Transcript
PRESS CONFERENCE – RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
LUCAS HEIGHTS – FRIDAY 15 JULY 2005
BRENDAN NELSON: The Australian Government is in the process of making the most significant investment in scientific infrastructure in Australia’s history with the $330 million dollar replacement research reactor at Sydney’s Lucas Heights Facility. One of the conditions before the licensing of that reactor can proceed is that the government has well-advanced plans for the long-term storage of low-level and intermediate level radioactive waste in Australia.
I am announcing today that following a significant examination of Commonwealth health sites where the Australian government through the Prime Minister announced one year ago that the states and territories as a result of their parochial intransigence in this will be required to store their own low-level and intermediate level radioactive waste. The Commonwealth government is now moving to look at three sites on Commonwealth owned land in the Northern Territory.
The three sites include a site called Fishers Ridge, which is about 43 kilometres east or southeast of Katherine. The second site is called Harts Range, which is around 165 kilometres by road and 100 kilometres directly northeast of Alice Springs. A 1000-hectare site, also Defence property. And the third site is Mt Everard, which is about 27 kilometres directly or 40 kilometres by road northwest of Alice Springs, around 1158 hectares. Again, these three sites are currently owned by Defence.
Northern Territorians need to appreciate that the Northern Territory government currently has 16 cubic metres of low-level waste stored at the Royal Darwin Hospital. The Northern Territory government also has intermediate level waste currently stored in the vicinity of Katherine and quite close to one of the sites that we’re looking at, at Fishers Ridge. Australians need to appreciate that every single one of us as human beings throughout our lives will at least on one occasion benefit from a medical procedure either to diagnose or treat cancer or any one of a number of a diseases from a radio-pharmaceutical which has been sourced from the Lucas Heights Replacement Research Reactor. Every year around 400,000 Australians undergo medical procedures that use these isotopes.
They are also used for industrial purposes, the sterilisation of bandages, of syringes, of women’s hygiene products. They are also used in minerals and mining exploration, the detection of oil and gas leaks in pipelines, the accurate measurement for the filling of Coca-Cola and beer cans and other kind of refreshments. It’s extremely important that as Australians we understand that we can’t on the one hand expect to receive the medical and industrial benefits of nuclear-sourced radioisotopes on the one hand and then be resistant to the safe, long-term storage of low-level and intermediate level waste on the other.
We will go through the process over the next year of undergoing detailed site selection, which obviously looks at security, at road access, at the geological suitability of the three sites that we’re examining. We’ll also be looking at flora and fauna impacts, at heritage issues and by the end of next year our timetable is that we will have selected one of those sites specifically to be developed and put forward for a detailed environmental impact statement for consideration by the environment minister. The long-term safe storage of low-level and intermediate level waste must be completed with the facility constructed and operational by 2011.
The first shipment of intermediate level waste will return from the United Kingdom and France respectively beginning in 2011. The Australian Radiation Protection Agency will not offer a license or give a license for the Replacement Research Reactor until such time as it is satisfied fully that the Commonwealth government has a well-developed plan for the long-term storage of waste.
There needs also to be a reality check by those who will be opposed to this. In the Northern Territory as I have said, and I will show you the map in a moment, in the Northern Territory as I have said, the Northern Territory government has 16 cubic metres of waste at the Royal Darwin Hospital – slap bang in the middle of Darwin.
It also has intermediate level waste very close to the facility in Katherine, which we now propose to examine in detail. In New South Wales, the Carr Labor government has 26 cubic metres of waste at the EPA in Lidcombe. It’s in a shipping container and if you put that in perspective that’s two kilometres from the Flemington Markets. Is it safely stored? Yes. Is that appropriate in the long-term? Most certainly not and the New South Wales government is at the moment moving to find a more secure facility in the state of New South Wales.
In Brisbane, the long-term safe storage of nuclear waste has been undertaken a decade ago. It’s stored at Esk, 100 kilometres north of suburban Brisbane.
This waste represents no threat to human health or life but it is extremely important that we store it in safe, secure appropriately designed and constructed facilities in the long-term. And just to give you an idea of what we’re talking about here. The first thing is here at Lucas Heights in Sydney, there is 2,000 cubic metres of low-level waste being stored at this facility and 400 cubic metres of intermediate level waste. It’s currently stored in these 200 litre steel cans and it’s the sort of thing that shouldn’t be worrying anybody too much. This is the kind of stuff which at the moment is stored in hospitals, in universities.
