The Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act 1999
updated March 22, 2008
On Thursday
25 November 1999 the Western Australian Parliament passed “The
Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act 1999” in response to the
clear demostration of opposition by the WA community. In theory, this
law bans the importation of nuclear waste into Western Australia.
The intent of the act is that if there was any proposal to bring nuclear
waste into WA, the decision making process would be taken out of the
hands of the Radiological Council that administers the Radiation Safety
Act 1975 and given to both houses of Parliament by the consequential
amendment to that Act, which states
“an
authorisation relating to “nuclear waste” is not to be granted
or effected unless both Houses of Parliament by resolution consent
to the authorisation being granted.”
Whilst that
is seemingly good we must look at another consequential amendment
to the Radiation Safety Act 1975, where “nuclear waste”
is defined, the definition given to it by section 8 of the Nuclear
Waste Storage Prohibition Act 1999(NWSP), the very act that seeks
to prohibit the burial of nuclear waste.
This NWSP
Act defines “nuclear waste” as any radioactive substance,
for which the Radiological Council is satisfied that no “beneficial
use” is envisaged with the exception of any radioactive substance
which has been generated in Australia other than from waste radioactive
substances imported into Australia or material that is used under
a licence, registration, exemption, disposal permit or temporary permit
under the Radiation Safety Act 1975.
The two keys to this
section are:
1. any radioactive substance, for which the Radiological Council
is satisfied that no beneficial use is envisaged.
What is “beneficial use”? There is no descriptor in either
act on “beneficial use”. Is it the return to WA of $300
million per annum in royalty from the burial of waste? If this is
so then it is not waste as described in the NWSP Act.
Note: “beneficial
use”, means: having benefits by bringing into service, being
of valuable use, being of advantageous use and being of constructive
use.
2. any radioactive substance, with the exception for any radioactive
substance which has been generated in Australia.
What does generated in Australia mean? Is it material that has been
mined or generated (had its genesis) in Australia and then sent
overseas? If this is so then it is not “nuclear waste”
as described in the NWSP Act.
The Radiological Council
believe that because the radioactive substance has had radioactive
and chemical alteration then it is not the same material, therefore
it could not be described as generated in Australia.
The definition of any radioactive substance which has been generated
in Australia hinges on the understanding of radioactive substance
under the Radiation Safety Act 1975. This description defines a radioactive
substance as being amongst other things as “any compound or
mixture, subjected to any artificial treatment or process, which consists
of or contains more than the maximum prescribed concentration of any
radioactive element, whether natural or artificial”. It identifies
no origin for the material; it merely identifies all material over
a prescribed concentration as being a radioactive substance.
This would seem to mean that any radioactive compound or mixture,
subjected to any artificial treatment or process, which consists of
or contains more than the maximum prescribed concentration of any
radioactive element, whether natural or artificial, which has been
generated in Australia is not, as described by the NWSP Act, “nuclear
waste”.
Pangea reacted fairly predictably to the news.
"We
will fulfil our commitments to complete the scientific studies needed
to confirm the Pangea concept and continue to willingly provide information
to interested parties.”
Pangea
Media Release November 25, 1999
Behind the scenes though,
there are signs the company is hedging its bets. On January 20, 2000
the UIC reported the formation of Pangea Resources International,
which would be taking the search to South America and Southern Africa.
Technical studies have begun, although Pangea denies having contacted
governments in either region.
Pangea might also opt for South Australia. A 1997 document commissioned
by Pangea identifies areas in SA, namely the Arckaringa Basin and
the Stuart Shelf. In 1998, Pangea representatives visited Australia
offering to operate the proposed national dump in SA as a private
operation. Pangea's infamous corporate video, leaked in December,
1998, identifies areas in both western and southern Australia as potential
sites.
Alternatively, Pangea can simply wait it out here in WA until some
of the opposition has died down.
“Australia
is still the biggest and best-looking area.
We are halfway through our feasibility study, and we fully intend
to complete it."
Pangea
CEO Charles McCombie.
|
