Radiation Barrels are Presented to Iraqi Administration in Iraq

Greenpeace activists today brought the head of the US civil administration in Iraq, Paul Bremer, a container of radioactive uranium 'yellowcake', found abandoned in the community outside the Tuwaitha nuclear facility. Greenpeace are urging Mr Bremner to allow the return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out a full survey and decontamination of Iraq.

Activists brought the 'yellowcake' to the Office of Rehabilitation and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) - now located in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces in Baghdad - and challenged Mr Bremer to accept responsibility for it and for the rest of the radioactive material that is contaminating the environment and threatening public health.

The US Administration insists there is no danger or health risk to the villagers, despite evidence of widespread radioactive contamination in the area, after the facility was left unsecured at the end of the war and was subsequently looted.

"The radioactive material we have brought to Paul Bremer is just a fraction of what the people of Tuwaitha have had to live with for months," said Mike Townsley of Greenpeace. "Bremer is responsible for public health in Iraq, he must immediately step aside and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to do its job."

The US Administration allowed the IAEA into Tuwaitha last month, but only to make an inventory of uranium inside part of the nuclear facility, not in the surrounding communities. They were refused permission to inventory any of the 400 highly radioactive sources known to have been at Tuwaitha before the conflict.

Greenpeace has been surveying the villages around Tuwaitha for the past three weeks and has found frightening levels of radioactivity including:

• A huge uranium 'yellowcake' mixing canister with about 4-5 kilos of powder still inside, left open and abandoned on a field near a village
• Radioactivity in a series of houses, including one source measuring 10,000 times above normal
• Another source outside a 900 pupil primary school measuring 3,000 times above normal
• Locals who are still storing radioactive barrels and lids in their house
• Another smaller radioactive source abandoned in a nearby field
• Consistent and repeated stories of unusual sickness after coming into contact with material from the Tuwaitha plant
• Numerous objects, carrying radioactive symbols, discarded in the community

None of this nuclear material is prohibited by UN resolutions or is usable for nuclear weapons.

"This community is suffering a nuclear disaster that would be tolerated nowhere else in the world," said Townsley. "Even the US military's own radiation expert in Iraq agrees that a major decontamination and health screening programme is urgently needed (1) as does the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (2). The 'yellowcake' sample we have given Bremer today is safely contained - but who knows how much is still left unsecured and unsafe in the community," he said.

Notes to Editors:

(1) "I would recommend the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation get involved and do an assessment. They've got involved in other instances like in Brazil where sources have ended up being distributed in the community and they actually assessed the risks from that. The faster it happens the better." Lt. Col Mark Melanson - radiation expert and head of the US Military Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine unit in Iraq, interviewed by Greenpeace, 24th June 2003

(2) "To deal with this crisis and to solve this problem and pass through this mess we need all the help from the United States as the occupying force, and the international organisations like the IAEA and the WHO. If these efforts are united that will solve the problem as quickly as we hope." Dr Emad Aldin, Health Physicist, Iraq Atomic Energy Commission, interviewed by Greenpeace July 1st 2003

Two members of the Greenpeace team are maintaining a weblog diary of their mission to Iraq. You can review a history of the expedition to date and monitor live developments at: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/iraq

For more information, please contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255

Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant

An international meeting of Environment Ministers ended today with the UK being forced to accept, in writing, the concerns of European countries over radioactive discharges into the North Seas (1) from the Sellafield nuclear installation in Cumbria.

London had previously successfully resisted attempts to record criticism of the UK's failure to meet its commitments to reduce radioactive discharges at the OSPAR conference (2,3). Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden were particularly critical of the UK's role.

The discharge of Technetium 99 in particular was the subject of intense negotiation at the meeting. In the last week - after six months of prevarication - the UK Environment Minister Margaret Beckett was pressured into writing to BNFL to ask the company for a 9 month moratorium on technetium 99 discharges. It is expected that research and development will take place over the next 9 months to see if technology to stop the discharges is feasible by March 2004.

"This decision may come back to haunt the UK", said Greenpeace's Jean McSorley at the OSPAR Conference. "The UK Government will be dreading March 2004. They either have to ensure the technology is in place or announce a resumption of the radioactive technetium discharges."

"The UK only moved on this issue because a coalition of countries led by Norway and Ireland, refused to allow Britain to go unchallenged," said McSorley. "The lack of progress in reducing discharges, due to the intransigence of the UK and, to a lesser extent, France", meant that this OSPAR meeting was not able to celebrate significant reduction in radioactive discharges to European waters," he said.

Greenpeace welcomed the adoption of guidelines on offshore wind farm development which will facilitate and encourage the development of clean renewable energy.

For more information please contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8115.

Notes:

(1) The North Sea and NE Atlantic.

(2) OSPAR Convention deals with marine pollution of the North East Atlantic and North Sea. Member states are: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the European Commission.

(3) Five years ago in Portugal OSPAR Ministers agreed to "work towards achieving further substantial reductions of discharges, by the year 2000" and to "progressive and substantial reductions in radioactive discharges to achieve by the year 2020 close to zero concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels". The discharges from Sellafield have increased since 1998 and are set to double in the coming years. Technetium has a radioactive half-life of 210,000 years.

Aerial map of Sellafield

The UK Government must impose a moratorium on the discharges of the radioactive chemical Technetium-99 (Tc-99) from Sellafield now, and not leave us to the mercy of British Nuclear Fuels' (BNFL) research programme.

The UK Government's decision (1) yesterday to consult on proposals to consider whether a moratorium on the discharge of Tc-99 from the Sellafield site is feasible whilst research on abatement technology is carried out, is too little, too late, according to Greenpeace.

