Antinuclear

How Australia should responsibly manage its nuclear waste

A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, Jim Green, Feb 2011, – 1. Waste minimisation – 2. All options for radioactive waste management should be considered -3. Site selection processes must be fair and transparent.

1. Waste minimisation

Firstly, it needs to be shown that radioactive waste is not being produced unnecessarily – that the benefits outweigh the risks. The Government has not even attempted to demonstrate a net benefit for the proposed nuclear dump.

2. All options for radioactive waste management should be considered

All options for radioactive waste management need to be considered – not just ‘remote’ repositories (always more remote for some people than for others).

The option of ongoing storage at the Lucas Heights site needs to be independently assessed. All relevant organisations have acknowledged that this is a viable option including Mr Ferguson’s own department, the regulator ARPANSA, the Australian Nuclear Association, and ANSTO itself.

Requiring ANSTO to store its own waste is the best and perhaps the only way of focussing the organisation’s mind on the importance of waste minimisation. It avoids the risks of transportation. It avoids double-handling – i.e. long-lived intermediate-level waste being moved to Muckaty only to be moved again should progress be made in relation to a deep geological repository which is the designated method of disposal for long-lived intermediate-level and high-level waste.

“ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that.” — Dr Ron Cameron, ANSTO.

“We’ve got quite a number of buildings there which house radioactive materials. They’re all stored safely and securely and all surrounded by a high-security perimeter fence with Federal Police guarding. It is the most secure facility we have got in Australia.” — Andrew Humpherson, ANSTO, September 2008

“It would be entirely feasible to keep storing it [radioactive waste] at Lucas Heights …” — Dr Clarence Hardy, Australian Nuclear Association, ARPANSA forum in Adelaide, February 26, 2004.

“Should it come about that the national approach to a waste repository not proceed, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to devise an approach to final disposal of LLW from Lucas Heights, including LLW generated by operation of the RRR. In the meantime, this waste will have to be continued to be handled properly on the Lucas Heights site. I am satisfied, on the basis of my assessment of the present waste management plan, including the license and conditions applying to the waste operations on site, that it can be.”

— then ARPANSA CEO John Loy, April 2002, “Decision by the CEO of ARPANSA on Application to construct the Replacement Research Reactor at Lucas Heights. Reasons for Decision”, p.30.

“A significant factor is that ANSTO has the capacity to safety store considerable volumes of waste at Lucas Heights and is unlikely to seek the holding of frequent campaigns to disposal of waste holdings generated after the initial campaign.”

— Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Application to ARPANSA, 2003, Vol.iii Ch.9 Waste – Transfer and Documentation p.5.

3. Site selection processes must be fair and transparent.

If a site selection process for a waste management facility is required, it ought to be based on scientific and environmental criteria, as well as on the principle of voluntarism. When the federal Bureau of Resource Sciences conducted a national repository site selection study in the 1990s, the Muckaty area did not even make the short-list as a ”suitable” site.

April 19, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes