Recovery's Long Road: Fukushima Four Years After The Great East Japan Earthquake

Seeds of Hope: Fukushima rice recently passed radiation tests for the first time since the disasters. Image via the Fukushima Organic Agriculture Network/JERF.

The 4th anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami has arrived, and the effects of the widespread destruction at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant are still being felt today.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the company that owns the now-defunct plant, is still trying to persuade local governments to allow the restart of some of its other reactors, which would significantly improve its financial situation, as it still owes more than ¥5 trillion in damages, in addition to the cost of decommissioning the plants affected by the disaster.

To make matters worse, Tepco president Naomi Hirose announced a month ago that it would not be able to meet its self-imposed deadline to decontaminate water tainted by radioactivity by the end of March, which was then followed by the news that it had found a new source of radiation leakage into the sea.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the public is largely opposed to the restart of the reactors. Back in 2010, Japan had plans to make nuclear power at least 50 percent of its total energy by 2030, but a year ago, according to an Asahi poll, 59 percent of Japanese respondents opposed the restart of nuclear power plants, making it highly unlikely that we’ll be seeing an increase in Japanese nuclear power plant activity anytime soon.

Even now, around 120,000 Fukushima residents remain evacuees, and a government survey of 16,600 households in fiscal 2014 found that 48 percent of these evacuees aren’t planning on coming back. Concerns about radiation and slow reconstruction efforts are keeping them away, and the temporary housing situation isn’t giving them much confidence either.

Another problem that towns in the Tohoku region face is population decline. A majority of the evacuees who do decide to return are senior citizens, and according to surveys, only 3 percent of those in their 30s and 40s plan to go back to the towns they were forced to leave behind in the wake of the disaster.

More than 89,000 of the evacuees live in temporary housing units that were only built to last two years, and plans to create more permanent accommodations are not on track to be completed until fiscal 2017.

But construction is progressing, as more and more projects are reaching completion, such as the Joban Expressway, a highway that opened on March 1 that passes through the towns of Okuma and Futaba in Fukushima, close to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Progress is also being made in agriculture, and the food in Fukushima has come a long way since the disaster. While commercial farming is now prohibited in areas that were deemed highly contaminated, a few months ago, rice from Fukushima passed radiation tests for the first time since the tsunami, and South Korea, who had banned imports from Fukushima, is now conducting visits to the power plant in consideration of reopening trade agreements with the region.

Fukushima is even trying to host Olympic baseball in 2020, should it be voted back into the Olympic lineup.

“We are still in the process of recovery from the disaster, and it would be a dream to have world-class athletes play here,” said Fukushima city official Hiroaki Kuwajima, according to Agence France-Presse.

Recovery efforts still have a long way to go, with many problems ahead, but the state of the Tohoku region is steadily improving. While things may never be the same in Fukushima, many of the people affected by the disaster are on a long, but promising, road to recovery.

--Mark Gallucci

Nuclear Blues

Via.

August 6th marked the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, where a solemn commemoration has marked the years since 166,000 men, women and children lost their lives, tens of thousands of them to the lingering effects of radiation. This year, with Japan suffering in the aftermath of another nuclear disaster, the Hiroshima ceremony saw Prime Minister Naoto Kan deliver a speech in which he expressed contrition for believing in "the security myth of nuclear power". Mr Kan also promised an investigation into the incidents at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, which are fast becoming a source for much public criticism of his administration and the state of Tokyo bureaucracy and the Japanese nuclear industry in general.

Such hostility to nuclear power is nothing new in Japan, but the events in Fukushima have raised popular antipathy to its highest level in decades, with about 70 percent favouring a comprehensive overhaul of Japan’s energy policy according to a recent poll. Japan is already avowedly anti-nuclear in the area of the military, having voluntarily banned nuclear weapons from its territory since the 1950s, but many anti-nuclear groups have, until now, failed to equate the horrors of nuclear war with the peaceful development of nuclear power. Now, with the mayors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki calling for a sea change in Japanese energy policy for the first time in decades, the Prime Minister himself is addressing Japan’s reliance on nuclear power before his political life draws to a close.

