CHALLENGES IN REGULATING NUCLEAR WATER DISPOSAL GLOBALLY

ABSTRACT

The global disposal of nuclear wastewater raises important environmental, geopolitical, and technological issues. While significant improvements have been achieved in the use of nuclear energy and its safety procedures, the radioactive water produced, particularly from nuclear plants and decommissioning sites, remains a subject of controversy. This paper looks into the complex issues involved in the disposal of nuclear wastewater: environmental risks, international regulatory gaps, and technological limitations. By examining such case studies as the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, this study will emphasize the compelling need for more rigorous international frameworks and technological innovations alongside public engagement towards addressing this grave issue. Suggestions are given towards enhancing global governance and sustainable practice in nuclear wastewater disposal.

Keywords

Challenges, Global, Water Disposal, Nuclear, Sustainable Practices, Governance, Wastewater, Framework

INTRODUCTION

The disposal of nuclear wastewater has increasingly become a contested issue in the 21st century, triggered by the high dependence on nuclear power as a source of clean energy. Nuclear power is often suggested as a viable alternative to check climate change as it emits negligible carbon. However, the by-product from this technology-nuclear wastewater-includes tritium, cesium, and strontium as some of the well-known radionuclides. These seem to have long-term impacts on both environmental and human health. Indeed, management of nuclear wastewater remains one of the greatest challenges in the nuclear energy sector, and with more implications for universal senses of safety, environmental sustainability, and public trust. It remains a significant bottleneck despite all the technology involved, demanding international efforts and effective policy frameworks.[1]

The high-profile incidents of leaked treated water at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant raised an important debate that such regulations available were ineffective enough and had many risks in the form of radioactive contamination. Deciding to dispose of treated water into the Pacific Ocean, post filtration, wherein most radionuclides got removed, became the final resolution of the Japanese government following the severely damaging 2011 earthquake and tsunami on that plant. However, the world was alarmed at the decision made by Japan and neighbouring countries, including environmental organizations, about the danger of marine pollution and long-term ecological effects. This case calls attention to some weaknesses in the international governance framework, as well as differences in the standards that other countries adopt to handle nuclear wastewater. This issue raises questions regarding transparency, public participation, and equitable risk distribution when such decisions are made.[2]

The major challenge in nuclear wastewater management is the lack of harmonized global standards. The dumping of waste in oceans is governed by international treaties like the London Convention and Protocol. However, no specific agreement deals with nuclear wastewater disposal. Further, even under the frameworks provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, most are based on voluntary compliance. The practice results in big loopholes when it comes to enforcement and accountability. The potential for transboundary environmental impacts further complicates the issue, as radionuclides released into oceans or air can travel across borders, affecting ecosystems and populations far from the source.[3]

Technologically, new methods of wastewater treatment, such as advanced filtration and ion exchange systems, have proven promising. However, these technologies are not without their limitations, particularly regarding the full removal of radionuclides like tritium, which is notoriously difficult to separate from water. Innovation, cost-effectiveness, and scalability in the development and deployment of new solutions are necessary to overcome these limitations.

The environmental, regulatory, and technological aspects of nuclear wastewater disposal are analyzed.[4]

The paper critically reviews existing policies, international treaties, and case studies to create a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities that are related to this field. The primary goal of this paper is to suggest feasible solutions that need harmonized global standards, higher levels of public involvement, and new approaches for ensuring the safe and sustainable disposal of nuclear wastewater. Promote international cooperation that will lead the world toward increasing long-term, ecological health benefits, thus being able to make nuclear wastewater work for everyone around the world over time.[5]

ENVIRONMENT CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT NUCLEAR WATER DISPOSAL

Radioactive Contamination and Ecosystems

Radioactive wastewater release holds huge threats for ecosystems. There is a great risk of persistent presence of such radionuclides like strontium-90 and iodine-131 in the environment and their further bioaccumulation through marine organisms in the food chain, threatening biodiversity and upsetting ecological balances.[6] Fishes after Fukushima had to suffer increased levels of cesium-137, where some fishing activities had to be banned and questions arise in public about safety of fish in the kitchen. These radionuclides impact the reproductive health of marine species, and ultimately, their presence has long-term consequences for biodiversity in the ocean and for people’s livelihoods.[7]

