Secretive nuclear bill: Liberal and Labor increase radiation threat
By Jim Green
The federal government has pushed a bill through the House of Representatives which will increase the radiation threat in Australia. The Labor "opposition" did not oppose the bill.
The bill, which will go before the Senate in mid-August (unless an election is called in the meantime), creates the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), which replaces the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Australian Radiation Laboratory.
ARPANSA will have numerous functions, including:
- licensing the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear facilities under commonwealth jurisdiction;
- regulating the transport and disposal of radioactive materials under commonwealth jurisdiction;
- promoting uniform radiation protection and nuclear safety standards around Australia; and
- undertaking research and providing advice and services in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety.
ARPANSA will be responsible for regulating the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates a nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney's Sutherland council area. It may be responsible for regulating the radioactive waste dump planned for the Billa Kalina region in SA. ARPANSA will also have some responsibility in relation to the uranium industry — for example, by setting radiation exposure limits.
The bill ought to resolve a number of long-standing problems in the nuclear industry: excessive self-regulation, fragmentation of regulatory bodies, inconsistencies between the states/territories, excessive staff cross-over between promotional and regulatory bodies, the lack of real powers for regulatory bodies and the lack of transparency and genuine public accountability.
However, ARPANSA will not significantly improve the current situation. Perhaps the only thing to applaud is that the legislation will bring a number of previously unregulated institutions, such as the CSIRO, under regulation.
Trish Worth, parliamentary secretary to the minister for health, Michael Wooldridge, said in parliament, "The whole framework for this legislation relies on a lot of detail in regulation". Yet the regulations — said to run to 100 pages — have not been publicly released. In fact, changes are still being made to them, and a government spokesperson said there is no guarantee that they will be available before the government attempts to push the bill through the Senate.
The government claims to have consulted all "stakeholders", but only commonwealth and state government departments were consulted. Environment groups and representatives of communities living around nuclear sites and uranium mines have had to muscle their way into the debate.
Critics have had some success in forcing improvements in the bill: community representatives will now be appointed to the council and working groups within ARPANSA. Of course, the government's definition of a community representative may differ from yours or mine.
Lack of independence
The regulatory body, which should be a statutory authority, completely independent of government, is a half-baked arrangement. The chief executive officer of ARPANSA will be a statutory office-holder, but ARPANSA staff will be public servants employed by the federal Department of Health and Family Services. Hiring and firing of ARPANSA staff will be the responsibility of the health minister.
According to legal advice presented to the Sutherland Shire Council, government control of ARPANSA staffing "is a sure give-away of the government's intention to create a regulator subservient to the bureaucracy". Even within the tame framework of Australia's environmental regulation, there are examples of regulatory agencies which control their own staff appointments: the NSW Environment Protection Agency, for example.
The proposed legislation will do little or nothing to fix the problem of revolving-door staffing, with staff transferring between the regulatory body, the federal bureaucracy and nuclear companies and agencies (in particular ANSTO).
Lucas Heights
The ARPANSA bill permits wide-ranging exemptions for anything to do with national security or defence. This is of particular concern to those fighting the plan to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. According to the legal advice provided to Sutherland Council, "ANSTO can simply refuse to obey any directive [of ARPANSA] and any condition of a facility licence because it holds to the belief that to obey may be prejudicial to national security and defence".
Sutherland's Liberal mayor, Kevin Schreiber, wrote to the federal government's Nuclear Safety Bureau saying, "Council supports this Bill and hopes that it will enjoy the confidence of the Senate and will be passed as soon as possible". In fact, council had not even debated the bill.
Councillor Genevieve Rankin, convener of the People Against a Nuclear Reactor (PANR), will put a motion to the August 10 council meeting that the mayor rescind the letter; the meeting will double as a community protest against the new reactor.
The bill does nothing to redress the situation of ANSTO being immune from state environmental, health and safety laws.
Radiation exposure
The overall objective of the bill is said to be the protection of people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. This is a red herring since there is no safe dose for radiation exposure; even the nuclear industry acknowledges this.
The bill will give a legislative basis to Australia's inadequate radiation exposure limits. According to Rankin, allowable radiation doses will be 10 times the amount recommended by the Sutherland Shire Council.
There is growing evidence linking radiation to genetic defects, as outlined in a New Scientist article titled "Radiation Roulette" (October 11, 1997). Apart from the possibility of radiation inducing cancer in future generations, radiobiologists are concerned about recent research findings that radiation-induced genetic instability may cause a "scatter-gun effect" — small increases in a wide range of disorders, including defective foetal development and brain disorders such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and motor neuron diseases.
The 1997 US Santa Susana Epidemiological Study indicates that the health impact of radiation has been underestimated by as much as a factor of 10.
None of this research is reflected in the ARPANSA legislation. Nor is there anything in the proposed legislation to suggest that there will be ongoing monitoring of the health impacts of radiation in and around nuclear facilities.
The radiation doses permitted under the ARPANSA bill are of particular relevance to the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory. According to anti-nuclear campaigner Jean McSorley, if the lowest estimates of radiation exposure from the Jabiluka mine are accurate, people living in the vicinity of the mine will still receive radiation doses equivalent to the maximum recommended levels in the US.
If the highest estimates are accurate, members of the public may receive doses higher than one milliSievert (mSv) per annum, which is the maximum exposure limit recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for the public.
Some countries — including Germany, the UK and the US — have erred on the side of caution by setting lower limits than this. Australia, in contrast, will not only adopt the maximum limits recommended by the ICRP, but also allow increased doses in "exceptional" circumstances.
Workers at the Jabiluka mine (if it goes ahead) may also be subjected to radiation doses in excess of internationally allowed limits. Jabiluka will be an underground mine, which means there are increased risks associated with radon inhalation. In addition, Jabiluka is one of the most radioactive ore bodies in the world, and the highly penetrating external gamma radiation will be difficult to protect against.
Energy Resources of Australia estimates that worker exposure will be less than 20 mSv per annum at the Jabiluka mine, but concedes the potential for higher exposures. The Australian regulations could allow for annual radiation doses of 50 mSv for five consecutive years — a total exposure of 250 mSv or just over one quarter of the recommended life-time dose limit.
Bipartisan support
The ARPANSA bill has far-reaching implications for the nuclear industry in Australia. Despite this, it passed through the House of Representatives with hardly any debate. Why did the Labor Party fail to take the opportunity to score some political points against the Coalition government for pushing through such objectionable legislation?
One possible answer is the power of the nuclear industry. Another difficulty for Labor is that if it takes the high moral ground on this issue, it is certain to face accusations of hypocrisy from the Coalition parties — and they would be right.
How could anyone forget the ALP's 1983 back-flip, when a no-mines policy in opposition became a three-mines policy after the ALP won government?
Further, as the minister for environment, Robert Hill, has already noted in parliament, more uranium was exported during the ALP's 13 years in government than during the Coalition's previous 27 years. Hill reminded the ALP's John Faulkner of his decision to approve a major expansion at Roxby Downs before the 1996 election, without even requiring an additional environmental impact statement.
The Green senators, Dee Margetts and Bob Brown, will oppose the bill when it goes the Senate. There were indications that the Democrats were prepared to support the bill, but their position may change.
The PANR is fighting to prevent passage of the bill through the Senate in its present form. For copies of a critical letter to send to the government, phone (02) 9545 3077.