AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 5: DRAFT OBJECTIVE WITH REGARD TO RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES: EXPOSURE Vs CONCENTRATION, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE AIM OF RADIATION EXPOSURES NEAR BACKGROUND VALUES . Submitted by Greenpeace International to the Meeting of the Heads of Delegation of the Oslo and Paris Commissions, London 11-13 May, 1998 Introduction: 1. Greenpeace International's support for the Draft OSPAR Objective proposed jointly by the delegations from Denmark, Belgium, Iceland, Norway and Iceland is well known. Greenpeace International has consistently argued that the proposal to: continuously reduce 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 radioactiv e substances is practicable, realistic and in line with the recognised "need to reduce radioactive discharges from nuclear installations" (Part III, Priorities and Objectives for Future Work, 1992 Final Ministerial Declaration of the Oslo and Paris Commissions) . 2. The alternative proposal, which has as its ultimate aim "radiation exposure" in the environment near background values is, in contrast, inconsistent with the 1992 Final Ministerial Declaration, as well as the legal obligation contained in Article 2.1(a ) of the OSPAR Convention to: take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and [to] take the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems […] 3. The aim of "radiation exposure" near background levels will not result in any decrease in the current level of discharges and emissions, nor protect the marine environment of the North East Atlantic. If OSPAR adopts this Objective, it will be ad opting an approach that is weaker and more permissive than the existing OSPAR legal obligations. It will also have failed to address the failure of existing regulations to protect the environment and human health. ALL OSPAR COUNTRIES ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO LIMIT RADIATION EXPOSURE TO BELOW BACKGROUND LEVELS: 4. The principles of radiological protection recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) are incorporated in the national laws of all OSPAR member States. They are also incorporated in EU law (Basic Safe ty Standards for Radiological Protection promulgated under Chapter III of the EURATOM Treaty). 10. Both the ICRP Recommendations and the EURATOM Basic Safety Standards require a three-stage hierarchical approach to radiological protection. The hierarchical nature of the process is important, because only if the requireme nts of the first stage are met can one proceed to Stage Two and so on. The approach can be summarised as: I. Justification: no practice giving rise to radiation exposure shall be permitted unless a net benefit is demonstrated; II. ALARA: all doses shall be kept to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA); and III. The dose limits shall not be exceeded. 11. For comparison with dose limits, the radiation exposure of members of the public expected to receive the highest radiation doses (the critical group) is calculated. These radiation exposures allow individual doses to be calculated that a re then compared with the dose limits. These dose limits may be lower than the doses people receive from natural background radiation, because the existence of natural background radiation does not justify additional exposures and expected cancers. 12. The ICRP states, "It is important that the basic principles should be treated as a coherent system. No one part should be taken in isolation. In particular, mere compliance with the dose limits is not a sufficient demonstration of satisfactory performance." 13. If OSPAR adopts as its Objective an aim of radiation exposures near background levels it will imply that meeting existing dose limits alone is adequate to protect human health and the marine environment. OSPAR would then be adopting a measure that is far weaker than the existing OSPAR legal obligations. As Greenpeace International has already noted (OSPAR 97/4/NGO.1) this would allow the dominant source of radioactive releases into the environment - reprocessing discharges and emissions - to continue unabated and even to increase. CALCULATING RADIATION EXPOSURES HAS FAILED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH: 14. The calculation of radiation exposures is a form of risk assessment for radioactive substances. Calculation of radiation exposures (and hence doses and risks) already takes place before discharges of radioactive substances are authorised from t he nuclear reprocessing plants at La Hague, Sellafield and Dounreay. The risks to the most exposed group of people - the critical group - are calculated using computer models, and provided these are below the dose limits human health and the health of other species are assumed to be protected. 