An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of nuclear experts has just completed a follow-up review of long-term operational safety at the Ascó nuclear power plant in Spain. The team reviewed the plant’s owners and operators’ responses to recommendations and suggestions made during a Safety Aspects of Long-Term Operation (SALTO) mission in 2021.
     A SALTO peer review is a comprehensive safety review that addresses strategy and key elements for the safe long-term operation (LTO) of nuclear power plants. SALTO missions complement IAEA Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) missions. OSART missions are designed as a review of programs and activities essential to operational safety. SALTO peer reviews can be executed at any time during the lifetime of a nuclear power plant. However, according to the IAEA the most suitable time lies within the last ten years of the plant’s originally licensed operating period. SALTO and OSART reviews are undertaken at the request of the IAEA member country in which the review is to take place.
     The Ascó plant consists of two Westinghouse pressurized water reactor units with an installed capacity of about one thousand thirty megawatts. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in 1984. Unit 2 entered commercial operation in 1986. Operator Asociación Nuclear Ascó-Vandellós II (ANAV) plans to extend the operation of both units beyond the initial forty-year lifetime. Unit 1 is currently authorized to continue to operate until 2030. Unit 2 is licensed until 2031. A September 5 to September 8 review was requested by the plant’s operator. The SALTO team focused on aspects essential to the safe LTO of both units. The team reviewsed implementation of recommendations made during the SALTO review mission. It had built upon an initial Pre-SALTO mission in 2019.
     The review team was comprised of four experts from the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Sweden as well as two IAEA staff members. They concluded that twelve of the fourteen recommendations and suggestions made in 2021 have already been resolved by ANAV. Work is being done with an appropriate progression for the complete implementation of the remaining two issues. The first of these is a comprehensive program to confirm the resistance of electrical components to harsh conditions, referred to as the equipment qualification program. The second is a comprehensive strategy for managing the aging of structural elements of electrical cabinets and panels. The IAEA noted that plant management expressed a determination to address the remaining areas of concern and to continue cooperating with the IAEA on LTO.
     Jorge Martínez Casado is the Director of the Ascó plant. He said, “For us this is the last step of the IAEA’s supporting service to ensure safe operation of our reactors in the LTO period. The IAEA SALTO missions, and technical cooperation helped to improve our focus on safe operation. We have worked together with the IAEA for the past five years carrying out three missions and several technical discussions. We appreciate the IAEA’s support of our plant in managing ageing and preparation for safe LTO, and we will continue to improve our processes to further comply with IAEA safety standards.”
     The IAEA team provided a draft report to ANAV and the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN), Spain’s regulatory authority, at the end of the mission. ANAV and CSN will have the opportunity to make factual comments on the draft report. A final report will be provided to ANAV, CSN and the Spanish government within three months.

     Japan recently began releasing radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean. This prompted China to announce a ban on all Japanese seafood products due to concerns about radioactive contamination. They joined Hong Kong, Macau, and South Korea who also have banned seafood from the area around Fukushima. Many other countries have stepped up their inspection of fish and other food items from Japan. The concern over radioactively contaminated food and agricultural products has triggered a surge of interest in the U.S. Nuclear’s food contamination monitors which can measure whether food or liquid samples are safe or if there is any contamination present.
     Japanese cuisine is very popular in China. The sector is valued at about twenty-five billion dollars. It included seven hundred eighty-nine thousand restaurants in 2022. Last year, China was also Japan’s top trading partner for seafood. It accounted for nine hundred forty-two million dollars-worth of seafood imports. Hong Kong was second at four hundred thirty-two million dollars. Restaurants and the fishing industry will be hit especially hard by food bans unless Japanese seafood can be proven to be safe. Hong Kong and Macau have issued a ban that covers Japanese seafood products from ten regions in and around Fukushima. South Korea recently issued a statement maintaining the ban on Fukushima fisheries and food products will continue until concerns have eased. Japanese seafood and products are also sent around the globe. When such bans or concerns are raised, it is important to both the exporter and importer to ensure that the product is safe and contamination free.
     U.S. Nuclear’s most popular food contamination monitors include the Model FLG-9000 and SSS-22P.  The FLG-9000 measures minute quantities of radioactive contamination in foods and other samples utilizing a large volume one quart scintillation detector and multichannel analyzer electronics for isotope identification and rapid processing of samples. The SSS-22P measures all liquid samples such as drinking water, sea water, sake or milk, for radioactive contamination down to the lowest levels possible for safety.
     It is expected that it will require thirty plus years for Japan to release all the stored radioactive water. During that time, it will be extremely important to closely monitor all food and products from that area and surrounding countries.
      The press release issued by U.S. Nuclear included “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ from expectations, estimates and projections and, consequently, these forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as accurate predictions of future events. Words such as “expect,” “estimate,” “project,” “budget,” “forecast,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “believes,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” and similar expressions are intended to clearly identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results to differ materially from the expected results.
      Investors interested in food and product monitoring can find additional information about U.S. Nuclear Corporation on the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov, or the company’s website at www.usnuclearcorp.com.

