3CR
 Community Radio 855am

THE RADIO-ACTIVE SHOW

With Eric Miller, Ila Marks and Cherrie

Saturday at 10.00 am

28th August 1999

ConRadSat 18.04 - 18.32 (Thursday 2nd September)

Cherrie: Hello and Welcome to the Radioactive Show brought to you by the Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service. My name is Cherrie and with me in the studio is Eric Miller. The Radioactive Show is a weekly program bringing you news and information on nuclear, peace and energy issues.

On today's show we take a close look at a proposed health study and its implications with regard to the Lucas Heights Reactor in the South of Sydney. Still on the reactor theme we speak with Jean McSorley about a Parliamentary Committee report that gives the go-ahead for the new reactor to be constructed at Lucas Heights.

Lastly, we go over to Western Australia to get the latest information on Pangea, the company that wants to give Australian an international high level radioactive waste dump. (As if we want it)

But first we speak to Anti-nuclear activist and Councillor, Genevieve Rankin from the Sutherland Shire. ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation that runs the Lucas Heights reactor for the federal government has resisted a health study of the surrounding area because they have claimed that radioactive releases from it would not effect local residents. But now the NSW State government has announced that they will conduct a health study of the population in the Lucas Heights area.

Eric Miller asked Genevieve if this was a good thing.

Genevieve Rankin It is good news we have been wanting this to happen for quite some time. The residents have been calling for this for about 20 years and there has always been official refusal to do. There are some concerns of course; we want to make sure the study is done independently, because there has never been a study done independent of ANSTO in all of the history of its operating the nuclear reactor in Sydney. So, we're very keen to see this study done, and we're keen to see it done properly.

Eric Miller: You mentioned the independence, that would be right for all nuclear reactors around the world.

Genevieve Rankin: Yes, that's right the industry has a very strong record of refusing any independent studies and cornering the market. In terms of information if makes available to the public and we're hoping that the Sates government will follow through on this study in a way and make sure that it is supervised by independent scientists who have the interests of the community at heart and not the industry.

Eric Miller: Now this comes after the NSW Cancer Council Maps has found high levels of cancer around…

Genevieve Rankin: Yes, well. Their maps for NSW showed that the rates for thyroid cancer in the Southern suburbs of Sydney is significantly higher than they are for the rest of the state. Now one of the issues we have been drawing attention to for quite some time now is the huge levels of radioactive iodine that are released form the site at Lucas Heights. And these come not from the reactor, but from the production of medical isotopes. They use a particularly dirty process in doing that at ANSTO and they have never up dated their machinery because they say they don't get enough money from the federal government. However we're left in a situation where this 1950's technology is belting out huge amounts of radioactive iodine and the Cancer Council Report says iodising radiation causes thyroid cancer. And what we are saying at this stage. We're not jumping to conclusions and saying that it is coming from the reactor. But what we want done is a proper study. So people can get to the bottom of some of these issues.

We have had antidotal reports from doctors in this area for many years now about high incidences of thyroid disease generally in this shire, as you are closer to the reactor. So these are the sort of things we need to have studied properly.

Eric Miller: Now we know that radioactive iodine is related to cancer.

Genevieve Rankin: Yes, there's no dispute about that. The dispute would be about where it comes from. One of the comments made in the Cancer Council Study is it may be related to No English Speaking background people have different diets … have diets with more of that kind of content in them. However, that might hold for some of the Southern suburbs of Sydney. But if you look at the Sutherland Shire we have half of the state average of people from Non English Speaking Backgrounds. So it would hardly account for the increased rates we have in the Sutherland Shire.

Eric Miller: Now the government wants to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. The Council wants to stop this until the study has been held?

Genevieve Rankin: Yes the vote we had on Monday night was very significant because previously all of the liberal councillors had voted to support the federal governments decision. But the other night two of them voted with the community to say they should put all of the plans for a new reactor on hold until the results of the health study are known.

Eric Miller: So this means you have got support from some of the Liberal councillors now?

