Akira Ishiwatari, a commissioner of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, raises opposition to the government’s plan to ease safety regulations for reactors at a meeting on Feb. 8.
February 9, 2023
A Nuclear Regulation Authority panel member objected to the government’s draft policy to lift the 40-year cap on the lifespan of nuclear reactors, forcing official approval to be delayed.
Akira Ishiwatari, one of the five members of the NRA, said at a Feb. 8 meeting that dropping the restriction on reactors’ operation periods at 40 years, in principle, and a maximum 60 years from the nuclear reactor regulation law, is not a “change to make them safer.”
Ishiwatari, a former professor of geology at Tohoku University and head of the Geological Society of Japan, is tasked with studying plant operators’ measures to safeguard reactors from earthquakes and tsunami. He has been on the NRA since 2014.
Under the more stringent reactor regulations introduced in 2013 following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the life of a reactor was limited to 40 years, in principle, to enhance the safety of nuclear facilities. But it can operate 20 more years, including the period when they were shut down for safety checks or court injunctions, if found safe to do so by the NRA.
The Kishida administration compiled a plan to ease the rules last month that would allow reactors to serve beyond the maximum 60-year limit by excluding the time when they were offline.
For example, the lifespan of a reactor that remained idle for 10 years would be extended to 70 years in total.
Ishiwatari noted that some reactors have been shut down for many years due to the NRA’s prolonged safety examinations for their restart.
But he expressed concern that excluding the shutdown period from the maximum 60-year rule would lead to the activation of more aged units.
With his objection, NRA Chairman Shinsuke Yamanaka decided to postpone the panel’s approval of the government policy for more discussion on the issue.
A majority of the public opposes the easing of the reactor restrictions.
At the NRA meeting, it was reported that most of the 2,016 opinions received from the public over the government plan were critical.
Still, the NRA initially planned to back the government policy to remove the cap and install a system that would require a reactor to undergo safety checks in under every decade once it reaches 30 years in service.
Storage tanks for contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, Jan. 20, 2023.
February 6, 2023
Pacific Island nations have for decades been grappling with the environmental and health consequences of Cold War-era nuclear testing in the region by the likes of the U.S. and France. Now, they worry about another kind of nuclear danger from neighbors much closer to home.
As concerns over energy security and the desire to transition away from fossil fuels pushes several Asian nations to reconsider once-scrapped nuclear power programs, there is increasing anxiety over how the waste from those facilities—depending on the methods of disposal—might impact the lives of Pacific Islanders.
Notably, in the region, Philippines President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos said in his first address to Congress in mid-2022 that he was open to adding nuclear energy to the country’s energy mix, the Indonesian government said in December it plans to build a nuclear power plant by 2039, and weeks later Japan announced that it plans to ramp up the use of nuclear energy.
Nuclear plants have long been touted as a reliable source of carbon-free energy, though many plants across the world had been shuttered in past decades over worries about the safety of nuclear waste disposal. In this new era of nuclear revival, similar uncertainties abound.
In Japan, one plant that isn’t even operational has become the frontline for the fight between activists seeking safety assurances for waste disposal and operators who are running out of space in on-site tanks to store the wastewater accumulating from keeping damaged reactors cool. Currently, Japan plans to release wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean later this year.
“It’s just horrendous to think what it might mean,” says Henry Puna, the secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), a regional intergovernmental organization that has more than a dozen member countries, including, for example, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Tonga, and Vanuatu. “The people of the Pacific are people of the ocean. The ocean is very much central to our lives, to our culture, to our livelihoods. Anything that prejudices the health of the ocean is a matter of serious concern.”
When a magnitude 9.1 earthquake and tsunami hit off the coast of Japan in 2011, it caused a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Since then, water is being used to cool the damaged reactors and prevent further catastrophe. Now, more than 1.3 million metric tons of radionuclide-contaminated water has been collected on site, and it continues to accumulate, as rain and groundwater seep in. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operator of the plant, says that the storage tanks take up too much space and hinder decommissioning the plant. Japan initially said that it would begin releasing the water into the ocean in the spring of 2023. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno told the media in January that the release target date is now around spring or summer, which appears to be a postponement, according to the Associated Press, due to construction delays on a pipeline and the apparent need to gain greater public support.
The plan has faced widespread opposition. Japanese fishermen, international environmentalists, and other governments in the region, including China, South Korea, and Taiwan, have all expressed concern. Some of the strongest pushback has come from Pacific Island countries, including from lawmakers, former leaders, regional fisheries management groups, and other organizations. Among those voices is the PIF, which is advocating for more time to deal with questions and concerns. Earlier this year, the PIF appointed a panel of independent global nuclear experts to help inform its members in their consultations with Japan and TEPCO. The experts have stressed that more data are needed to determine the safety of the water for disposal.
South Korean environmental activists protest in Seoul against Japan’s plan to discharge Fukushima radioactive water into the sea, as they mark World Oceans Day on June 8, 2022.
“We think that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that the release is safe, environmentally, healthwise, and also for our economy in the Pacific,” says Puna, who is also the former Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. Until more information is shared and evaluated, he asks that Japan “please defer the discharge of the water.”
