[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aox8NFGzBNU[/embedyt]
Prime Minister Kishida announced plans to commence the release of treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on August 24, 2023. This decision stems from concerns linked to the plant’s shutdown following the 2011 East Japan Earthquake. The ALPS facility, designed to treat radioactive-contaminated water, has been accumulating water in tanks, leading to potential delays in the plant’s decommissioning schedule.
In a 2016 report by the Tritium Water Task Force, five treatment methods were proposed. Due to feasibility, the options of releasing water vapor and discharging into the ocean were chosen. Initial estimates suggested that releasing into the ocean would be the most economical. However, recent estimates from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) indicate that the cost for ocean discharge has risen from an initial 3.4 billion yen to 59 billion yen. This is mainly attributed to unexpected costs associated with constructing an undersea tunnel for the discharge and increased expenses to combat potential reputational damage.
On the topic of reputational damage, both TEPCO and Prime Minister Kishida emphasize the need for measures post the oceanic release of the ALPS-treated water. However, the term “reputational damage” has faced criticism. Detractors argue that the phrase implies that there’s harm due to unwarranted negative perceptions, suggesting that the government and TEPCO might be adopting a victim stance.
Assessment of risks associated with reputational damage remains ambiguous. There are concerns that the use of the term by the government and TEPCO might underestimate the actual risks. Particularly, potential broader ecological impacts and cascading risks from oceanic discharge might not be fully accounted for. On the other hand, releasing as water vapor is seen as a more localized method of managing contaminants, with a more limited risk scope.
In summary, the water release plan from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is surrounded by extensive debates and concerns. Significant discrepancies between initial and current cost estimates, especially the surge in costs to address reputational damage, could impact the direction and approach of future plans.