Category: Tokyo Electric Power Company

  • RNZ Pacific

    Japan plans to start releasing treated nuclear wastewater from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean as soon as later this month, Japan’s Asahi Shimbun daily is reporting, citing government sources.

    The newspaper said the release was likely to come shortly after Prime Minister Fumio Kishida meets US President Joe Biden and the South Korean President, Yoon Suk-yeol, next week in the US, where Kishida planned to explain the safety of the wastewater.

    Japan’s nuclear regulator last month granted approval for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) to start releasing the water, which Japan and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) say is safe but nearby countries fear may contaminate food.

    Bottom-trawling fishing was scheduled to start off Fukushima, north-east of Tokyo, in September, and the government aimed to start the water discharge before the fishing season got under way, the newspaper said.

    In July the UN’s nuclear watchdog approved plans by Japan to release the water, despite objections from local fishing communities and other countries in the region.

    About 1.3m tonnes of water stored in huge tanks on the site has been filtered through TEPCO’s advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) to remove most radioactive elements except for tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that is difficult to separate from water.

    500 Olympic pool sized
    The treated water will be diluted with seawater so that the concentration of tritium is well below internationally approved levels before being released into the ocean 1km from the shoreline via an undersea tunnel.

    The water — enough to fill 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools — became contaminated when it was used to cool fuel rods that melted after the power plant was hit by a powerful earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

    Discharging the water is expected to take 30 to 40 years to complete.

    Attempts by Japanese government officials to win regional support for the plan have had limited success.

    China denounced the plan as “extremely irresponsible” when it was announced in 2021. Hong Kong has threatened to ban food imports from 10 Japanese prefectures if the water release goes ahead as planned.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

  • By Peter Boyle in Sydney

    As Pacific communities protest the Japanese government’s plan to dump more than a million tonnes of radioactive waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, Australian anti-nuclear activists are highlighting the complicity of Australian uranium exporting companies.

    While the Fukushima Daiichi power station operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), claims that the water will be treated to reduce radioactive content, anti-nuclear activists have no faith in TEPCO’s assurances.

    The Candlelight Alliance, a Korean community group in Sydney, is organising a protest outside the Japanese consulate this Saturday.

    Spokersperson Sihyun Paik told Green Left: “We have a great fear that it may already be too late to stop Japan’s release of radioactively contaminated waste water into our largest ocean, an action by which every Pacific Rim nation will be impacted.

    “There are serious, global ramifications,” he said. “It will directly endanger the marine life with which it comes into contact, as well as devastate the livelihoods of those reliant on such marine life, such as fisherfolk.

    “All living organisms will be implicitly affected, whether it is the unwitting consumer of contaminated produce, or even beachgoers.

    “The danger posed by the plan cannot be contained within just the Northeast Asia region. In two to three years, it will eventually reach and contaminate all ocean waters to certain, yet significant degrees according to scientists.

    Korean fishery victims
    “The local Korean fishery industry is the first commercial victim of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and it raised deep concerns to the Korean government immediately after the explosion of the nuclear reactors.

    “This was in conjunction with Korea’s progressive action groups during the term of the previous Moon Jae-In administration.

    “However, since the current administration (2022), the voice of protest has been extinguished at the government level, invariably raising suspicion of possible under the table dealings between Japan’s Kishida government and current Korean President Yoon [Suk Yeol] during the latter’s recent visit to Japan.”

    Epeli Lesuma, from the Fiji-based Pacific Network on Globalisation, told Green Left that “for Pacific people the Ocean represents more than just a vast blue expanse that Japan can just use as a dumpsite.

    “Our Ocean represents the economic, spiritual and cultural heart of Pacific countries.

    “Pacific people know all too well the cost of nuclear testing and dumping. The Pacific was used as a nuclear test site by the UK, France and the USA who carried out a total of 315 tests on Christmas Island in Kiribati, Australia, Māohi Nui or French Polynesia and the Marshall Islands.

    “These nuclear legacies have cost us countless lives and continue to impact the health and well-being of our people; it has impacted access to our fishing grounds and land to plant crops to support our families; and it has cost us our homes, with Pacific people displaced (on Bikini and Enewetak) due to nuclear contamination.

    Japan, Pacific share trauma
    “Japan and the Pacific share the trauma of nuclear weapons and testing.

    “So it comes as a deep disappointment to us that the Japanese government would consider actions that threaten not only Pacific people and our Ocean but the health and well-being of all the planet’s oceans and the people who depend upon them.

    “The Pacific Ocean also contains the largest tuna fish stocks which are a source of economic revenue for our countries. The Japanese government’s plans to dump its nuclear wastewater into our Ocean pose a direct threat to the economic prosperity of our countries and in turn our developmental aspirations as well as being a fundamental breach of Pacific people’s rights to a clean and healthy sustainable environment.”