Doubts and divisions over the data
TEPCO says the water will be purified so that the concentration of radioactive substances—with the exception of a hydrogen isotope called tritium, which it says has “little impact on the human body”—falls below regulatory standards. The tritium will be diluted with a large volume of seawater. The government of Japan told TIME in an emailed statement that the measures it is taking are fully in line with international law and the safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). An IAEA task force, set up to review the safety of Japan’s plan, says that it completed a second review in Japan in January, and that it will release a report on its findings in about three months, as well as a comprehensive report before the discharge.
But there appears to be a major disconnect between TEPCO and others, including the PIF panel of experts—who say that they’re concerned with the adequacy, accuracy, and reliability of the data backing up the decision to release the water. Robert H. Richmond, a research professor and the director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, who is one of the panel experts, tells TIME that “the critical, foundational data upon which a sound decision could be made was either absent or, when we started getting more data,” he says, “extremely concerning.” He also casts doubt on if the IAEA is in the best position to assess the risks. “They’re an agency that has a mandate to promote the use of nuclear energy,” says Richmond, “and our mandate is to look after the people, the ocean, and the people who depend on the ocean. And our unanimous conclusion … is that this is a bad idea that is not defended properly at this point, and that there are alternatives that Japan should really be looking at.”
“One of the biggest surprises to me was the fact that the data was so sparse,” says Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, scientist-in-residence and adjunct professor at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who is also on the PIF panel of experts. “There were prolonged gaps in data collection, which suggests that the matter may not have been given the level of attention and importance it deserved.” He adds that only a fraction of the tanks had been sampled, and only a handful of some 60 isotopes were typically measured in the samples—fewer than he would expect for this kind of assessment. (TEPCO says that the analysis done on a sample of tanks so far is just to assess the water’s condition in storage but that, after the purification process, further measurements will be taken on all the treated water before discharge to ensure that only that which meets sufficient standards of safety is released into the ocean).
Some still fear the safety of the treated water, and the far-reaching implications if it’s dumped into the ocean. Puna points out, for example, that the waters of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean produce much of the world’s tuna. If the tuna were to be impacted, it would cause major problems for Pacific nations, for which fisheries are a significant source of income, as well as for consumers globally.
In December, the U.S.-based National Association of Marine Laboratories also announced its opposition to TEPCO’s plans, publishing a position paper that says “there is a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data supporting Japan’s assertion of safety” while “there is an abundance of data demonstrating serious concerns about releasing radioactively contaminated water.”
Japan’s government told TIME in an emailed statement that it has provided detailed explanations, answered questions in a sincere manner, and that it stands ready to receive further questions. Puna says that the PIF panel of experts has been invited to Japan this year, but unless more data are offered, such a meeting would be “meaningless.” Richmond, similarly, says that requests for more data have not produced sufficient responses and that the panel of experts hasn’t been able to get the information they wanted via Zoom calls or emails, so he isn’t confident that a trip would produce enough information to make the panel of experts comfortable with the plan. “We asked ABC, and you answered with DEF,” he says.
When asked by TIME if it would indefinitely delay the discharge owing to the concerns of Pacific nations, TEPCO said in an emailed statement that it would “make every effort to foster understanding prior to the commencement of discharge.” The government of Japan also said that it “attaches great importance” to its relationship with the Pacific Island nations and that it “takes the PIF’s concerns sincerely,” but it stopped short of saying it wouldn’t go ahead with the discharge plan.
That approach may damage relations with the Pacific region. “We’ve been friends for a long time,” says Puna. “In the Pacific, we believe that if you are friends that you are always open to sharing information.”
A scarring past and a new path forward
Other nuclear plants across the globe have released treated wastewater containing tritium. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the IAEA’s director general, said in 2021 that Japan’s plan is “in line with practice globally, even though the large amount of water at the Fukushima plant makes it a unique and complex case.”
But Pacific Island nations have particular reason to be anxious. There is a noxious legacy of nuclear testing in the region, and other countries have historically treated the Pacific as a dumping ground for their waste. The U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1957—and disposed of atomic waste in Runit Dome, where it’s still stored. That testing led not only to forced relocations, but also to increased rates of cancers. Today there is concern that the dome is leaking and that rising sea levels might impact its structural integrity. France also conducted 193 nuclear tests from 1966 to 1996 at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in French Polynesia.
The BAKER explosion during Operation Crossroads, a series of two tests conducted by the U.S. to investigate the effect of nuclear weapons on naval warships, at Bikini Atoll, July 25, 1946.
“To have this on top of that creates a feeling of fear and apprehension in the hearts and minds of our leaders and our people in the Pacific,” says Puna.
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis, many countries seem to be embracing nuclear power anew. Japan, for example, wound-down the use of nuclear energy in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. But in December it announced a major reversal of that policy and said that it plans to use more nuclear energy by restarting as many reactors as possible and prolonging the operating life of older reactors. (By late 2022, 10 of 50 nuclear reactors that were shut after the disaster had been restarted, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.)
Rather than let dumping wastewater into the ocean become the norm, at this juncture for nuclear energy, some say it’s an opportunity to explore different ways of doing things. The panel of PIF experts has proposed several alternative solutions, including treating the water and storing it in more secure tanks to allow the tritium time to decay, or using the treated water to make concrete for use in projects that won’t have high contact with humans.
“This is not the first nuclear disaster and by no means is it going to be the last,” says Richmond. “This is an opportunity for Japan,” he says, “to do the right thing and to invest time, effort, and money into determining and coming up with new ways of handling radioactive waste and setting a new trajectory.”
