Roman Oszanski

A Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Preamble I have chosen not to follow the issues papers: their questions are more suited to those planning to expand the nuclear industry, and many of the issues raised are irrelevant if one believes that, based on the evidence, the industry should be left to die a natural death, rather than being supported to the exclusion of more promising technologies.

Executive Summary The civil nuclear industry is in decline globally. [Ref charts on existing reactors, rising costs]. It is not an industry of the future, but of the past. If it were not for the intimate connection to the military industry, it would not exist today. There is no economic advantage to SA in expanding the existing industry in this state. Nuclear power does not offer a practical solution to climate change: total lifetime emissions are likely to be (at best) similar to those of gas power plants, and there is insufficient uranium to replace all the goal fired generators. A transition to breeder technologies leaves us with major problems of waste disposal and proliferation of weapons material. Indeed, the problems of weapons proliferation and the black market in fissionable materials mean that we should limit sales of Uranium to countries which are known proliferation risks, or are non- signatories to the NNPT: we should ban sales of Australian Uranium to Russia and India. There is a current oversupply of enrichment facilities, and there is considerable international concern at the possibility of using such facilities to enrich Uranium past reactor grade to weapons grade. {cite concern over Iran enrichment plant). Wasting funds on a declining industry would be a lost opportunity cost in combatting climate change. Money spent on encouraging a nuclear industry would be better spent on further developing the state’s use of renewables, and developing and integrated energy efficiency programme [cite factor four]. Both efficiency and renewables offer better opportunities to ameliorate climate change and reduce our carbon emissions. What’s more, they will generate many more jobs than large centralised power plants. Our electricity system is currently transitioning from an expensive, monolithic grid requiring baseload power plants (typically coal) to one of interconnected, distributed grids based on renewables and storage. This provides cost and reliability benefits, initially to remote settlements (as has been noted by the managers of the grids in Queensland, NSW and SA), but even for inner suburbs of Sydney [cite CSIRO study]. Economics dictate that the future grid will be based on renewables, demand management and either storage or peaking plant. We see this transition happening in Australia (much to the chagrin of the traditional baseload generators), and even France — often touted as a prime example of a nuclear- powered state — has announced that rather than replace a third of its raging nuclear fleet, they will replace their nuclear plants with a mix of renewables. [cite article] The Nuclear industry has a waste problem. They don’t have a long-term storage facility for high level waste, typically spent reactor fuel rods, which are currently stored on-site at existing reactors. The preferred industry solution is deep geological storage in a remote facility which would have to be isolated from the environment for periods of around 240,000 years. The best they’ve managed with their small test site US Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was a few years. An accident has rendered that site currently unusable. “no final disposal facilities have yet been fully implemented for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. A lack of experience in the complete deployment of deep geological repositories, combined with the extensive periods required for the implementation of back-end solutions, have thus contributed to growing uncertainties about the costs associated with managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.” —OECD Nuclear Energy Agency1 The other alternative is to process the waste in fast breeder reactors to transform the waste into more short-lived waste. Proponents suggest that SA should accept high level waste from around the world, and then fund the development of an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) or a PRISM reactor to avoid the cost of looking after waste for 240,000 years. One has to ask, if these new 4th generation reactors are so useful, why isn’t the world already full of such reactors? Plutonium extracted during reprocessing of spent fuel (eg via the existing UK THORP reactor) is regarded as weapons usable, a clear proliferation risk.2

There are no commercial examples of these new “Generation IV” reactors, primarily because of concerns over proliferation, as they could be used as a source of plutonium.[ref??] Neither solution deals with a fundamental problem of safety: how would we transport the high level waste to outback SA? All commercial transport would pass through densely inhabited areas such as Pt Adelaide. A separate military transport under armed guard would be a very expensive solution. Recommendations: (a) stop the export of uranium to non NNPT signatory states (eg India), or those states with a history of black market traffic in nuclear materials (eg Russia); (b) do not expand the nuclear industry in this state; (c) to tackle climate change, fund the expansion of renewables, particularly solar thermal with storage; energy efficiency programs for industry and domestic dwellings, and support the development and addition of storage to the grid; (d) continue the ban on the import of high level nuclear waste and the facilities for the processing of such waste in SA; (e) reject any proposals to establish a high level international waste dump on traditional indigenous lands. More detail in the Appendices.