In Melbourne it’s in the basement of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Clinic. In New South Wales it’s at the EPA in Lidcombe. In Darwin it’s at the Royal Darwin Hospital. It’s the kind of thing which should not under any circumstances be generating any kind of hysteria amongst politicians who are self-serving at a state and territory level who are not prepared to put Australia’s national interest first.
If you want to know what’s inside these drums, it’s the kind of thing that’s used every day in medical facilities throughout the country. You can see you’ve got cloths, you’ve got gloves, you’ve got cloaks, you’ve got material that’s been used in and is used in health and hospital facilities every day of the week in this country. Every single year, almost half a million Australians will benefit from a nuclear procedure which is undertaken from a radio-isotope which has been sourced from the nuclear facility in suburban Lucas Heights in Sydney.
Somewhere in this country, we need to have a purpose-built designed facility, which is specific for the storage of low-level and intermediate level waste. And you know it’s the kind of thing that some people need to take a reality check on. It’s in Australia’s national interests for medical and industrial reasons that we have this sort of stuff stored in a [indistinct] location. The kind of things that this also includes are exit signs, clock faces, the gloves, the glassware, the equipment that’s used in research and hospital laboratories in treatment programs for people suffering from cancer and other diseases.
If I could specifically show you the map for the Northern Territory. So the three sites which were being examined in the Northern Territory are firstly, Fishers Ridge, which as I say is about 43/45 kilometres southeast of Katherine. In this same vicinity, in this same vicinity today, the Northern Territory government has intermediate level nuclear waste stored and I invite the Northern Territory media to ask the Chief Minister Clare Martin exactly where it is. So the Northern Territory government shouldn’t be attacking the Australian government with some puerile argument about not wanting to have this kind of...this...the Northern Territory government should not proceed to attack the Australian government with some puerile argument about not wanting to put low-level and intermediate level waste anywhere in this vicinity. It’s already got it there today.
The two other sites, as I said, are Harts Range here, which is about 100 kilometres northeast of Alice Springs, and the third site is Mt Everard, which is 27 kilometres northwest of Alice Springs. This is in Australia’s long-term interest. This is Commonwealth owned land. Every state and territory is required now to store its own waste – low-level and intermediate level – and the Australian government will be proceeding to make sure that that’s exactly what they do. So I’ll be happy to take any questions.
QUESTION: Minister, were any of these sites considered and discarded in the previous scan by the Commonwealth for a low-level waste repository?
NELSON: Well as you would know, the Keating Labor government in the early nineties did look at a range of sites and chose the Woomera site. We spent specifically eight years building up that site. The parochialism and the efforts undertaken by the South Australian government were such that in the end we had to abandon that site last year. Whether these sites were considered in the early process, I am not able to tell you. After the decision to move away from Woomera, we did examine very closely an offshore site. We looked specifically at Christmas Island, which we considered to be unsuitable for security, geological, environmental and other reasons. We have concurrently been looking at several sites in the Northern Territory and we have chosen these three.
QUESTION: Where is high-level waste going to go?
NELSON: Australia doesn’t have high-level waste because we are currently not in the nuclear fuel cycle.
QUESTION: But I notice you refer to the waste coming back from France and England as intermediate, I think most people call that high-level waste, very long lived?
NELSON: Well, if people were calling that high-level waste, they’re ill informed because there are three kinds of waste. There is low-level waste, intermediate level waste and high-level waste. Australia does not have nor will be receiving high-level waste. The waste coming back from the United Kingdom is 261/2 cubic metres of intermediate level waste, which is in vitrified and solids and in concrete. We also have 61/2 cubic metres of waste which will also be returning from France and this waste, and indeed the waste from the de-commissioning of our current research reactor at Lucas Heights, comprises intermediate level waste. Australia does not have, nor will be storing, high-level waste.
QUESTION: And how are you going to transport the waste to the site you choose?
NELSON: Well, clearly the containers that will come back from overseas weigh each 112 tonnes. They will have to be obviously delivered by ship. They will be then transported by road. It’s often not appreciated that in Australia each year, there are 30,000 shipments of nuclear waste material by road across Australia, in fact almost every day of the week, so it’s important that people appreciate that the transport of these facilities and road access will be an important consideration in choosing the final site.
QUESTION: You mentioned the hysteria that you’re expecting from the Northern Territory government and no doubt from the community. How is the federal government going to counter that?