Genevieve Rankin: Yes, now it is very close to the local council elections here in NSW, they are held on the 11th of September and we felt that maybe some of them were motivated by say … they should be there to support their local community not the Liberal Party. But they did give that support on Monday night and we would be looking for some sort of response from the federal government on the matter.

Eric Miller: Now the local federal members, they have been doing an about turn in the past as well haven't they?

Genevieve Rankin: Yes the federal member Diana Vale originally said she was opposed to the new reactor but in September 97 when the federal government made its decision she totally reversed that stance. She has never given any reasons why she did that at that time. It was done on the same day as the Holsworthy Airport was withdrawn and it appears it was some sort of political deal done in Canberra with the local Liberals of members of parliament. It is really quite appalling that we can have them saying that there can be no environmental consequences from building a nuclear reactor in the middle of Sydney.

Cherrie: Genevieve Rankin, anti-nuclear activist and Sutherland Shire councillor. Just after the health study was announced the federal Parliamentary Works Committee gave the green light to a new reactor at Lucas Heights. Eric Miller asked Jean McSorley, anti-nuclear campaigner what does this mean?

Jean McSorley: This is basically the final stage in the process for funding for the new reactor. What this now means is that the Australian Science and Nuclear Technology Organisation can go ahead and start tendering for the contract for the new reactor. But it is by no means the final hurdle for them to overcome. While it was very disappointing to see that the parliamentary paid so little attention to major issues, not just environmental ones, but financial ones, which they are actually bound to consider. It is not the end of the day in this debate by any means.

Eric Miller: These financial ones, are there other means to achieve what the reactor was meant to achieve?

Jean McSorley: You can certainly use not only cleaner but far cheaper alternative technology to reactors for a whole range of things. Spallation sources and cyclotrons can be used not just for the creation of isotopes for medical and industrial uses. But there is a whole range of technologies, including those technologies, that can be used for scientific research. But other cost implications that the committee really failed to take into account, the real cost of dealing with the radioactive waste that is being produced at the site at present let alone the waste that will be produced by the new reactor over the next 50 years.

Another significant area that they failed to address properly is the issue of the expanded production of isotopes that ANSTO are considering and again that means a greatly expanded amount of radioactive waste from the site and that has cost implications. Most importantly the committee didn't ask ANSTO to put forward contingency plans with full costings for what would happen if ANSTO's plans on waste did not go ahead. If ANSTO do not succeed in moving any radioactive waste off site what are the cost implications of having to keep it all on site. And these are significant issues that most countries would consider now a days if you were looking at another nuclear facility. It's quite astonishing to see how far behind the times the Australian government is on this.

Eric Miller: Now the waste at the site they're wanting to put it at the national radioactive waste dump?

Jean McSorley: Yes there are a number of different types of radioactive waste on site, I'll just go through them briefly. Low level and short term intermediate level waste which the government considers suitable for dumping in a shallow trench. And there is an area in South Australia they are trying to identify a specific site for that. Now some of the low-level waste can be long lived, the short-term intermediate level waste is generally … you have it radioactive for 300 years.

There is also what is called long lived intermediate level waste, now this waste comes from two main areas one is the production of isotopes. That is the most significant on site problem. The other way we can get long-lived intermediate level waste is the waste that will come back from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. Basically we send spent fuel rods to France and they send back an amount of waste that contains the same amount of radioactivity as the spent fuel. Only the spent fuel is in a waste from now. Now that long term intermediate level waste must be stored before it can be disposed of so the government is looking at building a store next to the national nuclear dump. And ultimately claims it will seek a deep geological repository for the longer lived waste. But also that presupposes that the spent fuel will go overseas for reprocessing. It may not it may be, it may that the spent fuel will stay here and then Australia will have to deal with that…

Eric Miller: Now the fuel rods from the old reactor … they're still sitting around Lucas Heights and they have been trying to get rid of them?

