Fukushima Action in SF 13 Years After the Meltdowns-Stop Dumping Tritium into the Pacific

2/13/24 Fukushima Action In SF 13 Years After The Meltdowns-Stop Dumping Tritium Into The Pacific Ocean


On The 13th Anniversary Of The Fukushima NUKE Disaster

Don’t Nuke the Pacific Ocean! Protect Our Oceans & Stop The Nukes

On the 13th anniversary of the man made disaster in Fukushima and the catastrophe continues. Over 800 pounds of radioactive waste continues to reside in the broken nuclear plants and it may be 30 years before they are removed and the site is “decontaminated”. The previous Prime Minister Abe lied to the International Olympics Committee that it had already been “decontaminated” but this obviously not the case.

The Japanese government and TEPCO despite opposition of people in Japan, Asia and around the world is also releasing millions of tons of tritium into the Pacific Ocean. This is contaminating our oceans and the government is not only going forward but is opening more NUKE Plants but is remilitarizing Japan and is sending armaments around the world.

The Japanese Kashida government is working with the US and Korea to militarize Asia and surround China to prepare for war. They are continuing to build and expand US military bases in Okinawa and threatening the people of Japan with the dangerous Osprey helicopters that fly in the middle of major cities and in Okinawa ignoring the dangers to the people of Japan and Okinawa.

Let us join together to demand the halt to release of tritium water from Fukushima, No restarting NUKE plants and opposing US Korea war militarization in Asia.

Date and Time : Monday March 11, 2024 12:00 pm Noon
SF Japanese Consulate, 275 Battery St, SF (a few blocks from BART Embacadero station)
Please Bring Signs, Banners and Instruments

　No Nukes Action,　Jun 11th Global Day of Action

http://nonukesaction.wordpress.com/

1st drone probe of melted fuel inside Fukushima reactor halted-About 880 tons of highly radioactive melted nuclear fuel remain inside the three damaged reactors.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15183719
REUTERS
March 1, 2024 at 07:50 JST

Photo_Illutration.jpeg

Japanese authorities said they were forced to abandon plans Thursday to send in drones for a second day to probe one of the damaged reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant because of equipment failure.

Two drones successfully flew inside the reactor for the first time on Wednesday, to examine some of the molten fuel debris and other damages in areas where earlier robots failed to reach. Thursday's development delayed the probe further and underscored the difficulty of the task.

The government and TEPCO plan to remove the massive amount of fatally radioactive melted nuclear fuel that remains inside each reactor since a magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami in March 2011 destroyed the plant’s power supply and cooling systems, causing a triple meltdown.

The daunting decommissioning process has already been delayed for years and mired by technical hurdles and a lack of data.

TEPCO had prepared since July to fly a fleet of four drones, one at a time, inside the hardest-hit No. 1 reactor's primary containment vessel, in which most of the fuel in the core melted and fell to the concrete bottom, experts say.

The first two drones Wednesday captured images showing enough space for the other two to reach the particular area that TEPCO's experts wanted to examine.

Thursday's flights were canceled after a snake-shaped crawling robot, designed to transmit data from a drone's high-definition camera to the control room, stalled before reaching a targeted position, said TEPCO spokesperson Kenichi Takahara.

The cause of its failure is under investigation, Takahara said without elaborating or saying when the next drone flight might take place.

Fukushima No. 1 plant decommissioning chief Akira Ono was cautiously optimistic.

“We should not force it because it could cause bigger trouble for our future work," he said "We just want to be careful."

On Wednesday, the first of what was supposed to be a two-day project, the two drones inspected the area around the exterior of the main structural support in the vessel, called the pedestal. It is located directly under the reactor’s core. Officials hoped to film the core’s bottom to find out how overheated fuel dripped there in 2011.

TEPCO officials said they plan to use the new data to develop technology for future probes as well as a process to remove the melted fuel from the reactor.

