CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Bill
1.1
On 4 February 2010, the Senate referred the provisions of the Radioactive
Waste Management Bill 2010 (the Bill) for inquiry and report by 30 April
2010.
1.2
The committee presented an interim report to the Senate on 30 April
2010, indicating that it required further time to consider the evidence
presented during the course of the inquiry, and that its final report would be
tabled on 7 May 2010.
1.3
The purpose of the bill is to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive
Waste Management Act 2005 and to substitute a new process to select and
establish a facility for managing, at a single site, radioactive waste arising
from medical, industrial and research uses of radioactive material in Australia.
Background[1]
Radioactive waste production
1.4
Different types of radioactive waste may be classified according to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classification of radioactive waste.
These are:
- Low level waste: contains enough radioactive material to require
action for the protection of people, but not so much that it requires shielding
in handling, storage or transportation.
- Short-lived intermediate level waste: requires shielding but
needs little or no provision for heat dissipation, and contains low
concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. Radionuclides generally have a
half-life of less than 30 years.
- Long-lived intermediate level waste: requires shielding but needs
little or no provision for heat dissipation. Concentrations of long-lived
radionuclides exceed limitations for short-lived waste (as defined above).
- High level waste: contains large concentrations of both short-
and long-lived radionuclides, and is sufficiently radioactive to require both
shielding and cooling.[2]
1.5
Radioactive waste in Australia is produced by various sources, including
uranium mining and processing operations, research activities (many of which
are conducted at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) research reactor at Lucas Heights in New South Wales), and nuclear
medicine. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Resources and Energy,
the Hon. Martin Ferguson MP, observed:
In terms of radioactive waste, Australia produces low-level
and intermediate-level waste through its use of radioactive materials.
Low-level waste includes lightly contaminated laboratory
waste, such as paper, plastic, glassware and protective clothing, contaminated
soil, smoke detectors and emergency exit signs.
Intermediate-level waste arises from the production of
nuclear medicines, from overseas reprocessing of spent research reactor fuel
and from disused medical and industrial sources such as radiotherapy sources
and soil moisture meters.[3]
1.6
The Minister noted that the production of low level and intermediate
level radioactive waste is 'an unavoidable result of many worthwhile
activities'.[4]
The explanatory memorandum (EM) states that Australia's current radioactive
waste inventory stands at just over 4020m3 of low level and
short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste, and approximately 600m3
of long-lived intermediate waste.[5]
1.7
Currently, radioactive waste produced in Australia is not stored at a
central repository, but across numerous sites. Dr Adrian Paterson, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO), advised the committee that:
The current situation where radioactive waste is held in over
100 separate locations around Australia is not conducive to the safety and
security of that material, nor is it consistent with international best
practice.[6]
1.8
However, Mr Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation
(ACF) questioned the extent to which the Bill would result in reducing the
number of radioactive stores in Australia:
A very important thing for senators to be mindful of in this
is that every facility, every institute, every hospital, every place that
currently uses or stores radioactive waste—with the exception of legacy waste,
some Department of Defence waste—will continue to do so post the establishment
of a national facility, if one is established...We are not reducing by a vast
number the number of sites around Australia, and to pretend that we are is not
proper.[7]
1.9
Dr Paterson felt that a centralised national store would lead to a
significant reduction in the number of dangerous used and/or orphaned
radioactive sources currently stored across numerous sites. Dr Paterson
commented that unused industrial sources posed the greatest risks:
As [radioactive sources which are used for industrial
purposes]...come to the end of their life cycle or as changes take place in the
facilities that manage those sources, they can be stored in a way that memory
loss about where they are stored and what their potential risks are takes
place, and then they do tend to end up in places like filing cabinets or under
stairs...
So we are absolutely certain that the greatest radiological
risk that the public faces is not from the Opal reactor but from the unmanaged
access to these sources.[8]
1.10
Dr Paterson considered that a centralised national facility such as the
Bill provides for would ameliorate the risks associated with the current
approach to storage and management of unused industrial sources:
The opportunity that this legislation provides is for that management
practice to now be established at a national level and to be available
nationally to all of the small holders of these used sources and the orphan
sources in Australia.[9]
1.11
The ANSTO submission also noted that 'indefinite storage of radioactive
waste by small holders is not consistent with international best practice'. The
provision of 'central disposal facilities or stores' would minimise the risks
arising from unwanted radioactive materials'.[10]
1.12
The EM to the Bill explains:
Most existing stores were not specifically designed for long
term radioactive waste storage. Centralisation minimises the risk of
inadvertent loss or control of radioactive material with consequential safety
and security risks.
