FACTS ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE

TYPES OF WASTE

 

Australia produces two types of radioactive waste, low level radioactive waste and intermediate level radioactive waste. The national repository project will establish a national, near-surface repository for the disposal of low level radioactive waste. The national store project will establish an above-ground, secure facility for the storage of intermediate level waste prior to deep geological disposal.

 

The national repository project site was going to be at a site near Woomera in South Australia, but the federal government abandoned this plan in the middle of 2004.

( The federal government abandoned there plans for co location of both dumps at a site near Woomera in mid 2004, after sustained community opposition and a decision by the federal court that reversed the decision by the federal government to compulsorly seize the land under the provisions of the land acquisition act 1989. It also appeared likely that such was the size of opposition the the dump near Woomera that the government may have lost a few marginal seats in South Australia over just this.)

 

In the Australian newspaper on January 25 CANBERRA announced it will push ahead with plans to build a nuclear dump offshore, with the federal Government yesterday refusing to rule out the bankrupt Pacific island state of Nauru as a potential site.

Science Minister Brendan Nelson admitted the Government would also pick a back-up remote onshore location in case the island option failed.

An announcement on both locations was expected within months.

Dr Nelson said the US agreement to accept spent nuclear fuel from Lucas
Heights until 2016 did not eliminate the need for a long-term dump for
Australian intermediate and low-level radioactive waste. ( About 800 spent nuclear fuel rods will be shipped from NSW to South Carolina in four loads before 2019 under a deal negotiated by the Australian government witht Washington. )

"We're currently examining an offshore facility," he said. "We're also going to make sure we look at an onshore facility in a remote location because if, for some unexpected reason, the offshore location we choose is not suitable for storage then it's very important we already have developed concurrently a proposal for a secure onshore site."

The national store project site selection is unknown. In an article in The Herald Sun Exclusive by IAN HABERFIELD, State political reporter

  27jul03

A HIGH-LEVEL radioactive waste dump may be built within 100km of Melbourne .

  It is understood the Federal Government is investigating sites for a high-level nuclear waste bunker.   Sites identified so far are within 100km of the cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane .   The Federal Government has refused to release details of its plans, but Government sources say the short list is being drawn up by the Department of Education, Science and Training.

  Unlike the now abandoned low-level dump at Woomera in South Australia ,the new facility has to be near a major population centre for staffing and security reasons, sources said.   It would include a concrete bunker, capable of containing thousands of cubic metres of radioactive waste.

 

AMOUNT OF WASTE

 

Australia already has enough radioactive waste to fill 130 semi trailer truckloads. This waste is kept at the current HIFAR (High Flux Australian Research Reactor) in Lucas Heights and other places (such as medical centres) across the country. The existing reactor is a 10 megawatt reactor. whereas the RRR (Replacement Research Reactor) is a 20 megawatt reactor. However due to differences in configuration the new reactor will produce 4 times the amount of waste of the present facility. Thus if the replacement reactor is made operational the amount of waste transported across the country will increase dramatically.

 

 

NUCLEAR DUMP NO SOLUTION

An existing nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, south of the Sydney CBD and built to manufacture plutonium for an Australian nuclear weapons program in the 1950's will, if common sense does not prevail, be replaced by a larger reactor currently under construction (in what is now a residential suburb and on a fault line). Falsely claimed to be necessary for nuclear medicine, it will generate both low and high level nuclear waste for at least 40 years.

The construction and operating licenses for the reactor require a waste disposal solution. A “solution” for nuclear waste does not exist.

Background

In 1998 the federal Liberal/National government announced its intention to build a national nuclear waste dump near Woomera in South Australia.

With the abandonment of the Woomera dump plans the government is pursuing a two pronged strategy. They are looking for alternative sites for the dump, and arguing that the reactor can procede even without a full off site nuclear waste management plan.

A licensing process by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is underway for the new reactor and is currently taking public submissions till the end of March 2005..

ARPANSA is far from being the independent regulatory body it was established to be. Several employees are ex-staff of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), operators of the High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) and Replacement Research Reactor (RRR) at Lucas Heights, for which the waste dump is required. ARPANSA is expected to grant licences to build and operate the dump, as well as the RRR operating licence.

The dump plan can and will be defeated.

Rationale

The federal government is pushing ahead with plans for nuclear waste dumps primarily to satisfy the reactor license requirement for a waste solution, and secondly to get waste out of the facilities where it is currently being stored. They say our nation needs a nuclear waste dump to meet the dire needs of nuclear medicine3.

Not only is this untrue but it simply doesn't justify a national waste dump, let alone remote shallow burial.

