“The shortlist represents sites that are all of an excellent stan-
dard to host such a facility. The important task now is engage-
ment and consultation with local communities. The final site
will be discreet in size, world-class in standard and absolutely
safe to both communities and the environment...
“Australia has a responsibility to manage these materials
properly. That process is on a strong footing and I commend
the Department for the process thus far.”
Ben Heard is a Member of the Independent Advisory Panel for the National Radioactive
Waste Facility, a doctoral candidate at The University of Adelaide and a Director of Think
Climate Consulting.
“The proposal is for a site to store low-level radioactive waste,
which is currently at many locations around Australia. The
case for a centralised waste store presumes that the overall risk
to the community will be reduced. To justify that claim, there
should be at least plausible risk calculations that compare the
risk to the community of leaving the waste where it is with the
risk of transporting it to one site where it would be safer. I have
not seen such a calculation. It obviously should be done before
we make a commitment to a centralised waste store.
“The government announcement adds that intermediate-
level waste could also be stored at the proposed site. This is a
much more complex, and much more pressing, issue. The inter-
mediate-level waste from the decommissioning of the original
Lucas Heights research reactor is due to be returned to Australia
next year. This is much more dangerous and requires serious
isolation from the community and the biosphere for thou-
sands of years. It is not clear from the announcement that those
offering to host waste are aware that they are likely to receive
intermediate-level waste as well as low-level waste.“A third issue is the need to consult traditional owners of
the land and obtain informed prior consent for the proposal.
Two previous attempts by the Commonwealth government
to establish a site to store radioactive waste have collapsed when
it became clear that the traditional owners had not given their
consent. While the announcement is silent on this issue, there
could be legitimate concern that the government is proposing
again to assume that the traditional owners’ rights can be
ignored.”
Ian Lowe AO is Emeritus Professor in the School of Natural Sciences at Griffith University.
He has a doctorate in physics and was a member of the Radiation Health and Safety
Advisory Council from 2002 until March 2015. He is former President of the Australian
Conservation Council.
“The disposal facility is for low-level waste. It is stuff that you
can stand beside without harm. Australia produces around 40
m^3 /year, less than one shipping container. At present it is stored
in rooms at hospitals, universities and a big shed at ANSTO’s
Lucas Heights site.
“International best practice is to have a central disposal
facility, and most countries in the world with any sort of nuclear
activities already have this type of near-surface facility. A good
example is the El Cabril site in Spain.”
Tony Irwin is a visiting lecturer at the Australian National University. He is also Chairman of
the Nuclear Engineering Panel in Engineers Australia’s Sydney Division.
“Whichever site is selected, earthquake risk needs to be consid-
ered. There is no such thing as an aseismic location in Australia,
just locations where we haven’t recorded any earthquakes yet.
This may be due to lack of monitoring equipment in the region,
or from a lack of historical information due to sparse popula-
tion in the regions.
“We can potentially have a magnitude 7.5 earthquake
anywhere in Australia, and the devastation that a nearby magni-
tude 6.1 earthquake can cause was seen clearly in Christchurch.
Although earthquakes are less frequent in Australia it does not
mean they will be any less damaging when they do eventually
happen.
“Any potential location for such a facility needs to be moni-
tored at a micro-seismic level (for at least a year, preferably
longer) to establish a baseline of seismic activity and to delin-
eate any active faults before a decision is made as to the engi-
neering requirement of any critical facility. Current knowledge
of seismicity in the proposed regions is not sufficient to confi-
dently evaluate the seismic hazard and therefore the earth-
quake resistance for engineering requirements.”
Adam Pascale is head of the Seismology Research Centre, a division of ESS Earth Sciences,
which provides monitoring solutions in the fields of meteorology, hydrology, seismology,
oceanography, air quality and geotechnical engineering.40 | JAN/FEB 2016
EXPERT OPINION Australian Science Media Centre
Nuclear Waste Sites Shortlisted
The Federal government has shortlisted six sites for a permanent National Radioactive Waste
Management Facility. The site will contain Australia’s low-level radoactive waste, with the
capacity to store some intermediate-level waste.- Shortlisted sites
- Other nominated sites http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au