NELSON: Well, I think what’s important is firstly, I think Australia’s media has a role to play in making sure that people receive accurate information about firstly, the benefits of nuclear radio isotopes to Australian socially economic life and indeed, our health and wellbeing and our industrial development. Secondly, that the real facts in relation to nuclear waste are made available to the Australian community. We want to make it absolutely clear to Australians that nuclear waste is stored in their suburbs, their hospitals, their universities, their factories. There is an enormous amount of ad hoc-ery at the moment in Australia as to where it’s stored and what we’re proposing to do - although it’s not absolutely necessary - is to put it in relatively remote sites in the Northern Territory which are geologically and environmentally suited to a long-term storage facility. Unfortunately, as a federation, it doesn’t matter where we choose to store the Australian government generated waste, there will be state and territory governments who will be totally opposed to it. The truth of it which needs to be understood is that every state and territory government in this country currently has low-level and high-level...sorry, every state and territory government in this country currently has low-level and intermediate level waste which it is storing. In Hobart, it’s in the health department in Hobart, in Sydney it’s at the EPA in Lidcombe, in Brisbane it’s at Esk, 100 kilometres north of Brisbane. We need to make absolutely sure that Australians appreciate that what is being proposed here makes sense, it’s in the national interest and it’s making sure that we have a single repository for our national waste and I say to Clare Martin and the Northern Territory government, if it wants to get its nuclear waste out of the Royal Darwin Hospital, or find a secure facility for its intermediate level nuclear waste which is currently in the Katherine region, then we will be very happy to talk to them about co-locating it with the repository which we will build in the Northern Territory.
QUESTION: Where is that likely to be stored in the long term?
NELSON: Well, you’ll need to ask Bob Carr where he intends to store the waste at Lidcombe. It’s currently in a shipping container at the EPA, low-level and intermediate level waste and I understand the New South Wales government has a contractor which is currently trying to find an appropriate site. The Carr government needs to explain to people in New South Wales where it intends to store that waste in the long term. I hasten to add that its current storage arrangements, whilst inappropriate in the long term, are in fact safe.
(inaudible)
QUESTION: Did you consider New South Wales, given that the bulk of intermediate waste must be generated in this state?
NELSON: No, we did not consider New South Wales.
QUESTION: And why was that?
NELSON: Well, what we are trying to do is to find ... whilst it’s not absolutely essential to find a remote location, relatively remote location on commonwealth owned land, so given the emotion and hysteria which often surrounds any kind attempt at a rational discussion on this, we chose not to specifically examine in detail any site in New South Wales.
QUESTION: Are there any communities living around those areas?
NELSON: Whilst these are relatively distant, there are a small number of Defence personnel who are currently living at the Harts Range and the Mount Everard sites and the site at Fishers Ridge, it is about 43 kilometres east as I understand from the Tindal RAAF Base. As I say, in every part of Australia today, Australians are living next door to a nuclear waste repository in the form of a hospital, an industry or some sort or, indeed, a university. This nuclear waste is currently stored all over the place in Australia and when you consider the Australian government is looking at a relatively remote site for a purpose built facility, it should be obvious to anyone that this makes plain common sense.
QUESTION: Will the waste that’s from the reprocessing of rods go to one of these three sites, did you say?
NELSON: Yes, the waste which comes back from the United Kingdom and from France, much of it involves reprocessing of rods. It will be held in large concrete casks of one form or another and it will be stored as intermediate waste in the long term in the purpose built facility. There will also be intermediate waste, of course, generated with the decommissioning of the reactor at Lucas Heights. In Australia at the moment, we have about 500 cubic metres of intermediate level waste, 400 cubic metres of that intermediate level waste is here, right here today, where I am and we have another 100 cubic metres of intermediate waste spread around the country with various state and territory universities, hospitals and the like.
QUESTION: Do you expect you will need to make a selection of the site before ANSTO gets approval for the licence for starting up the new reactor?
NELSON: Well, that’s entirely a matter for ARPANZA. It will need to be satisfied that the government has a solid commitment to construct an appropriate storage facility and we would like to think that ARPANZA by the end of this year and early next year, will be satisfied that the government having chosen these three sites, a very close site examination will be well advanced in moving toward the construction of the long-term facility. ARPANZA will then have to make the decision as to whether it will issue the licence. The facility doesn’t have to, nor could it be built, before the commissioning of the new replacement reactor but ARPANZA must be satisfied that it most certainly will be and we’re confident that this will satisfy ARPANZA once we are much better advanced in the direction we’re moving.
QUESTION: It took 11 years to go nowhere with the low-level repository. Now you’re talking about a much more shortened time frame for both the low-level and an intermediate level repository. How much of it is actually being driven by the necessity to meet ARPANZA’s requirements?
