An excellent article in Renew Economy by Friends of the Earth Australia’s anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green.
“Nuclear Royal Commission is a Snow Job
The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (RC) will release its final report on May 6. It was established to investigate opportunities for SA to expand its role in the nuclear industry beyond uranium mining.
Before his appointment as the Royal Commissioner, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce said little about nuclear issues but what he did say should have excluded him from consideration. Speaking in November 2014 at a Flinders University guest lecture, Scarce acknowledged being an â€œan advocate for a nuclear industryâ€. Just four months later, after his appointment as the Royal Commissioner, he said the exact opposite: â€œI have not been an advocate and never have been an advocate of the nuclear industry.â€
Other than generalisations, and his acknowledgement that he is a nuclear advocate, Scarceâ€™s only comment of substance on nuclear issues in his 2014 lecture was to claim that work is â€œwell underwayâ€ on a compact fusion reactor â€œsmall enough to fit in a truckâ€, that it â€œmay be less than a decade awayâ€ and could produce power â€œwithout the risk of Fukushima-style meltdowns.â€ Had he done just a little research, Scarce would have learnt that Lockheed Martinâ€™s claims about its proposed compact fusion reactor were met with universal scepticism and ridicule by scientists and even by nuclear industry bodies.
So the SA government appointed Scarce as Royal Commissioner despite knowing that he is a nuclear advocate who has uncritically promoted discredited claims by the nuclear industry. Scarce appointed an Expert Advisory Committee. Despite claiming that he was conducting a â€œbalancedâ€ RC, he appointed three nuclear advocates to the Committee and just one critic. The bias is all too apparent and Scarceâ€™s claim to be conducting a balanced inquiry is demonstrably false.
Given the make-up of the RC, it came as no surprise that numerous questionable claims by the nuclear industry were repeated in the RCâ€™s interim report released in February. A detailed critique of the interim report is available online, as is a critique of the RC process.
The RCâ€™s interim report was actually quite downbeat about the economic prospects for a nuclear industry in SA. It notes that the market for uranium conversion and enrichment services is oversupplied and that a spent fuel reprocessing plant would not be commercially viable. The interim report also states that â€œit would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.â€
In a nutshell, the RC rejected proposals for SA to play any role in the nuclear fuel cycle beyond uranium mining. But that still leaves the option of SA offering to store and dispose of foreign high-level nuclear waste (HLW) and the RC strongly promotes a plan to import 138,000 tonnes of HLW for storage and deep underground disposal.
SA as the worldâ€™s nuclear waste dump
The RC insists that a nuclear waste storage and dumping business could be carried out safely. But would it be carried out safely? The RC ought to have considered evidence that can be drawn upon to help answer the question, especially since Kevin Scarce has repeatedly insisted that he is running an evidence-based inquiry.
So what sort of evidence might be considered? The experience of the worldâ€™s one and only deep underground nuclear waste dump ? the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) in the U.S. ? is clearly relevant. And Australiaâ€™s past experience with nuclear waste management is clearly relevant, with the clean-up of nuclear waste at the Maralinga nuclear test site in SA being an important case study.
But the RC completely ignores all this evidence in its interim report. We can only assume that the evidence is ignored because it raises serious doubts about the environmental and public health risks associated with the proposal to import, store and dispose of HLW.
WIPP is a case study of a sharp decline in safety and regulatory standards over a short space of time. A chemical explosion in a nuclear waste barrel in February 2014 was followed by a failure of the filtration system, resulting in 22 workers receiving small doses of radiation and widespread contamination in the underground caverns. WIPP has been shut down for the two years since the accident. Costs associated with the accident are likely to exceed US$500 million. A U.S. government report details the many failings of the operator and the regulator.
At a public meeting in Adelaide Town Hall in February 2016, Scarce said that WIPP was ignored in the RC interim report because it involved different waste forms (long-lived intermediate-level waste) of military origin. In fact, the waste that the RC recommends that SA import is vastly more hazardous than the waste managed at WIPP, so Scarceâ€™s argument is hard to fathom.
Moreover the RC has overlooked the fundamental lesson from the WIPP fiasco â€“ initially high safety and regulatory standards gave way to complacency, cost-cutting and corner-cutting in the space of just 10â€“15 years. The RC notes that HLW â€œrequires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of yearsâ€. How can Scarce be confident that high safety and regulatory standards would be maintained over centuries and millennia when WIPP shows that the half-life of human complacency, cost-cutting and corner-cutting is measured in years or at most decades?
