TOKYO – At the end of 2019, the Japanese government convened diplomats from 22 countries for an information session on the handling of more than a million tonnes of wastewater from Fukushima’s crippled nuclear reactors.
The storage space was running out fast, the authorities explained and they were considering various solutions. Among them was to remove the most harmful radioactive material from the water and gradually release it into the ocean. The Japanese Foreign Ministry said the diplomats had no objections to it.
On Tuesday, when Japan officially announced that it would implement the plan, the knives came out. South Korea denounced it as “completely unbearable” and summoned the Japanese ambassador. China calls ‘serious concern’. Taiwan also raised strong objections.
Japan has downplayed criticism of its plan as unscientific, saying the treated water is well within safety standards, pointing out that such releases into oceans are frequent worldwide. But the argument, as the reaction on Tuesday showed, leaves Tokyo a long way from the confidence of its neighbors, a challenge made all the more difficult by rising regional tensions over a range of issues.
While the envoys may have kept their minds to themselves during the 2019 meeting, it is no secret that many countries have doubts about Japan’s handling of the nuclear disaster. China and South Korea are among 15 countries or regions that ban or restrict food imports from Fukushima, despite major efforts by the Japanese government to show that products from the environment, from rice to fish, are safe to eat.
International advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace, have also criticized the government’s decision, arguing that it is a cost-saving measure that ignores potential environmental damage. The group rather advocates the construction of additional storage facilities for the waste.
Even at home, the idea of pouring water, whether or not treated, from the paralyzed plant into the ocean is unpopular. In a national poll late last year by the Japanese daily The Asahi Shimbun, 55 percent of respondents opposed the plan.
It is even less welcome in Fukushima itself, where residents fear the mere perception of risk will destroy the local fishing industry, which was hoping for a rebound after a decade of self-imposed limits.
The Japanese government on Tuesday announced its decision that it can no longer avoid the wastewater problem. Officials say they spent more than six years considering different water options – currently enough to fill 500 Olympic-sized pools – before deciding on the current plan.
The Fukushima plant contains more than 1.25 million tons of wastewater in more than 1,000 tanks. The cooling of the three reactors that were damaged during the earthquake and tsunami in 2011 yields more than 150 tons per day.
According to the plan, powerful filters will be used to remove all the radioactive material from the water, except tritium, an isotope of hydrogen which, according to experts, in small doses is not harmful to human health. The government says that the radiation levels are lower than those found in drinking water. Japan plans to start releasing the water in 2023, in a process that is expected to take decades.
In an effort to ease the mood at home, authorities have placed dosimeters around the prefecture to monitor radiation levels and conduct routine inspections of seafood from the region. The government has held public hearings on the plan in Fukushima and in Tokyo.
According to the authorities, they also discussed the issue in detail with other countries and on international forums. In a newsletter Tuesday, a Japanese official said the country held 108 group meetings for diplomats in Japan and met with representatives of China and South Korea on the day of the announcement to explain the decision.
The United States supported the plan. The International Atomic Energy Agency also endorsed it, saying in a statement that it was “in line with global practice, although the large amount of water at the Fukushima plant makes it a unique and complex matter.”
The gap between such reassurances and the harsh reactions closer to home was striking.
The outrage in the region is ‘quite understandable’, said Nanako Shimizu, an associate professor of international relations at Utsunomiya University in Japan, who is against the plan.
“If South Korea or China were to announce the same thing, I’m sure the Japanese government and the vast majority of the Japanese people would also object to it,” she said.
Governments in the region are likely to feel domestic pressure to take a strong stand, said Eunjung Lim, an associate professor of international relations at Kongju National University in Gongju, South Korea, who specializes in Japan and South Korea.
Whether their concerns are rational or not, many people in the region “will be very, very anxious about what would happen if this radioactive material came into the near sea and polluted our resources,” she said.
Even under the best of circumstances, Japan would find it’re really difficult to persuade its neighbors to accept this kind of decision, because it’s obviously not our fault. It’s Japan’s fault, so why should we face these kinds of problems? She added.
Regional tensions made the surrounding countries even less receptive to the plan. In recent years, territorial disputes and disputes over trade and historical issues related to World War II have plagued Japan’s relations with China and South Korea, affecting government dialogues on a wide range of issues.
China on Tuesday warned Japan not to take a decision without further consultation with the international community, saying it “reserves the right to take further action.”
In its statement, South Korea accused Japan of “unilateral action” without seeking consultation and understanding with South Korea, which is “closest to Japan”.
Some in Japan believe that such complaints should deal with more than scientific arguments. Shunichi Tanaka, a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority, said the criticism was hypocritical.
South Korea itself operates four heavy-water reactors that regularly contain water containing tritium at higher levels than planned in Fukushima, he said in a recent interview.
“When South Korea makes such allegations, we must not be silent, we must refute them properly,” he said.
But the challenge facing Japan is not just on the world stage. Home is very reluctant to trust the government or Tepco, the operator of the nuclear power plant.
A parliamentary commission found that the collapse was due to a lack of oversight and collusion between the government, the owner of the plant and the regulators. And Tepco was forced to retract allegations that it treated most wastewater. In fact, it processed only about a fifth completely, a problem that arose due to the failure to change filters regularly in the disinfection system.
Ultimately, Japan is in a battle to change perceptions, whether the reliability of its own government or the risk posed by the treated water, said Hirohiko Fukushima, a professor at Chuo Gakuin University who specializes in local governance issues.
In Fukushima, the government’s response to local concerns has often been haughty, he said. If he changes his mind, the authorities will improve the transparency around their decisions and build new relationships, he said.
“From my perspective,” he added, “it is probably difficult for Japan to convince foreign countries if it cannot even convince its own people.”
Choe Sang-Hun contributed reporting from Seoul. Albee Zhang contributed research from Shanghai.