Germany

Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater contamination happens through the leakage of radionuclides from storage tanks or underground facilities that affect critical sources of water for drinking and agriculture. Cleanup operations such as filtration and bioremediation are expensive and time-consuming and may take several decades. At Fukushima, the decontamination process has faced challenges in the removal of tritium from water supplies. Contaminated groundwater can further pollute the rivers and lakes nearby, aggravating environmental and social impacts. Developing secure containment and robust monitoring systems is critical to ensure the safety of this precious resource.[8]

REGULATORY CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT NUCLEAR WATER DISPOSAL

Fragmented International Frameworks

The lack of an all-encompassing international treaty on the proper disposal of nuclear wastewater presents these considerable gaps in global governance. Although the London Convention and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management have something to offer in this regard, their standards are not enforceable worldwide and rely heavily on voluntary compliance. Thus, these frameworks cause varying levels of practice with improper accountability over transboundary risks. A unified and binding approach is therefore necessary to tackle the global nature of nuclear wastewater disposal effectively.[9]

National Disparities in Regulations

The nuclear wastewater regulatory approaches differ highly among countries; these differences vary based on differences in resources and priorities. Advanced systems, like Japan’s implementation of the ALPS, are on one end; those lacking in similar technologies or political commitment feature on the other. Such an approach leads to uneven standards, as well as the possible case of “nuclear dumping” across less-regulated regions. Such an approach degrades global attempts toward safe, equitable waste management.[10]

Public Trust and Transparency

Public distrust and opposition is fostered by lack of transparency in nuclear wastewater decisions. Low involvement of communities during planning makes the situation worse, as is the case with the Fukushima wastewater release. There is a history of improper disposal of nuclear waste, which adds fuel to public concerns. Authorities have to focus on being open, engaging stakeholders, and communicating scientific evidence clearly to further win back their confidence and ensure proper policy implementation.[11]

TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

Limitations of Current Treatment Methods

Technologies like ion exchange and reverse osmosis have been the backbones of nuclear wastewater treatment; however, there are significant drawbacks to these technologies. For example, ALPS, which is capable of removing virtually all radionuclides from wastewater, fails to remove tritium – a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is chemically bonded to water. Because tritium cannot be separated using the technologies available, the general practice is to dilute the treated water and then release it into the environment in a controlled manner. This solution has been hotly debated for its potential ecological and health impacts, especially for marine ecosystems and neighbouring regions. The inability to manage tritium effectively is still a major technological and public perception challenge.[12]

Long-Term Storage Problems

Long-term storage of treated nuclear wastewater, therefore, demands the foundation of strong infrastructure capable of resisting the aggressiveness of radioactive materials as well as external threats. Overall, such facilities need to be designed to last through disasters of natural causes like floods and earthquakes that can easily cause structural damage. Minor leakages here are bound to contaminate the environment and threaten human health. Moreover, the storage facilities’ safety requires constant observation and maintenance for hundreds of years. Without maintenance, the long-term sustainability of these solutions is compromised, adding to the challenges of nuclear waste management.[13]

High Costs and Resource Constraints

Advance wastewater treatment systems are costly in design, construction, and maintenance to make them unreachable for many developing countries. These nations often face economic and technical limitations on best practices adoption in nuclear wastewater management. The resource-intensive nature of the systems creates inequities globally and is making less developed regions more susceptible to environmental and health risks from their improperly handled waste. It would require extraordinary co-funding and cooperation on an international level to overcome these problems.[14]

CASE STUDIES

Fukushima Daiichi Disaster

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 brings to the forefront the intricacies of dealing with nuclear wastewater following a catastrophic accident. The Japanese government decided to treat the wastewater through the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) and later release it into the Pacific Ocean. The plan has been faced with severe condemnation from environmental action groups and by South Korea, China, since it has always claimed that water treated meets standards for international security. The big concerns are always about the future ecological impacts for the marine ecological system and their fisheries. International collaboration is vital to develop effective frameworks managing nuclear wastewater openly.[15]

In the case of Fukoshima, the release of radioactive-tainted water from Fukushima into the ocean was against international law and nuclear safety norms. The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) outlines key nuclear safety principles, which have been further developed into specific regulations and standards. These principles address the responsibilities of parties under the IAEA Statute, with a focus on nuclear safety within facilities and operations.