Unit 3 of Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Mihama Nuclear Power Plant in Mihama Town, Fukui Prefecture, September 16, 2022; photo by Satoru Iizuka from an Asahi Broadcasting Corporation TV helicopter.
February 10, 2023 On February 10, the Kishida administration approved the “Basic Policy for Realization of GX (Green Transformation),” which includes allowing new construction and operation of nuclear power plants for more than 60 years, at a cabinet meeting. The change in nuclear power policy since the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant became an official government policy. Related bills will be submitted to the ordinary Diet session.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida speaks at the GX Executive Conference. Second from the front is Yasutoshi Nishimura, Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry. In the back is Akihiro Nishimura, Minister of the Environment = 2:59 p.m., December 22, 2022, Prime Minister’s Official Residence, photo by Koichi Ueda.
Public comments on the draft of the basic policy presented in December of last year included many objections to the nuclear power policy, but no major revisions were made. The basic policy mainly lists policies that should be taken over the next 10 years toward the realization of a decarbonized society in 2050. It clearly states the “maximum use” of nuclear power plants as well as renewable energy. After the accident, the government had stated that it did not envision the construction of new nuclear power plants at this time, but it has now shifted to a policy of working toward this goal.
Specifically, the government will “work on the development and construction” of improved nuclear power plants, which it calls “next-generation innovative reactors,” and will rebuild them on the sites of nuclear power plants that have been decided to be decommissioned. The government will also “consider” building nuclear power plants in areas where there are currently no nuclear power plants. https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR2B0BKBR29UTFK015.html?fbclid=IwAR37nbrqQvZ8dCIO0ks8hkt6LpoP7GEh1Irdxc7LpFQf9Blvh-RB7C_qJcc
Akira Ishiwata, a member of the Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan (NRAJ), expresses his opposition to the draft of new safety regulation rules for nuclear power plants.
February 9, 2023 At the February 8 meeting of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), committee members voiced their opposition to the draft framework for new safety regulation rules, which would require safety inspections at intervals of no more than 10 years starting from 30 years of operation. The committee members decided not to make a formal decision on that day, and will discuss the issue again next week or later.
Since the end of last year, the Regulatory Commission has been conducting “public comments” to gather opinions from the public on the draft framework. At the meeting, it was reported that 2016 comments had been received, many of which were opposed to the 40-year operation period stipulated in the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law, but the committee decided that no revisions to the draft were necessary and decided to proceed with the decision as originally proposed.
Regulatory Commission is in the forefront of extending the operation of nuclear power plants.
In response, Akira Ishiwata, a member of the committee in charge of the earthquake and tsunami review, stated, “I am opposed to this proposal,” citing two main reasons.
The first is that the stipulation of an operating period will be removed from the Reactor Regulation Law, which is under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Ishiwata said, “The mission of the Nuclear Regulation Commission is to protect people and the environment based on scientific and technical findings. This change is not about changing the law based on some new findings. Dropping the operation period from the law (Reactor Regulation Law) is not an alteration to the safety side,” he said. https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR286GKRR28ULBH00F.html?iref=pc_photo_gallery_bottom
February 9, 2023 At its regular meeting on February 8, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission discussed whether to make a formal decision on a new regulatory system for nuclear power plants to operate beyond 60 years, but it decided not to do so due to opposition from Akira Ishiwata, who stated that the proposal “cannot be considered an alteration to the safe side. The matter will be discussed again at the regular meeting next week. It is extremely unusual for the regulatory commission to be divided on such an important matter. (Kenta Onozawa)
◆Public comments: Most oppose the review
The new draft regulation will review the deterioration status of nuclear power plants every 10 years or less, starting 30 years after the start of operation, and if the plant complies with the regulatory standards, the extension of operation will be approved. The proposal was unanimously approved at the regular meeting held last December. On the day of the meeting, the final draft was discussed based on the results of public comments received from the public. The majority of the 2016 comments received from the public were against the review of the system, but the secretariat of the Regulatory Commission consulted with the regular meeting on whether to make a formal decision on the draft without changing the content of the draft regulation. Of the five committee members, four, including Chairman Shinsuke Yamanaka, voted in favor of the draft, while Commissioner Ishiwata expressed his opposition. Chairman Yamanaka stated that he would not make a decision by majority vote, but would discuss the matter again together with the proposed amendment to the article of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law (Reactor Regulation Law) that stipulates the operation period. At a press conference following the regular meeting, Chairman Yamanaka said, “I think there is a misunderstanding (among Commissioner Ishiwata). I don’t think it is a problem that there are opposing opinions. I would like to deepen the discussion among the committee members. Last December, the government decided to allow nuclear power plants to operate for more than 60 years by excluding from the number of years of operation the period during which the plants were shut down for restart examinations and judicial decisions. It aims to submit a draft amendment to related laws to the current Diet session. The current provisions in the Reactor Regulation Law regarding the period of operation, which is “40 years in principle, with a maximum of 60 years,” are expected to be deleted and redefined in the Electricity Business Law under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
◆”Aging nuclear power plants will be operated in the future,” said Akira Ishiwata, a member of the committee.