About 880 tons of highly radioactive melted nuclear fuel remain inside the three damaged reactors. Critics say the 30- to 40-year cleanup target set by the government and TEPCO is overly optimistic. The damage in each reactor is different, and plans need to accommodate their conditions.

TEPCO has sent a number of probes — including a crawling robot and an underwater vehicle — inside each reactor but was hindered by debris, high radiation and the inability to navigate through the rubble, though they were able to gather some data. In 2015, the first robot to go inside got stuck on a grate.
U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia
Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support, as lawmakers embrace a once-contentious technology.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/climate/nuclear-power-legislation-congress.html

U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia
Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support, as lawmakers embrace a once-contentious technology.


Clouds of white smoke billow from one of two large structures inside the fenced-off campus of smaller concrete buildings.
The Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, whose two new reactors cost $35 billion, nearly double the initial estimates.Credit...Kendrick Brinson for The New York Times

By Brad Plumer
Reporting from Washington

March 1, 2024
Updated 6:11 p.m. ET
The House this week overwhelmingly passed legislation meant to speed up the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants, the latest sign that a once-contentious source of energy is now attracting broad political support in Washington.

The 365-to-36 vote on Wednesday reflected the bipartisan nature of the bill, known as the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. It received backing from Democrats who support nuclear power because it does not emit greenhouse gases and can generate electricity 24 hours a day to supplement solar and wind power. It also received support from Republicans who have downplayed the risks of climate change but who say that nuclear power could bolster the nation’s economy and energy security.

“It’s been fascinating to see how bipartisan advanced nuclear power has become,” said Joshua Freed, who leads the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank. “This is not an issue where there’s some big partisan or ideological divide.”

The bill would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s nuclear power plants, to streamline its processes for approving new reactor designs. The legislation, which is backed by the nuclear industry, would also increase hiring at the commission, reduce fees for applicants, establish financial prizes for novel types of reactors and encourage the development of nuclear power at the sites of retiring coal plants.

Together, the changes would amount to “the most significant update to nuclear energy policy in the United States in over a generation,” said Representative Jeff Duncan, Republican of South Carolina, a lead sponsor of the bill.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda
Fuel Ban: The Biden administration will permanently lift a ban on summertime sales of higher-ethanol gasoline blends in eight states starting in 2025, in response to a request from Midwestern governors.
Biden’s Climate Law: A year and a half after President Biden signed into law a sweeping bill to tackle climate change, an analysis of the legislation’s effects has found that electric vehicles are booming as expected but renewable power isn’t growing as quickly as hoped.
Tailpipe Emissions: In an election-year concession to automakers and labor unions, the Biden administration intends to relax limits on tailpipe emissions that are designed to get Americans to switch from gas-powered cars to electric vehicles.
Steel Merger: President Biden is facing new pressure to block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of the iconic manufacturer U.S. Steel, from environmental groups that say the tie-up would set back America’s efforts to curb climate change.
In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats have written their own legislation to promote nuclear power. The two chambers are expected to discuss how to reconcile their differences in the coming months, but final passage is not assured, particularly with so many other spending bills still in limbo.

“If Congress was functioning well, this is one of those bills you’d expect to sail through,” said Mr. Freed.

Nuclear power currently generates 18 percent of the nation’s electricity, but only three reactors have been completed in the United States since 1996. Although some environmentalists remain concerned about radioactive waste and reactor safety, the biggest obstacle facing nuclear power today is cost.

U.S. Bets on Small Nuclear Reactors to Help Fix a Huge Climate Problem
Conventional nuclear plants have become extremely expensive to build, and some electric utilities have gone bankrupt trying. Two recent reactors built at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia cost $35 billion, double the initial estimates.


In response, nearly a dozen companies are developing a new generation of smaller reactors a fraction of the size of those at Vogtle. The hope is that these reactors would have a smaller upfront price tag, making it less risky for utilities to invest in them. That, in turn, could help the industry start driving down costs by building the same type of reactor again and again.