Fundamental Safety Principles, dictate nuclear facilities and operations are among the subjects of nuclear safety principles. These principles apply to organizations and individuals engaged in nuclear activity and national governments. Governments are responsible for implementing required laws, rules, and other norms and measures within their national legal systems to properly fulfill all international obligations and national responsibilities. Originally broad and abstracted in the CNS, nuclear safety principles have developed into precise and implementable duties.

Due diligence is reflected in the duties that states have under nuclear safety principles. These can be seen as a reflection of obligations and duties that the state has in the context of international nuclear law and are consistent with the spirit of the duty to exercise due diligence acknowledged as customary law in international law. It calls for responsibilities, best efforts of the pertinent legal subjects rather than the accomplishment of particular objectives. Achieving a specific goal is not required by the legal obligations under the principles of nuclear safety; instead, the subjects must maintain the necessary vigilance, take prudent, optimized protective measures, prevent various risks, and work to keep the risks and hazards of nuclear radiation to a level that is reasonably achievable.

When the Japanese government announced its plan to release the nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean in April 2021, the international community and neighboring nations objected. Japan replied by inviting the IAEA to carry out an evaluation. The IAEA published a thorough report in July 2023 titled “Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of the ALPS Treated Water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station” (henceforth referred to as the IAEA Comprehensive Report). The effort to release nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean was then formally started by Japan. The massive release of radioactively tainted water into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear power plant is essentially an effort to protect Japan’s short-term interests at the expense of the rights and interests of its neighbors. [16]

ALARA Principle and Radiation Safety

Article 15 of the CNS states that the radiation exposure in operational states must be kept as low as reasonably achievable. The production of radioactive waste must be limited to the lowest feasible level, according to Article 19, Paragraph 8.

Principle 10 of the Fundamental Safety Principles mandates and urges precautionary measures to lower uncontrolled or current radiation hazards. Additionally, more detailed ALARA radiation protective principles are presented. The process of estimating the likelihood and extent of radiation exposure as well as potential exposure to produce “as low as reasonably practical levels based on economic and social factors” is established in compliance with the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s requirements for radiation protection systems (IAEA, 2022).

The ALARA principle can be used to ensure that radioactive materials have the lowest effective activity and to minimize radioactive waste. When defining terminology, the IAEA makes it plain that the amount and activity of radioactive waste must be kept ALARA in all nuclear facilities or operations, from design to decommissioning. Techniques like recycling and reusing garbage and lowering the production of nuclear waste can be used to accomplish this.

There isn’t yet a generally recognized safety criterion for the release of water tainted by nuclear. Instead of requiring relevant States and operational entities to accomplish particular goals, the advent of the ALARA concept indicates a need to take specified actions. The ALARA principle is widely applicable and has been proven to be successful in reducing radioactive waste and guaranteeing the lowest effective activity of radioactive elements. Many nations’ nuclear safety plans now include the ALARA principle, which is embodied in the idea of “virtually eliminating significant releases of radioactive materials.” This idea necessitates that all practically possible actions have been completed.

The IAEA Handbook on Nuclear Law states unequivocally that safeguarding the environment, public health, and safety must come first if the dangers of an activity outweigh the benefits. The Handbook on Nuclear Law highlights that the nuclear regulatory standards should compel acts in favor of protection in situations where a balance cannot be reached. [17]

Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant

This is one such historical example within the United Kingdom of the nuclear wastewater discharge dangers. For all these years, the facility dumped radioactive effluents into the Irish Sea; it became among the most radioactively contaminated pieces of water globally. While this facility has upgraded its wastewater practices in recent decades, the record of historical pollution remains. This case shows the importance of early intervention, stringent regulatory controls, and ongoing monitoring to mitigate environmental harm. It also emphasizes accountability in nuclear wastewater management to prevent long-term ecological damage.[18]

Sellafield’s Radioactive Object Management Strategy

Together with other public safety organizations, the Environment Agency (EA) has also created a notice and intervention plan for Sellafield radioactive objects. This strategy outlines how the various organizations will collaborate in order to:
a. Environment and Public Safety: Safeguard the environment and people from any harm that radioactive objects may cause on the beaches in West Cumbria.
b. Response to Radioactive Discoveries: react to a radioactive item finding close to the Sellafield site, whether it’s a highly unique single find or a notable shift in the find rate, activity, or trends overall.
c. Public Health risk assessment: Verify the validity of the findings of a public health risk assessment for the radioactive objects.
The Environment Agency and other regulators also independently monitor the environment for radiation around nuclear facilities. [19]

Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

The nuclear accident in Chernobyl 1986 critically explains the problem of managing radioactive substances over long periods of time. Although the topic is not related to wastewater, the exclusion zone surrounding the reactor site displays the serious environmental and health effects of nuclear contamination after the long period. Efforts to contain radioactive materials and their impact as mitigation efforts describe the need for more proactive measures in dealing with nuclear waste, including wastewater, before such effects become irreversible.[20]

Legal Framework post Chernobyl

In response to the incident, Two conventions were developed and ratified within the framework of the IAEA following the 1986 Chernobyl accident:

The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the Convention on Assistance in Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. On 27 October 1986 and 26 February 1987, respectively, the Conventions went into effect. 70 States have ratified the aid convention, while 74 States have ratified the early notification convention.

In these sectors, there are also other regional and bilateral agreements. The IAEA and the governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden came to an agreement in 1963 known as the Nordic Emergency Assistance Agreement in Connection with Radiation Accidents. A Code of Practice on International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste was agreed by the IAEA General Conference in 1990. [21]

International Regulations on Radioactive Waste Disposal

Preventive measures against any uncontrolled international transportation and disposal of such garbage are the aim of the Code.
The regulation of radioactive waste has also involved states and international organizations.

The disposal of radioactive waste in the Antarctic region is forbidden by Article V of the Antarctic Treaty. Similarly, the disposal of radioactive waste at sea is governed under Article IV of the London Convention of 1972. The London Convention was amended to forbid the disposal of any kind of radioactive waste at sea in February 1994. Additionally, Member States are required by Article 5 of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources to take action to eradicate radioactive material pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.

Around the world, regional efforts have also been made to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste in the ocean. A combination of legally enforceable agreements and laws, as well as advisory norms and regulations, define the international legal system for nuclear energy.

Previously non-binding norms have evolved into legally binding commitments. Conventions pertaining to emergency assistance, nuclear accident notification, and physical protection are only a few examples.
It shouldn’t be concerning that a large number of regulations are still non-binding. Numerous states have voluntarily agreed to use these principles as the foundation for their domestic laws. By doing this, countries have essentially committed themselves to following international standards that they technically consider to be recommendations because they think it will benefit them. [22]

RECOMMENDATIONS

Strengthening International Frameworks

Comprehensive treaties dedicated to the disposal of nuclear wastewater must be entered into globally for ensuring basic safety in safety standards. The treaty should establish legislation that entails enforcement, transparent structures, along with compliance and dispute-settling mechanisms. This framework promotes international cooperation to cross-border ecological issues and promotes shared accountability.[23]

Promoting Technological Innovation

Advanced technologies, such as tritium separation, for wastewater treatment need to be invested in to overcome the current limitations. Cooperative efforts by governments, research institutions, and private companies can expedite innovation, reduce costs, and enhance the efficiency of wastewater management systems. Higher funding and knowledge sharing will help overcome technological challenges both for developed and developing nations.[24]

Enhancing Public Engagement

Public acceptance is the major factor in controlling nuclear wastewater. Governments and entities should involve locals and other stake holders in policy-making, letting them air and address their views. Clear and open communication that goes hand-in-hand with a public education process can clear misperceptions that have built the social resistance around the project on wastewater disposal. Early involvement from the public yields cooperation and minimizes resistance to proposed measures.[25]

Adopting a Precautionary Approach

In employing the precautionary approach, all the environmental and health concerns take precedence over the management of nuclear wastewater. This entails a lot of risk assessments, continuous monitoring, and contingency development for unforeseen challenges. In giving greater priority to long-term safety rather than short-term profitability, countries can minimize risks and sustain responsible practices in nuclear waste management.[26]

CONCLUSION

The regulation of nuclear wastewater disposal is a crucial and complex challenge that requires global coordination. This issue is now pressing due to various environmental concerns, gaps in regulations, and technological restrictions. Past disasters, such as the Fukushima and Sellafield discharges, have shown that the long-term risks to the ecosystem and public health are highly significant, so international frameworks must be strong. A global legally binding treaty can set uniform standards, bring about greater transparency, and impose liability. Paralleling that, investment in innovative technology, like advanced separation methods for tritium, can break barriers in current processes. Similarly, transparent governance and public engagement are quite crucial in gaining people’s trust and garnering a socially acceptable method of disposal. With a study of the near past and an approach involving international cooperation, risks can be minimized and sustainable practices enhanced. Environmental and public health issues have to take priority over short-term interests for all of us to have a safer, more sustainable future.

REFERENCES

[1] WNA, Radioactive Waste Management, World Nuclear Association (2022) https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management#:~:text=Nuclear%20waste%20is%20neither%20particularly,disposal%20is%20the%20best%20option.

[2] Tessa Wong, Japan Fukushima: Nuclear Plant Begins Release of Contaminated Water, BBC News (July 6, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162.

[3] Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, International Maritime Organization, https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/London-Convention-Protocol.aspx.

(last visited Jan. 18, 2025).

[4] IMO, 2022 United Nations Ocean Conference Interactive Dialogue 1: Addressing marine pollution, International Maritime Organization, (2022) https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/London-Convention-Protocol.aspx.

[5] IAEA, Developing multinational radioactive waste repositories: Infrastructural framework and scenarios of cooperation, International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-TECDOC-1413

(2004) https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1413_web.pdf.

[6] WNA, Radioactive Waste Management, World Nuclear Association (2022) https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management.

[7] Greenpeace International, 13 years since Fukushima nuclear disaster: Greenpeace statement, Greenpeace (2024) https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/65638/13-years-since-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-greenpeace-statement/#:~:text=In%20May%202023%2C%20laws%20related,development%20of%20next%2Dgeneration%20reactors.

[8] Dingyi Wang et al., Implications of Fukushima’s Radioactive Water Discharge on Global Environmental Sustainability, ACB Publications (2024) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c00955.

[9] Benchao Fu and Heran Li, Marine environmental governance for nuclear pollution: From the perspective of China’s response to Japan’s Fukushima nuclear wastewater discharge, Marine Policy. 167, (2024) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X24002409.

[10] Dingyi Wang et al., Implications of Fukushima’s Radioactive Water Discharge on Global Environmental Sustainability, ACB Publications (2024) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c00955.

[11] Ibid.

[12] WNA, Treatment and Conditioning of Nuclear Waste, World Nuclear Association (2024) https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/treatment-and-conditioning-of-nuclear-wastes.

[13] WNA, Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste, World Nuclear Association (2024) https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.

[14] Bikram Jit Singh et al., A systematic review of industrial wastewater management: Evaluating challenges and enablers, Journal of Environmental Management.348. (2023) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479723020182.

[15] WNA, Fukushima Daiichi Accident, World Nuclear Association (2024) https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.

[16] Wei Gong, International law obligations for the disposal of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water under the principles of nuclear safety, Volume 22 Issue 1 Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment, Pages 10-19, 2024.

[17] Ibid.

[18] AB Mackenzie and RD Scott, Sellafield waste radionuclides in Irish sea intertidal and salt marsh sediments, National Library of Medicine (1993) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24198113/.

[19]. “Sellafield: Nuclear Regulation.” GOV.UK, www.gov.uk/guidance/sellafield-nuclear-regulation. (last visited 4 Feb. 2025).

[20] Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, Britannica https://www.britannica.com/place/Chernobyl-Exclusion-Zone (last visited Jan. 18, 2025).

[21] Mohammed El Baraei, International law and nuclear energy: Overview of the legal framework, IAEA Bulletin, Pages 16-25, 1995.

[22] Ibid.

[23] IAEA, International Legal Framework for Nuclear Safety, IAEA https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22/04/international-legal-framework-for-nuclear-safety.pdf. (last visited Jan. 18, 2025).

[24] DST, New advanced oxidation technology can enhance waste water reuse at lower cost, Department of Science and Technology. https://dst.gov.in/new-advanced-oxidation-technology-can-enhance-waste-water-reuse-lower-cost. (last visited Jan. 18, 2025).

[25] IAEA, Stakeholder Engagement in Nuclear Programmes, Internation Atomic Energy Agency (2021) https://www.iaea.org/publications/14885/stakeholder-engagement-in-nuclear-programmes.

[26] IISD, The Precautionary Principle, IISD https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/precautionary-principle. (last visited Jan. 19, 2025).

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.