（11th September 2023, Vienna）
Mr Chairman,
China aligns itself with the statement by the ambassador of Pakistan on behalf of G77 and China under this item.
Over the past year, the IAEA continued its assistance to help Member States maintain and strengthen nuclear, radiation, transport and waste safety, improve emergency preparedness and response, and implement the Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative（NHSI). The Agency organized with success the Review Conference of the Nuclear Safety Convention, which developed and amended nuclear safety standards and contributed to global nuclear safety.
China attaches great importance to nuclear safety with continuous efforts to build capacity in nuclear safety and emergency response, and to comprehensively enhance the level of nuclear safety. China supports the Agency’s central role in international cooperation for nuclear safety, by actively participating in relevant Agency activities to share our experience and good practices. China stands ready to further strengthen practical cooperation with the Agency and Member States in nuclear and radiation safety.
Under effective nuclear safety regulation, Chinese nuclear power plants and research reactor facilities maintain a good safety performance. There had been no incidents or accidents at or above Level 2 under the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), and radiation readings in the vicinity of our nuclear facilities have always been within the normal range.
Chair,
This Board session must seriously discuss the issue of Japan’s disposal of the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water. On 24th August, despite strong doubts and oppositions of the international community, the Japanese government unilaterally started releasing the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean. This date will be remembered by history.
Discharging the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean is a major nuclear safety issue with cross-border, long-term and far-reaching consequences, and it is far from a private issue concerning only the single country of Japan. Since peaceful uses of nuclear energy decades ago, there’s simply no precedent of discharge of nuclear contaminated water from nuclear accidents into the ocean, nor is there any widely accepted standards in this regard. The Fukushima nuclear accident already caused a devastating disaster 12 years ago. How to dispose the huge amount of nuclear contaminated water is an important part of the decommissioning process of Fukushima NPP. Japan has the responsibility and obligation to dispose nuclear contaminated water in the most responsible, safe and appropriate manner, so as to avoid inflicting harm to the marine environment and people around the world a second time.
It should be pointed out that ocean discharge is not the sole option to dispose the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water, and it is certainly not the safest or the most responsible option. If the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water is safe, as claimed by Japan, why Japan insists on discharging it into the ocean? If it’s not safe, ocean discharge option should be excluded even more categorically. Japan, instead of asking the Agency to conduct a comprehensive and holistic review of all other disposal options, unilaterally imposed its ocean discharge decision upon the Agency and the world at large.
For over 2 years, the Agency's safety review of the discharge of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water, at the request of Japan, is of a nature of technical assistance and advisory assessment and does not have international legal validity. Japan imposed multiple restrictions on the review work of the Agency’s Task Force, who could ONLY use data and information provided by Japan for assessment, and inter-laboratory comparison was based ONLY on the very limited sample water collected unilaterally by Japan. Such managed assessment is unable to prove the long-term reliability of the ALPS treatment system developed by Japan, nor is it able to prove the reliability and authenticity of data provided by Japan, as the sampling process lacks independence and representation. The Task Force has not achieved consensus on the findings and conclusions as contained in the Comprehensive Review Report. As clearly indicated by the DG in the report, “this report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement of that policy”. However, Japan painted the report exactly as an endorsement to force through ocean discharge, thus seriously undermining the Agency’s authority and credibility, jeopardizing people’s health and marine environment in neighbouring counties, undercutting nuclear safety and development around the world.
Given the above-mentioned reasons, and in particular given the fact the Japan has already unilaterally initiated ocean discharge, it is highly necessary for the Agency to establish a long-term effective international monitoring mechanism which operates independently from Japan. The international community cannot assume that Japan's ocean discharge management will be free of errors or mistakes for 30 years, nor can it assume that Japan's ALPS will remain effective and reliable for the long term. Japan’s ocean discharge is unprecedented in history, such an international monitoring mechanism under the Agency has also no established practice to follow. Throughout the discharge process, the Agency should perform impartial, independent and objective safety review, in a process driven by Member States, with Member States’ participation and subject to periodic review. Member States and the Board should play a leading role in establishing this international monitoring mechanism, and undertake periodic review of Japan’s ocean discharge and the mechanism itself. The Secretariat should inform Member States, in particular stakeholder countries in a timely, comprehensive and detailed manner, about onsite sampling and monitoring activities in Fukushima, as well as developments and considerations with regard to the establishment of the long-term international monitoring mechanism. The Secretariat need to carefully listen to the concerns, views and suggestions of all parties to establish a long-term effective international monitoring mechanism led by the Agency with effective participation of stakeholders.
This weekend, when the Board concludes its session, marks the World Cleanup Day on 16th September. All countries should do their utmost to protect our shared planet and oceans, instead of polluting the environment for one’s selfish interests. The untrustworthy TEPCO and the unilaterally acting Japan must be subjected to strict international monitoring. If Japan really takes the most transparent and scientifically sound approach in disposing the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water, as it claims, it should demonstrate the utmost openness and cooperativeness, engage in extensive and meaningful consultations with stakeholder countries, take seriously concerns and views of all parties, and actively support efforts by Member States to set up an international mechanism to monitor ocean discharge.
