hankyoreh

Contaminated water is currently being stored in roughly 1,000 tanks located at the Fukushima Daiichi site. (Yonhap News)

There was some surprise when the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued statements in support of the Japanese government’s decision Tuesday to release radioactive water from its Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean. Why would the US and the IAEA back Japan when its neighbors — including South Korea, China and Russia — fiercely protested the decision?

In a statement on the same day, the IAEA said that “Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi welcomed Japan’s announcement.” To some extent, IAEA’s support had been expected since Grossi has been a cheerleader for Japan. He visited the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in February 2020 and then praised the Japanese government’s work on the contaminated water in a video message on March 23, 2021.

Established in 1957, the IAEA’s basic policy is expanding nuclear power, despite its emphasis on safety. Considering that the Fukushima nuclear accident raised awareness of the danger of nuclear power worldwide, bringing that accident to a neat conclusion is a shared goal for the Japanese government and the IAEA, environmental groups say. Tokyo and the IAEA are reportedly cooperating closely on the critical goals of decommissioning the Fukushima plant and treating the contaminated water there.

Another factor is that Japan has considerable sway over the IAEA with its highly developed nuclear power industry. According to South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs data, Japan pays the third-highest dues to the IAEA, covering 8.2% of its budget, after the US (25%) and China (11.6%).

The combined dues paid by the US and Japan, which favor releasing the contaminated water into the ocean, amount to an overwhelming 33.2% share of the IAEA’s budget. South Korea ranks 11th, at 2.2%.

Significantly, the previous director general of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, was Japanese. Amano led the IAEA for ten years, from 2009 until 2019, shortly before his death.

The US’s sudden statement of support for Japan’s release of the contaminated water came as a surprise to many since the US had made little mention of the issue before that. It was also peculiar that the Biden administration would back a plan that could cause serious harm to the marine ecosystem and to countries in the region that rely on its seafood, since Biden has taken so much interest in climate change and other environmental issues.

The US appears to have sided with Japan on this issue for diplomatic reasons, given its increasing need in recent years for Japan’s cooperation in the containment of China.

Analysts think that the Japanese government’s focus on tritium, which can’t be removed in water treatment, helped it win over the US and the IAEA. Japan isn’t the only country that releases tritium into the ocean; other countries with nuclear power plants, including the US, China, and South Korea, do the same thing, while ensuring that the tritium stays below a level defined by each government. That’s why the IAEA and the US say that Japan’s decision is in accordance with global standards.

But the contaminated water stored in the tanks at Fukushima contains not only tritium but also deadly radioactive materials brought by rainwater and groundwater into the cooling pool holding the nuclear fuel that melted during the accident. While this water has been treated once, about 70% of the water still contains radioactive materials, including cesium, strontium, and iodine.

The Japanese government has promised to treat the contaminated water again to bring those radioactive materials down to a safe level. But it still hasn’t published any details about the outcome of the second round of treatment, which has prompted concerns.

By Kim So-youn, staff reporter

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]