Greenpeace Says IAEA Downplayed Damage at Chernobyl by Russian Troops

Greenpeace has accused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of downplaying the damage caused at Chernobyl, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The environmental organization conducted a survey of Chernobyl—the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in history— following Russian occupation of the area to check what it said was "very limited data" from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), concerning increased radiation levels.

Russian forces seized the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on the first day of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. By March, about 600 Russian soldiers were deployed there, according to Greenpeace.

Following its occupation, Ukraine said that radiation levels in the area had increased. According to reports from February, workers at the site said they had recorded an increase in radiation after Russian soldiers drove their vehicles through a highly toxic zones and disturbed soil in the area with military operations.

Russian troops left the area at the end of March. The IAEA then issued a statement, saying that while radiation levels had slightly risen, they were "significantly below" the authorized levels for workers in the environment.

Speaking at a press conference on April 28, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the IAEA director general, said: "Of course, there was an increase in the levels but the situation is not one that could be judged as posing a great danger to the environment at the moment we were taking the measures."

Greenpeace has said that this information was insufficient.

Greenpeace carried out a limited survey the exclusion zone of Chernobyl. The survey was limited due to Russian landmines remaining in place for most of the zone, the organization said in a press release.

The organization said in a statement that radiation levels were "at least" three times higher than the IAEA's estimates.

Greenpeace also said it was concerned that the IAEA had been "severely compromised" in its role on nuclear safety and the security of Ukraine due to its ties to Russia's nuclear state agency, ROSATOM. According to Greenpeace, its current IAEA Deputy Director Mikhail Chudakov, is "a long term ROSATOM official."

The IAEA told Newsweek it was aware of Greenpeace's statement and that it was "not familiar with its measurement activities."

"Already in late April, a few weeks after Russian forces withdrew from the site, IAEA experts went there and conducted independent, objective and scientific radiation measurements," a spokesperson told Newsweek in an email. "Based on these measurements, the IAEA assessed that the radiation levels there did not pose a hazard to the public. They, of course, are not normal background levels you will find across the world, which is why it is still an Exclusion Zone. The IAEA stands by its assessments which are conducted in a technically sound and impartial way, in line with its mandate [...] radiation levels in the Exclusion Zone would typically vary depending on where the measurements are carried out."

Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, told Newsweek that Greenpeace investigated the same former Russian trench that the IAEA did, with "more equipment, more time," and found radiation levels three times higher.

"But actually the bigger issue is the complexity of the wider exclusion zone site and the locations of other Russian forces identified in our report," Burnie said.

Greenpeace used a drone to measure the radiation in these other locations.

One Russian camp had levels measuring 200 to 500 CPS (counts per second). In another area, where Greenpeace identified three Russian soldiers, levels were at 8,000 CPS.

To put the counts per second into context, the Radiation Network considers a radiation level of about 1.7 CPS a warning level. Chernobyl however has always had elevated radiation levels due to the 1986 nuclear disaster.

"The IAEA appeared to be not interested in a deeper understanding of the radiation levels," Burnie said.

Greenpeace said it also found out from Ukrainian scientists based at the site, that Russian military operations interfered with "essential laboratories, databases and radiation monitoring systems" that occur within the exclusion zone.

The organization said this interference could cause "severe damage" to the "unique scientific infrastructure developed" to study the highly contaminated environment.

At one Russian camp, radiation levels are usually 0.18 microSieverts per hour (µSv/h). Greenpeace said in a press release that levels were now 2.5µSv/h, at a height of 10cm. A sievert is a unit used to measure the health effect of radiation doses on the human body. A lethal dose of sieverts received over a short period of time is around 4 to 5.

At a junction 546 yards from the former Russian road block next to the Red Forest, which surrounds the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the dose rate was 7.7µSv/h. Greenpeace said this was "so much higher than that measured by the IAEA."

This could have been caused by Russian troops disturbing soil layers, the organization said.

Burnie told Newsweek that internal exposure was also not mentioned by the IAEA.

"That is the main hazard—radioactive particles, fuel fragments in the soil disturbed by Russian forces—ingestion, inhalation and direct exposure in the blood stream all very serious issues," Burnie said.

He added that so far there has been "silence from the IAEA."

"Understanding the complex radiation effects at [Chernobyl] is essential for the world and that means conducting research and working with international scientists. All of that has been put at risk by Russia's war against Ukraine," Burnie said in a press release. "Scientists and workers conducting essential radiation hazard monitoring are now threatened by an unknown number of Russian landmines and anti-personnel explosives. This is one further outrageous legacy of Russia's illegal war and is a crime against the environment and global science. The IAEA appears reluctant to explain the scale of the radiation hazards at [Chernobyl] and the impact of the Russian occupation."

Update 7/22/22, 4:00 a.m. ET: This article has been updated to include comment from the IAEA.