    Australian anti-nuclear activist Nat Lowrey delivered a statement of solidarity from the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance when she visited affected local communities in Fukushima in March.

    The statement acknowledged that uranium from the Ranger and Olympic Dam mines was in TEPCO’s Fukushima reactors when the meltdowns, explosions and fires took place in March 2011.

    The ANFA statement said that “Australian governments, and mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto, are partly responsible for the death and destruction resulting from the Fukushima disaster. They knew about the corruption in Japan’s nuclear industry but kept supplying uranium.”

    Lowrey said that since it was Australian uranium that fuelled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, “the Australian government has a responsibility to stand with local communities in Fukushima as well as communities in Japan, Korea, China and Pacific Island states in calling on the Japanese government not to dump radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean”.

    ‘Fundamental self-determination right’
    “We must support Pacific peoples’ fundamental right to their sovereignty and self-determination against Japan’s nuclear colonialism.

    “If Japan is to go ahead with the dumping of radioactive waste, Australia should play a lead role in taking a case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea against Japan.”

    Paik said no Australian government had taken serious action since the Fukushima disaster.

    “Despite the Japanese government’s decision to release nuclear contaminated water into the ocean, no official statement or comment has been made by the [Anthony] Albanese government.

    “We did not expect any form of government level protest on this issue due to conflicts of interest with Australia’s member status in the Quad partnership which is a key pillar in Australia’s foreign policy, and an influential determinant of our stance on nuclear energy.”

    When the G7 met in Tokyo, the Japanese government urged the summit to approve the planned radioactive water release.

    Tanaka Shigeru, from the Pacific Asia Resource Centre in Japan, said: “Japan did not get the approval by the G7 as it had hoped, but it stopped at saying the G7 will adhere to the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    ‘IAEA approves release’
    “The IAEA is of course approving of the release, so it is a way for them to say they have approved without explicitly saying so.”

    Shigeru said that despite a three-year propaganda campaign over Fukushima, most people polled in Japan in April said that “the government has not done enough to garner the understanding of the public”.

    Only 6.5 percent of those polled believe that the Japanese government has done enough.

    Yet it has “done enough to keep people from the streets”, Shigeru said.

    “While there are, of course, people who are still continuing the struggle, I must say the movement has peaked already after what has been a fervent three-year struggle.”

    Japanese opponents of the radioactive water release, including fisherfolk, have been fighting through every administrative and legal step but now “there are no more domestic hurdles that the Japanese government needs to clear in order to begin the dumping”, Shigeru said.

    “The opposition parties have been so minimised in Japan that there is very little realistic means to challenge the situation except for maybe international pressure. That is really the only thing standing in the way of the dumping.

    Ambassador propaganda
    “So Japan has been taking ambassadors from the Pacific nations on lucrative paid-for trips to Fukushima to spread the propaganda that the dumping will be safe.”

    Lesuma confirmed the impact on swaying some Pacific Island governments, such as Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia.

    “Pacific Islands Forum member states have been some of the most vocal opponents at the international level of the Japanese government’s plans to dump their nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean,” he said.

    “The PIF leaders had appointed an Independent Panel of Experts who have engaged with TEPCO scientists and the IAEA to provide advice to Pacific governments on the wastewater disposal plans … the Panel has concluded unanimously that Japan should not release nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean and should explore other alternatives.

    “The Fiji government has been one such Pacific government consistent in coming out strongly in opposing Japan’s plans.

    “The PNG Fisheries Minister, Jelta Wong, has also been vocal and consistent in expressing his disapproval of the same, going as far as saying that the nuclear wastewater discharge would create a ‘Pacific Chernobyl’ with the potential to cause harm to Pacific people for generations to come.”

    Peter Boyle is a Green Left activist and contributing writer. Republished with permission.

  • By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Independent nuclear experts have offered to drink water and eat fish from the Pacific Ocean after Japan dumps its nuclear waste water into the Pacific.

    Japan is planning to ditch over one million tonnes of ALPS-treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean over 30 to 40 years starting from sometime this year.

    ALPS is an Advanced Liquid Processing System.

    New Zealand and Australian experts told media at an online panel discussion hosted by NZ’s Science Media Centre that Japan had good intentions.

    The experts said they believed that as long as the wastewater was tested before it was released the operation would be safe.

    Two even went as far as saying they would “take a sip” of the treated wastewater.

    “I would drink the water. I mean, it’s like going down to the beach and swallowing a mouthful of water when you’re swimming,” said University of Auckland physics senior lecturer Dr David Krofcheck.

