Home

Nuclear Waste

MAPW Nuclear Waste Policy 2009

Preamble

Nuclear waste is a long-lived and serious environmental hazard. It remains an unresolved problem in every place that has nuclear power or nuclear weapons. No country has in place a proven, satisfactory permanent nuclear waste management plan. The waste problem is one of several reasons that nuclear power is not a solution to climate change, or even part of the solution.

As a society we need to move from the misleading concept of “disposal” towards a sense of stewardship and “harm-minimisation”. A fundamental principle must be reduction towards zero of the amounts of nuclear waste being created.

There is no level of radioactive contamination that is regarded as safe. Even low-level exposure poses a small but finite risk of harm, especially the development of cancers. The 2005 report of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation) VII, stated “A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data supports a “linear-no-threshold” risk model – that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.” This risk is greater for children than for adults, and greater for females than for males.

While the vast majority of nuclear waste has been created during the production of nuclear power or nuclear weapons, MAPW recognizes that other nuclear technologies and expertise play a role in medicine and some areas of science.
Australia’s nuclear waste problem includes the low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste that is accumulating at the Lucas Heights reactor and a large number of other facilities around the country. It also includes the long-lived intermediate level waste that is due to return to Australia from about 2011 onwards, from reprocessing in France and Scotland of spent fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor.

Decisions must be made about best management of this waste. No proper assessment of all available options has been made. Pronouncements have more often been made on the basis of political expediency rather than scientific best practice. Genuine consultation with affected communities is also essential. Imposition of a nuclear waste facility on an unwilling community is unacceptable.

Radioactive waste facilities may not behave as we predict. Nuclear waste lasts thousands of years. There is no way that we can be certain how robust a waste facility will be over such an extended period of time, let alone how robust the political oversight and management will be. While nuclear proponents generally downplay or deny the risks of unexpected consequences, evidence indicates that, even in the short term, plans and predictions can go awry.

To keep the waste as isolated as possible from the environment it is necessary for expert monitoring to be in effect for the duration of toxicity. This becomes difficult or impossible if the waste is buried.

Transport of nuclear waste to centralised storage or disposal facilities greatly increases the risk of accidents, sabotage and contamination.

It is the phase during which it is most difficult to secure the material, and the risk of terrorist access is greatest. The manufacture of a “dirty bomb” (radioactive material dispersed by conventional explosive) would be a relatively easy task for a terrorist organisation as long as there is access to the radioactive material. Therefore transport must be minimised.

Importantly also, storage at the site of production encourages waste minimisation.

It should be noted that Indigenous Australians in particular have already suffered from imposition of nuclear contamination. The British nuclear bomb tests at Maralinga in the 1950s were conducted with scant regard for their welfare, and the “clean-up” of their lands left plutonium-contaminated debris in shallow burial trenches.

Policy

  1. Reduction at source (waste minimisation) is the fundamental principle in reducing the risks of environmental contamination from nuclear waste. Nuclear power should be phased out.
  2. The use of reactor-produced isotopes in medicine should be minimised in favour of those techniques and imaging modalities that do not rely on them. Further development of these techniques is needed.
  3. An Australian national radioactive waste management policy should be developed, informed by experts and members of the public through a full independent inquiry. All options for waste management should be considered, and decisions made should be based on international best practice.
  4. As part of this process it will be necessary to develop and publish a full inventory of radioactive waste in Australia what it is, where it is, and who has jurisdiction.
  5. Pending the development of a policy, all radioactive waste must remain accessible for monitoring. It should be stored above ground in a dry, monitored and retrievable fashion at or near the site of production.
  6. Transportation of radioactive material should be avoided wherever possible. If there is to be such transport, there must also be consultation with all those communities along the proposed route, including emergency, police, health and environmental protection services.
  7. Radioactive waste transport or storage should not be imposed on unwilling communities.
  8. Radioactive waste storage facilities and practices should be subject to regular independent audits and public review to increase transparency and ensure compliance with Australia’s policy.