Nuclear medicine facilities around Australia and the Lucas Heights reactor currently have a significant backlog of nuclear waste. In fact, the Lucas Heights facility produces many times more radioisotopes than we need for nuclear medicine. ANSTO also holds “historical waste” from the activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (the AAEC, predecessor to ANSTO), next to none of which would have been attributable to nuclear medicine.4

A dump plan is an ‘out of sight - out of mind' approach to the problem and creates not only a dangerous precedent for future high level waste dumps but also for the momentum of Australia's nuclear industry in general. Federal Science Minister Peter McGauran has even admitted that the RRR will use up to 5.5 times more uranium than the current HIFAR.5

The answer lies in waste minimization, indeed prevention, and storing existing waste in the least hazardous manner. Existing particle accelerator technologies are viable alternatives to nuclear medicine that don't create nuclear waste.

The real reason, the stated “National Interest”, lies with the knowledge that having a reactor gives this country and our seat on the International Atomic Energy Commission6. It gives us the infrastructure and skills for our own nuclear power stations. It also gives us the knowledge to make our own nuclear weapons.

The peaceful use of nuclear technologies can be seen to be a lie. It ultimately has military applications. Nuclear power, itself, is a by-product of the weapons industry7. The work at Lucas Heights, including dual use civilian military Silex8 technology, is an example of this.

Unnecessary

Radioactive waste is best managed at the site of production in properly secured and monitored above-ground facilities:

  1. thus avoiding the risks associated with transportation
  2. encouraging waste producers to minimise waste production and
  3. because the dump would only take waste every 2-5 years, meaning waste producers would need proper on-site facilities even if the dump went ahead. Once they have adequate facilities, the rationale for a dump is negated.

The federal government's answer to point iii) is to claim a waste backlog “problem”. According to the government9, just 20 cubic metres of low and short-lived intermediate-level waste destined for the dump have been generated in South Australia. Elsewhere the government says this material is stored at 130 sites. So on average, institutions have a backlog of just one-sixth to one-seventh of a cubic metre - about a suitcase full - no real problem at all. The truth is that 2010m3 (54%) of the national volume of waste is from CSIRO soil stored at Woomera10.

The government argues that it is problematic to have many different institutions managing radioactive waste, but many different institutions will be managing waste whether or not the dump goes ahead, because they continue to produce it. If they can't manage the waste they shouldn't be dealing with radioactive materials in the first place - especially since radioactive decay ensures that (some) waste is less hazardous than the radioactive materials which give rise to it.

The government has grudgingly acknowledged the obvious point that manywaste stores will still be waste stores even if the dump goes ahead, because of ongoing production, which begs the question: what is the federal government doing to ensure proper licensing, regulation, monitoring etc. of state/territory waste stores?

The answer is: nothing, absolutely nothing. Lots of scare-mongering about “unsafe” or “temporary” stores, but no action whatsoever to remedy unsatisfactory stores. Thus, the government's claim to be acting on public health and environmental grounds must be rejected. Moreover, the management of Commonwealth storage sites has left much to be desired, e.g. several spent nuclear fuel accidents (and cover-ups) at Lucas Heights in recent years11.

Public Health and Environmental Risks

  • There is a significant risk that the an offshore site could be washed away by a Tsunami ot global warming..
  • Nauru and Australia are both signatories to an international convention banning the dumping of toxic wastes on isolated small islands.chosen dump site in SA . There is a significant risk of waste leakage into the ocean.
  • risk assessments have ignored the risk of a low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste dump paving the way for higher-level wastes.
  • the government estimates a 23% chance of one truck accident while moving the current national waste inventory to (with many more movements and thus additional risks in subsequent years and decades). Recently a truck carrying toxic pesticide waste in NSW overturned on one of the proposed waste transport routes, killing the driver and spilling the load.

There is a significant chance of accident here.

  • scientific uncertainties regarding radiation/health debates, e.g. European Committee on Radiation Risk recent recommendation for a 10-fold reduction in the total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from anthropogenic sources (from 1.0 milli Sieverts to 0.1mSv annually)
  • various other scientific uncertainties, e.g. studies from Los Alamos and Nevada have revealed much faster radionuclide migration than previously believed.