    “It’s saltwater. I prefer the desalinated before I drink it,” he added. Dr Krofcheck specialises in nuclear physics and natural radiation from the environment.

    “Would I eat the fish? Yes, I would,” Adelaide University’s School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences associate professor Tony Hooker added.

    ‘The least bad option’
    The contaminated water has been used to cool the melted reactor of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

    More than 1000 tanks are now full and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is running out of storage space.

    Japan has said it will treat the water to ensure it is harmless. It will also dilute the water and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

    Dr Krofcheck said that option was the “best one”.

    “That’s probably the least bad option. Not that that’s a bad option. Because the dose, or the amount of tritium being diluted is so small. But I think the least bad option is releasing,” he said.

    Ocean circulation modeller and researcher in Taiwan, Professor Chau-Ron Wu, told media he predicted the water from Fukushima would take 2-3 years to reach North America, one year to get to Taiwan and sweep across much of the Pacific.

    No release date has been set, but associate professor Tony Hooker said that what was known is, “The water is going to be released in [northern hemisphere] summer 2023.”

    “I think the release is imminent. And I guess that will be a decision for the Japanese government. Ultimately, they can make that decision. They don’t need to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other agency.”

    Associate professor Hooker said that as long as it was only tritium and carbon 14 that’s released, and in small quantities, he is confident it would be safe.

    Dr Krofcheck agrees: “I’m very comfortable with releasing it, as long as we can guarantee the Royal Science Society can guarantee that the nasty strontium, caesium, iodine, cobalt 60 can be removed”.

    They will be removed by an ALPS.

    “So, most of the ALPS processes are using a zeolite clay and which is very absorbent. Once the water has gone through that the radionuclides are bound to a solid, you can dry that out and store it as radioactive waste,” Hooker explained.

    no caption
    Nuclear power station staff . . . they have the means and resources but there is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the water release project. Image: RNZ Pacific/AFP/IAEA

    ‘I really thought they reconsider it’
    There is still a lot of uncertainty across the Pacific about the release project.

    Japan is in talks with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and has been providing data to their independent expert panel to analyse, which Hooker is a part of.

    He acknowledged those who want to end nuclear waste dumping, which he says already happens around the world.

    “Whilst there’s no issues from a radiation safety perspective about putting this radiation into the sea, should there be some level of discussion or intensive research about how we can minimise disposing into the sea in the future?”

    ‘Retraumatising’ for Tahitian
    A Mā’ohi anti-nuclear activist in Tahiti, Hinamoeura Cross, found the news of Japan pushing forward with its plans despite backlash retraumatising.

    “I’m really shocked by what the Japanese are going to do. We know that they have planned that for many years, but I really thought that they will reconsider that,” Cross said.

    For her, all nuclear issues are personal. Japan’s plans are of interest in particular as they impact on her ocean, the Pacific.

    “I remember my great grandmother and my grandmother that were sick. Then my mum and my auntie, they had the thyroid cancer,” Cross said.

    When Cross was aged about 10, her sister got sick and at 23-years-old she was diagnosed with leukaemia.

    All of the women she loves and looked up to were “poisoned” by French nuclear testing in the Pacific, she said.

    Now that she is a mother of two, her voice has become staunchly against nuclear colonialism. She wants better healthcare for survivors of French nuclear testing.

    “I’m anxious about the health care of my children; are they going to be sick or not? We really need this healthcare in Tahiti because of the 193 nuclear bomb (tests that France detonated in the Pacific),” Cross said.

    Pacific reacts to Japan’s plans
    Pacific leaders have been voicing their views on the upcoming release, which Japan says it needs to do in an effort to make progress on decommissioning the power plant.

    Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is the latest leader to issue his support after being assured of the project’s safety by Japan.

    Safety is a sentiment echoed by TEPCO, the owners of the plant.

    “The release into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear (plant) would be the most realistic approach,” TEPCO Chief Officer for ALPS treated water management Junichi Matsumoto told RNZ Pacific in January 2023.

    Damage at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in 2011.
    Damage at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in 2011 . . . a release into the sea . . . the most realistic” option. Image: TEPCO/RNZ News

    The dumping operation is expected to take between 30 and 40 years as it needs to be treated by the ALPS system and then diluted by sea water to meet regulatory standards.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is reviewing the processes.

    The IAEA’s latest report has found TEPCO has managed to demonstrate it can measure the radionuclides in the treated water stored on site accurately and precisely.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Hinamoeura Cross with a member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in Vienna
    A member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) with Hinamoeura Cross in Vienna, Austria. Image: Hinamoeura Cross/RNZ News

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.