Recently, the issue of "Korea-Japan relations," which was triggered by the issue of forced recruitment, has heated up the political circles. Even in the political arena, various words are spilled out. Anti-Japanese sentiment and camp logic are intertwined, and the issue is becoming more complicated. Naturally, there has been a lot of false and distorted information. The SBS Fact-Check team focuses on fact-checking statements related to Japan-Korea relations.


Recently, Rep. Sung Il-jong of the People's Power appeared on a radio program and said, "Even during the Moon Jae-in administration, we have concluded that there is no problem with the device to clean up the contaminated water from Fukushima." Senator Sung is the chairman of the "Protecting Our Oceans Verification Task Force," which was created by the People's Power to deal with the Fukushima contaminated water problem.



Enlarge the image


The ALPS, or polynucleated species removal facility, is a device that filters radioactive substances from contaminated water generated inside nuclear power plants. Japan has claimed that if the contaminated water from Fukushima is filtered into the Alps (ALPS) and radioactive substances such as cesium and strontium are dropped below the threshold, there is no problem with the discharge. In the meantime, the data is periodically disclosed on the Tokyo Electric Power Company's website.

In the end, the key is whether the ALPS in Fukushima can be trusted, and Senator Sung's argument can be read as saying that there is no need to distrust the performance of the ALPS, as the last government has already verified the ALPS and determined that there is no problem.

So, did the last government really verify ALPS? SBS fact-check confirmed by the team.



Enlarge the image


In 2020, when Japan showed signs of releasing contaminated water from Fukushima, the government prepared a report that gathered experts' opinions on the discharge of contaminated water. This is the <Status Report on Contaminated Water from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant> by the Joint Task Force of the relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. At the time, it was classified as confidential and not publicly available. When I heard that the office of Rep. Ahn Byung-gil of the People's Power had secured the document, I requested it myself and received it.

The document contains the results of seven rounds of expert meetings, including ALPS.



Enlarge the image


First of all, there is a part that says, "ALPS is not much different from the method used in general nuclear power plants, so it was not difficult to secure performance." Although there is no detailed evidence, domestic experts analyze that there is no problem as a whole, including the purification treatment function of ALPS, impact assessment, and ocean diffusion. If the context of Senator Sung's claim is 'credibility of ALPS', then this report prepared by the last government can be seen as supporting his claim.



Enlarge the image

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Polynuclear Species Removal Facility (ALPS)


However, the above part is included in the section that summarizes the experts' 'trends' after collecting opinions through expert meetings. In other words, it is difficult to see it as the official position of the government. Senator Sung focuses on the "Moon Jae-in government" and reads as if it is the government's conclusion, but if it is viewed that way, it can be seen as lacking in evidence.

In fact, the report suggests future responses and conveys the nuances that there is still a lot to watch out for.



Enlarge the image


Moreover, in the Japan-Korea director-level consultation held on 12 March of the Fukushima site inspection team, the ALPS issue was the core of the discussion. The South Korean side demanded an inspection of the process before and after the ALPS processing, but it is known that the discussions failed to tie the knot as the Japanese side expressed reluctance. For the Korean government, ALPS verification is at the heart of the issue, and there are still areas to be explored.

In fact, the team judges Rep. Sung's claims as "half true."



Enlarge the image


However, there are still important questions. In fact, whether Senator Sung's claim is right or wrong is just a horsetail catcher, but the key is to determine whether the ALPS of the Fukushima nuclear power plant can really be trusted. This is because it is a matter directly related to the safety of the people. It is no exaggeration to say that the key to this contaminated water discharge problem depends on the reliability of ALPS. It's hard to fact-check definitively, but it's important to have as much information as possible.

SBS Fact Check FactsTeam has been covering ALPS issues on an ongoing basis. Let's start with the history. Japan announced its plan to release contaminated water from Fukushima in April 2021. He said that he would purify the contaminated water with ALPS, but when the reliability was questioned, he said that he would rotate ALPS several times until it was safe to meet the discharge standard.