NELSON: All of it is being driven firstly, by Australia’s national interest in making sure we have an appropriate purpose-built long-term facility for low and intermediate level waste and secondly, the deadlines that are bearing down on us as a country in terms of the licensing for the new reactor. I mean, the reality is we’ve got to proceed with this now, there will be no further mucking about, the Australian government is absolutely determined to make sure once and for all that one of these three sites is chosen and that we proceed through the Environmental Impact Statement and then to the construction of the facility. If we do not have this facility designed and built and ready to receive nuclear material by 2011, we will be not able to meet our contractual and our international treaty obligations, particularly in relation to the United Kingdom and France. There is absolutely no room for mucking about now and we’re certainly not going to be held hostage by political parochialism or the short-term view of some Australians. In the end, as I repeatedly say, in the end, every single one of us, every single day, is a beneficiary of Australia’s research reactor and the radio pharmaceuticals that are produced from Lucas Heights in Sydney and if the people of Sydney can comfortably live with a nuclear reactor that conducts research and produces isotopes for industry and for medical use, why on earth can’t people in the middle of nowhere have low-level and intermediate level waste? It’s in every suburban setting in Australia at the moment and there needs to be I think, much better information about the facts in relation to it.
QUESTION: You acknowledge there will be a voter backlash against the Liberal government and against the Opposition in the Northern Territory?
NELSON: Well, what we have to do is to do what is in Australia’s best interests and it will do Australia no good whatsoever if this country isn’t able to diagnose and treat cancer, bone diseases, thyroid diseases, kidney diseases and a whole range of conditions from which we suffer and currently die and it will also do us no good whatsoever if we can’t conduct mineral and oil exploration and undertake the growing of grapes and the containment of pests and diseases and a whole range of other things from which we all benefit from having a research reactor in Australia and in terms of the storage of low-level waste, it is currently, as I repeatedly say, currently in suburban hospitals, universities and all kinds of inappropriate facilities and the New South Wales government has it in a shipping container at the EPA in Lidcombe, two kilometres from the Flemington markets. It is perfectly safe but completely inappropriate for the long-term storage. This is about Australia’s interest; it’s not about the political interests of any political party, nor indeed any state or territory government.
QUESTION: So this repository will never accept any state waste into it at all?
NELSON: If state governments would like to negotiate with us in relation to the storage of their own low-level or intermediate level waste, we will be prepared to do so but at this stage, the state and territory governments are required to find suitable storage for their own waste.
If they want to talk to us about it, they will and the logical thing in the Northern Territory of course, would be for the Northern Territory government to get its nuclear waste out of the Royal Darwin Hospital and from the region in Katherine where they have currently got their intermediate level waste and co-locate it with the commonwealth’s but that’s a matter for them.
QUESTION: Have you briefed the Northern Territory government?
NELSON: As we started this press conference, I have faxed a letter to the chief minister, advising her of what we have chosen to do and why we are doing it.
QUESTION: And have you spoken directly with David Tollner?
NELSON: Yes, Mr Tollner is currently in France coincidently, examining nuclear waste programs there. I have spoken to him about it and whilst he’s not enthusiastic about it, he appreciates that there is an interest in this for both the Northern Territory in storing its own waste and indeed, in the Australian national interest.
QUESTION: What’s the environmental impact of a site like this?
NELSON: Very limited actually, but we’ll be undertaking a detailed Environmental Impact Statement which will take almost two years. Once the site selection process is completed, which we expect to be fully completed by the end of next year, the environmental assessments will take almost two years. It will be extremely thorough as it must be but our preliminary assessment in terms of environmental impacts, particularly water tables, is that these three sites do lend themselves to the storage of this nature. The storage in this case, by the way, is above ground.
QUESTION: Have you also ruled out the question of whether there might be any Native Title questions in relation to any of your sites?
NELSON: Naturally, we have taken legal advice in relation to Native Title and we will deal with Native Title issues should they arise and if they arise.
QUESTION: What are the Defence sites currently used for exactly?
NELSON: The two southern sites have been used for ... or were to be used for the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar system. They are currently managed by BA Systems. They have a small number, in the vicinity of a dozen Defence personnel currently at them and I don’t believe that there is, in any sense, a very active Defence program being conducted at either. The Fishers Ridge site, as I understand it, is not currently used for any purpose at all.
QUESTION: Any details about the budget and the actual nature of the site itself, what sort of structure it will be?
NELSON: Well, we’ve got information kits to distribute and you’ll see we’ve got a computer-generated model of two options for the facility itself so you’ll obviously be able to have a look at that.
ENDS
|
