Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I table some answers to questions asked of me during the committee stage of the debate on this bill the last time we were dealing with it, which was a couple of weeks ago. The questions were asked by Senator Rhiannon and Senator Ludlam. We have only just handed the answers to Senator Ludlam, but I will formally table them as answers to those questions that I took on notice during that debate. I seek leave to incorporate these answers.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Questions asked during Committee stage of Senate Debate

National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010

Question: Transportation—Senator Rhiannon:

I ask the Minister to set out how [the transport route] has been handled and what the government's response is to the potential dangers of moving highly radioactive waste over such a long distance? Could you set out the form that the community consultation will take [on the transport route]? Or will the route be determined secretly? Will the consultation be on which route is to be used before it determined or is it to take place after the route has been determined?

Answer:

Community Consultation

As the regulator, ARPANSA is responsible for authorising the use of a site, for the construction and operation of a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.

When applying for approval to use a site for a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility, the proponent will need to specify transport routes to the site.

In considering the siting approval, ARPANSA will undertake public consultation and may approve the application subject to various conditions.

The nature of AR P ANSA's public consultations was outlined in previous Senate Inquiries. As stated by then ARPANSA CEO Dr Loy:

"[The regulations require] I seek public submissions … My practice has been to supplement that process with a form of public hearing, which I call a public forum, whereby people who have made submissions can come forward, present their submissions and their views and have them questioned and challenged by a panel. All of that takes place in the open, in public, with a transcript published …"

On potential dangers of moving radioactive waste

Safe transport of a large quantity of radioactive waste was demonstrated in an Australian context in 1993-94, when 120 shipments of waste were moved from Lucas Heights (New South Wales) to Woomera (South Australia).

ARPANSA has previously public stated: "The transport of the material is an issue that the radiation protection community at least would regard as pretty much solved" (Dr John Loy, former CEO of ARPANSA in evidence to the 2005 Senate Inquiry into the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill).

Internationally, there has never been an accident involving the transport of radioactive materials where there has been serious harm to people or the environment arising from the radioactive nature of the cargo.

There are fewer hazards associated with transporting radioactive waste than there are with flammable and corrosives substances such as fuel and acid, which are routinely transported in and between our cities.

Question:

Transportation—Senator Rhiannon—NSW Parliamentary Inquiry (2004)

Are you familiar with [the NSW transport of radioactive waste inquiry] and what is your response to those findings?

Answer:

The 2004 NSW Inquiry was undertaken at time when the Lucas Heights HIFAR research reactor was being replaced and a site at Woomera was being considered as the location of a radioactive waste management facility.

The findings of the Inquiry were internally inconsistent and not an accurate reflection of transportation practices for radioactive materials around Australia or the world.

For example, while the report stated transporting radioactive waste from NSW to a national facility should be avoided, it contradicted this finding by inferring that wastes from "dispersed sites" from all of Australia could be "collected on a regular basis" and transported to Lucas Heights for final storage.

Nonetheless, the report did highlight the safety record of the transport of radioactive materials.

The report made the following findings:

Question—Senator Rhiannon—Payne Report

The Payne Report highlights the lack of confidence when it comes to nuclear waste. What has been learnt from ANSTO's apparent failure to deal with security issues?

Answer:

The Payne Report was a 16-page report commissioned by the Sutherland Shire Council shortly after the events of September 11, 2001 as part of its campaign against the construction of the OPAL reactor in its municipality.

The report was solely reliant on information from public sources and Mr Payne's own observations. When writing the report, Mr Payne did not consult with ANSTO officers or national security authorities. Importantly, Mr Payne did not visit the site to ascertain the security arrangements. The Report was littered with factual errors.

At the time, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) — the regulator of security at ANSTO—dismissed the report and advised that security requirements at ANSTO were fully in line with International Atomic Energy Agency and national standards.

Security Requirements

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 and the permits issued pursuant to that Act, ANSTO is required to ensure that adequate security measures are in place to protect their site at Lucas Heights.

ANSTO has comprehensive security protections in place, which are based on Australian and international best practice for the security of nuclear materials, radioactive sources and facilities.

ANSTO security is regularly reviewed by expert agencies to ensure security continues to meet the stringent national and international physical security protection standards. Those agencies include ASNO and ASIO.

A recent report from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Nuclear Materials Security Index, ranked Australia as number one of 32 countries including the United Kingdom, United States and Japan in terms of nuclear security. The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a United States NGO that works to improve global security and fulfilment of the goals of non-proliferation treaties.

Questions—Senator Ludlam—radioactive waste management facilities around Australia:

How many places are there around the country for storing radioactive waste of various categories that would notionally be carted across to a central facility?

How many of these sites is estimated will we be able to decommission or stand down if we get a "remote dump out in the bush"?

Answer:

There are estimated to be over one hundred locations around Australia that store low-and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

These storage facilities include government stores, industrial facilities, universities and other research establishments.

Additionally, every significant hospital and university in Australia has some radioactive waste in storage. The total inventory of radioactive waste in all these holdings is relatively small.

Further details are available in Australia's 4th National Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.

States and Territories are currently responsible for managing their own inventories of radioactive waste. Closure of non-Commonwealth storage sites will be a matter for State and Territory jurisdictions.

Some States have acted to establish their own centralised waste management facilities. For example, since 1991, Western Australia has disposed of its low level radioactive waste at the Mt Walton East Intractable Waste Disposal Facility.

It would be premature to comment on the number of sites that will close once a national facility as this can only be finalised once the location of the facility is known and States and Territories settle their intentions to use the national facility.

However, it is likely that legacy waste inventories will be relocated, allowing for store closures. Facilities where waste is continually generated, such as hospitals, will require ongoing operational stores. However the volume of radioactive waste in storage will decrease in light of the availability of disposal and centralised storage capabilities at a national facility.

It is recognised internationally that the risk of inadvertent loss, damage or theft of radioactive sources is minimised through waste management at centralised, purpose built facilities.

The Government's legislation is based on the principle of volunteerism and does not, of itself, assume that a site will be remotely located.

Question: Nominations—Senator Ludlam

"In broad as I can frame the question, are there any other sites under consideration and if so where are they?"

"Has anybody approached the Federal Government at any time — either the department or minister's office with an alternative proposal for a site?

Answer:

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 currently allows the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory or a Land Council to volunteer sites for a facility.

The nomination of the site at Muckaty Station is the only nomination that has been made under that Act. No other nominations have been submitted to the Department or to the Minister.

The Department has not been involved in any desktop studies or further field work for potential sites since the site characterisation investigations undertaken by

Parsons Brinkerhoff.

As acknowledged in the Senate debate on the Bill (8 February 2012), from time to time the Government has received suggestions on locations for a radioactive waste management facility. None of these have been pursued.

Once the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is passed, the Minister will only consider sites, volunteered by landowners, under the protections and legal framework afforded by the legislation.

by leave—I table a supplementary exploratory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 8 February 2012.