The South Australian government legislated to prohibit the transport or storage of long-lived intermediate-level waste (LL-ILW) in South Australia. The federal government then backed down on its plan to store LL-ILW in SA.

For low-level waste, the SA Labor government is opposed to the federal government's plan to dump these wastes in an unlined trench near Woomera and will legislate in mid-2002 in an attempt to prohibit it. 86-93% of the SA population is opposed to the planned dump. Another back-down from the federal government is a likely outcome of this stand-off.

Environment Australia based its judgment on the government’s waste disposal plans on repeated assertions in the 1999 Environment Assessment Report that the government intends to co-locate the LL-ILW store with the low-level dump (e.g. Executive Summary, chapter 2.4.3, chapter 7.8.3.5, chapter 13.2). The CEO of the puppet regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Protection Agency (ARPANSA), also took into account the intention to co-locate LL-ILW with the proposed underground dump in granting a licence to prepare a site for a new reactor. Plans for co-location have now been abandoned.

A reactor EIS condition accepted by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (ISR) and the Environment Minister is that “Reactor construction should not be authorised until arrangements for the management of spent fuel rods from the replacement reactor have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of ARPANSA and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.“

There are two options for LL-ILW storage. Long-term storage at Lucas Heights has been ruled out by the Government itself, and may be illegal (according to correspondence from former ISR Minister Nick Minchin's adviser David Wawn). Plans for a store are going nowhere fast - after the federal government gave up on SA, it established an 'expert' committee to advise on siting options by late 2002.

For replacement reactor contracts to be signed (and approvals granted by ARPANSA in April 2002) with the current waste management plans in such disarray was completely inappropriate and irresponsible and substantially increases the likelihood that Lucas Heights will maintain its status as a de facto nuclear waste dump.

John Loy, the CEO of ARPANSA, appears in the following letter to be willing to licence ANSTO to build and to operate a new reactor even if a store for intermediate-level waste has not been identified, assessed, approved or built.

Tell John Loy what you think - a suggested letter is at the bottom of this file.

Letter from John Loy to Jim Green, June 1, 2000.

Dear Jim

Thank you for your emailed letter of 21 May about the relationship between my licensing decisions for the replacement reactor and the setting up of a store for intermediate-level waste (ILW).

I first must emphasise that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) requires that the CEO must take into account a number of matters when considering the issuing of a licence for a nuclear installation, including matters raised in public submissions.  Therefore, any licensing decision has to be made at the time in the light of the information provided and the provisions of the Act, including those that require me to take into account public submissions.

Thus, any opinion I offer now is just that - it cannot be a definitive position or interpreted as a final decision.  I will make final decisions when I have an application before me, on that application, and only when the relevant information about that application and public submissions are to hand.

Having said that, I do have a general opinion on the management of the spent fuel, the establishment of the ILW store and the replacement research reactor project, and I have conveyed it to officers of the relevant Government departments and to ANSTO.  This opinion is that:
- at the time of a decision on a licence to construct the replacement reactor, arrangements for the reprocessing of the specific fuel proposed for use in the reactor would need to be demonstrated to be available when the reactor would be in operation and there would need to be progress on the strategy to establish a store for ILW, including for the waste arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel;
- at the time of a decision on the licensing of the operation of the replacement reactor, the arrangements for reprocessing of its spent fuel would need to be entirely firm.  With regard to the ILW store, there would need to be substantial and evident progress such as the features of the design settled, siting criteria established and a strategy and timetable in place - that is, that it was moving forward with clear paths to its future establishment.

I recognise that there is significant room for judgement in the scope of this opinion at both licensing stages. Those judgements will no doubt be vigorously taken up in submissions at the time and I will need to consider those submissions when making my decision and state fully the reasons for my decision in the light of those submissions.

You raised another issue - namely the relationship of the ARPANS Act to South Australian legislation on ILW storage. I am aware that section 83 of the Act does allow for a law of a State or Territory to be prescribed such that it does not apply to the activities of controlled persons under the Act. Such a regulation would need to be made by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Minister.

Yours sincerely,

John Loy
CEO of ARPANSA

June 21, 2000

Dear John,

A couple of questions re your letter dated June 1:

1. It seems that overseas reprocessing options are extremely limited. Will you require evidence of contingency plans for spent fuel management before issuing a licence to construct a reactor?

2.  You say that at the time of a decision on the licensing of the operation of the replacement reactor, “With regard to the ILW store, there would need to be substantial and evident progress such as the features of the design settled, siting criteria established and a strategy and timetable in place - that is, that it was moving forward with clear paths to its future establishment.

Does that mean that you would be prepared to issue a licence to operate a new reactor without a LLILW store site being identified or assessed and without necessary State and Commonwealth approvals in place? I understood from a previous conversation with you that site identification would be necessary before a licence to construct was issued, let alone a licence to operate.

Jim Green

July 10, 2000

Dear Jim

Thanks for your further emails of 6 July and 21 June.

I have thought about the questions you raised.  I am, however, reluctant to go beyond the general a priori thinking I conveyed to you in my letter of 1 June. As I said then, I have to take a decision on any applications to construct and then to operate the replacement reactor on the basis of the matters required to be taken into account by the Act and Regulations, including the content of public submissions.  I offered my broad opinion  - but to flesh that out much further would begin to resemble pre-judging the issues.