Radioactive waste management is governed by rigorous national
and international standards. Extensive experience has been gained from over 100
low-level waste disposal facilities in more than 30 countries and a range of
geographic conditions.[11]
1.13
In a 2009 letter to the Minister, ANSTO observed that, given the ad hoc
approach to waste management in Australia, it is only 'by good fortune that, to
date, there have been no serious safety incidents involving [disused
high-activity radiation sources].[12]
ANSTO expressed the view that the potential risks associated with Australia's
present approach to radioactive waste management – particularly in relation to
high activity radiation sources – should be a critical factor in the
government's consideration of the establishment of a national facility:
...it would seem important to take this issue into account in
the context of the government's current review of national radioactive waste
management policy. In particular, the government might consider whether it
would be preferable for a single national store – meeting appropriate safety
and security standards – to be created, rather than waiting for the eight
states and territories to site and construct facilities. Early attention to the
attendant national security risk would be timely.[13]
History of effort to build a
radioactive waste management facility in Australia
1.14
The process of identifying a site for storage or disposal of Australian
radioactive waste began in 1978, when the state and territory health ministers
requested that the Commonwealth co-ordinate a national approach to the
management of radioactive waste.[14]
1.15
In 1985, the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management recommended that a 'national program be initiated to identify
potentially suitable sites for a national near-surface radioactive waste
repository'.[15]
A national project to develop a site for disposal of low level and short-lived
intermediate radioactive waste began in 1992, resulting in the selection of a
site for the facility in South Australia in 2003, which the Commonwealth
acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act 1989. However, in 2004, this
acquisition was quashed by the Federal Court of Australia, which found that the
Commonwealth had misused the urgency provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act
1989 in acquiring the site.[16]
1.16
On 14 July 2004, the Commonwealth Government announced that the joint
Commonwealth-state process would be abandoned. The government indicated that it
would be examining (Commonwealth land) sites for the establishment of a
facility to manage wastes that were the Commonwealth's responsibility, while
leaving states and territories to manage their wastes. In July 2005, three
(Defence) sites in the Northern Territory were identified as potential
locations for the facility, and two pieces of legislation (the National
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and the Commonwealth Radioactive
Waste Management Legislation Amendment Act 2006) were subsequently passed
to support the examination and selection of these sites.[17]
1.17
Over 2006-08, consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) undertook a
preliminary study on the suitability of the three Defence sites (and Muckaty
Station) as potential sites for the radioactive waste facility.
1.18
The objective of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act
2005 (the current Act) is to enable the Commonwealth to establish and
operate a Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern
Territory by:
- providing legislative authority to undertake the various
activities associated with the proposed facility;
- overriding or restricting the application of laws that might
hinder the facility's development and operation; and
- providing for the acquisition or extinguishment of rights and
interests related to land on which the facility may be located.[18]
1.19
The current Act was introduced partly as a response to the Northern
Territory's Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act
2004, which made it an offence in the Northern Territory to 'construct or
operate a nuclear waste storage facility', or to transport nuclear waste into
the Northern Territory. However, it also aimed broadly to limit or suspend any
Commonwealth, state or territory legislation that could prevent the
establishment of the waste facility.
1.20
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment
Act 2006 (the CRWM Act 2006) was introduced in order to facilitate
nominations for the radioactive waste facility site by a Northern Territory
land council. It did this by:
- creating a process whereby the land on which a facility is to be
located can be handed back to traditional owners;
- exempting the process of such nominations from the application of
the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act); and
- in the case of nominations put forward by a land council, stating
that a failure to follow full consultation processes will not invalidate a
nomination.[19]
1.21
In May 2007, the Northern Land Council (NLC) nominated a site for
consideration under the current Act (that is, the National Radioactive Waste
Management Act 2005), and on 27 September 2007, the then Minister for
Education, Science and Technology, the Hon. Julie Bishop MP, accepted that
nomination.
1.22
The nominated site, 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek on Muckaty
Station in the Northern Territory, became the fourth site under consideration,
together with the three identified by the Commonwealth in 2005.[20]
1.23
Prior to the election of the Rudd Labor Government in 2007, the ALP
committed to the repeal of existing legislation as part of its National
Platform.[21]
This pledge was highlighted in a joint press release by Senator the Hon. Kim
Carr (the then Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research),
Northern Territory Senator Trish Crossin, and the Hon. Warren Snowden MP (the
member for the electorate of Lingiari in the Northern Territory). The press
release stated:
Labor will legislate to restore transparency, accountability
and procedural fairness including the right of access to appeal mechanisms in
any decisions in relation the...[siting] of any nuclear waste facilities.
Labor will ensure that any proposal for the siting of a
nuclear waste facility on Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory would
adhere to the requirements that exist under the Aboriginal Land Rights,
Northern Territory Act (ALRA).
Labor will restore the balance and pending contractual
obligation...will not proceed with the establishment of a nuclear waste facility
on or off Aboriginal land until the rights removed by the Howard government are
restored and a proper and agreed site selection process is carried out.[22]
1.24
On the introduction of the Bill to the Senate in February 2010, the
Minister noted:
The repeal of the current act meets a 2007 ALP Platform
commitment.[23]
1.25
In 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications
and the Arts conducted an inquiry into the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste
Management (Repeal and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2008, introduced by
Senator Scott Ludlam (Australian Greens). The objective of the Bill was to
repeal the current Act and the CRWM Act 2006.[24]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.26
The committee advertised the inquiry in The Australian and Northern
Territory News newspapers on 3 and 10 March 2010, and invited submissions
by 15 March 2010. The committee also wrote to a number of
organisations and individuals inviting submissions. Details of the inquiry, the
Bill and associated documents were placed on the committee's website.
1.27
The committee received 237 submissions, as well as a number of pro forma
submissions (from 57 individuals), which were placed on the committee's website
for ease of access by the public. These are listed at Appendix 1.
1.28
The committee held two public hearings, in Canberra on 30 March 2010 and
in Darwin on 12 April 2010. Witnesses who appeared at the hearing are listed at
Appendix 2. The Hansard transcript is available through the Internet at
http://aph.gov.au/hansard
Acknowledgement
1.29
The committee thanks the organisations and individuals who made
submissions and gave evidence at the public hearings. The committee also
acknowledges and thanks those traditional owners who travelled to Canberra and
Darwin in order to participate in the hearings for the inquiry.
Note on references
1.30
Submission references in this report are to individual submissions as
received by the committee, not to a bound volume. References to the committee Hansard
are to the proof Hansard. Page numbers may vary between the proof
and the official Hansard transcripts.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page