The Biden administration has voiced strong support for nuclear power as it seeks to transition the country away from fossil fuels; the Department of Energy has offered billions of dollars to help build advanced reactor demonstration projects in Wyoming and Texas.

But before a new reactor can be built, its design must be reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have criticized the N.R.C. for being too slow in approving new designs. Many of the regulations that the commission uses, they say, were designed for an older era of reactors and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that may be inherently safer.

“Tackling the climate crisis means we must modernize our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear,” said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado. “Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet, but if we’re going to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, it must be part of the mix.”


Among other changes, the House bill would require the N.R.C. to consider not just reactor safety but also “the potential of nuclear energy to improve the general welfare” and “the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society.”

Proponents of this change say it would make the N.R.C. more closely resemble other federal safety agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, which weighs both the risks and benefits of new drugs. In the past, critics say, the N.R.C. has focused too heavily on the risks.

But that provision updating the N.R.C.’s mission was opposed by three dozen progressive Democrats who voted against the bill and said it could undermine reactor safety. The specific language is not in the Senate’s nuclear bill.

Even if Congress approves new legislation, the nuclear industry faces other challenges. Many utilities remain averse to investing in novel technologies, and reactor developers have a long history of failing to build projects on time and under budget.

Last year, NuScale Power, a nuclear startup, announced it was canceling plans to build six smaller reactors in Idaho. The project, which had received significant federal support and was meant to demonstrate the technology, had already advanced far through the N.R.C. process. But NuScale struggled with rising costs and was ultimately unable to sign up enough customers to buy its power.

Brad Plumer is a Times reporter who covers technology and policy efforts to address global warming. More about Brad Plumer

Why Japan should stop its Fukushima nuclear wastewater ocean release


By Tatsujiro Suzuki | September 22, 2023
Water tanks holding contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. (Credit: IAEA)


On August 24, 2023, Japanese electric utility holding company Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) announced that it has started discharging so-called “treated” and “diluted” water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean. This is not the end of controversy over the release of “treated water.” Rather, it may be the beginning of what might be a long-lasting struggle where science meets politics and lack of public trust, both inside and outside of Japan.

To understand TEPCO’s decision and why this operation caused such a big controversy, one must explain what this “treated water” being released is, the scientific debates over this operation, and the underlying social and political issues.

“Treated” or “contaminated” water? When underground water, including rainfall, passes through the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactor site and is used to cool the melted fuel debris inside the reactors, it becomes contaminated with oil as well as many harmful radioactive nuclides, including cesium and strontium. Generation of “contaminated water” has been gradually declining due to various measures, such as pumping up water by sub-drains and the construction of impermeable, land-side frozen walls (see Figure 1). According to TEPCO, contaminated water generation declined from 540 cubic meters (m3) per day in 2014 to 90 m3 per day in 2022.

tive substances that contaminate the water is now being removed by multi-nuclide removal equipment called “advanced liquid processing systems” (ALPS)—an unfortunate name given that the Alps mountain range in Europe is home to some of the cleanest freshwater in the world. After the removal of most radioactive substances—except for tritium, which cannot be removed by the ALPS system—treated water is then stored in tanks (see Figure 2). The ALPS process is supposed to reduce the concentration of radionuclides, except tritium, to levels below regulatory standards. However, according to TEPCO’s data, as of March 31, 2023, of the total of about 1.3 million m3 of treated water, only about a third satisfied regulatory standards and the other two-thirds needed to be re-purified.

<strong>Figure 2.</strong> Depiction of the so-called Alps process treating contaminated water at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant. (Credit: IAEA)
Figure 2. Depiction of the so-called Alps process treating contaminated water at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant. (Credit: IAEA)
It can’t be denied that “treated water” is not as pure as “tritiated water” because treated water may still contain other radioactive nuclides, albeit in small proportions. But the comparison of Fukushima’s “treated water” with other “tritiated water” released during the normal operation of other nuclear power plants can be misleading because the latter is not contaminated with other radioactive nuclides.