15. However, this risk assessment approach has failed to protect human health and the environment, because the pathways for radioactive substances in the environment are poorly understood. Many radioactive substances are persistent and/or bioaccumulative, and can therefore build up in the environment in unexpected ways and cause long-term, irreversible damage. Because there is no safe dose of radiation, radioactive substances also give rise to collective doses whe n released into the environment, which may be high even when individual radiation exposures are low. 16. There is considerable evidence that pathways for radioactive substances in the environment are poorly predictable. A paper by health physicist Dr David Sumner is attached1, which considers the implications for human health of the recent discovery of highly radioactive pigeons near the Sellafield reprocessing plant. Some of the pigeons are so radioactive that they are classified as Low Level radioactive waste. Yet this pathway for radioactive substances from Sellafield into the environment was only recently, accidentally, discovered. Dr Sumner concludes that the concept of the critical group (those people most exposed to radiation) is "fatally flawed". The potential transfer of radioactivity to humans via the pigeons is just one example of how an unknown pathway can exist and not be discovered for many years. The existence of unknown pathways means it is not possible to ensure the critical group of people is identified either now or in the long-term future. Thus hu man health is not adequately protected by the current risk assessment system. 17. Dr Sumner also concludes that other species may be put at risk by the current risk assessment system. The doses received by the pigeons themselves are likely to be very high and other birds, mammals and insects have yet to be tested. 18. This is just one example of the failure of the risk assessment approach, which also extends to the marine environment. Greenpeace International has repeatedly drawn the attention of OSPAR to the high levels of technetium-99 (Tc-99) in lobsters in the Irish Sea. New evidence is attached2 which shows that levels of technetium-99 in lobsters continued to rise in 1997 to levels of up to 52,000 Bq/kg, despite a cut in the rate of release of these wastes to sea. BNFL, whic h owns the Sellafield reprocessing facilities, plans to continue to discharge all its technetium-99 wastes at the 1997 rate3. Despite the failure of its earlier risk assessment it assumes that the levels of contamination that w ill result from this release rate will now be acceptable. 19. Other examples of the failure of risk assessment for radioactive substances include the discovery of a new ocean circulation in the Irish Sea. A recent paper revealed the existence of a previously undiscovered gyre (ocean circulation) in the we stern Irish Sea4. The authors comment that the discovery of the gyre now provides a clear physical mechanism for a pathway for radionuclides from Sellafield to Irish coastal waters. They also note that both pollutants and plank ton can be trapped in this circulation during the summer months. This means that a spawning ground for cod, haddock, sprat, whiting and the Norway lobster (Nephrops) may be exposed to higher levels of contamination than previously predicted. Again the con cept of dilution and dispersion has been demonstrated to be over-simplistic, and the understanding of the physical environment too limited to make credible predictions. One implication is that calculations of radiation exposures made at the time of the 1993 authorisation of discharges from Sellafield, were based on a false understanding of the circulation of the Irish Sea. In reality, contaminants can build-up in parts of the environment in unpredictable ways. 20. Greenpeace International has already presented extensive evidence of radioactive pollution in the surroundings of the nuclear waste discharge pipe at La Hague (OSPAR 97/4/NGO.2). Bans on fishing were imposed last year near both La Hague and Dounreay' s discharge pipes. If calculation of radiation exposure were sufficient to protect the marine environment, such bans would not have been necessary. CONCLUSIONS: If OSPAR adopts as its Objective an aim of radiation exposure near to background levels, it will have failed to address the inadequacies of the current system of radiological principles. Such an Objective would be inconsistent with OSPAR's existing commitments and legal obligations. It would also mean that you are more permissive than the existing OSPAR legal obligations ! 22. This would lay OSPAR open to the charge that it had done nothing to protect the marine environment from the continuing discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances caused by nuclear reprocessing. Notes: 1 Sumner, D., 'Radioactive Pigeons at Seascale: findings and implications', prepared for Greenpeace International, April 1998. 2 Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (1998), Technetium-99 - BNFL discharges to the Irish Sea. A CORE research paper, March 1998. 3 Environment Agency (1998), Explanatory Memorandum to Accompany the Draft Variation to the Certificate of Authorisation for the Disposal of Low Level Liquid Wastes from the Premises of British Nuclear Fuels PLC at Sellafield. 4 Hill, A.E., Brown, J., Fernand, L. (1997), The Summer Gyre in the Western Irish Sea: Shelf Sea Paradigms and Management Implications, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 44 (Supplement A), 83-95.