September 26, 2005
Snow Barlow Writes - Nuclear Debate Must Focus on Waste
First published in edited form in the Canberra Times - September 26, 2005
Nuclear energy has recently entered
the national political debate as an option to reduce Australia's greenhouse
gas emissions.
The range of claims and counterclaims about nuclear energy and its efficacy
and safety in climate change scenarios has demonstrated an urgent need for
comprehensive studies of Australia's energy futures.
These studies must include a detailed analysis of the economic,
environmental and social costs and benefits of all energy sources,
including, for instance, the substantial costs of decommissioning nuclear
reactors and safely disposing of the waste.
But what chance a sensible and well-informed debate on nuclear energy when
dealing with Australia's existing nuclear waste has been so fraught?
Radioactive materials have been routinely used for the last 50 years in
Australia for a wide variety of industrial, medical and research purposes.
In that period, about 3700 cubic metres (4,000 5,000 tonnes) of low and
short lived intermediate level waste and 500m3 of long-lived
intermediate waste has been accumulated (there is no high level waste in
Australia).
The prime responsibility for managing radioactive waste lies with the
Commonwealth as about 95% of existing and future waste is generated by
Commonwealth agencies, primarily ANSTO at its Lucas Heights facility but
also small amounts at CSIRO and the Department of Defence.
While the amount of waste generated under State and Territory licences is
small, this waste is currently stored in over 100 locations around the
country in metropolitan and regional sites.
Dispersed storage of radioactive waste is not a viable long-term strategy
and is potentially hazardous, inefficient and impossible to completely
secure. That is why the States and Territories must demonstrate political
leadership and join with the Commonwealth to ensure the proposed site is a
comprehensive national facility that is state of the art in terms of
environmental safety, efficiency and security.
The Commonwealth Government recently announced plans to investigate three
possible sites in the Northern Territory for a national storage facility
when a proposal for a South Australian site was abandoned last year after a
sustained political campaign.
The science, engineering and technology of safely storing, transporting and
disposing of low and intermediate level waste is well understood and can be
achieved safely and efficiently if done properly.
Much of the political debate has focused on site selection for storing
radioactive waste. But storage is only one part of the equation. Australia
must aim for safe and efficient disposal.
Given rising concerns over security of radioactive waste and possible 'dirty
bomb' scenarios, it is surprising that safe disposal has not received the
focus it warrants.
The key object of safe disposal is to sufficiently dilute radioactive
materials so that its radioactivity is comparable to naturally occurring
background radiation. In the case of long-lived radioactive waste (materials
with a half life of more than 30 years), radioactive waste needs proper
shielding from the biosphere in a geologically stable site.
Australia has the relevant scientific and engineering expertise to design ,
build and manage disposal of such waste.
Radioactive waste that has been properly disposed of has no value whatsoever
for would be terrorists. Stored intermediate level waste represents a
greater security risk.
Quite apart from security concerns there is a real intergenerational equity
issue at stake it is irresponsible to leave our waste to our children.
There are about 30 radioactive materials routinely used in Australia
including a wide variety of industrial applications such as smoke detectors
(Americium-246m), sterilisation (Cobalt-60) or equipment to check the
integrity of welding (Caesium-137).
Each year more than 500,000 Australians undergo diagnosis or treatment
procedures using a variety of nuclear sources. Technecium-99m is used in
about 80% of diagnostic procedures and Iodine-131 for thyroid treatments.
Some of the radioactive materials used in Australia are produced at ANSTO's
Lucas Heights reactor. Others, including cobalt and caesium are imported.
But these imported radioactive materials no longer add to Australia's
long-term waste because for the past decade or so, the industry standard is
suppliers of products such as cobalt, must take waste back for reprocessing
or recycling after use.
Will Australia adopt a similarly responsible attitude to waste generated
from our exports of uranium? If we are to seriously ramp up our
participation in the nuclear industry then the option of being a full
service provider must be considered including accepting the waste as part of
the deal.
Professor Snow Barlow is
President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies