Opposition: "IAEA Standards Not Applicable to Accident Nuclear Plant... ALPS Must Also Be Reexamined"

"IAEA's Special Relationship with Nuclear Power Operators Also Pointed Out"

Opposition lawmakers raised suspicions about the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which holds the key to the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) that treats the contaminated water, expressing opposition to the discharge.

The National Assembly's Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs, Oceans and Fisheries Committee held a plenary session on the 20th and conducted a current affairs inquiry with Minister Cho Seung-hwan of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and others regarding the Japanese government's discharge of Fukushima contaminated water.

Democratic Party lawmaker Wi Seong-gon argued that the IAEA does not have international standards for the "accident nuclear power plant" Fukushima. Lawmaker Wi said, "The IAEA has international standards for normal nuclear power plants, but there are no standards at all for accident nuclear power plants. So, there are no international standards."

Earlier, when Minister Cho was asked by lawmaker Wi about the "procedure to confirm the safety" of the (contaminated water discharge), he replied, "The Korean government is participating in the IAEA verification process, so I think we are currently in the verification process."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Another lawmaker from the same party, Joo Cheol-hyun, raised suspicions about the neutrality of the IAEA. Lawmaker Joo said, "The IAEA is an international organization with special interests with nuclear power plant operators, and Japan is the country that contributes the most funding, and a Japanese national served as the IAEA Secretary-General for 10 years," adding, "If such an IAEA announces that it is okay, does that mean the contaminated water is scientifically safe?"

Minister Cho rebutted, saying, "The IAEA does not apply standards chosen by Japan but applies international safety standards agreed upon by 176 IAEA member countries to verify safety." He added, "For example, the IAEA monitoring task force report evaluating the safety of Fukushima contaminated water was prepared with support from six organizations including the U.S. and Australia, and has nothing to do with the Japanese government."

In response, lawmaker Joo pointed out, "If the IAEA receives direct or indirect support from Japan or Tokyo Electric Power Company, ordinary people generally think it is difficult to guarantee objectivity. Therefore, in such cases, not trusting the IAEA's results is considered scientific."

As questions about the IAEA's neutrality continued, Minister Cho said, "The IAEA is a specialized agency on nuclear energy under the United Nations (UN). Are you simply referring to it as some kind of consortium of nuclear power operators? I have a different opinion on that."

Independent lawmaker Yoon Mi-hyang inquired about the performance of ALPS. Lawmaker Yoon said, "On the 15th, the government explained that Tokyo Electric Power Company had cases where strontium was not removed and stored due to initial malfunctions in ALPS operation, but most of the standard exceedance problems occurred because the adsorbent was not replaced frequently. Since 2019, it has been operating normally." She pointed out, "However, ALPS had problems again in July last year and failed to filter strontium."

When Minister Cho replied, "I was not aware," lawmaker Yoon said, "I think it needs to be identified and rechecked. So, evidence that it cannot be trusted keeps emerging."

Ruling party lawmakers countered that the IAEA verification should be respected. People Power Party lawmaker Choi Chun-sik said, "At the last government questioning session, a lawmaker asked the Foreign Minister, 'Can the IAEA verification be trusted?' I will ask the same question," addressing Minister Cho.

Minister Cho replied, "Regarding IAEA verification, there are controversies about the organization's bias, but currently, researchers from 11 countries participate, and samples are collected and cross-verified by six research institutes," adding, "I think it is the most authoritative verification institution through such a process."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.