The Big Picture

  • the 'low-level' waste dump could be followed by a store for long-lived intermediate-level wastes (LLILW) including wastes arising from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods from reactors at Lucas Heights. This ‘co-location' was the government's ‘first siting option' until 2001. Twice in 2002 the Federal Minister for Science refused to rule out co-location.
  • The Federal Minister for Science is currently sitting on a short list of sites for a store for higher level wastes, likely to be located near a major population centre in NSW or Vic. But is this a serious plan or are they trying to scare the public into accepting co-location of this waste at Woomera?
  • the government's agenda is to shift waste from ANSTO's nuclear facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney to reduce public opposition to a new reactor. In fact, 1320 m3 of the national 3700m3 destined for Woomera will come from ANSTO13. So the government's agenda is not to safely manage existing waste, but to facilitate the production of far more.
  • reactor approvals (past and future) are contingent on getting the waste off-site.
  • using the upper estimates (2x2500=5000 m3), dismantled nuclear reactor components (which form part of ANSTO's waste) will comprise a greater volume than the entire current national inventory (3700 m3).
  • the government's claim that most of the waste is a by-product of nuclear medicine is false. As mentioned earlier, 2010m3 (54%) of the national volume of waste is from CSIRO soil stored at Woomera. The remainder would be from state stores, defence waste (210m3) and, of ANSTO's, approximately 66% from the Radiological and Industrials division - i.e., not purely from nuclear medicine.14

In any event, if this was the criterion for siting the dump (which it isn't) and if there was a need for a national dump (which there isn't) then the dump would go in NSW, which has seven times more nuclear medicine procedures than SA, or Victoria (x4) or Queensland (x2).

Beware the federal government's scare-mongering and guilt-tripping. Australia doesn't even need a reactor for medical isotope supply, let alone a dump..

The Answer

The due so-called democratic processes that are available to the public to stop a national nuclear waste dump are corrupt and stacked against the common citizen.

  • the Environmental Impact Statement process is a sham - written, 'reviewed' and rubber-stamped by the federal government.
  • instead of a genuine consultation process, and an independent public inquiry, we are being subjected to a propaganda campaign. As at November 2003, the government has spent over $500,000 on PR companies to override SA opposition to the dump. One of the companies is the notorious PR firm Hill and Knowlton, which has previously worked for tobacco companies, asbestos companies, Enron etc. Another is Michels Warren, which has received $386,000 and counting, as at November 2003?
  • all 667 public submissions on the EIS have been kept secret.
  • the Defence Department's risk assessment has been kept secret.
  • the Final EIS was kept secret for a month.
  • the Australian Democrats have initiated three Senate orders for all documents relating to the siting of the dump to be made public, but all three orders have been refused by the government.15

Sooner or later the federal government will call a halt to this sham. They perceive a political necessity for a national nuclear waste dump. Only a major national community based grass roots campaign will stop a national nuclear waste dump.

The campaign against Rio Tinto's Jabiluka Uranium mine in Kakadu, NT, was fought and won successfully based on the principles of mass non-violent direct actions in cities and at the site. People of Australia stood up in solidarity with the traditional indigenous owners and stopped the mine from going ahead.

A similar strategy is needed to stop national nuclear waste dumps.

  1. The Department of Education Science and Training (DEST)
  2. A similar problem of contamination of the Great Artesian Basin exists due to Insitu leach (ISL) mining of uranium in SA, illegal in most countries including the USA.
  3. “Radioactive waste is an unavoidable by-product of nuclear medicine, which saves lives.” (McGauran 22/10/02).
  4. John Studdert, ANSTO Communications, in correspondence to Dr Jim Green 19/5/03
  5. Sen McGauran, in correspondence to Adam Dempsey 25/10/2002
  6. However, a nuclear reactor is not a requirement for a seat on the IAEC
  7. “Almost every action, every piece of research, technological development or industrial activity carried out in the peaceful uses of atomic energy could also be looked upon as a step in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. There is such an overlap in the military and peaceful technologies in these areas that they are virtually one” - Sir Phillip Baxter, former head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, in 1968.
  8. Silex Systems lease facilities at Lucas Heights and conduct research into laser enrichment of uranium – for use in power reactors and weapons making - the very thing for which the USA has condemned Iran. (See Corporate Strategy, points 1 & 3 at: www.silex.com.au/new/s03_about_silex/content.html)
  9. Supplement to the Draft EIS, Appendix C p 5
  10. Supplement to the Draft EIS, Appendix C p 5
  11. The reactor “has consistently released radioactive elements into surrounding water and air.” - Dr Helen Caldicott, ‘The New Nuclear Danger', pg 190
  12. The Australian, 27/2/03
  13. EIS Appendix C, pg 5
  14. Dr Caroline Perkins, Director Radioactive Waste Management Section, ANSTO, 13/5/2003
  15. Senator Lyn Allison, media release, 11/4/03