogen, so ALPS cannot eliminate it. On the other hand, as the radioactivity is low, treated water can be diluted to ensure that its level of radioactivity does not exceed 1,500 becquerels (Bq) per liter. This is more than six times lower than the limit set by the World Health Organization (WHO) for drinking water (10,000 Bq/liter).

EV

‍

‍

_{Image 1 freepik}