Jean McSorley: Well the government does have two leet outs now. One of them is they can send a certain amount of the spent fuel back to America. America have a policy of taking back highly enriched uranium spent which it originally sourced Australia years ago, so half the current 16.000 spent fuel rods will go back to America. The other half will go to France for reprocessing and again we will get waste back from that. So that is going to be over the next few years. … In theory that will go to France for reprocessing, but over the longer term…. of the reactor, most people just do believe that over the 50 years of the new reactor that the reprocessing plants will remain open.

There's tremendous political and social pressure in France and Britain to close the British and French reprocessing plants. They are the two last reprocessing plants on the planet, they are very hazardous, there's major problems associated with them. So we don't think these contracts can possibly be forfilled over the next 50 years. That is a major issue that the committee significantly failed to address.

Eric Miller; Now you've lived next to the Sellafield reprocessing plant, it is a very dirty industry isn't it?

Jean McSorley: It is incredibly hazardous, it is one of the most hazardous parts of the nuclear fuel cycle for workers. In terms of routine radioactive discharges … Sellafield holds the world record of the worlds largest radioactive discharger of marine waste and La Harge which is the plant that Australia wants to send it its spent fuel is the largest airial discharger in the world. So here are two very dirty facilities. Australia has opted for the dirty French facility. What's more gaoling about that is Australia banned the reprocessing of fuel here last February under legislation. Because there was a huge outcry from politicians and the public when there was a suggestion of having a reprocessing plant at Lucas Heights. Its not just hypocritical, it’s a very immoral stance that Australia is taking on this and I think that ANSTO itself and many of the people there are being very immoral about off loading this problem onto another country and another community.

Eric Miller: Are governments seeing reprocessing as a way of managing this waste? It just seems like creating more problems.

Jean McSorley: They claim that this is a way of handling the waste because of the bazaar notion that before they can build the reactor they have to prove that they've got disposal routes. Now this is one of the reasons they are pushing for a nuclear dump in South Australia, so they can claim they have a disposal route for the low-level waste. In terms of the spent fuel rods, rather than biting the bullet as it were, and saying right we are going to deal with the spent fuel here. We will have to look at alternative technology. Alternative technologies do exist we don't have to reprocess this fuel. They're just saying well reprocessing is a known disposal route. That means we can get it off site. That means we have the political get out to build another reactor. That's the reason they're doing it. It is certainly not the best environmental option and it is not necessarily the only technical option that they have of dealing with this material.

I should point out that the Americans will not be reprocessing the spent fuel that we send to them, and yet ANSTO swear blind that you have to reprocess highly enriched spent fuel you can't consider disposing it directly. There are just so many lies going on around this it makes some of the other debates the government is involved look quite honest.

Eric Miller: Now transporting this waste is quite a hazardous operation and we have a ship carrying a whole lot of plutonium and uranium in MOX fuel travelling past Australia now. The government has not expressed any concern about that ship passing our shores.

Jean McSorley: No, no, Australia has got a very blase attitude towards nuclear transports regardless of what the government might claim the shipment mixed oxide fuel (MOX) which is currently coming around the coast of Australia and will travel through the Tasman sea to Japan contains certainly very hazardous nuclear materials not the least of which is the plutonium in that fuel which can be used for nuclear weapons. In terms of radiological hazards the spent fuel that will be sent over to Europe will be far more radiologically dangerous and yet Australia chooses to send those spent fuel rods on ordinary cargo carriers. Whereas at least this material is being carried on the MOX shipment … the ships are purpose built nuclear carriers.

Eric Miller: so it seems as if the government is getting itself deeper and deeper into the nuclear industry. It looks as if the industry is perpetuating itself.

Jean McSorley: Well yes, the industry is generally very good at perpetuating itself. It is an industry which has got quite significant influence at a lot of levels, not just parliamentarians, but primarily because the parliamentarians are told by pro-nuclear officials that they need a nuclear reactor and the pro-nuclear officials are informed by the pro-nuclear scientists you have to have a reactor. So this vicious circle goes on.