There is no logical reason to believe that the SA government would perform any better than the U.S. government. On the contrary, there are good reasons to believe that nuclear waste management would be more difficult here given that the U.S. has vastly more nuclear waste management expertise and experience than Australia.
While completely ignoring the worldâ€™s one and only existing deep underground nuclear waste dump, the RC talks at length about deep underground repositories under construction in Finland and Sweden. According to the RCâ€™s interim report, those two countries â€œhave successfully developed long-term domestic solutionsâ€ for nuclear waste. But in fact, neither country has completed construction of a repository let alone demonstrated safe operation over any length of time.
Mismanagement of radioactive waste in SA
The RC has also ignored the mismanagement of radioactive waste in SA. A radioactive waste repository at Radium Hill, for example, â€œis not engineered to a standard consistent with current internationally accepted practiceâ€ according to a 2003 SA government audit. And the â€˜clean-upâ€™ of nuclear waste at the Maralinga nuclear test site in the late 1990s was a fiasco:
Nuclear engineer Alan Parkinson said of the â€˜clean-upâ€™: â€œWhat was done at Maralinga was a cheap and nasty solution that wouldnâ€™t be adopted on white-fellas land.â€ (See Parkinsonâ€™s videos here and here.)
Scientist Dale Timmons said the governmentâ€™s technical report was littered with â€œgross misinformationâ€.
Dr Geoff Williams, an officer with the Commonwealth nuclear regulator ARPANSA, said that the â€˜clean-upâ€™ was beset by a â€œhost of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-upsâ€.
Nuclear physicist Prof. Peter Johnston (now with ARPANSA) noted that there were â€œvery large expenditures and significant hazards resulting from the deficient management of the projectâ€.
The RCâ€™s interim report claims that â€œSouth Australia has a unique combination of attributes which offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuelâ€. But SA has a track record of mismanaging radioactive waste (Radium Hill, Maralinga, etc.) and no experience managing HLW. The RCâ€™s claim that SA has â€œa mature and stable political, social and economic structureâ€ needs to be considered in the context of the longevity of nuclear waste. Australia has had one profound political revolution in the past 250 years (European invasion) and is on track for 1,200 political revolutions over the 300,000-year lifespan of nuclear waste.
The RCâ€™s interim report presents speculative and implausible figures regarding potential profits from a nuclear waste storage and dumping industry. The Australia Institute crunched the numbers presented in the interim report and wrote a detailed factual rebuttal. Scarce responded on ABC radio on 31 March 2016 by saying that the RC will â€œtake apartâ€ the Australia Instituteâ€™s report â€œpiece by pieceâ€. When asked if such an aggressive attitude was appropriate, Scarce said: â€œIâ€™m a military officer, what would you expect?â€
And that says all that anyone needs to know about Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce and his Royal Commission. Critics are taken apart piece by piece, or ignored altogether. On the other hand, Scarce uncritically repeats Lockheed Martinâ€™s discredited claims about its â€˜compact fusion reactorâ€™ and the RCâ€™s interim report repeats many other nuclear industry falsehoods. Scarce ignores the mismanagement of radioactive waste in SA (Radium Hill, Maralinga etc.) and he ignores the failure of the worldâ€™s only deep underground nuclear waste dump while claiming that Sweden and Finland â€œhave successfully developed long-term domestic solutionsâ€ by partially building deep underground dumps.
A year ago the Adelaide Advertiser published a Friends of the Earth letter likening the RC to a circus and Kevin Scarce to a clown. Events over the past year have only confirmed the illegitimacy of the RC. The RCâ€™s bias would be comical if the stakes werenâ€™t so high, particularly for Aboriginal people in the firing line for a HLW dump.
The Aboriginal Congress of South Australia endorsed the following resolution at an August 2015 meeting:
â€œWe, as native title representatives of lands and waters of South Australia, stand firmly in opposition to nuclear developments on our country, including all plans to expand uranium mining, and implement nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps on our land. We view any further expansion of industry as an imposition on our country, our people, our environment, our culture and our history. We also view it as a blatant disregard for our rights under various legislative instruments, including the founding principles of this state.â€
The Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance is asking organisations in Australia and around the world to endorse a statement opposing the plan to turn SA into the worldâ€™s nuclear waste dump. Organisations can endorse the statement online at www.anfa.org.au/sign-the-declaration”