However, with nuclear power supplying about a third of Japan’s energy needs and the prospects of toughening economic times ahead, it is unclear exactly how any putative shift away from the atom might move forward without severe disruption to Japan’s infrastructure, to say nothing of the jobs that would be lost. As the U.S. and by extension the world brace for another possible recession, it would be a rude shock to the system for Japan to invalidate tens of thousands nuclear industry employees, particularly following the selfless heroism many of them displayed at the height of the crisis.

Yet, with popular anger on the rise, it is possible that even moves to establish an unprecedentedly high level of oversight of the nuclear industry will not placate the Japanese public, particularly as more details of the bureaucratic errors surrounding the catastrophe come to light.

The New York Times' recent report provides an example of such: the citizens of the town of Namie, close to the stricken Fukushima Daichi plant, are the latest to protest Tokyo’s handling of the disaster after they failed to receive any information on the dispersal of radiation, despite the accurate predictions from a government-commissioned computer scenario of radioactive release paths conducted far in advance of the meltdown. According to the town’s mayor, Tamotsu Baba, the failure to provide the scenario data to local residents lay with the unwillingness amongst senior officials to significantly enlarge the zone of the expensive and disruptive mass evacuations or to subject the Japan’s beleaguered nuclear industry to even harsher public scrutiny.

However, it is precisely the latter that the people seem to want. With the passing on August 3 of a law to allow the use of public funds to keep the operator of the Fukushima Daichi plant afloat, it is difficult to imagine that the Japanese populace will accept anything else. 

--Tobias Voss

What The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Means for Japan, U.S. And The World

The triple disasters that hit north-eastern Japan on March 11—a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed by devastating tsunami and nuclear crisis following the failure of cooling systems at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant—have given unprecedented spotlight and momentum to debates surrounding the safety and the very use of nuclear power in Japan, the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Nuclear energy accounts for close to 14% of electricity generation globally. While nuclear power has very high start-up costs, once up and running, it can provide relatively cheap power without producing carbon emissions (The Economic Intelligence Unit). According to Economic Intelligence Unit, Japan had 54 operable nuclear reactors before the March 11th disaster and nuclear power generated approximately 27% of electricity in Japan in 2010. In France, which has the second highest number of nuclear reactors (58) after United States (104), electricity generation through nuclear power accounts for a much higher 77%. In the U.S., the 104 operating nuclear reactors account for 20.2% of electricity production. (An overview of number of nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world and electricity generated is available via an interactive map at Npr.org)

As Japan continues the battle to bring the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to a stable state within six to nine months, Prime Minister Naoto Kan on May 6th called for a temporary closure of Hamaoka nuclear plant, “an ageing facility on a tectonic fault line that would pose a tremendous risk for Tokyo if it suffered the same fate as the Fukushima Daiichi plant.” As additional details trickle in regarding the series of events that unfolded at the Fukushima nuclear plant, efforts are underway to assess Japan’s handling of the nuclear accident. According to The New York Times, the nuclear oversight body of the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with its 18 member international team, has started its investigation into the accident. Furthermore, the Japanese Government itself is undertaking an independent inquiry into its response to the disaster.

Announcements of evacuation in Japan more than 10 weeks into the disaster, this time around a greater radius surrounding the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant only add to the gravity of the crisis surrounding Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The BBC that the no-go zone around the Fukushima nuclear plant had been extended and that the residents of towns of Kawamata and Iitate were being sent to evacuation centers.

The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and its far-reaching aftermath have significantly altered the landscape in which nuclear power plants operated. The Economist notes that in an opinion poll conducted by Asahi Shimbun, the percentage of those opposed to nuclear energy in Japan had risen to 41% from 28% in 2007, with women being the strongest opponents. As more details are made available regarding the contributing factors towards the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Japan and the rest of the world will learn lessons far too costly to ignore. As Japan’s own efforts towards reviewing energy use, Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced on May 10th “his intention to rewrite from scratch a blueprint, scarcely a year old, that planned roughly to double nuclear power’s contribution, accounting for half of Japan’s energy mix by 2030.”

