“The Fukushima spills cause serious deterioration to the marine environment”

JAYRO SANCHEZ

Shaun Burnie has been the nuclear specialist at the NGO Greenpeace since 1991. He has worked in East Asia for more than 30 years, and has been well acquainted with the Fukushima facilities since the 1990s. We spoke to him about the Tokyo Government's decision to dumping contaminated water from the plant into the Pacific.

Two weeks ago, the Japanese government announced that its experts would begin dumping contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean. His decision has caused great debate among members of the international community. Because?

The spills are very controversial because they are not routine... They come from the nuclear disaster that occurred in Japan in 2011. The opposition against this measure is notorious, even among the fishing communities of the country that is carrying it out.

But the rejection of her is not only seen in Japan. The issue has captured the attention of all Asian nations bordering the Pacific in recent years. Fukushima was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl and has therefore affected many people. Any plan to dump nuclear wastewater resulting from this disaster would generate opposition.

The environmental NGO Greenpeace claims that the Government of Japan and the Tokyo Electric Company (TEPCO), responsible for the operation of Japanese nuclear power plants, are lying when they say that there is no alternative to dumping this water. There is?

It is not that these organizations lie. They only try to distort the information they provide to citizens and the media so as not to be held accountable for their mistakes. Its own experts admit that there is another option: storing contaminated water long term. But they think it is more complicated because they would have legal problems securing a space to do it. Besides, it would take a long time.

The Fukushima nuclear accident occurred in March 2011. Japanese authorities reacted to the disaster by presenting a decommissioning plan criticized by several international environmental organizations. What was that plan based on?

Between the last months of 2011 and the first months of 2012, the Japanese agreed to establish a maximum period of 3 or 4 decades to dismantle the country's nuclear facilities. In fact, no commercial reactor has been completely dismantled to date in Japan.

In addition, the Fukushima-Daiichi plant has suffered the meltdown of three of its six reactors. Its situation is not comparable to that of a conventional power plant. Now, the Japanese government is trapped in its own rhetoric because it has committed, together with the Fukushima Prefectural Executive, to completing decommissioning by 2051.

This idea is delusional and impossible. The site is permanently contaminated with radioactive material, and there is no credible plan for the removal of the hundreds of tons of nuclear fuel remains.

What is the fundamental purpose of the plan?

TEPCO and the Government have not announced what their objective is regarding the Fukushima-Daiichi site. The agreement with the prefectural authorities is the complete elimination of all radioactive material from the plant and the rest of the nuclear complexes located in their territories. However, it is impossible for this to happen.

Why does Greenpeace think the plan is a failure?

The reasons are several, and they have a complexity that could lengthen the interview too much. But, if your readers want to know more about the subject, they can consult the following reports: The dismantling of Fukushima Daiichi. It's time for a new long-term strategic plan y The dismantling of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. From plan A to plan B, and from plan B to plan C. 

Given the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, Finland, France and other European countries have decided to use nuclear energy to meet some of the needs of their populations. Despite this, you and other experts oppose its use. Because?

Nuclear energy is not what is allowing the decarbonization of the energy sector to be carried out. It cannot solve the problem we face, nor make a significant contribution to its resolution. Currently, only 10% of global electrical energy is generated by nuclear power plants. And it's been 70 years since its commercial use was approved...

Its use entails numerous dangers in the areas of safety, security and nuclear proliferation. The technology that already exists or is being developed is not going to eliminate them completely. Every dollar wasted on nuclear facilities destroys efforts being made to decarbonize societies and reduce air emissions.

From an economic and temporal point of view, the best option is to invest in renewables.

A large number of the countries that share Pacific waters with Japan have protested the dumping of contaminated water into the ocean. How will it affect them?

Nations bordering the Pacific are already suffering the consequences of pollution caused by nuclear weapons tests and residual discharges that have been carried out in their waters for decades.

Those who have decided to discharge contaminated water from Fukushima have not proposed a realistic end date for their activities. These will continue for more than a century. Scientists in charge of studying ocean pollution for the Pacific Islands Forum say the radiological risks are high and long term.

The radionuclides being released disperse and bioaccumulate at different rates, and have the potential to affect the genetics of marine life. Consequently, spills cause severe deterioration of the marine environment, which is already under enormous pressure due to historical pollution, climate impacts, resource depletion, overfishing, etc.

The Government of Beijing has been one of those that has most opposed the dumping of Fukushima waters into the Pacific. Because?

Nations that have opposed the dumping, including China, are aware that their populations, and in particular their coastal communities, are deeply concerned about the issue. In the coming years, the East China Sea will be contaminated by radioactivity from Fukushima, so it was to be expected that these countries would oppose Japan's decision.

Many international actors accuse China of opportunism for criticizing the Japanese government's decision. Do you think these accusations are fair?

If a nation violates an international law such as United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), there will be others who oppose such violation. Japan fails to comply with international law with its discharges, which is the fundamental problem. The Fukushima nuclear disaster continues to be a serious crisis for the Japanese, and that is what needs to be addressed.

Some analysts are surprised by the respect that the West has shown towards the Japanese government's decision. Would you maintain it if it were China that had taken this position?

The Japanese nuclear industry has deep historical connections with its counterparts in the US and Europe. The Fukushima Daiichi reactors were designed by the American company General Electric and the Japanese companies Toshiba and Hitachi. This being the case, it was inevitable that Japan would receive the support of the West regarding its disposition.

Jayro sanchez is a Spanish journalist.