I am against this proposal. Akira Ishiwatari, a member of the committee, stated his opposition in a firm tone toward the end of the meeting. This change is not based on new scientific findings. It is not a change for the sake of safety, because the law will drop the period of operation. There is no need for us to amend the law voluntarily. A geological expert, he has served as a professor at Tohoku University and as a member of the committee since 2014. When it was discovered that geological data had been rewritten during the review of the Tsuruga No. 2 reactor at the Japan Atomic Power Company’s Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture, he proposed that the review be suspended. When the secretariat of the Regulatory Commission proposed last November that the Commission hear opinions from electric power companies on the proposed new regulations, he opposed the proposal, saying that it was too early to make a decision. Discussions were postponed. Under the new government policy, the period of shutdown due to the review will be excluded from the number of years of operation. In most cases, the 10 units currently under review have been delayed due to inadequate explanations from the power companies. Commissioner Ishiwata, who is in charge of the examination of earthquake and tsunami countermeasures, said, “We are not unnecessarily prolonging the examination, but unfortunately it is taking a long time. The longer the review takes, the longer the operation period will be, and the older (aged) nuclear power plants will be in operation in the future. He expressed strong concern that the more difficult the review process becomes, the more likely it is to encourage the operation of aging nuclear power plants. At the meeting, Chairman Yamanaka explained that “this is a mechanism to ensure that regulations can be implemented no matter what the operating period is like,” but Commissioner Ishiwata did not back down, saying, “My thoughts are as I have stated. https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/230093
Feb. 07, 2023 Radioactive materials exceeding the voluntary standard set by the Fukushima Prefectural Fisheries Federation were detected in sea bass landed off the coast of Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture on February 7, and the federation has suspended shipments of sea bass.
According to the Fukushima Prefectural Federation of Fisheries, on the morning of March 7, radioactive substances exceeding the standard voluntarily set by the federation were detected in sea bass caught 8.8 km off the coast of Iwaki City at a depth of about 75 m. After a detailed investigation by a prefectural agency, the sea bass was found to have a high level of radiation.
Subsequent detailed examination by a prefectural agency revealed that radioactive cesium-137 was detected at a concentration of 85.5 becquerels per kilogram.
This is below the national food standard of 100 becquerels per kilogram, but above the standard of 50 becquerels per kilogram voluntarily set by the prefectural fisheries federation.
Therefore, the prefectural fisheries federation has decided to recall all sea bass landed in the prefecture on July 7, and to refrain from shipping until the levels remain below the voluntary standard for a certain period of time.
This is the first time that the government has voluntarily refrained from shipping sea bass since the shipment restrictions were lifted in April 2018, almost five years ago.
February 06, 2023 The accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has spread an enormous amount of radioactive materials. Contaminated soil from the decontamination process in Fukushima Prefecture was delivered to an interim storage facility built by crushing farmland, forests, and residential areas in the towns of Futaba and Okuma. Nearly eight years have passed since operations began. The delivery, processing, and storage of the contaminated soil is now in its final stages, and the processing plants are being dismantled one after another, and hills made of the contaminated soil are appearing in various places. (Takeshi Yamakawa and Natsuko Katayama)
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has spread an enormous amount of radioactive materials. Contaminated soil and other materials were stripped and collected from all over Fukushima prefecture into an interim storage facility built near the plant. The 1,600 hectares of land is turning into hills of contaminated soil. See the latest situation here.
A group of facilities on the Okuma side. Storage facilities, which look like open-pit mines, are being filled with contaminated soil one after another.
Futaba Town side. This side still has storage capacity. In the back is the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Treatment plant. Large sandbags filled with contaminated soil are broken and sifted. Stones and roots are removed.
Contaminated soil, which has been cleaned by the addition of a moisture-absorbing amendment, is transported by conveyor to a storage pit. Heavy equipment levels the soil.
The storage facilities are all huge. On the right side is the area where the storage continues. On the left side, contaminated soil has been piled up to 5 meters underground and 10 meters above the ground, and the soil has been shielded, covered, and covered with grass seeds to keep the soil in place. When the site reaches capacity, hills like this will appear in various locations.
On the Futaba Town side, there is a huge volume reduction and storage facility for highly contaminated materials. Roots and branches are also generated in large quantities during decontamination. They are burned at temporary incineration plants in various locations, and the ashes are burned at this facility at a high temperature of about 1,700 degrees Celsius. Radioactivity-enriched dust (around 300,000 becquerels per 1,000,000 tons) is packed in steel containers and stored in a dedicated facility.
Within the volume reduction facility is an incinerator that reduces the volume of ash. The ash is burned at 1,700 degrees Celsius.
Highly concentrated (about 300,000 becquerels/kg) dust separated from the burned ash is stored for a long time in this way.
Contaminated soil treatment plants that have finished processing are being dismantled, sorted into smaller pieces, and sold as scrap iron.
2023/02/05 The protagonists stop their car at a coastal area in the prefecture along Route 6 and get off at a hill overlooking the beautiful sea. As they look around, they see a village with overgrown grass. Director Makoto Shinkai (49)’s latest animated film, “Suzume no Togome” (The Sparrow’s Doorstep),” depicts the Great East Japan Earthquake as one of its themes, as well as Fukushima Prefecture and other affected areas. In an exclusive online interview with Fukushima Minpo, Shinkai said, “I felt that if I did not depict the scenery of Futaba County, I would be telling a lie with ‘Suzume no Togomei’ (Suzume’s Door Closed).
■Preparedness
The film features Suzume, a 17-year-old high school student living in Kyushu. The film is an adventure story in which Suzume and her friends are trying to close the “door” that leads to disaster in abandoned buildings in various parts of the country where people no longer live.
Suzume and his friends drive down National Route 6, passing by a sign that reads “Difficult-to-return zone. While the road has been cleaned up, the houses on both sides of the road remain abandoned. The view from the top of the hill where they arrived at the site shows buildings reminiscent of TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Two summers ago, Shinkai visited the area and experienced firsthand the current situation in the hard-to-return zone. It is meaningful to indirectly convey to the audience that this kind of scenery exists in Japan,” he said. He was determined not to let the disaster fade away.
There are many scenes that faithfully reproduce the scenery of various parts of Japan. However, in depicting Fukushima Prefecture, the shapes and layouts of the houses were fictitious while maintaining the atmosphere of the area. There are many people who want to return. I couldn’t just paint someone’s house without their permission.”
Trust
In Shinkai’s works, background art plays an important role in the story. Many viewers are drawn to the sparkling sea and colorful grasslands. Memories of people who once spent their lives in abandoned schools and hot spring resorts float in the air. The film is a directing collaboration between Shinkai and the director of the hit film “Kimi no na wa. The art director of this film, Takumi Tanji, who has been working with Shinkai for about 20 years, including on the hit film “Kimi no na wa. He is like a ‘Superman’ to me,” he says.
Tanji is responsible for setting up fictional locations such as hot spring resorts and amusement parks based on real landscapes. Even if I ask him to do something a little difficult, he smiles and says, “Well, we’ll figure it out. He has the full confidence of all the staff, including myself, that we can leave everything in his capable hands.
Spinning
Twelve years will soon pass since the disaster. An increasing number of people of that generation do not know what it was like at the time of the disaster. He analyzes that more than one-third of the audience is younger than the disaster victims and says, “If I could create an opportunity for people to learn about the disaster, I would like to think that it was only possible because it was an animation.
About three months have passed since the release of the film. He has given stage greetings throughout Japan and visited Fukushima Prefecture on January 28. He received many letters through the theaters and was encouraged by the warm response, smiling and saying, “I felt that it was good that this film exists.
There has been criticism of the depiction of the disaster in entertainment films, and he accepts that “there can never be a film that everyone agrees with, and I can’t easily say that it was a success. Still, he also believes that if films only avoid depicting the painful parts of the disaster, they will not move people’s hearts.
Japan’s Board of Audit has found that nearly half of the tenders related to reconstruction work related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident had only one bidder.
The auditors on Friday submitted their report on government projects such as decontamination and waste disposal in the aftermath of the 2011 accident.
The Environment Ministry’s Fukushima office held 735 public tenders in the five and a half years until September 2021. Of these, 49.3 percent had one bidder.
The percentage is about 15 points higher than the average for public tenders held by the government.
The auditors also found that, on average, the prices offered by successful bidders were 94.6 percent of the prices set by the government.
This is more than 13 points higher than the average for tenders with two or more bidders.
The Board of Audit is calling on the government to ensure fair competition in public biddings.
Sophia University Professor Kusunoki Shigeki says the findings raise suspicion of a structural problem that allows only one bidder to take part.
He says that when a bidder is confident of winning, it usually sets a high price.
Three internal review documents of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), which are conspicuously blacked out, in Minato Ward, Tokyo, on March 3.
February 3, 2023 On February 3, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), the secretariat of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), released documents on its review process in response to the issue of undisclosed information exchange between the NRA and officials of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) over the review of nuclear power plant operation periods. The Agency did not disclose any of the materials it had provided to the Regulation Authority, and most of the internal review materials were “blacked out” with only three pages. The Agency’s backward-looking attitude toward information disclosure was conspicuous, and it was not clear whether the views of the Agency, which promotes nuclear power generation, had any influence on the regulatory system. ◆The Regulatory Agency reiterated that it had “exhausted all necessary explanations. What was made public was the status of internal studies at the Regulatory Agency for reviewing the operating period, which was stipulated to be “40 years in principle, with a maximum of 60 years. Although the Regulatory Agency received from the Ene Agency an imaginary diagram of the revision of the law and other materials, it did not disclose any of the materials prepared by the Ene Agency, saying that the Ene Agency, the preparer, should decide whether or not to disclose the information. Although the Regulatory Agency’s internal study materials were believed to envision multiple patterns of legal revision related to the operation period and describe the advantages and challenges of each, the majority of the materials were not disclosed. At the press conference, Yoichiro Kurokawa, director of the Regulatory Agency’s General Affairs Division, explained, “The documents contain the views of the person who prepared them and are far removed from the views of the organization, so disclosing them would cause confusion among the public. When asked by the media about the content of the blacked-out section, Mr. Kurokawa stated that in the section on the advantages of the proposed amendment of the articles to the minimum necessary, it was stated that “on the surface of the text, it looks almost unchanged,” and added, “In the first place, since we are changing the regulations for the operation period, it is inappropriate to say that ‘almost unchanged’ is the case. There were expressions that seemed embarrassing, and we determined that it was not appropriate to disclose them.” At the press conference, a number of people pointed out that the disclosure was insufficient, but Section Chief Kurokawa reiterated that “we have done all the necessary explanations. Before the Regulatory Commission ordered a review of the regulatory system regarding the operation period in October of last year, the Regulatory Agency had met with EneAgency officials at least seven times between July and September to exchange information. (Nozomi Masui) https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/229204
Member states of the United Nations have urged Japan to resolve issues surrounding the wartime sexual slavery and forced labor issues as well as its planned release of radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean.