Discharge of the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean further highlights the necessity and urgency of building capacity to monitor marine radioactive pollution. The Agency should, through technical cooperation and other means, help developing countries, in particular island developing countries to build their capacity in this area, so as to improve nuclear safety governance in the Global South and build a community of shared future in nuclear safety.
With these comments, China takes note of the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Report 2023, as contained in GOV/2023/36.
Thank you chair.
The Permanent Representative of Japan exercised the right of reply, claiming that the aforementioned remarks made by China were politicized and emotional. The treated water purified by Japan's Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) is safe and harmless, no different from the discharge during the normal operation of a nuclear power plant. Japan's plan for discharging into the ocean is scientifically sound, and the process is open and transparent to the international community. Ambassador LI Song exercised the right of reply to rebut these claims, with the following remarks:
Chair,
The Japanese representative just now talked of “emotional”, and I would like to remind Japan that before and after Japan's decision to discharge the nuclear contaminated water into the ocean, which activates strong oppositions from people in Japan and the neighboring countries. Any responsible government would not ignore the outcries of its people who are in resolute opposition to Japan's irresponsible discharge behavior. Japan, however, turning a deaf ear to these concerns, imposes its decision on the international community and tries to absolve itself. This is utter politicization.
Japan's comparison of nuclear contaminated water from the accident to the liquid effluent normally produced by nuclear power plants worldwide completely deviates from the scientific understanding of nuclear safety. The nature of nuclear contaminated water is entirely different from that of liquid effluent produced by normal operations of nuclear power plants. The contaminated water, which includes cooling water injected into the damaged reactor core after the accident, and groundwater and rainwater seeping into the reactor, contains over 60 types of radioactive nuclides, many of which still lack effective treatment techniques. As for the specifics of the radioactive substances in the 1.34 million tons of nuclear contaminated water stored in Fukushima’s 1,300 tanks with the daily addition of about 100 tons, what exactly is the status of the nuclear contamination inside each storage tank, and how exactly the aforementioned complex nuclides are tested and treated? Japan has not given a clear explanation. It must be pointed out that the current approach of sampling and data analysis at the Fukushima site cannot guarantee the safety of discharging nuclear contaminated water over 30 years.
The TEPCO insists that“dilution is an effective solution to pollution,” and Japan emphasizes that the monitoring results of tritium are in line with the nuclear safety standard and below the operational limits, and the radiological impact on humans and the environment is negligible. This completely avoids addressing the total amount of radioactive nuclides in the contaminated water, neglects the marine biological processes of organic binding, bioaccumulation, and bioconcentration of these radioactive nuclides and ignores the fact that radioactive nuclides accumulate in seafloor sediments and are transferred to marine benthos.
The American “Science” magazine published an article titled “The Future of Ocean Health” on September 1st which points out that, “the belief that the oceans are limitless in their capacity to absorb pollutants, while still able to produce abundant food and support complex ecosystems, is false. Although pollutant concentrations within “accepted standards” may seem small when considering the vast volume of the oceans, many toxicants, even at low concentrations, can cause sublethal responses at the cellular, organismal, population, and ecosystem levels that affect ecosystem structure, function, and service.” This is the latest perspective I've seen from an authoritative scientific journal regarding the long-term effects of the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water. I hope Japan doesn't consider these viewpoints to be politicized or emotional.
Regardless of Japan's self-proclaimed justifications, they cannot change the fact that a large number of harmful nuclides will be discharged into the ocean, which could bring unpredictable harm to the marine environment and human health. Only by stopping the discharge can the hazardous impact be avoided. We urge the Japanese side to attach great importance to the concerns of the international community and providee a sincere and truly scientifically-based explanation, rather than continuing to downplay and cover up the harm of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the ocean.
Chair,
China has fully elucidated its position and attitude towards the international monitoring mechanism for the ocean discharge of the Fukushima’s nuclear contaminated water in the statement at the morning session. I emphasized that the Agency’s impartial, independent, and objective safety review and monitoring during Japan's discharge phase should be based on Member States’ leadership, participation, and periodic review. The “independent role” of the Secretariat in fulfilling its duties must be based on the understanding and support of Member States. This is the standard rule and common understanding for any international organization to operate effectively. China’s emphasis on this point is not intended to belittle the role of the Secretariat. International monitoring of the discharge of Fukushima’s nuclear contaminated water is something the Agency has never done before. It concerns the common interests and responsibilities of Member States. We should work together to establish and effectively operate this monitoring mechanism to prevent potential and long-term damage to the ocean environment from the discharge of the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water. China is ready to engage actively in these efforts in a highly responsible manner.
Thank you, Chair.