MAPW has labelled government efforts to secure public support for a WA nuclear waste facility as flawed and misleading.
Dr Margaret Beavis OAM, a former GP and current Vice President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, criticised the public consultation process to grant a licence to the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) to establish a new nuclear waste facility at HMAS Stirling, in Rockingham WA.
Last week, Australia’s nuclear regulator ARPANSA approved the license to store waste from US, UK and possibly Australian nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling.
“There are major and multiple flaws that should render the consultation and licencing process null and void,” said Dr Beavis.
“ARPANSA is required to consult with the public about nuclear facility applications. But the only information the public received about the ASA application is public relations material provided by the ASA. This material contained multiple false statements and misleading assertions about the radioactivity of the nuclear waste to be stored, including equating it with hospital waste.”
The vast majority of nuclear waste from hospitals is very short-lived waste (VSLW) or very low level waste (VLLW), both of which go to normal rubbish streams after a month or two. The proposed submarine waste is low level waste (LLW), which needs isolation from the environment for 300 years.
Information about Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) was also omitted from the ASA document.
“It was only through questioning in Senate Estimates that we learned that ILW may be stored at HMAS Stirling” said Dr Beavis. “This is much more serious as this waste stays radioactive for over 10,000 years.”
Public submissions to the waste facility consultation will not be published, prompting doctors to repeat concerns about public health risks stemming from the secrecy surrounding the establishment, management, and regulation of new nuclear facilities.
Dr Beavis said, “Decisions that affect the health of people and the environment are being made in a rush, and in almost total secrecy, while vital information is withheld and facts are misrepresented. Secrecy and conflicts of interest – such as the regulator reporting to the agency being regulated, as is proposed in Australia – are known risk factors in nuclear facilities.”