Such calls were made during the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of Japan in Geneva on Tuesday, with countries from Europe and other regions urging the Japanese delegation to immediately suspend and abolish the death penalty and ban discrimination against sexual minorities.
Recommending that improvements be made in universal human rights issues, the member nations cast light on Japan’s wartime atrocities, with Beijing urging Tokyo to responsibly reflect on its wrongdoings against the sexual slavery victims and to offer compensation.
Yoon Seong-mee, the deputy chief of the South Korean mission in Geneva, advised Tokyo to closely cooperate with Seoul to restore the victims’ honor and dignity and pay attention to helping heal their psychological wounds.
The member states also raised concerns over Tokyo’s planned Fukushima water release starting this year, with Pacific Island Countries calling for a comprehensive investigation into its impact and the disclosure of the findings.
Japan, in response, maintained its position that the sexual slavery issue was resolved in a 2015 agreement between Seoul and Tokyo. As for the water release, it said the radioactive level is far below the upper threshold of international safety standards and that the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) is monitoring the purification process.
Mind you this article is from Japan News Yomiuri the mouthing the official lines of the Japanese government, which is of course for dumping the Fukukushima accumulated radioactive water in the Pacific ocean and which would want us to believe that it is filtered “absolutely pure”….
TEPCO plans to gradually reduce the treated water over the next several decades during the decommissioning period.
K4 tank group for discharging treated water
February 2, 2023
TOKYO – The Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant will soon mark the 12th anniversary of the unprecedented meltdown that resulted from the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011. The most pressing issue at present is the discharge of treated water into the ocean, as the on-site storage capacity is approaching its limit.
The government, during a ministerial meeting held on Jan. 13, projected that the discharge would begin in the spring or summer this year. However, local fishermen concerned about reputational damage and Pacific island nations are opposed to the ocean discharge.
Treated water, according to Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings, is that which has been purified “until the concentration of radioactive materials, with the exception of tritium, falls well below regulatory standards for safety.”
To find out more, I visited TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, where decommissioning work is expected to take 30 to 40 years.
My visit on Jan. 26 was my first to the site in about 10 years. Compared to the last time, when it was stuffy being in protective clothing with a full face shield, I was surprised to find that I could move around most of the area with a helmet and disposable mask.
Subcontracted workers were busy here and there, and in the parking lot, vehicles that had been used to move within the premises after the accident were still parked there. The vehicles are no longer in use more than a decade after the accident, but because they are radioactive and cannot be disposed of normally, they remain on the site, having served their purpose.
The four tips of a structure jut out of the sea. The water outlet is right beneath this point.
“It’s right over there,” said a TEPCO Holdings official, pointing offshore from the quay in front of reactors No. 5 and No. 6, which were spared from the accident.
Under a clear sky, I could see the four tips of a tower that jutted out of the sea. The tower is located 1 km offshore. The treated water will be discharged into the ocean through a water discharge outlet located on the seafloor approximately 12 meters undersea where the four tips are seen.
The installation of the water discharge outlet caisson has already been completed. Currently, work is underway to backfill the excavated seafloor around the outlet with concrete and mortar, and it is expected to be completed by the end of June.
“The days when the work can be done are limited due to severe sea conditions, such as waves and wind,” explained the official in charge at the site.
The shielded tunnel boring machine stopped excavating about 830 meters along the 1-km-long undersea tunnel to the water discharge outlet and is waiting for the connection from it.
The water intake tank almost in its final stage
Work is also progressing on the shore near the quay wall. Water tanks connecting to the tunnel were under construction. There are two tanks: the upstream tank, which is wide, and the adjacent downstream tank, which is about 16 meters deep. The upstream tank, divided by concrete walls that create channels, appeared to be almost complete, revealing its full extent. The system has been created so that treated water, diluted with seawater, enters the upstream tank, flows through the channels, then overflows into the downstream tank.
Once the discharge begins, TEPCO will directly confirm that the tritium concentration in the treated water has been diluted to below the target level through the mixing with seawater at this location, which can be considered the final point before the water is discharged.
Safety Considerations
K4 tanks are used for receiving, measuring/confirming, and discharging treated water on a rotating basis.
The Pacific Islands Forum, an organization of nearly 20 countries and regions including Australia and New Zealand, has called for a postponement of the ocean discharge. The PIF is of the opinion that the discharge into the ocean would have a significant negative impact on the fishing industry, given the lingering effects of past atomic bomb tests and other factors. China and South Korea have also expressed concern.
Local fishing cooperatives and other groups in Japan are also opposed. The government plans to seek their understanding by using funds totaling ¥80 billion set up to support the local fishing industry and to counter reputational damage.
Contaminated water is being generated at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant because water is used to cool nuclear fuel that melted and solidified in reactor cores that were involved in the meltdown. This water is purified of 62 nuclides, including cesium and strontium, using an advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) and other equipment. However, since tritium cannot be removed by ALPS, it must be diluted with a large amount of seawater to a concentration of 1,500 becquerels per liter or less before being discharged into the ocean. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen with three particles rather than the usual one.
Tritium produced from reactor operations is being released by nuclear power plants around the world. It does not arise only from plants that have experienced accidents.
Japan’s regulatory concentration limit for tritium in water is 60,000 becquerels per liter, and the World Health Organization’s drinking water standard guideline is 10,000 becquerels per liter. TEPCO’s aim for 1,500 becquerels per liter is 40 times more stringent than the national standard.
Treated water processed by ALPS is clear and colorles
Moving to higher ground, 33.5 meters above sea level, I found a group of huge white tanks called K4. There are 35 such tanks with a capacity of 1,000 metric tons each. Thirty of these tanks, or 30,000 metric tons, are used to release treated water. From here, the treated water flows through transfer pipes toward the sea, being diluted with seawater along the way. The transfer pipes have two shutoff valves that stop the flow in the event of an earthquake, tsunami, or other emergency.
“Thirty tanks are divided into three groups of 10 tanks,” explained the TEPCO official. “Each group has a role of receiving, measuring/confirming, and discharging, and these roles are rotated.
“The treated water is stirred in the tanks to make it homogeneous, then the concentration of radioactive substances is measured,” the official added. “If it meets the government’s regulatory standards, it is discharged.”
From there, through further dilution with seawater, the treated water will have tritium concentrations at TEPCO’s stricter standard.
Measurements of the treated water are conducted by TEPCO and an outside inspection agency. TEPCO will disclose all such figures to the public and seek their understanding of the safety of the water.
Race Against Time
Storage tanks for treated water fill the southern part of the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant site.
Looking around the site from a window on the seventh floor of a large rest area, I saw a row of tanks lining the south side of the premises. These tanks store treated water. There are approximately 1,000 tanks, currently storing approximately 1.32 million cubic meters. The total capacity of the tank complex is 1.37 million cubic meters, which means that 96% of the tanks are already filled. Based on the calculation that 140 cubic meters of treated water is generated per day, the tanks will be full around this summer or autumn.
Why does this treated water continue to be generated in the first place? Inside the meltdown-affected reactors, fuel that melted and solidified is called fuel debris, which needs to be cooled by circulating water. Water that comes in contact with fuel debris becomes contaminated with radioactive substances. If this cooling water continues to be circulated without any increase in volume, there is no problem with using it in the reactor. The problem is that rainwater and groundwater continue to enter the damaged reactor buildings, causing a surplus of contaminated water. This excess contaminated water is processed by ALPS, generating treated water.
In the ALPS facility, the HIC, a special container that stores the slurry waste removed from the pre-processing step, is being exchanged for a new one.
Initially, about 540 cubic meters of treated water was generated per day, meaning one tank was filled in two days. Later, the amount was reduced to 130 cubic meters per day in fiscal 2021 through the use of facings to prevent rainwater from seeping into the ground and by building an ice wall underground to surround the building to reduce the amount of groundwater flowing in. Last year, when only June and October had much rain, the amount was below 100 cubic meters per day.
The discharge of treated water into the ocean, however, would have to be greater than the amount generated in a single day to decrease the overall amount. So how much is planned to be released per day? According to calculations based on the performance of the seawater pumps, 500 cubic meters per day could be released.
The TEPCO official denied this, saying, “That will never happen.”
He explained: “It will take time to measure radioactive substances before the discharge. We have received comments from various parties that it would be better to take our time and release the water in a way that would have as little impact or cause as little change as possible.”
TEPCO plans to gradually reduce the treated water over the next several decades during the decommissioning period.
Ensuring safety, making public disclosures, and gaining domestic and international understanding of the oceanic release: The decommissioning of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is approaching one of its climaxes this year, with a great many difficult challenges ahead.
February 2, 2023 The Japanese government has decided to revise its basic policy for the first time in eight years toward the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste (so-called “nuclear waste”) generated by nuclear power generation.
The government has decided to implement “geological disposal,” in which a final disposal site will be established and buried deeper than 300 meters below the ground. However, the number of target areas has not increased since then, and there are calls from local residents to expand their interest nationwide.
Against this backdrop, the government has decided to revise for the first time in eight years its basic policy outlining the details of its efforts to realize final disposal, and has compiled a new draft basic policy.
The draft clearly states that “the government will work together and under its own responsibility toward the final disposal of the waste,” and it also states that the government will take a front-loaded approach to the issue.
The proposal also includes a new initiative to hold discussions with the heads of local governments where nuclear power plants are located, among other things.
The operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it has retrieved samples from inside the No. 1 reactor containment vessel. It says the samples are likely to contain fuel debris.
The plant suffered a triple meltdown in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
Its operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, said on Wednesday that underwater robots successfully sucked water out from two locations inside the vessel.
The company has been examining the inside of the No.1 reactor containment vessel. It says the accumulated matter at the bottom is thought to contain fuel debris.
The project to collect samples initially began early last month, but was suspended due to technical errors. It was resumed on Tuesday.
Experts hope that a close analysis of the samples will help lead to successful removal of fuel debris — one of the greatest challenges in the plant’s decommissioning process.
TEPCO said it will try taking samples from two other locations inside the vessel. It also said it will spend about a year identifying the types and amounts of chemical elements contained in the samples.
The company also plans to send robotic cameras inside the pedestal, a structure that props up the reactor.