Dilute the ALPS treated water sufficiently and discharge it into the sea. Prior to the discharge ... purify the radioactive material until it meets the regulatory standards for safety ...
Discharge of the ALPS treated water into the sea is conducted after sufficiently diluting the ALPS treated water. Prior to the discharge, ...... The water is purified until the level of radioactive materials satisfies the regulatory standards for safety ...... - Report by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, April 2021, 4.


In December 2021, TEPCO applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRA), our nuclear commission, for an implementation plan, and in July last year, the NRA approved TEPCO's application.

However, there have been several concerns about how ALPS filters contaminated water. The same was true in Japan. It was pointed out that if there were too many radioactive substances in the contaminated water, it would not be properly filtered even by ALPS. The Japanese retorted that it was okay to take a few samples and turn them to APLS, but it is still difficult to gauge how much radioactive material is in a particular tank. The question is, how can sampling be used to ensure the safety of all contaminated water tanks? Moreover, the fact that the Fukushima nuclear power plant has no precedent as it is an accident nuclear power plant, not an ordinary nuclear power plant, has also raised anxiety.

In fact, in September 12, Japan's Mainichi Shimbun reported that 7% of the contaminated water treated with ALPS was 2020 to 9,100 times the standard value, and 2% exceeded the standard.



Enlarge the image

Mainichi Shimbun, "What the New Government Can Never Remove from Contaminated Water Treatment Sites," September 2020, 9.


Then Japan came up with other measures. It is a method of mixing several contaminated water treated with ALPS, adjusting the concentration to a similar consistency, and then measuring it again and discharging it if it does not exceed the standard value. If there's a concern that there's too much radioactive material in a particular tank that isn't being filtered properly, you can mix it up and reduce the concentration, i.e., 'homogenize' the contaminated water.

In August of last year, construction of a facility for ALPS homogenization began, and in March, the NRA issued a certificate that it had completed a preliminary inspection. Tokyo Electric Power Company immediately issued a press release saying that it would test ALPS.


We will start operating the circulating/stirring equipment tomorrow to uniform the concentration of radioactive material in tank groups and measurement/verification tanks. Subsequently, we will collect and analyze samples to demonstrate that the ALPS treated water meets the release criteria prior to dilution/release.
we will begin operation of circulation/agitation equipment tomorrow in order to make the concentrations of radioactive substances in tank groups and measurement/confirmation tanks homogeneous. Thereafter, we will collect/analyze samples to ensure that the ALPS treated water meets discharge standards prior to dilution/discharge.
- Tokyo Electric Power Company press release, March 2023, 3.


Japan's ALPS processing method is as follows. Part (3) with the blue circle is the key.



Enlarge the image


First, step (1), the contaminated water is treated with ALPS, and step (<>), the treated contaminated water is transferred to another tank. This will start step (<>) in earnest.

In step (<>), the contaminated water treated with ALPS is first brought into the empty tank, followed by a 'rotation' process in which the mixture is carried out using stirring equipment and a circulation pump. It's about homogenizing the jagged contaminated water. The water is then measured to ensure that it meets the release criteria, and if it meets the criteria, it is discharged to the dilution facility via a transfer pump.

Step (<>) is then carried out along the tube to the tank, where the water is mixed and diluted with contaminated water and seawater. As far as is known, tritium in radioactive materials is not filtered by ALPS, so the concentration here is lowered to meet the threshold.

And so (<>) is the sea discharge phase. Marine discharge is a method of releasing it <> km away through an undersea tunnel.



Enlarge the image


In other words, the key to the discharge of contaminated water depends on how well 'homogenization' is achieved.

You can refer to the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for this. Since last year, the IAEA has formed a verification task force with experts from various countries, including South Korea, to investigate the process of treating and discharging contaminated water from Fukushima, and the homogenization part was included in the fourth report published last month.



