The Chinese expert from the IAEA Assessment Technology Working Group revealed a surprising situation! International | Japanese | Working Group
On July 4th, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Grossy, who is currently visiting Japan, submitted a comprehensive assessment report from the IAEA on the discharge of water from a multi nuclide treatment facility into the sea to the Japanese government. Regarding this, Chinese expert Liu Senlin, a researcher at the China Academy of Atomic Energy Sciences, who participated in the IAEA's technical working group on evaluating the discharge of ALPS water from Fukushima, expressed regret to the media that the IAEA did not fully consult with the technical working group experts to hastily release a comprehensive assessment report.
Liu Linlin mentioned that this 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. He expressed regret about this.
Liu Senlin pointed out that the IAEA conducted a review and evaluation at the request of the Japanese side after the Japanese government unilaterally made a decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea. The evaluation of the IAEA is limited to the Japanese side's plan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea after treatment, the Japanese government's regulatory procedures and activities, and whether Tokyo Electric Power Company's implementation of the plan complies with the IAEA safety standards. It does not include other possible disposal plans outside of sea discharge, nor does it include the effectiveness and long-term reliability of nuclear contaminated water purification devices. In addition, the evaluation of the IAEA belongs to the nature of international peer evaluation, mainly based on the data and information provided by Japan to make evaluations and provide opinions. In the past two years of evaluation tasks, experts from various parties in the technical working group have conducted extensive and in-depth discussions on technical issues related to the government's responsibilities and functions, main principles and safety objectives, authorization procedures, source item characterization, safety issues of discharge systems and processes, radiation environmental impact assessment, source monitoring and environmental monitoring plans, occupational radiation protection, public consultation and stakeholder participation in dealing with nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea. There is both consensus and disagreement, and no complete consensus has been formed. The review and evaluation by the IAEA has effectively raised the technical threshold and regulatory requirements for Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea; On the other hand, there are also significant limitations, such as the failure to address the international community's concerns about the legitimacy of Japan's decision to discharge into the sea, and the failure to fully discuss and make appropriate arrangements for subsequent review and evaluation tasks and long-term monitoring arrangements. In addition, the potential impact of discharge into the sea involves various aspects such as society, psychology, economy, and marine ecology, in addition to radioactive effects. The current predictive evaluation conducted by Japan only focuses on radioactive effects and has not conducted a comprehensive evaluation.
Liu Linlin believes that the report released by the IAEA does not represent the legitimacy of Japan's decision to discharge into the sea, nor does it represent the approval or approval of Japan's discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the ocean. The relevant conclusions only reflect that Japan's current control measures for nuclear contaminated water generally comply with IAEA safety standards, and do not represent compliance with IAEA safety standards for the next 30 years or even longer. The report clearly states that the IAEA will continue to conduct fair and objective review and evaluation during the implementation phase of Japan's discharge into the sea, and conduct independent sampling and monitoring. At present, the urgent task of the IAEA is to promote the establishment of an independent and effective long-term international monitoring mechanism as soon as possible, to effectively supervise and continuously monitor the control measures and regulatory activities of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea, in order to improve transparency and the trust of the international community. In this process, it is necessary to fully consider the reasonable concerns and participation of Japan's neighboring countries, Pacific island countries and other stakeholders; To ensure the independence of on-site supervision and sampling monitoring by the IAEA, judgments should not be based solely on data and information provided by the Japanese side, but should be conducted independently by the IAEA's own laboratory and independent third-party laboratories.