1 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2013/7061-ebenfc.pdf

2 House of Commons, The Environment Committee, First Report, 12th June 1985, Volume 1, Page 281.Source: CEGB Evidence to Sizewell B Public Inquiry Appendix 1: The Nuclear Industry The Nuclear Industry is in decline globally. The most recent World Nuclear Industry Status Report 20143 includes these highlights:

• Declining role. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production declined from the 2012 low of 4.5 percent, a level last seen in 1984, to a new low of 4.4 percent.

• Aging. The average age of the world’s operating nuclear reactors to increase and by mid-2014 stood at 28.5 years.

• Construction Delays. At least 49—including three quarters of the Chinese projects—of the total of 69 construction sites have encountered delays, many of them multi-annual. Construction of two units in Taiwan was halted.

• Project Cancellations. Several projects have been cancelled and new programs indefinitely delayed, including in the Czech Republic and in Vietnam.

• Operating Costs Soar. Nuclear generating costs jumped by 16 percent in real terms in three years in France, and several units are shut down in the U.S. because income does not cover operating costs. The economic survival of nuclear plants is also threatened in Belgium, Germany and Sweden.

• Renewables vs. Nuclear. In 2013 alone, 32 gigawatts (GW) of wind and 37 GW of solar were added to the world power grids. By the end of 2013, China had 91 GW of wind power and 18 GW of solar capacity installed, solar exceeding for the first time operating nuclear capacity. China added four times more solar than nuclear capacity in the past year. And Spain generated more power from wind than from any other source, outpacing nuclear for the first time. It is also the first time that wind has become the largest electricity generating source over an entire year in any country. Spain has thus joined the list of nuclear countries that produce more electricity from new renewables—excluding large hydro-power— than from nuclear power that includes Brazil, China, Germany, India and Japan.

3 http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2014.html This infographic summarises the situation: (source http://www.statista.com/chart/2584/age-of-nuclear-reactors)/

The fleet of raging reactors will soon need refurbishment or replacement, and the cost of new reactors continues to rise, with construction delays and long lead times. As the costs of renewables are on a downward trend (solar PV is already directly competitive with coal- fired generation for household use in many parts of the world, including Australia), the economic trend doesn’t favour nuclear.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists noted in its 2011 report NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies4,

“The findings are striking: since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited—and continues to benefit—from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed…subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path. “

If Nuclear was actually an effective solution to greenhouse gas emissions, it might be worth subsidising. But this claim is dependent on ready access to high grade Uranium ores.

4 www.ucsusa.org/sites/.../nuclear power/nuclear subsidies report.pdf As Associate Professor mark Diesendorf notes in his article for The Conversation5:

In a study published in 2008, nuclear physicist and nuclear energy supporter Manfred Lenzen compared life-cycle emissions from several types of power station. For nuclear energy based on mining high-grade uranium ore, he found average emissions of 60 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity generation, compared with 10–20 g per kWh for wind and 500–600 g per kWh for gas. Now comes the part that most nuclear proponents try to ignore.

The world has, at most, a few decades of high-grade uranium ore reserves left. As ore grades inevitably decline, more diesel fuel is needed to mine and mill the uranium, and so the resulting CO2 emissions rise. Lenzen calculated the life-cycle emissions of a nuclear power station running on low-grade uranium ore to be 131 g per kWh.

Note that even with the assumption of high grade ore, wind still averages less than a third of the emissions of nuclear.

Nuclear generation is an expensive proposition: we need only look at the proposed Hinkley Point C reactor in Britain: EDF has been given a guaranteed inflation-linked price for electricity over 35 years, starting at about US$180 per megawatt hour – double the typical wholesale price of electricity in the UK. It will also receive a loan guarantee of about US$20 billion and insurance backed by the British taxpayer. Those subsidies are currently under challenge in the European Court of Justice by Austria. Given the construction company, Areva, is on the verge of bankruptcy and facing problems over the excess carbon in reactor vessels cast for the Flamanville-3 (and possibly two Chinese reactors), there are some doubts about whether final approval will be given for funding the new reactor this October.

Generation IV reactors, none of which are commercially operating, are the new generation of reactor designs which are supposed to solve problems of safety, cost, proliferation and waste. many of the proposed designs such as the Integral fast reactor (IFR) and Small Modular reactors (SMRs) could in fact increase the risks of nuclear proliferation, as summarised by Beyond Nuclear6

Nuclear Industry proponents would have us believe that Gen IV reactors will solve all our problems, and wake us in the morning with a nice hot cup of tea.