TEPCO says it re-purifies the “treated water” to make sure the water satisfies regulatory standards before it is released to the sea. To do that, the company’s plan is to dilute “treated water” with large amounts of sea water to reach a concentration of tritium of 190 Becquerel (Bq) per liter, which is much lower than the allowed concentration of 1,500 Bq per liter.

The first discharge happened over a period of 17 days and involved a total of 7,800 tons of treated water being released to the sea. TEPCO plans to discharge treated water three more times in 2023, and the total tritium discharge by the end of March 2024 is expected to reach about 5 trillion Bq. This is much lower than the annual discharge target of 22 trillion Bq set before the Fukushima accident.

In addition to tritium, TEPCO must report that the concentration of all other radionuclides is below regulatory standards. To do this, TEPCO uses a simplified index, which corresponds to the sum of ratios of the concentration of each radioactive nuclides (excluding tritium) compared to regulatory standards. If this ratio is below one, it means the concentration of other radionuclides is below regulatory standards. TEPCO reported that the water being discharged during the first period was measured to have an index of 0.28, therefore satisfying regulatory standards. TEPCO said the operation may last at least 30 years to discharge all “treated water.”

Scientific debate. The Japanese government and TEPCO argue that the whole operation satisfies both Japanese regulatory standards and international safety standards. Besides, the Japanese government officially asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct an independent review of the safety of the ALPS treated water release. On July 4, 2023, the IAEA published its “comprehensive report,” which concluded that the ALPS process is “consistent with relevant international safety standards” and that “the discharge of the treated water [into the sea], as currently planned by Tepco, will have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.”


Congress torpedoes a Biden nominee and casts doubt on nuclear safety
But there are scientific arguments against TEPCO’s release plan.

The Pacific Island Forum expressed its concern in a statement in January 2023 about whether current international standards are adequate to handle the unprecedented case of the Fukushima Daiichi tritiated water release. Based on a report from an independent expert panel established by the forum, TEPCO’s guideline compliance plan does not appear to include the transboundary implications of IAEA’s guidance in its General Safety Guide No. 8 (GSG-8), which requires that the benefits of a given process outweigh the harms for individuals and societies.

The experts also recommended the alternative method of using the treated water to manufacture concrete for the construction industry instead of releasing it to the sea. By immobilizing the radionuclides in a material, this alternative would imply a lower potential for human contact and would avoid transboundary impacts. Quoted in a National Geographic article, one of the panel members, Robert Richmond, director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory of the University of Hawaii, summarizes well the uncertainty surrounding the impacts of TEPCO’s water release plan on the ocean environment: “It is a trans-boundary and trans-generational event” and that he does not believe “the release would irreparably destroy the Pacific Ocean but it does not mean we should not be concerned.”

Lack of public trust. In addition to scientific debate, TEPCO’s ALPS treated water issue has become more of a social and political controversy. The origin of this debate was the speech given by then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe before the International Olympic Committee on September 7, 2013, in which he referred to the city where the 2020 Summer Olympics were to be held by saying: “Some may have concerns about Fukushima. Let me assure you, the situation is under control. It has never done and will never do any damage to Tokyo.” After Abe’s speech, the government took over the responsibility for the management of the contaminated water, while TEPCO is still responsible for all decommissioning operations at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Since then, all policy decisions about the treated water have been made by the Japanese government, with TEPCO simply following the government, which has complicated the decision-making process.

In August 2015, the Japanese government and TEPCO promised to the local fishermen that they “will not implement any disposal without understanding of interested parties.” The government even established a committee consisting of experts from a local university to discuss technical options and held meetings with local citizens for several years to build trust with the local communities. So, when the decision was made by former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga in August 2021 to release the “treated water” to the sea, this felt like a treachery for the local fishermen and many other interested parties. In a June 2023 statement opposing the planned discharge of treated water, the head of Japan’s national fisheries cooperatives Masanobu Sakamoto said: “We cannot support the government’s stance that an ocean release is the only solution. … Whether to release the water into the sea or not is a government decision, and in that case we want the government to fully take responsibility.”

