The Chinese side has released a work document and plan related to the peaceful discharge of Japan's nuclear contaminated water into the sea

Working paper by the Chinese delegation on the disposal of nuclear contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan

The peaceful use of nuclear energy is an inalienable right granted to all parties to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Nuclear safety is the lifeline for the development of nuclear energy and the application of nuclear technology, which is not only related to the economic development and social stability of the affected countries, but may also bring serious regional and even global impacts. Each country should strictly implement its national responsibility for nuclear safety, so that the peaceful use of nuclear energy serves the construction of a community of human and natural life, and cannot be at the cost of sacrificing the natural environment and human health.

The disposal of contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan is related to the global marine environment and public health. There is no precedent for human discharge of contaminated water from nuclear accidents into the ocean, nor is there a recognized standard for disposal. The international community should attach great importance to the issue of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge into the sea and jointly urge Japan to dispose of nuclear contaminated water in a responsible manner.

1、 The Japanese side has not proven the legitimacy and legality of the decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea. Discharging into the sea is not the only option for disposing of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water. The Japanese government has discussed five disposal options, including geological injection, marine emissions, steam emissions, hydrogen emissions, and underground burial. Many experts have also proposed other disposal options, such as building new storage tanks for long-term storage and cement solidification. However, the Japanese side has not fully demonstrated all possible disposal options and insists on choosing the least economically cost-effective sea discharge option, shifting the risk of nuclear pollution to the world. Legitimacy is one of the three fundamental principles of international radiation protection, which requires activities that generate radiation risks to generate overall benefits, with benefits outweighing risks. Japan's unilateral choice of a sea discharge plan violates this principle.

2、 The Japanese side has not proven the long-term effectiveness and reliability of the nuclear contaminated water purification device. From the past operation of the Japanese multi nuclide processing system, it has been proven that it is unable to effectively remove radioactive isotopes such as tritium and carbon-14. Whether other radioactive isotopes can be effectively removed also requires further testing and engineering verification. According to the data released by the Japanese side, about 70% of the nuclear contaminated water treated by ALPS still does not meet the discharge standards and needs to be purified again. In the subsequent long-term operation process, the performance effectiveness and reliability of ALPS may further decrease with equipment aging. In addition to over 1.3 million tons of nuclear contaminated water to be discharged, the Fukushima nuclear power plant will also produce a large amount of nuclear contaminated water in the future. There are still doubts about whether the Japanese ALPS can effectively handle a large amount of complex and long-term reliable nuclear contaminated water.

3、 The Japanese side has not proven the true accuracy of the data on nuclear contaminated water. Tokyo Electric Power Company has repeatedly concealed and tampered with data on nuclear contaminated water in recent years. The institution only conducts review and evaluation based on data and information unilaterally provided by the Japanese side, and only conducts inter laboratory comparative analysis on a small amount of nuclear contaminated water samples collected by the Japanese side. In the situation where the authenticity and accuracy of the data need to be confirmed, and the independence and representativeness of the sampling are seriously insufficient, even if the institution's review and evaluation concludes that the discharge meets safety standards, it lacks sufficient persuasiveness.

4、 The Japanese side has not proven that the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea is harmless to the marine environment and human health and safety. Fukushima nuclear contaminated water contains over 60 radioactive nuclides, many of which have not yet been effectively treated. Some long-lived nuclides may diffuse with ocean currents, causing uncertain impacts on the ecological balance and marine environment of surrounding countries; It may also pose potential risks to food safety and human health due to the migration of marine organisms and the food chain through biological enrichment effects. Without effective measures to ensure that Japan fulfills its commitments, the long-term impact of nuclear contaminated water discharge on the marine environment and human health cannot be ruled out. If the so-called "treated water" to be discharged is really safe and harmless, why doesn't Japan dispose of it within its own territory? Why not use it for industrial or agricultural water in Japan?

5、 Japan has not fulfilled its international obligations. According to general international law and provisions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. When dealing with nuclear contaminated water, Japan should take all necessary measures to ensure that activities under its jurisdiction or control do not cause pollution damage to other countries and their environment, and should ensure that the pollution caused does not expand beyond the areas exercising sovereign rights. Japan also has an obligation to take all measures to avoid environmental pollution, to notify and fully consult with countries that may be affected, to assess and monitor environmental impacts, to ensure information transparency, and to engage in international cooperation. The 1972 London Dumping Convention prohibited the dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean through artificial structures at sea, and Japan's practice of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea through submarine pipelines violated relevant regulations.

6、 The Japanese side has not proven the completeness of the monitoring plan. The current monitoring arrangement for the discharge of nuclear contaminated water from Japan is not comprehensive enough, and it is not possible to determine whether the discharge is qualified in a timely manner, which may lead to the direct discharge of substandard nuclear contaminated water into the ocean. The Chinese side advocates that institutions should take the lead in establishing an independent and effective long-term international monitoring mechanism with the full participation of third-party laboratories such as Japan's neighboring countries as soon as possible. Japan must fully cooperate with the institution led long-term monitoring international mechanism and subsequent review and evaluation tasks, continue to carry out long-term reliability monitoring of ALPS, monitoring of nuclear contaminated water sources and environmental conditions, and radioactive environmental impact assessment, timely and transparently disclose credible data information to neighboring countries and other stakeholders, and accept supervision and inquiries. Before the establishment of a long-term monitoring mechanism, Japan shall not initiate sea discharge; Once abnormal data on nuclear contaminated water discharge is discovered, the Japanese side must immediately stop discharging into the sea.

7、 The Japanese side should not confuse the nuclear contaminated water generated by nuclear accidents with the wastewater generated by the normal operation of nuclear power plants around the world. The two have completely different properties and cannot be compared. Firstly, they have different sources, secondly, they have different types of radioactive isotopes, and thirdly, they have different processing difficulties. The contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan comes from the cooling water injected into the melted and damaged core after the accident, as well as the groundwater and rainwater that seeped into the reactor, including various radioactive nuclides present in the molten core, making treatment difficult. In contrast, the wastewater generated by the normal operation of nuclear power plants mainly comes from process drainage, ground drainage, etc. It strictly adheres to international standards, adopts the best feasible technology for treatment, and after strict monitoring and compliance, it is discharged in an organized manner, with the discharge amount far below the specified control value. The Chinese side opposes the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and has never opposed the normal operation and discharge of nuclear power plants.

8、 The Japanese side shall not package the comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant as a "talisman" and "pass" for the Japanese side's sea discharge plan. The Japanese government only requested the agency to conduct a review after unilaterally making a decision to discharge into the sea. The agency's technical working group authorized only the review and evaluation of the discharge plan, without discussing other alternative disposal options. The comprehensive evaluation report of the institution did not review the legitimacy and legality of the Japanese plan for discharging into the sea, nor did it evaluate the effectiveness and long-term reliability of the nuclear contaminated water purification device. Its conclusions are limited and one-sided, and cannot address the concerns of the international community.

9、 In order to protect the only planet on which all humanity relies for survival and the health of human life, Japan should fully respond to the concerns of the international community, including China, fulfill its international moral responsibility and legal obligations, stop forcefully promoting plans to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the sea, and communicate with neighboring countries in a sincere manner to ensure that nuclear contaminated water is scientifically, safely, and transparently disposed of, and accept strict international supervision.

Screenshots of the website of the Chinese delegation to the United Nations and other international organizations in Vienna