In the U.S., the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an independent body created by Congress in 1974, implemented a 24-hour monitoring of the nuclear crisis in Japan until as recently as mid-May. NRC is the primary body responsible for regulating nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials. Following the disaster in Japan, the NRC launched a two-step reiew of U.S. reactor safety: a 90-day review to be completed in July and an in-depth evaluation of emergency operations and procedures to be completed by the end of the year. A summary of findings from inspections conducted at U.S. nuclear power plants and individual Inspection Reports have been made available at NRC website. An article published in The New York Times highlights some of the key findings included in the NRC inspection report and notes that “something under one-third of the 104 U.S. reactors were found to have some vulnerabilities to extreme emergencies, according to the NRC” but that “all issues have been fixed or put on schedule for correction, and that the safety of the reactors was not compromised.”

Today, Executive Director of Operations of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bill Borchardt speaks at Japan Society on the various approaches being taken by NRC for a systematic review of nuclear power plant safety in the U.S. The discussion is moderated by Gal Luft, Executive Director of Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

--Anu Tulachan

Japan and Friends: Foreign Relations

There has recently been some friction between Japan and the United States over the Futenma base in Okinawa and over the existence of secret Cold War-era agreements with Washington that, among other things, had allowed American nuclear-armed warships to sail into Japanese ports in violation of Japan’s non-nuclear policies. Martin Fackler for The New York Times summed the issue up succinctly:

"The existence of the pacts, known in Japan as the “secret treaties,” has long been known from declassified documents in the United States and the testimony of former American and Japanese diplomats. But successive prime ministers denied their existence, turning the agreements into a symbol for many Japanese of how Liberal Democratic governments had turned their country into a stunted democracy run without full consent by the public."

After ending the Liberal Democrats’ nearly unbroken 54-year grip on power last summer, the new Democratic Party government opened an investigation into the pacts as part of their promised housecleaning of Japan’s postwar order. Exposing the truth about their nation’s secret dealings with the United States was also part of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s pledges to put Tokyo on a more equal footing with Washington. This fed concerns among some in Washington, particularly conservatives, that revealing the treaties was part of an effort by Mr. Hatoyama’s administration to push away from the United States."

Tobias Harris contributed some much-needed perspective on both situations in his essay Japan: The importance of open diplomacy for East Asia Forum, which was posted today. Here is a snippet:

"The Hatoyama government deserves some blame for not being clearer about why it wanted a review in the first place, which enabled some to paint the government as anti-American. But those who see the Futenma dispute in the worst possible light have misinterpreted the Hatoyama government’s position. I think that the Hatoyama government is approaching Futenma less as a foreign policy issue than as a domestic policy issue, because a bilateral agreement as complicated the realignment plan involves too many actors within Japan to be simply a bilateral matter for governments in Tokyo and Washington. Indeed, if the 2006 agreement has a flaw it is that the Koizumi government acted without the full approval of Okinawan constituents, which explains at least in part why subsequent LDP governments did little but drag their feet on implementing the agreement."

According to The New York Times, by March 3rd the Japanese government had approached United States officials with a tentative proposal for resolving a festering dispute over the American air base in Okinawa. The proposal would relocate the Futenma Marine Corps air station, a busy helicopter base, from a crowded city in southern Okinawa to a less populated area in the island’s north, but would be smaller and have a diminished impact on local residents and the environment than previously agreed upon.

It is unclear whether the proposal is going to be acceptable to Washington, or indeed to members of Prime Minister Hatoyama’s own coalition, particularly the Social Democratic Party, a tiny leftist group that wants the base removed from Japan altogether. Harris concludes:

"But whether or not the Hatoyama government succeeds, it is important to recognise that it is acting on the basis of an old idea, that a democratic foreign policy must necessarily be conducted in the sight of the people in whose name it is being conducted. In its pursuit of this aim, the Hatoyama government has also implicitly suggested that an alliance conducted behind closed doors is inappropriate for a more democratic Japan, that the alliance will not endure if it continues to rest upon secret agreements and understandings."