The subsequent lack of public trust in TEPCO and Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has been one of the major reasons for this continued controversy. In August 2018, a news investigation revealed that the “tritiated water” still contained other radioactive nuclides after treatment, which were above regulatory standards—a result that was not consistent with the explanation given by TEPCO. The justification then advanced by the ministry and TEPCO on the need and timing for the water discharge was no more convincing: They claimed that there would be a need for storage space once the melted fuel debris would be taken out of the reactors and that, without discharge now, the plant’s storage area would be filled soon. But, the timing—and even the feasibility—of removing the fuel debris is not known at all. Besides, there are potential storage space available at the nearby Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant.

RELATED:
Lessons from Zaporizhzhia: How to protect reactors against 'nuclear piracy'
Concerns have also spread to neighboring countries despite the Japanese government’s efforts to explain its plan. For instance, the South Korean government even sent some of its experts, including senior officials of the South Korean Nuclear Safety and Security Commission. Seemingly reassured after the visit, Yoo Guk-hee, the chairperson of South Korean commission, declared: “[I]f the water release is carried out as planned, the discharge standard and target level (of radiation) would be consistent with international standards”. Still, both fishermen and consumers in South Korea are worried about the impacts of water release from the Fukushima nuclear plant, which led the largest fisheries market to start monitoring the fish’s radioactivity to allay those concerns.

Building upon the South Korean experts’ visit, the Japanese government called for a science-based dialogue with the Chinese government, complaining that it continued to describe the Fukushima treated water as “contaminated” water. But the Japanese government’s effort seems not to have been successful, with a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry saying that Japan has yet to prove that its planned water discharge is safe and harmless. In August, China decided to ban imports of all seafood products from Japan shortly after Japan started discharging treated water from Fukushima that month. And there seems to be no prospect of reducing tensions between the two countries over this issue.

How to improve the situation? Several options exist that could help restore public trust in TEPCO’s and the Japanese government’s treated water plan at Fukushima.

First, the Japanese government and TEPCO should realize that the management of radioactive wastewater is not a purely scientific and technical issue. Public controversies of this sort cannot be resolved by “science-based” dialogues only. Yes, a scientific dialogue is essential, but it’s not enough. Rather, Fukushima’s treated water is a typical case of “trans-science” using Alvin Weinberg’s term, meaning an issue where “questions which can be asked of science and yet which cannot be answered by science” (Weinberg’s emphasis). TEPCO’s and the Japanese government’s plan also needs a non-scientific approach to the issue and provide additional measures, including an improved decision-making process and a sincere dialogue (not persuasion) with stakeholders.

Second, to restore public trust and confidence, the government should first stop the water release and task an independent oversight organization which can be trusted by stakeholders. The IAEA review of TEPCO’s plan was helpful at best, but it was not enough, as it only verifies the samples provided by TEPCO for the first discharge but does not review the entire plan which could continue for the next 30 years. In fact, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi clarified in the foreword of the agency’s “comprehensive report” that the review was “neither a recommendation nor an endorsement of that (government) policy.” Complete transparency over the entire decision-making process and disclosure of supporting data and information are essential conditions to improve public trust.

Third, TEPCO and the Japanese government should designate the current release operations as part of a “demonstration” program and declare that they will make a final decision about the plan after studies confirm that the release has had no significant impacts on the ocean environment and fish. This would imply that the government stops the release of the treated water, and asks the scientific community to conduct such studies. At the same time, the government could also continue to explore technical alternatives to its plan that may be more attractive to both domestic and international stakeholders. In addition to provide a face-saving opportunity to the Japanese government and TEPCO to justify that they “temporarily” halt the release, it would show that they have sincerely listened to the concerns expressed by the stakeholders.

The Japanese government and TEPCO clearly have the ability to improve public trust in their handling of the treated water at Fukushima, but this requires them to go beyond their “scientific logic” only.