Radioactive waste from nuclear medicine facilities across Australia will be transported to the South Australian city of Kimba and buried there, the federal government said this week.
The Napandee site comprises 211 acres of government purchased land that is planned to house radioactive waste in deep trenches for over 100 years.
The announcement came after six years of deliberation with the local community – but, as Federal Resources Secretary Keith Pitt noted, radioactive waste management has been on the national agenda for 40 years.
It took so long for good reason: the storage of radioactive waste is a complex issue.
Radioactive waste is extremely dangerous for people and the environment. It emits radiation that can pollute the water, kill wildlife, and cause a range of deadly health problems including cancer. Even low-concentration waste has to be stored for centuries, so the community should be sure that the repository is well designed and properly managed.
Currently, radioactive waste – generated from radiation needed for diagnostic imaging and cancer treatment – is dumped in special storage facilities in hospitals across the country, but the majority is safely stored in Lucas Heights, Sydney.
As Pitt celebrates his resolution, there are three reasons why this announcement is premature.
Photo credit: Thom Devereux / Wikimedia Commons
1. Legal and regulatory hurdles
Twenty years ago, the SA Olsen government passed a law preventing radioactive waste from entering the state. Shortly thereafter, when the Howard government proposed that radioactive waste be dumped in the state, the subsequent Rann government tightened this legislation.
This means that the new proposal requires the current South African government to repeal or amend the current law. This will be difficult as Prime Minister Steven Marshall is in a minority government and, with a MP defected in October, he is likely to struggle to get the support he needs.
There is also a regulatory hurdle. A proposal like this requires the approval of the regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority (ARPANSA), who will review the proposal to determine whether it ensures the safety of humans and nature.
ARPANSA took the Howard administration’s previous proposal very seriously. The process involved public hearings where the director of ARPANSA was assisted by two scientists – one mine and the other a Canadian radioactive waste management expert.
In the assessment process it became clear that the federal government had made no attempt to calculate the risk of transporting radioactive waste from the various locations where it is now stored to the safer central facility. All she said was that the risk was minimal.
ARPANSA was not impressed with this data-free approach. In view of the resistance of the state government and questions from the regulatory authority, the federal government withdrew the proposal.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard inspects Australia’s new research reactor OPAL, which officially opened on April 20, 2007 in Sydney, Australia. Source: Handout / ANSTO / Getty Images
2. The waste is more dangerous
The second serious hurdle is that “medium-level” waste is transported from an interim nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights.
The new facility in Napandee will mainly store the comparatively harmless “low level active waste”. This includes residues from nuclear medicine, scientific research and industrial application. Once buried in deep trenches, this poses a relatively low risk for humans and animals.
Medium-level waste is much worse and requires a much higher level of security. It contains long-lived radioactive isotopes that must be isolated and retained for thousands of years – practically a permanent disposal. This is generally seen in such a way that technical underground containment facilities are required rather than the near-surface repositories for low-level waste.
No such facility has been built in Australia to safely and permanently house this waste and the regulator will no doubt require assurances that it can be safely built and managed.
It will also be much more difficult to justify transporting this trash on the streets of three states as it is now safely stored in Lucas Heights. When transporting nuclear waste, there is a risk of accidents or possible theft of the hazardous material by terrorists.
It does not seem to make sense to move incidental waste from its interim storage facility in Lucas Heights to an interim storage facility in Napandee.
3. No consent from traditional owners
The third hurdle to the proposal is opposition from the traditional Barngarla owners who have made it clear that they do not support the proposal to dispose of radioactive waste on their land.
After the consultation process in South Africa, a vote showed that 60% of local residents supported the proposal. But the Barngarla people say they were not included in the consultations.
In the past few decades, our governments have ruthlessly neglected the wishes of traditional owners and imposed developments they did not want. Today the Australian public respects the wishes of traditional owners.
There will certainly be legal challenges to the government’s plan. But even if the Barngarla don’t have the law on their side, they have moral authority. It will be politically difficult for any government to justify a plan that is completely rejected by the indigenous group concerned.
Radioactive waste storage is the extreme example of an issue that requires long-term thinking. Finding a location must involve serious discussions with traditional landowners as well as current landowners. There is no need to rush because the intermediate-level waste is safely stored in Lucas Heights.
Ian Lowe, Professor Emeritus, School of Science, Griffith University
This article was republished by The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Comments are closed.