BRITAIN is facing international wrath for abandoning a plan to curb
discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea from its Sellafield nuclear
complex. The Environment Agency scrapped the clean-up after a warning from
British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) that half of Britain鈥檚 nuclear power stations would
have to close if it went ahead.
Other European countries are pressing Britain to stop discharging
technetium-99, which has a half-life of over 200,000 years. The toxic isotope is
produced by the reprocessing of spent fuel from the first generation of
Britain鈥檚 Magnox reactors. To clear a backlog of the waste, Sellafield has
increased the amount of technetium it pumps into the Irish Sea by 20-fold since
1993 (see graph).
The Environment Agency originally wanted to reduce the annual limit for
technetium-99 discharges from 90 down to 10 terabecquerels next year. But last
week it issued a consultation document which revealed that now its 鈥減referred
option鈥� was to wait until 2006.
Advertisement
Nordic countries and Ireland, whose shellfish and seaweed are contaminated
with Sellafield鈥檚 technetium, argue that the delay will breach Britain鈥檚 promise
to reduce concentrations of radioactivity in the sea to 鈥渃lose to zero鈥� under an
international agreement on marine pollution known as OSPAR.
鈥淚 would be very concerned about any proposal to maintain technetium-99
discharges at existing levels,鈥� the Irish government鈥檚 minister responsible for
nuclear safety, Joe Jacob, told 快猫短视频.
The Environment Agency dropped its original plan after BNFL claimed the
reduction would damage its business. In a submission to the British government,
BNFL warned that an immediate reduction in technetium discharges could force the
premature closure of the seven Magnox reactors still in operation and the
rundown of the Magnox reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
This would be expensive and would threaten the government鈥檚 commitment to
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the
state-owned company claimed. The strategy was 鈥渇undamentally flawed鈥� and
refusing to alter it would be 鈥渦nreasonable and irrational鈥�, BNFL said.
The company has, however, agreed to reduce discharges by the 2006 deadline
鈥渟ubject to the achievement of a technically viable abatement process鈥� which is
acceptable to both regulators and the British government.
The Environment Agency is denying it has backed down because of pressure from
BNFL, saying that it had 鈥渃ome to a considered view鈥� after examining all the
pros and cons. The agency has also asked BNFL to develop new technologies for
treating technetium so that it can be stored on land. If BNFL succeeds, the 2006
deadline will be brought forward. 鈥淲e鈥檙e robust in our approach to this,鈥� says
Ian Parker, the agency鈥檚 senior nuclear regulator.
Helen Wallace, a senior scientist from the environmental group Greenpeace,
rejects this claim. 鈥淭he Environment Agency is backtracking under pressure,鈥� she
says. 鈥淭he only effective way to stop the discharges is to end nuclear
reprocessing and treat existing wastes so they can be stored on land.鈥