Australia’s nuclear waste

Fremantle, Australia — One of Australia’s most experienced nuclear energy specialists says public opinion on nuclear waste in the country is changing — and that politicians should get ready to address the hot-potato issue.

Speaking at the recent Australian Uranium Conference on the issue of nuclear waste, consultant Ian Duncan said that where state governments have legislated against disposal, it has been due to hometown political expediency rather than latent risk.

“Who will be the politician who becomes the statesman that cleans up radioactive waste in Australia? I believe such a politician will be very re-electable,” Duncan predicted. “To those who advise political parties on this issue, I point out that the electorate is changing.”

Duncan has been a leading advocate in the uranium industry on how to handle thorny political issues, including the management of nuclear waste. For several years, he ran the big Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine for WMC Resources, acquired by BHP Billiton this summer.

Duncan told the audience that the nuclear industry made an error when it differentiated its waste from the thousands of other potentially hazardous wastes produced by society.

“We know what to do with nuclear wastes but do we know what happens to other toxic wastes?”

He said radioactivity decays with time, whereas chemical toxicity does not.

“In the public mind, the differentiation also suggests that all nuclear wastes are equally hazardous. This is not true,” he said.

Currently in Australia, radioactive waste is small in volume and does not include high-level waste (HLW).

“Without nuclear power, low and intermediate-level wastes will continue to accumulate,” Duncan noted. “Australia is fortunate, however, in having immense areas of rock that could be suitable for waste repositories and these can be found in areas that are sparsely populated and semi-arid.”

He cited western Australia and the Northern Territory as candidates, and said that the process of repository site selection must change from a top-down declaration by industry or government to a process that allows communities to assess the risks and to volunteer to host a repository.

Most countries have tried the top-down DAD technique — decide, announce and defend — only to find that in a democracy, such attempts usually lead to DADA — decide, announce, defend and abandon.

“There are now, however, examples of the voluntary choice process in the nuclear and petrochemical industries,” he said.

Although Australia’s current site selection process for a low-level waste (LLW) repository in the Northern Territory is not a full voluntary choice process, it is much more open to public input than previous attempts.

Duncan said many countries that have large nuclear programs have managed to accommodate all LLW and intermediate-level wastes. Scandinavian countries, followed by France and the United States, are the most advanced in high-level waste disposal and offer excellent models for Australia to follow.

“It will not be necessary for Australia to reinvent the wheel,” he said. Disposal of nuclear wastes will be one of the essential topics debated in any Australian study on nuclear power.

“Those opposing nuclear power, for whatever reason, normally use (disposal) issues as a tool,” Duncan said. “Due to global progress and example, the disposal of nuclear waste need not be a showstopper for nuclear power in Australia.”