Managing Australia's radioactive waste

Q: "Regarding the storage of radioactive waste in 26 towns and suburbs in SA, what number of these stores will still be storing radioactive waste even if the repository project goes ahead because of ongoing waste production?"

DEST: "This question should be directed to the South Australian Environment Protection Authority or to the operators of the existing stores."

Q: "What plans does the federal government have to upgrade stores since the government repeatedly claims that they are unsafe."

DEST: "This question should be referred to the appropriate state and territory regulators."

Complete indifference from DEST in 2003 − and nothing has changed in the past 11 years.

Net benefit

The principle of net benefit is useful to frame the discussion. The NHMRC Code of Practice for the Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia (1992) requires that "No practice involving exposures to radiation should be adopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or to society to offset the radiological detriment it causes."

Yet successive federal governments have made no effort whatsoever to attempt to demonstrate a net benefit with their SA and NT repository proposals.

In 2004, ARPANSA held an inquiry into the proposal for a waste repository in SA. A government official was asked to justify the claim that a central repository would reduce the cumulative risk of storing waste. The response was that: "In terms of someone sitting down and doing that risk assessment, that hasn't been done − the short answer is it hasn't been done." The official said that the repository proposal was being pursued on the basis of a "general belief" and another official said it was a "general feeling".

So the robust concept of net benefit has been replaced with general beliefs and feelings as a basis for public policy. The situation has not changed in the 10 years since the 2004 ARPANSA inquiry − there has been no effort to assess waste management options according to net-benefit principles, not even a superficial attempt.

Prof. Ian Lowe, who sat on the ARPANSA panel which convened the 2004 inquiry, summed up some of the unresolved questions and problems: "DEST told the forum that "Disposal of the waste in a purpose-built national repository will reduce the cumulative risks of storing wastes", leading to the conclusion that "The community and the environment will benefit". Questioning revealed that the basis for this assertion is shaky. ... There are some difficult issues to be resolved if the applicant is to show that the proposal would provide a net benefit to the community, most obviously including a risk assessment to determine whether the increased risk of collecting and transporting waste is outweighed by the reduced risk of storage at a properly engineered repository; this study should take into account the continuing need for local storage of waste between the proposed disposal campaigns. A professional risk assessment cannot be conducted until a firm waste acceptance plan and transport code are developed."

Commission of Inquiry