2024 TOP 10 BLOG
Fukushima’s Wastewater Problem: Balancing the Ocean’s Health with an Increasing Need for More Low-Carbon Energy
VJEL Staff Editor: Alexander Hume
Faculty Member: Yanmei Lin
Dr. Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stated that nuclear power provides 10% of the world’s total electricity and one quarter of its low-carbon supply. Nuclear energy has an important role to play in helping countries achieve their net-zero climate goals. According to experts at the International Energy Agency (IEA), that means nuclear generation needs to double by 2050. IAEA’s high case project envisages that can be done through lifetime extensions of existing plants and about 550 gigawatts (GW) of new build. However, lack of safe and effective permanent solutions to nuclear waste impede nuclear energy as part of a zero-carbon future. Japan’s release of treated Fukushima’s nuclear wastewater to the Pacific Ocean casts more doubts on the fate of the nuclear renaissance.
Historical Background: Honshu, Japan
On March 11th of 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred off the eastern boundary of Honshu, Japan’s largest and most populated island. Ranked as the fourth largest earthquake in recorded history, this earthquake caused severe destruction across the island. However, while the destructive power of this earthquake should not be undersold, the true devastation came from the gargantuan tsunami that followed.
The subduction of the Pacific plate under the Okhotsk plate caused rapid water displacement, which formed the tsunami. This tsunami towered over 100 feet and made landfall less than half an hour later. Without underscoring the destructive force of the initial earthquake, the tsunami caused the lion’s share of damage. The immediate aftermath of this tsunami was incredibly tragic and almost incomprehensible. However, the enduring and catastrophic effects, exemplified by the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, are no less consequential.
When the tsunami hit the nuclear power plant, there was no obvious damage to the reactors. However, the tsunami set off a chain reaction that led to catastrophic damage. The tsunami damaged the reactors’ cooling and seawater pumps, crucial components of any functioning nuclear facility. Without adequate cooling of the reactor (known as a loss-of-cooling accident), there will be nothing to cool down the nuclear core, which is incredibly volatile. If left unchecked, this could lead to a nuclear meltdown, causing potentially unparalleled damage. Japan was thus tasked with cooling down the reactors and averting a global disaster.
To cool the cores during the meltdown, plant workers utilized seawater and boric acid, which they pumped into the reactors via fire trucks. This arduous but ultimately successful endeavor prevented a criticality disaster, which led to the cores reaching a cool enough temperature where workers could achieve a cold shutdown in December. Despite this success, further issues emerged, highlighting the cluster of problems that can plague nuclear power.
By introducing seawater to the reactors, the workers knowingly exposed that water to highly radioactive elements. Those elements, which include iodine-131 and caesium-137, contaminate that water and make it extremely hazardous and unfit to be reintroduced into the ocean. Because there is a finite amount of space that could hold the contaminated water, Japan decided to release some of that water back into the Pacific in early April 2011, despite the water being over the legal limits for radiation. This release of water represented the opening of the literal floodgates that connected to the ocean, and the proverbial one that would lead to much debate a decade later when Japan decided to release more water into the Pacific.
Releasing the “Treated” Fukushima Wastewater: Ocean’s Health vs. Nuclear Power
On August 24th, 2023, Japan released the first batch of contaminated, but treated, wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. This release is just a fraction of the over 1 million tonnes of contaminated water that is being stored onsite in containment tanks. The phased, deliberate process spanning over 30 years is intended to minimize its impact on the environment. In terms of treatment, Japan has utilized the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which is an incredibly thorough and complex process that removes all radioactive materials, except for tritium. Despite these precautions, the decision to release this water back into the Pacific has raised concerns from the international and local communities regarding the potential environmental impacts it could have.
As mentioned previously, the water being released will contain tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope. Currently, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove tritium from water. Because of this, the tritium will inevitably find its way across the globe due to ocean currents. Exposure to this contaminated water could have adverse impacts on fish. The ocean is already being destroyed by climate change, and in this vulnerable state, any additional problems that are introduced to the ecosystem will be magnified. Humanity is dependent on the oceans and everything they provide, so when viewed from this perspective, it appears that dumping tritium-contaminated water should be avoided at all costs. In addition to the environmental impacts, Japan’s move to release this water will have significant international ramifications as well.
Japan’s International Environmental Obligations to Prevent Wastewater Dumping to Ocean
From an international perspective, Japan is largely governed by two separate agreements: the London Convention and its 1996 Protocol (LCP) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While each of these agreements individually would likely be enough to prevent Japan from dumping nuclear wastewater into the ocean, when taken together, dumping should be an impossibility. Yet, evidently, that is not the case. By examining the conventions in turn, their purposes and provisions seem to imply that dumping should not be allowed.
Starting with the LCP, the official title of the convention is the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. Judging by the convention’s title, the primary purpose to abate waste being dumped into the marine ecosystem is evident. Article 2 emphasizes signatories’ responsibility to safeguard a secure and thriving environment. Article 8 is also of significance, in that it lists examples of instances in which dumping is acceptable. However, this section emphasizes the need of imminent and dire action. While the wastewater that was initially dumped into the Pacific in 2011 likely meets these criteria, there is no evidence that this treated wastewater would. This current batch was being safely held in the storage tanks on site, where there was no obvious signs of danger. In other words, there was no imminent disaster that needed to be averted by dumping the wastewater into the Pacific. With the LCP in mind, it seems like Japan’s decision was at odds with what it agreed to. To emphasize how harmful this decision was, however, the provisions in UNCLOS should be considered alongside those in the LCP.
UNCLOS is the UN’s attempt at maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem, as well as promoting good international relations amongst those nations who depend on the ocean and the bounty of resources it provides. If the ocean is harmed by one nation, then it is not solely the perpetrator who will feel the adverse effects. Article 194 of UNCLOS deals specifically with this issue and lays out the general principles that signatories must adhere to. The most important aspect is that parties must once again take measures to prevent and curtail pollution of the marine environment. UNCLOS also states that parties must make specific attempts not to harm other parties, and due to the nature of ocean currents, any wastewater that is dumped in Japanese waters is likely to disperse across the globe and harm parties near and far.
How to Balance?
Despite these international environmental obligations, the Japanese government still made the unilateral decision to release nuclear-contaminated water. To justify the dumping, Japan subsequently requested that IAEA to conduct “a detailed review of the safety of related aspects of handling ALPS treated water.” Framing the nuclear wastewater as ALPS treated water, IAEA published a Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of the ALPS-Treated Water at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station on July 3, 2023, which concluded that the discharge of the ALPS treated water will “have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment” as the operational plan is in consistent with standards developed by IAEA. However, China Atomic Energy Authority criticized this, saying it “does not fully reflect the opinions and comments of all the experts, and there are limitations and partiality in relevant conclusions.”
Apparently, as the global agency supporting and advocating nuclear power, IAEA should not be the only international institution to balance the health of the ocean’s health with an increasing need for nuclear power. Fukushima’s Wastewater Problem in 2023 was an international wakeup call, prompting a need to revise the existing international legal framework for the discharge of radioactive wastewater. This development warrants close attention for potential actions in 2024.