Pacific island nations, neighboring countries in Asia, scientists, and others criticized an international organization’s endorsement of plans to dump tens of thousands of tons of contaminated wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean. The plan to schedule the discharge of approximately 1.3 million tons of water on an ongoing basis for the next three decades has alarmed the Pacific community because of possible adverse impacts on nearby marine ecosystems and their way of life.
Following a January 2023 visit to the Fukushima nuclear facility to receive updates on plans to dispose of the contaminated water, Gustavo Caruso, a Director within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Department of Nuclear Safety and Security and Chair of the Task Force, voiced support for the plans. As an international association, the IAEA says it promotes the “safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear energy,” which includes the disposal of nuclear waste.
“[Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority] prepared thorough evidence of how they are aligning the regulatory plans related to […] treated water discharge with the IAEA safety standards,” said Caruso in a statement following the visit. According to the IAEA statement, “Before any water discharge begins – scheduled for this year – the IAEA will issue a comprehensive report containing the collected findings and conclusions of the Task Force across all aspects of the review conducted as of that time.”
In March 2011, an earthquake and tsunami resulted in a nuclear disaster in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. After power was disrupted and emergency generators failed, three nuclear reactors onsite lost cooling capabilities and experienced a core meltdown.
Water used to cool the reactors, along with groundwater below the complex, became contaminated with radioactive materials. This water has been collected, treated, and stored onsite since 2011 in dozens of massive storage tanks that now crowd the nuclear complex.
Since 2021, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has been preparing the infrastructure for the “safe” release of Fukushima’s treated water through a process called the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). In August 2022, TEPCO announced the installation of facilities that will allow for water discharge after consulting with Japanese authorities and local residents. It vowed to cooperate with various stakeholders in explaining the systematic release of water and its scientific basis:
We will continue to do our utmost to increase the understanding of people of Fukushima and society at large regarding the handling of ALPS treated water as part of the decommissioning work, by focusing on our efforts to disseminate information based on scientific evidence to parties within and outside Japan in an easy-to-understand manner and taking every opportunity to listen to the concerns and opinions of the public and explain our approach and response.
But Henry Puna, the secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), reiterated the regional opposition to Japan’s plan of releasing Fukushima’s treated water into the Pacific Ocean:
Based on our experience with nuclear contamination, continuing with ocean discharge plans at this time is simply inconceivable and we do not have the luxury of time to sit around for four decades in order to ‘figure it out.’
The decision for any ocean release is not and should not only be a domestic matter for Japan, but a global and transnational issue that should give rise to the need to examine the issue in the context of obligations under international law.
I am asking today, what our Pacific people did not have the opportunity to ask decades ago when our region and our ocean was identified as a nuclear test field.
PIF enumerated alternative options such as “safe storage and radioactive decay, bioremediation, and use of treated water to make concrete for special applications.”
During a conference held at New Zealand’s University of Otago in November 2022, participants described Japan’s plan as a manifestation of “nuclear colonial violence”:
TEPCO and the Japanese government’s plan to discharge radioactive wastewater into the Pacific shows direct disregard for the sovereignty and self-determination of Pacific peoples and the ocean their livelihoods depend upon.
We condemn attempts by the Japanese government and TEPCO to trivialise the nature and extent of the damages the radioactive wastewater discharge will cause to the people, ocean life, and places of the Pacific.
Speaking on behalf of Pacific civil society groups, Noelene Nabulivou of DIVA for Equality urged Japanese authorities to consider the perspectives of Pacific communities:
Japan’s internal process of approval for this construction needs to consult the Pacific, as it threatens the livelihood of Pacific peoples and the environment we depend heavily on. This is all happening in the context of massive loss and damage from the climate emergency, that is also not of our making.
The Chinese foreign ministry called Japan’s decision to go ahead with its controversial plan “irresponsible” and “self-serving. Meanwhile, the US National Association of Marine Laboratories cited the “lack of adequate and accurate scientific data supporting Japan’s assertion of safety.” Robert Richmond, a marine biologist at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, noted that “there is a strong consensus internationally that continued use of the ocean for dumping waste is simply not sustainable.”
Local opposition to the contaminated water discharge has been supported by Sato Kazuyoshi, a municipal councilor in Iwaki, a city neighboring the Fukushima nuclear complex. In a Facebook post, Sato said:
On January 13, near the entrance to Onahama Port, Iwaki City, we held a rally, ‘Iwaki Citizens Against the Release of Contaminated Water from Nuclear Power Plants into the Ocean.’ The beginning of this year’s standing. On earlier that day, there were reports that government ministers had confirmed the release (of contaminated water) ‘from spring to summer.’
Since June 2021, we have been holding a this rally on the 13th of every month: ‘Don’t pollute the sea any more!’
At noon, I stood with an illustration banner by Eisaku Ando, a sculptor who moved from Iwaki to Nara, and a placard saying ‘Don’t pour contaminated water into the sea!’ Nearly 20 participants from their respective standpoints said that they would not allow contaminated water to be released into the ocean! and impassioned speeches. A Japanese citizen who had returned from Canada for a visit also joined us, showing the international spread of opposition to the ocean release of contaminated water.
TEPCO is working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been releasing regular reports about the safety procedures being done at Fukushima. IAEA assured the public that it will release its comprehensive report before the actual discharge of treated water in about three months’ time.
nuclear-news 