This confidence is not necessarily shared by the industry itself. The French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) has produced an important critique of Generation IV nuclear power concepts7. IRSN is a government authority with 1,790 staff under the joint authority of the Ministries of Defense, the Environment, Industry, Research, and Health. The IRSN report focuses on the six Generation IV concepts prioritised by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), which brings together 12 countries with an interest in new reactor types, plus Euratom.

5 https://theconversation.com/accidents-waste-and-weapons-nuclear-power-isnt-worth-the-risks-41522

6 http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/356082/21732801/1358994245757/ BN Final FullFactsheet IFR Jan2013.pdf?token=ehFhI1yw8cHOAh%2BKCgRnhh3Uc9g%3D

7 www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Documents/IRSN Report-GenIV 04-2015.pdf The six concepts are Sodium cooled Fast Reactors (SFR); Very High Temperature Reactors, with thermal neutron spectrum (VHTR); Gas-cooled Fast Reactors (GFR); Lead-cooled Fast Reactors (LFR) or Lead-Bismuth (LB) cooled Fast Reactors;Molten Salt Reactors (MSR), with fast or thermal neutron spectrum; and SuperCritical Water Reactors (SCWR), with fast or thermal neutron spectrum.

The report says: "There is still much R&D to be done to develop the Generation IV nuclear reactors, as well as for the fuel cycle and the associated waste management which depends on the system chosen."

They say the SFR system to be the only one to have reached a degree of maturity compatible with the construction of a reactor prototype during the first half of this century − and even the development of an SFR prototype would require further preliminary studies and technological developments

We only have experience with SFR and VHTR systems The report notes: "No operating experience feedback from the other four systems studied can be put to direct use. The technological difficulties involved rule out any industrial deployment of these systems within the time frame considered [mid century]."

The report says that for LFR and GFR systems, small prototypes might be built by mid- century. For MSR and SCWR systems, there "is no likelihood of even an experimental or prototype MSR or SCWR being built during the first half of this century" and "it seems hard to imagine any reactor being built before the end of the century".

IRSN is sceptical about safety claims: "At the present stage of development, IRSN does not notice evidence that leads to conclude that the systems under review are likely to offer a significantly improved level of safety compared with Generation III reactors, except perhaps for the VHTR ..." While VHTR could bring about significant safety improvements "but only by significantly limiting unit power".

Appendix 2: New look grid: baseload vs storage The Australian grid was based on the idea of centralised baseload (typically coal-fired) generators which ran continuously (since they took 24 to 48 hours to start up or shut down), with so-called “peak load” generators (typically gas-fired, which could be fired up quickly) to supplement the baseload when demand grew beyond the capacity of baseload. Though gas was more expensive, the utilities could charge anything up to 1000 times the base load rate — it was said many utilities made their profits over the forty or so hours of peak demand. The sudden growth of renewables, coupled with an overall decline in demand, has caused profits to drop for the fossil fuel based generators. Under the NEM rules, they buy extra power on a least cost basis — solar or wind typically trumps gas for peak demand. The fossil fuel generators have reduced profits because renewables have reduced the overall peak demand, and displace gas generation for satisfying any peaks.

The “intelligent grid” research by the CSIRO and the Institute for Sustainable Futures8 summarised the advantages of a distributed grid with contributions from local, renewable sources:

An “intelligent” electricity grid has a minimal amount of waste and a highly efficient use of power. It is an electricity network that uses distributed energy resources and advanced communication and control technologies to deliver electricity more cost-effectively, with lower greenhouse intensity and in response to consumer needs.\

Distributed energy means, smaller forms of electricity generation and management of energy use combined to balance out the load of all the users on the system. For example, distributed energy resources could involve heating, cooling and powering a commercial building using a combination of solar panels, micro turbines, fuel cells energy efficiency and load control.

Small generators include wind turbines, solar panels, micro turbines, fuel cells and cogeneration (combined heat and power). These types of energy sources can be closer to the users, rather than one large centralised source a long way away. Some rely on renewable energy with no greenhouse emissions and others make more efficient use of conventional power generated from coal.

Advanced types of control and management technologies for the electricity grid can also make it run more efficiently overall. These include things like advanced control systems and smart electricity meters that show real-time use and costs and can respond to remote communication and dynamic electricity pricing.