Enlarge the image

IAEA Verification Team. The verification team included Kim Hong-seok, a researcher at the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety Technology (KINS).


First of all, the IAEA verifier's assessment was 'satisfactory'.

Concentrations were measured in water samples taken at regular intervals at various points in each tank over a period of six days. At the end of this period, the active concentration of radionuclides in samples taken at various points in each tank was also measured. ...... The Task Force was satisfied that the tests proved homogeneous and that the sampling range performed was adequate.
The concentrations of this tracer were measured in water samples collected at multiple points in each tank at regular intervals over a 6-day period. At the end of this time, activity concentrations of radionuclides were also measured in samples collected at multiple points in each tank. ...... The Task Force was content that homogeneity was demonstrated by this test and that the extent of sampling undertaken was adequate.
- IAEA Fourth Report, II.6. Sources and Environmental Monitoring Program, 4 pp.


Of course, just because the IAEA is satisfied doesn't mean it's over. The problem is sustainability. Even if it's safe right now, you need to have technical confidence that these results can be sustained in the future.

Of course, the burden of proof lies with the Japanese government. All countries that operate nuclear power plants, including South Korea, have cleaned up contaminated water, but this is the first case of releasing contaminated water from an accident nuclear power plant. Even if it is distributed over a period of 30 years, it is unprecedented to discharge such a huge amount of contaminated water. This is why Japan needs to be more proactive in disclosing information. What's more, South Korea is its closest neighbor. Even if they are not directly affected by ocean currents, there is no need to dismiss people's anxiety and fear as unscientific. This is because the issue of radiation is a problem that always assumes the worst and should be looked at very conservatively.

It is said that the Japan-South Korea working-level meeting on the Fukushima contaminated water site inspection scheduled for next week will be held this week as well. The point of watching is how much specific information about the Fukushima nuclear power plant ALPS can be obtained. I think it would be good for readers to focus on this as well.


SBS Fact-Check fact-checked Rep. Sung Il-jong's claim that "during the Moon Jae-in administration, experts verified the Fukushima ALPS and concluded that there was no problem." It is true that after checking the documents on which the allegations were based, the experts conveyed their opinion that there was no problem through the meeting. However, the report does not make a separate judgment on the reliability of ALPS, and it is only a report on expert trends, not the judgment of the government. In fact, the team judges Rep. Sung's claims as "half true."


(Writer: Kim Hyo-jin, Interns: Yeom Jeong-in, Yeo Keun-ho) ► Fact-checking focusing on Korea-Japan relations (14)

: [Actually] Why the claim that "only Korea apologizes is evil" is a delusion ► Fact-checking focusing on Korea-Japan relations (<>): [
Actually] "Japan has already apologized dozens of times"... Points
to consider ► Focusing on Japan-Korea Relations Fact-checking (<>): [Actually] "Japan's apology for past history" After analyzing the whole number... The wheel of 'apologies' and 'remarks'
► Fact-checking focusing on Korea-Japan relations (<>): [Actually] Lee Jae-myung's "sub-director's budget has been slashed drastically", I looked at it...
► Fact-checking focusing on Japan-Korea relations (<>): [Facts] Japan's claim that "South Korea is also releasing radioactively contaminated water"
► Fact-checking focusing on Japan-Korea relations (<>): [Facts] "<> times higher than the standard value of Fukushima"... How much exposure?
► Fact-checking on Japan-Korea Relations (<>): [Actually] Democrats vs. Democrats over the same report, who is right?
► Fact-checking focusing on Japan-Korea relations (<>): [Actually] Fukushima is imported from Japan and sold domestically?
► Fact-checking focusing on Japan-Korea relations (<>): [Actually] is it true that the "method of distinguishing between domestic and Japanese crabs" is correct?
► Fact-checking on Japan-South Korea relations (<>): [Actually] President Yoon's 'Japan's knee' remark, asked The Washington Post
directly