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     James Smith is professor of environmental and geological sciences at Portsmouth University. He said that “in theory, you could drink this water”, because the contaminated water is already treated when it is stored and then diluted.
     David Baily is a physicist who runs a French laboratory which measure radioactivity. He said, “The key thing is how much tritium is there. At such levels, there is no issue with marine species, unless we see a severe decline in fish population, for instance.”
     However, some scientists say that we cannot predict the impact of releasing the contaminated water.
     Emily Hammon is an expert in energy and environmental law at George Washington University. She said, “The challenge with radionuclides (such as tritium) is that they present a question that science cannot fully answer; that is, at very low levels of exposure, what can be counted as ‘safe’? One can have a lot of faith in the IAEA’s work while still recognizing that compliance with standards does not mean that there are ‘zero’ environmental or human consequences attributed to the decision.”
     The U.S. National Association of Marine Laboratories released a statement in December of 2022 saying that it did not find Japan’s data convincing.
    Robert Richmond is a marine biologist at the University of Hawaii. He said, “We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle.”
     Environmental groups such as Greenpeace go even further as can be seen in a paper published by scientists at the University of South Carolina in April 2023. Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia. He says that tritium can have “direct negative effects” on plants and animals if ingested, including “reduced fertility” and “damage to cell structures, including DNA.”
     China has banned Japanese seafood because of the contaminated water release. Some commentators in the media believe that this could be a political move. Experts say that there is no scientific evidence backing concerns about seafood because the radiation release is so low.
     However, many people who work on coasts of the Pacific Ocean around the world every day still have concerns.
     Traditional female divers in South Korea known as “haenyeo” have expressed anxiety. Kim Eun-ah has been a diver in the waters off Jeju Island for six years. She said, “Now I feel it’s unsafe to dive in. We consider ourselves as part of the sea because we immerse ourselves in the water with our own bodies.”  Experts say that the contaminated water might be carried by ocean currents, particularly the cross-Pacific Kuroshio current. Fishermen have told interviewers that they fear their reputation has been permanently damaged. They are worried about their jobs.
     Mark Brown is the Pacific Islands Forum Chair and Cook Island Prime Minister. He says that he believes the released water meets international safety standards. He added that all nations across the region may not agree on the “complex” issue, but he suggested that they “assess the science.

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     Japan has begun releasing treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The release was opposed by China with a ban on Japanese seafood imports. There were also protests in Japan and South Korea.
     The United Nations’s (U.N.) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims that the released water will have “negligible” radiological impact on people and the environment.  However, many people wonder if it is really safe.
     In 2011, a earthquake followed by a tsunami wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The cooling system was destroyed which resulted in overheating of the reactor cores and contamination of water inside the facility with highly radioactive material.
     Since the disaster, TEPCO, the nuclear power plant company, has been pumping in water to cool down the reactors’ nuclear fuel rods. Every day, the plant produces more contaminated water which is stored in more than one thousand tanks. This is enough to fill five hundred Olympic swimming pools.
     Japan says that it needs the land currently occupied by the tanks to build new facilities required to safely decommission the plant. Japan has also raised concerns about the consequences if the tanks were to collapse in a natural disaster.
     Japan is releasing the contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean gradually. It has received approval from the IAEA for the release. The first release is one of four releases scheduled between now and the end of March 2024. It is estimated that the entire process will take at least thirty years.
     If Japan had been able to remove all radioactive elements from the contaminated water before sending it to the ocean, maybe there would not have been such a controversy.
     The problem is being caused by a radioactive isotope of hydrogen called tritium. Tritium atoms have two neutrons in the nucleus. It cannot be removed from the contaminated water because there is no technology able to do it. Instead, the contaminated water is diluted.
     The general consensus from experts is that the release is safe. However, not all scientists agree on the impact it will have. Tritium is present in water across the globe. Most scientists have argued that if the levels of tritium are very low, the impact will be minimal. However, critics say that more studies on how it could affect the ocean bed, marine life and humans are needed.
     The IAEA has a permanent office at Fukushima. It said that an “independent, on-site analysis” had shown that the tritium concentration in the water discharged was “far below the operational limit of 1,500 becquerels per liter (Bg/L)”. That is six times less than the World Health Organization’s limit for safe drinking water, which is at least 10,000 Bg/L.
     On August 25, the release of contaminated water began. TEPCO said that seawater samples taken on that day showed that radioactivity levels were within safe limits. The tritium concentration in the contaminated water was below 1,500 Bq/L. Japan’s environmental ministry said that it had also collected seawater samples from eleven different locations on the 25th. The results of the testing were released on August 27th.
Please read Part 2 next