Opinion- 26 September 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