One Year after Fukushima

Q1: What is the status of the cleanup at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant today?

A1: On December 16, 2011, the Japanese government announced that reactors 1, 2, and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant were in a “cold shutdown,” meaning that the temperature of the water used to cool the reactor’s fuel rods was below 200 degrees Fahrenheit. The cold shutdown significantly reduces complications for the cooling systems, which are critical during operation as well as shutdown. As of March 7, the residual heat removal system is functioning in reactors 1 and 2, while the heat removal system in reactor 3 is yet to be restored. The reactor coolant filtering system is now in service for all three reactors. Since December, temperatures in the reactors have continued to fall.

Now that the reactors have reached cold shutdown, the next challenge for the Japanese government will be to remove the damaged fuel. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) aims to remove all of the fuel rods over the next 10 years, as the current high radiation levels in the reactors prevent workers from attempting this in the immediate future. By comparison, it took 5 years to begin the removal of fuel from the Three Mile Island reactor. Japanese officials plan to use remote-controlled machines to plug cracks in the reactor vessels and remove the melted fuel—an incredibly difficult task that will require the development of new technology. Eventually, the plant itself will be dismantled, which, according to Japanese officials, could take up to 40 years.

Q2: Will the evacuated residents be able to return home?

A2: Debate continues over repopulation of the 12-mile exclusion zone surrounding Fukushima Daiichi. Many of the nearly 90,000 residents who evacuated in the weeks after the disaster are reluctant to return to their hometowns, where radiation in some areas measures 510 millisieverts a year, roughly 25 times the level for evacuation. Still, some in the Japanese government are eager to return residents to their homes as a sign of Japan’s resolve and power in the face of catastrophe.

The government’s attempts at trial cleanups have been halted for now, as many communities are opposed to having the contaminated soil stored near their towns. If the government does decide to undertake a full-scale effort to clean the contaminated areas, topsoil nearly equivalent to the surface area of Connecticut must be replaced, and thousands of buildings must be cleaned of radioactive particles. Such a monumental task would take years, and even then many residents’ fears of radiation may cause Fukushima’s ghost towns to stay uninhabited for many decades to come.

Q3: What lessons have been learned about improving nuclear safety?

A3: There is no doubt that the Fukushima accident, the emergency response, and cleanup efforts will be studied for many years. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and national nuclear regulatory bodies continue to review the meltdown for ways to improve nuclear safety. A report issued by the Japanese government to IAEA outlines some of the general lessons learned so far.

First, nuclear plants are urged to take necessary precautions to guard against natural hazards that might compromise their safety. Second, the report recommends that backup energy supply systems, such as the generators that were flooded in the basement of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, be replicated for the sake of redundancy and strategically protected in order to prevent a complete system failure. Third, robust cooling functions must be maintained for the reactor pressure containment vessels and the spent fuel pools. Finally, the report advises the nuclear facilities and buildings be designed and placed in order to aid response measures in cases of nuclear emergencies. Careful design implementation would also help contain the impacts of nuclear accidents from spreading to other reactor facilities.

Q4: Can Japan afford to phase out nuclear energy?

A4: Of Japan’s 54 reactors, only 2 are operating now. Although only 3 were damaged in March 2011, the rest shut down in stages for maintenance and have remained closed. Then–Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced in July 2011 that Japan would phase out nuclear energy by 2050. Before Fukushima, Japan’s nuclear power reactors provided nearly 30 percent of Japan’s electricity requirements. The public overwhelmingly supported this decision. Newly elected Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, however, is interested in restarting the reactors once stress tests are completed but admits that this will ultimately be a “political decision.”

To replace the electricity from its nuclear power plants, Japan has been importing oil and liquefied gas. One early estimate suggested Japan might have to spend as much as $220 billion annually to import such resources. For a country that is highly dependent on imports for energy, this spells significant energy insecurity. After the national review is completed in August, there will be a clearer picture of the way forward for nuclear energy in Japan. Right now, the costs and risks of finding alternative resources are not entirely clear.

Q5: What effect has the Fukushima crisis had on nuclear energy across the world?

A5: In most nuclear power states, the Fukushima accident prompted reviews of safety and operations. In the European Union, states have conducted stress tests on their operating nuclear power reactors. Germany immediately shut down its oldest reactors. China ordered a halt in new construction. But over the longer term, the reaction will be mixed. Some states (Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Taiwan) will phase out nuclear power permanently; others, like Japan and Mexico, will reduce their dependence. In some states, like South Korea and France, it’s business as usual. And in still other states that don’t yet have nuclear power, enthusiasm remains undiminished—for example, Saudi Arabia announced plans for 16 nuclear power reactors after Fukushima.

For all states, the costs are likely to rise, because reviews of operating plants and new designs inevitably cost more money. Some states may find it harder to site new plants: India is facing significant public opposition to the Russian-built plants at Kudankulam, not to mention plans for French European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) at Jaitapur. Public opinion will play out in different ways in different countries, depending on the level of engagement with civil society on these issues. In some countries, there is significant opposition to nuclear power, yet government plans to build new nuclear power plants continue. In the United States, recent polls show a decline (but still a majority) in the percentage that favor nuclear power. In February, the first license in over 30 years was issued for a new nuclear power plant at the Vogtle site in Georgia.

Sharon Squassoni is senior fellow and director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Andrew Noble is an intern with the CSIS Proliferation Prevention Program.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2012 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.