I have no doubt that the two issues you have raised will be the subject of
substantive public submissions - as well as being treated within the application being made.

So, I am afraid I am unable to go beyond what was in my letter of 1 June.

Regards

John Loy

Jim Green to John Loy, October 11, 2000

Dear John

just one question on waste, hopefully not too difficult:

The Regulatory Branch, ARPANSA, Safety Evaluation Report on ANSTO Application to Prepare a Site for the Replacement Research Reactor, September 1999 says: “Contingency plans describing alternative strategies for disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel will also be required with the application for licence to construct the replacement reactor. A licence to operate the reactor would not be issued by ARPANSA without there being clear and definite means available for the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Recommendations 26 and 27 arising from Environment Australia’s review of the EIS are relevant to this issue.”

All sorts of issues are raised there but for the moment I would just be pleased to receive confirmation from you that ARPANSA stands by its statement that “Contingency plans describing alternative strategies for disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel will also be required with the application for licence to construct the replacement reactor.”

Thanks in advance, Jim Green

John Loy to Jim Green October 13, 2000

Dear Jim

Thanks for your email of 11 October.

First, I need to put the Safety Evaluation Report in context.  It was a report to me from the Regulatory Branch that I took into account in making the decision on the siting licence.  My statement of reasons sets out my thinking on the siting licence, including in relation to the management of spent fuel and waste.

I have since described my opinions about these issues in relation toapplications to construct and operate the replacement reactor.  I set these out,inter alia, in my email to you of 1 June.

I am reluctant to venture any further at this time.  As I have noted, I fullyexpect these issues to be very substantially canvassed during consideration of any future licence applications.

Regards, John Loy

Dr. John Loy
CEO, Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
PO Box 655, Miranda, NSW, 2228

Dear Dr. Loy,

ARPANSA’s credibility was compromised from the start by the involvement of the executive director of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in the interview panel which recommended your appointment. Your failure to denounce ANSTO’s involvement in selecting its own regulator further undermines your credibility. ARPANSA’s credibility is further undermined by the employment of six former ANSTO staff in ARPANSA’s Regulatory Branch.

ARPANSA’s credibility has also been undermined by the “clean-up” of the Maralinga weapons-testing site. Why did you say the “clean up” was “world’s best practice” when you know that more thorough clean-up options were debated and discarded in favour of simply burying the waste in unlined trenches? Why did you say the “clean up” was “world’s best practice” when one of your own officers complained about “a host of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-ups”? Why did you state in your letter to Senator Minchin - without qualification or explanation - that the “clean up” met the “national Code of Practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste” when you knew that the code had no relevance to Maralinga? Why parrot government lies when it is your responsibility as the regulator to expose government lies? In short, why such a vast gap between the reality of the Maralinga scandal and your rhetoric? Do you feel no responsibility whatsoever towards all the people who have been traumatised by the weapons tests and subsequent events?

ARPANSA’s credibility has also been damaged by the tortuous, ongoing process of licensing nuclear facilities. Licence application documents cannot even be accessed by the majority of the Australian population, and on past form no-one has any reason to believe that submissions will be seriously considered by ARPANSA.

The proposed low-level waste dump in South Australia is unacceptable. If traditional owners needed one more reason to oppose the dump - and they did not - then ARPANSA’s complicity in the scandal-plagued Maralinga “clean up” was a strong reason indeed. Rebecca Bear-Wingfield - whose mother was exposed to radiation from a British atomic test in SA - now represents the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta women's group. She says, "Our people have been directly effected by nuclear weapons testing, missile testing, and uranium mining. The commonwealth government now intends to dump nuclear waste on our country. This is an abuse of human rights which we will stop. Government's can't keep dumping their poisons on us. We will make this a national and international issue."

You must be convinced that “satisfactory” arrangements exist for spent reactor fuel management before allowing construction of a new reactor to proceed in the Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights. Spent fuel reprocessing (or ‘conditioning’) is NOT satisfactory. It is “contrary to sound non-proliferation principles” according to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs. It is “morally dubious” according to the 1993 Research Reactor Review. It is deeply offensive to the millions of Europeans who are opposed to the filthy reprocessing plants at La Hague, France, and at Sellafield, UK - as evidenced by the Ospar decision in late June, with 12 European nations voting to oppose reprocessing in Europe.

Dumping spent fuel and other long-lived intermediate-level wastes in SA is unacceptable to over 90% of South Australians. Maintaining Lucas Heights as Australia’s de facto dump is unacceptable to many Sydney residents. In fact it is also illegal - and note that ANSTO has already been found guilty in the NSW Land and Environment Court for its storage of radioactive wastes.

It appears that you are prepared to allow a new reactor to be built at Lucas Heights even if a site for intermediate-level waste storage has not been identified let alone assessed and approved and the store constructed. If so, this is an absolute outrage and if so, you will be held to account for your disgusting and irresponsible toadying to the nuclear industry.

I demand that you put it on the public record, unequivocally and as a matter of urgency, that you will not allow a new reactor to be built until a long-term intermediate-level waste store - one that is acceptable to the affected community - has been identified, assessed, approved and built.