There is no doubt that foreign affairs and others the reactor is the most significant part of the nuclear infrastructure within Australia and indeed they have said as much, at present having the new reactor is more important than having more uranium mines. That's not to be dismissive of uranium mines, its putting the importance of the reactor in perspective

Cherrie: Anti-nuclear campaigner, Jean McSorley

The old reactor at Lucas Heights has to be closed down by 2005 so ANSTO will want to get a new reactor under way be next year. Back to Sutherland Shire Councillor, Genevieve Rankin.

Genevieve Rankin: No we don't have a lot of time. We are getting a lot of support at the moment from the national environment groups much as Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation, and I urge everyone to be writing as quickly as they can to the Prime Minister expressing outrage at this proposal. We will have actions going to Sydney. In fact there is one on Sunday where people will be standing in the highway explaining how close the reactor is and there will be a number of actions. But we need support from all over Australia and particularly from people who are concerned about the transportation of nuclear waste. The only way to solve the problem of nuclear waste is not to create any more.

And then we will have to go all out for the next hundred generations to see what we can do with this terrible waste we have created now.

Cherrie: But ANSTO is still a long way off from building its new reactor at Lucas Heights. Back to Jean McSorley.

Jean McSorley: They have got a lot of processes to go through. They have to have to prove to the government that they have got a nuclear waste disposal plan that is going to actually work. That's going to be an up hill struggle for them. There is increasing opposition in South Australia, to not only the high level waste but the low-level waste. ANSTO has to go through contracting to make sure the tenders that are put forward stay within the price tag … they have claimed the government is quite a reasonable price tag. They have to get through design criteria. The debate is not over by a long shot. This debate is going to be quite torturous, it is going to take quite a while. But certainly we have not given up and are saying that this is going to go ahead. We've seen an over the world that the industry has been in trouble. Equally powerful organisations as ANSTO have had their plans halted, so people shouldn't despair.

Cherrie: The government does not know where to put the processed fuel rods from the old reactor. Most likely they are hoping to store them temporarily at the proposed national waste dump in South Australia and then to dump them at an international nuclear waste dump like the one proposed by Pangea for Western Australia.

Eric asked Robin Chapple if Pangea had set up offices yet?

Robin Chapple: Not, quite, they are here in strength. They're actually working out of the Duckston Hotel at Perth her at the moment. It is my understanding that they will establish their offices in about two and a half weeks time.

Eric Miller: They've got quite a number of staff working there?

Robin Chapple: It's difficult to estimate how many but at least we that three of their senior exec's are here in Perth. They obviously have got their PR people here and their legal people here.

Eric Miller: You have been doing a lot of work to combat that?

Robin Chapple: In terms of the public conception over here it is quite unequivocally, "go away Pangea". In that regard we are doing what ever we can to try to get the state government to legislate them out of the state. We are not actually not trying to promote a bill directly. We are encouraging the Premier to introduce his own legislation. Now the Minister for Resource Development, Colin Barnett, has been, shall we say, ambivalent on the issue and is also a potential challenger for the Premier's position. In this regard we believe that it is in the Premiers interest to be equivocal on this matter … Pangea shouldn't come here and do so by legislation. Because, one, we believe it would give the Premier a great deal of credibility to be out there in the public. And two, it would make it quite clear to Pangea that they didn't have a hope in hell. And as such would encourage them to go away.

Eric Miller: You have been having a number of conferences and public meetings?

Robin Chapple: Yes … extremely well attended. We had a conference the weekend before last with Mary Alson from the Nuclear Information Research Service in Washington DC, Geraldton and other places where they were equally well attended.

Eric Miller: Now I believe that there are a number of councils that have come onside.

Robin Chapple: Yes, and that is growing too. A particular issue in point is the issue of the Chapman Valley Shire Council where they have actually moved within their town planning scheme legislation, which would prohibit the use of the movement of nuclear materials through their Shire. Now interesting enough while the government is saying we wont support Pangea and we don't support they're opposing the Shire introducing that legislation. So it is anticipated very shortly either it will be a High Court action between the local authority and the government to actually define actually whether they have the right to do that in law.

