Abstract
As the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) progresses, the issue of how to deal with tritiated water has been attracting attention, both domestically and internationally. This article summarises the live discussion at the International Symposium on Tritiated Water, which was held by the Japan Health Physics Society (JHPS) in June 2020. Two issues – the scientific safety of tritiated water and social consensus building – were covered in the live discussion. The importance of further disclosure and dissemination of information based on steady monitoring was highlighted. It was also pointed out that scientific knowledge and scientific research data are merely the bottom line to achieve social consensus. Through the discussions, it was recognised that the role of JHPS is not only to look at the technical issues of safety, but also to look at social issues from the point of view of radiation protection, and to support the solution of these issues.
1. Introduction
As the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) progresses, the issue of how to deal with tritiated water has been attracting attention, both domestically and internationally. Water becomes contaminated when it touches the damaged reactors and debris. Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS)-treated water refers to water that has been purified in several purification facilities, including the ALPS. Most nuclides (e.g. 137Cs, 90Sr) are removed from contaminated water during this process, except for tritium (TEPCO, 2014; METI, 2020a). Approximately 170 m3 of ALPS-treated water is generated and stored in tanks every day. The tanks storing ALPS-treated water are expected to be full by the summer of 2022. The Subcommittee on Handling of ALPS-treated Water, established by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, concluded its report on 10 February 2020 (METI, 2020b). The report identified two feasible options – discharge into the sea and vapour release – as practical options for handling ALPS-treated water. Experience with conventional reactors, ease of handling, and monitoring methods make discharge into the sea more reliable than vapour release. The Japanese Government will decide the basic policy in the near future. Under these circumstances, local fishermen and residents living along the coast as well as near Fukushima Daiichi NPP have raised concerns about the discharge of water containing radioactive materials into the sea, which may have health effects and cause further ‘reputational damage’ to fisheries and tourism.
The accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP had major impacts on radiation protection. One of the roles of Japan Health Physics Society (JHPS) is to contribute to post-accident recovery through various academic activities. In line with this, JHPS held a live online symposium entitled ‘International Symposium: How do we Find the Solution to Radiological Protection of Tritium Water? International and Societal Perspectives on Radiation Protection’ on 29 June 2020 (Kawaguchi et al., 2020). The symposium was comprised of two parts. In Part I, lectures were given by four speakers: Dr Ichiro Yamaguchi (National Institute of Public Health, Japan), Dr Shu-Jun Chang (Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Taiwan), Prof. Ik Jae Chung (Seoul National University of Science and Technology, South Korea), and Mr Riken Komatsu (community activist and writer living in Iwaki City, Japan). In addition, a pre-recorded interview with Mr Motofumi Kikuchi (fisherman from Soma Haragama Fishing Port) was shared with speakers and participants. In Part II, following a talk by Ms Ryoko Ando (NPO Fukushima Dialogue/Ethos in Fukushima, Iwaki City, Japan), a live discussion was held between the four speakers in Part I and Ms Ando, facilitated by the author (H. Yoshida). Two issues – the scientific safety of tritiated water and social consensus building – were discussed. This paper summarises the interview with Mr Kikuchi and the live discussion.
2. Synthesis of the JHPS Symposium
2.1. Summary of the interview with Mr Kikuchi
Soma Haragama Fishing Port is located in the northern part of Hamadori, Fukushima Prefecture, and is a port on the Pacific coast. After graduating from college, Mr Kikuchi returned to Soma Haragama and became a fisherman to follow in the footsteps of his deceased father. Following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP, fishing operations were voluntarily suspended, and trial fishing subsequently commenced. During that time, Mr Kikuchi began developing and selling processed marine products, aiming to restore the pride as fishermen and the culture of Soma-Hama. He sells fish meatballs made from black sleeper at events and trade fairs inside and outside Fukushima Prefecture. In 2015, he and his fellow local fishermen issued Soma Taberu Tsushin, an information magazine, with a food gift, and he was appointed Co-Editor-in-Chief (Soma Taberu Tsushin, 2016). Mr Kikuchi continues to play a leadership role, particularly among young fishermen, actively promoting the development of processed marine products and organising tours for tourists.
The summary of the interview with Mr Kikuchi, interviewed by H. Yoshida, is as follows: The majority of the public do not understand the safety of tritium, and as a fisherman, I am very concerned about rumour-based reputational damage. I feel that the safety of the product has not been communicated to the public by the Government and others. The fishermen are doing their best. It would be humane that the side that polluted the fishermen's workplace should stand by and support the fishermen. This is not only a problem for the fishermen, not just for Fukushima or the region. We fishermen want other people to think of it as their own problem, not someone else’s. In fishing, the harder you work, the more you get paid. I have always felt that this is the true joy of fishing. However, the fishery has been on trial operation since the accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP. Compensation will not solve any problems. I hope the Government work hard to restore the culture and the appeal of our job as fishermen. I would like to see the Government support the restoration of brand value, processed products, and the creation of an industry that makes use of local resources.
2.2. Summary of the live discussion
Opinions were expressed on the following questions – ‘How exactly can we gain trust in the scientific safety of tritiated water domestically and internationally? What should be done and by whom? What is expected to be improved by it?’
