One of the three evaluations of "Fukushima nuclear contaminated water treatment" by People's Daily Online: The IAEA report is by no means a "pass" expert | Report | Fukushima

After the International Atomic Energy Agency released the Comprehensive Assessment Report on the Disposal of Nuclear Polluted Water in Fukushima, Japan, opposition to the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea has continued to rise in various regions. The Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency currently has over 170 contracting parties. The assessment of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water by the IAEA has not undergone any discussion or voting by the Conference of the Parties, nor has it gone through the normal procedures of international organizations. Looking back at the establishment and process of the IAEA working group, it can be found that its evaluation work was carried out based on Japan's unilateral commission, and the report does not have international legal validity and cannot give Japan any legitimacy or legitimacy for its nuclear contaminated water discharge plan.

Firstly, the IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Pollution Water Working Group has a delegated relationship with the Japanese government, and its scope of work is limited to Japan's delegation. In April 2021, Japan announced its basic policy on the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water treatment system and decided to discharge the contaminated water into the surrounding waters of the nuclear power plant. Shortly thereafter, the Japanese authorities requested technical assistance from the IAEA. After the agreement of the Secretary General of the IAEA, the two sides signed the International Atomic Energy Agency's Scope of Assistance on the safety assessment of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water disposal at Tokyo Electric Power Company in July of that year. The document signed between Japan and the IAEA has the nature of a commission agreement. Due to Japan only entrusting the IAEA to conduct a safety assessment of its ALPS water treatment system, the actual assessment content of the IAEA working group is limited to this aspect, without examining whether Japan has exhausted other feasible means of removing nuclear pollution, let alone the legality of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge plan.

Secondly, the evaluation work of the IAEA relies on information and conditions provided unilaterally by the Japanese government, without examining whether Japan provides information in good faith. The real situation that the IAEA working group can see and the samples that can be monitored are limited, because the IAEA mainly conducts written reviews of materials submitted by Japan. The schedule, objects, and scope of on-site inspections are determined by Japan, or the IAEA working group carefully arranges and prepares in Japan before going to the site. Greenpeace, Japanese citizens, and international independent experts have repeatedly pointed out that there are too few test samples for ALPS treated water in Japan, with a total test sample volume of only about 2000 tons; There are too few types of nuclear elements in the sampling, and only a portion of the promised 60 nuclear elements have been tested. More importantly, more than a dozen nuclear elements have not been tested. Faced with doubts, Japan has promised a second round of treatment, but the measurement company for this second round of treatment, "Northeast Greening and Environmental Protection Society," is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tokyo Electric Power Company, which is still equivalent to TEPCO's self-assessment and self testing. Therefore, in terms of the IAEA evaluation mechanism, Japan entrusts the evaluation on its own, and the technology and effectiveness are still controlled by Japan itself.

Once again, the size of the IAEA team, work investment, and procedural arrangements do not match the severity and complexity of the Fukushima nuclear pollution issue. Many of the IAEA personnel involved in the review of the expert team disclosed in the report are not nuclear experts. In the report for February 2022, only 8 international experts outside of Japan were invited, and currently only 11 Japanese foreign experts have been identified, including one Chinese expert Liu Senlin. Recently, Liu Linlin told the media that the comprehensive report was released in the name of Director General Grossy. Although the IAEA Secretariat had solicited the opinions of technical working group experts on the draft report before its release, the time window left for experts was very limited, and the expert opinions were only for reference. Whether to adopt them was decided by the IAEA Secretariat. After receiving feedback, the IAEA Secretariat hastily released the report without reaching a consensus with experts on the revision and adoption of opinions. This program fails to ensure objectivity and neutrality, nor does it reflect basic respect for science.

Based on the above facts, the IAEA also made a statement in its comprehensive assessment report, pointing out that Japan's Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge plan is the government's own decision and has nothing to do with the IAEA. It also points out that this comprehensive assessment report does not represent the opinions of member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and neither the Agency nor member states assume any responsibility or consequences. Although the report did not mention the issue of work costs, according to the usual legal principles regarding delegation relationships, the expenses for the work carried out by the IAEA working group should be paid by the Japanese government. In this sense, it is not an exaggeration to call this comprehensive evaluation report a transaction between the IAEA Secretariat and the Japanese government. At present, there is no data research in the scientific community on the cumulative effects of many radioactive nuclear elements, and there is no precedent for such large-scale long-term nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea. We hope that the Japanese government and officials of the IAEA Secretariat will listen carefully to the voices of all sectors, not lose out on small things, and not regard the interests of all humanity as the object of speculation, adventure, and trading.