Eric Miller: How many councils do you have calling themselves Nuclear Free?

Robin Chapple: Most probably, and it is difficult to assertion, because we actually haven't had a response from each council yet, most probably between 10 and 20 councils that are 'Nuclear Free'. Now in most cases that is merely a moral statement by the council and is not enshrined in law. But with the advent of Chapman Valley doing down a legal process we do know that a number of other councils are looking at similar, if not mirroring legislation of the Chapman Valley proposal.

Eric Miller: Where is Chapman Valley?

Robin Chapple: Chapman Valley is to the north east of Geraldton on the western coast of Western Australia. It has, or it is potentially one of the shires, which Pangea might wish to transport material through if they were to use the Officer Basin location. Now Pangea have identified two locations in Western Australia. One at Officer Basin and one at Saviour Basin to the northwest.

Eric Miller: So one is around the Laverton area and the other is up near the Pilbera.

Robin Chapple: The Pilbera, quite close to Newman.

Eric Miller: So that is quite an encouraging situation that is occurring in Western Australia then.

Robin Chapple: Well, I mean it is encouraging in one sense that the community is becoming quite vocal and totally opposed to the process, but the other which is worrying is Pangea, regardless of that opposition are setting up their organisation here in Western Australia and the Premier to date has not sort to legislate. Now the unfortunate thing is without legislation Pangea will stay here irrespective of what people say, we will put our proposal to government in two to four years.

Eric Miller: So they have got a lot of time and a lot of money on their side?

Robin Chapple: Certainly British Nuclear Fuels, people involved previously in British Nuclear Fuels, and people involved in corporations set up by British Nuclear Fuels are here working with Pangea in this state.

Eric Miller: If you are successful in getting rid of British Nuclear Fuels it might go to some other state in Australia?

Robin Chapple: Well I suppose the fundamental issue is if Mr Court legislates then we would hope that he and the government get federal backing for such legislation and an the introduction of mirroring legislation at a federal level. Because our fight while it is specifically WA is quite clearly that of Australia. And while we are saying we don't want it in WA we are actually saying we don’t want it anywhere in the world. This is not the correct way of dealing with nuclear waste. Burial has in the past led to significant problems and will continue to do so. Burial is the cheap option for the nuclear industry. It is not the answer.

Eric Miller: O K Robin, thank you very much for that.

Cherrie: That was Robin Chapple from the Anti-uranium coalition in Western Australia and the music we have been listening to throughout the show was Nuclear Cop by Red Gum. Now Eric you've got some news for us.

Eric Miller: Yes, the Senate has passed a motion condemning the government on its effective endorsement of the highly radioactive shipment around Australia. This is the MOX shipment going around Australia at the moment. And as your heard the government hasn't put up any condemnation against the French, the British or Japan who are actually promoting this and doing this shipment. British Nuclear Fuels have said that there will be up to five shipment each year if this shipment is successful. We surly hope that it is successful.

This shipment has plutonium on it, enough to make 60 nuclear weapons. South Africa and all of the pacific countries are condemning this shipment and Australia hasn't done anything about it. And of course it is because we are so involved in the nuclear fuel cycle now. We are shipping our own fuel rods back to France and back to Britain and to America. We have locked ourselves into this nuclear fuel cycle. The ALP put up this motion. They are in a funny situation, because they unanimously endorsed the Public Works endorsement of Lucas Heights this week. And that is the news this week Cherrie.

Cherrie: Thanks Eric. That’s all from the Radioactive Show now being heard on the Community Radio Satellite Network. The Radioactive Show is produced in studios of 3CR. You are able to contact us if you have an issue you want raised or any comments about the programs, you will find us at ra3cr@hotmail.com And of course our web address www.sea-us.org.au

And you can read transcripts of the show at that address.

Transcript produced by Ila Marks - with much thanks!!!
Page last updated September 25, 1999.
Back to the Radio-Active Show Archivesor Back to the SEA-US Front Page

Copyright © SEA-US 1999