The problem is credibility, and what the experts can do is answer the questions (Dr Yamaguchi). The issue of tritiated water is about safety, and meeting the standards ensures safety. The differences between the Taiwanese and Japanese standards, risk assessment, and especially the realistic impact on the marine environment should be assessed and the information should be disclosed to Taiwan (Dr Chang). ‘How safe is safe enough?’ is always a challenge. Scientific knowledge and scientific research data are important, but this is merely the bottom line. Emphasising zero risk (safety) does not offer any possibilities. It is necessary to make a space for discussion through negotiations. It should start with very specific negotiations, for example, economic incentives, and the rhetoric for social consensus is required. Consideration of acceptable and unacceptable matters is the first step, and moving to concrete considerations, such as what is necessary and what can be provided, is the next step. It is necessary to negotiate incrementally, rather than explaining that there is no risk. Much of the information is disseminated by the mass media and has a significant impact on public decision-making. It is important for scientists to explain scientific information in a way that the public can understand (Dr Chung). Scientists should solemnly and firmly publish information based on the data. However, most consumers do not understand or act on the scientific findings about tritium. Sometimes it is because someone told them it is safe. Cooperation of scientists and senders of information is important so that senders of information, including the media, can disseminate information based on understanding of the characteristics and effects of tritium. In some cases, scientists lose persuasiveness when they explain things in a simple and understandable way. Therefore, scientists need communicators who can explain scientific data in a way that is easy to understand and connect with the public, but in reality, such communicators are lacking. It is also necessary for scientists to create a relationship with somebody with whom they can entrust the dissemination of information to some degree (Mr Komatsu). Speaking only in the case of tritiated water, it should be noted that the senders of primary information are not trustworthy. The information disclosed and distributed by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO) sometimes resulted in corrections to published data after errors were pointed out from outside, or required information was disclosed after indication from outside. This happened when I sent out the information from TEPCO on a social networking service (after I had confirmed it), so my own reputation was damaged as well. The Government takes a position that TEPCO is responsible, so there is nowhere to disseminate information responsibly and reliably. In a situation where primary information is unreliable, a system of monitoring by a third-party organisation is necessary, but this has not been done to date. In a situation where the information is not reliable, it does not make sense to say that the general public's scientific perception is wrong (Ms Ando).
After the accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP, important decisions have been made in a variety of situations. In many cases, the decisions have been made in very difficult and complex situations. These decisions have been based on scientific evidence, but they have not been made on scientific grounds alone. Also, the consensus in these decisions was not always built well in advance, and some people were, and still are, left outside of these decisions in many ways. Based on these situations, the second question – ‘How to build a social consensus on handling of tritiated water, or what exactly is needed in order to build a consensus’ – was discussed.
The root of the distrust is that people think various investigations are insufficient. It is necessary to explain that they are being investigated properly. With regard to the option to continue storing the ALPS-treated water on site, it is important to consider the human rights of a few people (who may be affected by it). It is necessary to consider the issues from multiple perspectives (Dr Yamaguchi). The Japanese Government needs to establish a critical decision-making network. A key decision-making network needs to explain why, where, how, what, and when to implement their decisions. The Japanese Government needs to explain why they need to discharge tritiated water into the sea, and explain in detail how they will do it, but this has not been done to date. What and when should also be clarified. How the discharge of tritiated water into the sea will affect Taiwan's marine environment is a matter of concern, so the information should be provided to Taiwan (Dr Chang). One of the important keywords is ‘consensus building’, and the bottom line is acceptability and trust. Residents of Fukushima do not trust the Japanese Government or other people, and they believe that the Government is pursuing its own interests rather than the interests of the residents of Fukushima. Even if the residents of Fukushima believe that the Japanese Government is doing its best scientifically, the Government does not gain more trust because it is difficult for the residents to understand everything. In the negotiations of give and take, there is a need to let each other know that no infringement on each other's interests, from the Government to local residents and from local residents to the Government. Similar social issues are being discussed in South Korea over the construction of NPPs. It is necessary for the parties concerned to build mutual trust in a realistic way (Dr Chung). More than 9 years have passed since the accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP. The number of people interested in the accident is decreasing, even in local areas, and a small communication channel is being lost. Some people say they do not trust people from the Japanese Government or TEPCO, but they do trust local assembly members. However, as there is no place to talk with these local representatives, and only a limited number of people talk about tritium and decommissioning, the deviation between those who are interested in the issues and the general public (with no interest in the issues) becomes large. Rather than simply disseminating information through the media, it is important for people to exchange information and opinions at the place where the things really happen. Disclosing traces of full discussions on various proposals, such as large tank storage and underground storage, will build trust; however, such information is not conveyed. We should create a place for discussion in the local community, even if it takes time (Mr Komatsu). Any conclusions decided by someone else without stakeholder involvement are unacceptable. Before presenting conclusions, we need to have a place for discussion and take our time, going through the process little by little (Ms Ando).
3. Conclusion
In order to gain trust on the scientific safety of tritiated water, there is a need for further disclosure and dissemination of the information, both domestically and internationally, based on steady monitoring. Key to this is whether the senders of primary information are trustworthy. Safety is a matter of trust. It is important that experts play their role with honesty and integrity. However, scientific knowledge and scientific research data are merely the bottom line. It is necessary for the parties concerned to build trust in a realistic way. The majority of members of the public do not understand the safety of tritium. Scientists need communicators who can explain scientific data in a way that is easy to understand and connect with the public. Any conclusions decided by someone else without stakeholder involvement are unacceptable. It is necessary to create a place for discussion in the local community, even if it takes time. Mr Kikuchi, a fisherman, stated that this is not only a problem for the fishermen, not just for Fukushima or the region. The issue of tritiated water should not be trivialised to a regional problem.
Throughout the discussions, it was reaffirmed that JHPS, a professional group of radiation protection experts, should further consider what to do and what we can do. In this case, it is necessary to think of the problem as one's own, not someone else's, and to have an attitude of empathy rather than sympathy. It was also recognised that the role of JHPS is to look at not only the technical issues of safety, but also the social issues from the point of view of radiation protection, and to support the solution of these issues.