"The Government must impose its moratorium now, rather than waiting for yet more consultation. BNFL has had plenty of time to investigate abatement technology, but it has clearly been dragging its feet. This decision will let them continue to do so," said Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, Pete Roche.

The Environment Agency told BNFL over 14 months ago, just before the company announced it was bankrupt, to get on with their research. Yet the Agency was forced to allow the Sellafield operator to release around a third of its annual limit for Tc-99 over September and October, because the company had failed to provide any new information about abatement techniques (2).

The real solution to end Sellafield's radioactive discharges is to end reprocessing. This polluting process is completely pointless. And yet this Government decision postpones, yet again, any review of reprocessing and the justification for continuing with it.

The bulk of the Tc-99 discharges come from the Magnox reprocessing plant on the Sellafield site. In fact this plant is responsible for up to 80% of Sellafield's radioactive pollution. This plant is scheduled for closure at the end of 2012, once it has reprocessed all of the spent fuel from Britain's loss-making Magnox reactors - the last of which is scheduled to close in 2010.

"The quickest way to reduce Sellafield's discharges would be to shut BNFL's ageing and loss-making Magnox reactors now, with the reprocessing plant following close behind. We have promised our European neighbours that we will make progressive and substantial reductions in radioactive discharges with the aim of achieving close to zero concentrations in the environment by 2020 (3). The Government's strategy is not going to achieve that - in fact Sellafield's discharges are quite likely to go up over the next few years," said Roche (4).

Notes for editors:

1. The UK's decision document and Press Release are available at www.defra.gov.uk
2. A recent environment agency briefing on Tc-99 said "BNFL applied to the regulators to carry out a trial using TPP on the forthcoming MAC campaign. TPP is a chemical offering a potential means of removing some Tc-99 from the MAC when it is treated and transferring it into solid waste. The Agency's proposed decision of Sep 2001 made clear the problems associated with the use of TPP as a potential 'quick fix' to reduce Tc-99 discharge and required BNFL to carry out a programme of work to try to address those problems. The regulators (HSE and the Agency) reviewed the submission and considered that a TPP trial in August/September would be premature, in view of the potential to cause substantial waste management challenges in the future and because of the lack of knowledge about the toxicity of TPP in the environment. To date BNFL has not provided any new information that would persuade the regulators to change their position held at the time the decision document was published - therefore the current MAC campaign is to be treated as per routine".
3. At the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the north-east Atlantic Ministerial Meeting, held in Sintra, Portugal, in 1998, Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott agreed to a "Strategy with Regard to Radioactive Substances". The Objective of the Strategy is:
   "to prevent pollution of the maritime area from ionising radiation through progressive and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim of concentrations in the environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances".
   
   The same meeting also noted "concerns expressed by a number of Contracting Parties about recent increases in technetium discharges UK Ministers have indicated that such concerns will be addressed in their forthcoming decisions "
4. Because BNFL intends to increase the throughput in both its reprocessing plant, the actual levels of radioactive discharge going into the Irish Sea could almost double, compared with 1998, up to 2006, even if proposals to reduce BNFL's maximum permitted legal limits are agreed by the Government. Greenpeace International's submission to the OSPAR Ad Hoc Working Group on Radioactive Substances deals with this issue in detail and is available on request.

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace UK press office 020 7865 8255

Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant

Greenpeace said today that the Government's new strategy to reduce radioactive discharges into the sea was not good enough to protect human health or the marine environment. In 1998 the UK signed up to the OSPAR Agreement, for the substantial reduction of radioactive discharges into the sea and in doing so claimed it was no longer the 'dirty man of Europe'.

Greenpeace says the new strategy fails OSPAR and the environment for three reasons:

1. The UK continues to reprocess nuclear waste at Sellafield and produce radioactive discharges despite there being a viable alternative to reprocessing. OSPAR states called on the UK to immediately evaluate the non-reprocessing option in 2000, but both the UK and France refused (1)

2. The UK continues to keep BNFL's ageing and polluting Magnox power stations open. Radioactive discharges could be reduced much sooner if the UK were to close these stations now. (2)

3. UK Government has failed to mention in its strategy that it has left the door wide open to the building of more nuclear power stations in the UK, this will increase discharges. (3)

Greenpeace campaigner Simon Reddy said,

"This strategy shows that the UK is not acting in the spirit of the OSPAR convention but is actually undermining the agreement. For the Government and the nuclear industry it is simply business as usual."

"A proper strategy to clean up our seas would mean the immediate phase-out of polluting nuclear plants and not slavishly following BNFL's own leisurely timetable. If we want to shake off our dirty man of Europe tag we need to stop reprocessing nuclear waste at Sellafield now, close down existing nuclear power stations and abandon all plans to build new ones."

Notes to editors:
(1) At OSPAR 2000 a decision was passed calling on all OSPAR states to "implement the non-reprocessing option (for example dry storage) for spent nuclear fuel management at appropriate facilities". The appropriate facilities are the reprocessing plants of Sellafield in the UK and Le Hague in France. Both France and the UK abstained on this vote, all other OSPAR states voted in favour. The Decision was passed by a three quarter majority.

(2) The UK's ageing Magnox reactors are the most polluting of all its reactors. Closing these down now would greatly reduce the UK's discharges to the environment. Furthermore they are uneconomic.

(3) There are proposals to build up to 10 nuclear power stations. BNFL has said in its evidence to the Government Energy Review: "[I] If the current draft regulatory guidelines which give primacy to the progressive reduction in radioactive discharges are pursued, this would make any proposal for new or replacement nuclear generating capacity in the UK unsustainable" http://www.piu.gov.uk/2001/energy/submissions/BNFL.pdf page 28] A recent leaked Government report shows that the UK Government is seeking to undermine OSPAR in order to ensure new nuclear power stations are built.