Think Small: The Australian Decentralised Energy Roadmap, a 2011 report from the ISF9 quantifies the potential savings and summarises the technologies of interest. Stuart White,

8 http://igrid.net.au/

9 Dunstan, C. Boronyak, L, Langham., E., Ison, N.,Usher J.,Cooper C.and White, S.2011, Think Small: The Australian Decentralised Energy Roadmap: Issue 1, December 2011.CSIRO Intelligent Grid Research Program. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney the then director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures, talked to 3d radio about the roadmap: http://enviroshow3d.tumblr.com/search/Stuart+White

Groups around Australia have been analysing the possibility of going to 100% renewables — the landmark 2010 study10 by Beyond Zero Emissions in conjunction with the University of Melbourne actually quantified the cost of moving to a 100% renewable power generation using solar thermal (with molten salt storage) and wind over a decade. Their detailed report includes appendices which look at job creation in the construction of solar thermal: about 280 jobs per year for 2.5 years for a 75 MW plant.

Other groups at ANU, ISF and the University of Melbourne have analysed different scenarios for the transition to renewables for the Australian grid.

Mark Diesendorf and colleagues have analysed weather data with their simulation to discover the economically optimum mix of renewables to power the Australian net11.

The surprising result from his report is that we can meet the power and reliability requirements with a mix that is 94% renewables. There is no need for baseload generators, just peaking plant or storage.

10 http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020 Stationary Energy Report v1.pdf

11 http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Low%20Emission%20Fossil%20Scenarios.pdf In a recent report commissioned by the CCSA, Mark Diesendorf analysed the data to see if 100% renewables was feasible for SA12. His conclusion: “80–100% annual electricity generation from RE, with at least two-thirds of annual generation supplied by variable RE, is technically feasible and reliable”. Also note: “There is no need for any base-load power stations, such as coal or nuclear. Indeed, the lack of operational flexibility of coal and nuclear makes them poor partners for high penetrations of variable RE”.

12 Diesendorf M (2015) 100% Renewable Electricity for South Australia. Conservation Council of South Australia, Adelaide. http://www.conservationsa.org.au/images/ 100 Renewables for SA Report - Dr Mark Diesendorf - web version.pdf Appendix 3: Tackling Climate change Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer for several decades became a whistleblower over safety concerns. In this debate at Northwestern University he explains “why building new nukes would make global warming worse”: http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy- education/northwestern-university-speech-building-new-nukes-would-make-global- warming-worse The long timeframe for construction of nuclear reactors, coupled with the fact that they do not have low carbon emissions over their lifetime unless the uranium ore is high grade, suggest that Nuclear is not a useful solution to Climate Change, as it will not reduce carbon emissions quickly enough. Furthermore, the increasing cost of nuclear as opposed to the continuing drop in prices for renewables mean that the cost of carbon reductions are far less if we take the renewables and energy efficiency approach. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute and Ernst von Weizsäcker, founder of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment & Energy have documented how energy efficiency, and the use of the best current technology for lights, engines and motors can reduce electricity demands drastically by at least 75% the Factor 4 of their book of actual case studies.13. Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute detail in the book Reinventing Fire14 how: “Today’s commercially and practically viable renewable resources have the potential to generate over 20 times America’s total 2010 electricity use, and all regions have ample potential, though their mix differs widely. Extensive modeling based on market price and performance data suggests that the renewable energy needed to supply 80 percent or more of all U.S. electricity by 2050—probably all ultimately—can be captured cost-effectively (even without subsidy) and integrated reliably. A smarter electricity grid plus distributed generation, chiefly renewable, can also greatly enhance reliability and security. If the SA government wishes to tackle climate change, it should invest in renewables, particularly solar thermal with storage, and invest in retro-fitting existing industry with the most efficient current technologies in lights, motors and engines.

13Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use - A Report to the Club of Rome

14 http://www.rmi.org/electricity

The dangers of proliferation require high security at nuclear installations. The recent agreement over Iran’s nuclear reprocessing facilities, and the concern that it would lead to nuclear weapons, was the end result of high level negotiations from half a dozen countries over 18 months. Proliferation is a serious concern, and any move by Australia to develop enrichment or reprocessing facilities, let alone the building of breeder reactors (eg the Integral fast Reactor) could have serious repercussions for regional security.

Red Cross are so concerned about the consequences of nuclear war that they have proposed making possession and ownership of nuclear weapons a crime against humanity.

Dr Helen Durham, Head of International Law, Australian Red Cross, spoke about the campaign to outlaw nuclear weapons in 2012 before a major conference in Adelaide: http://enviroshow3d.tumblr.com/post/45819523728/the-australian-red-cross-is-hosting-a-conference

More details in their international humanitarian law magazine16.

Terrorism There is a considerable history of terrorist attacks on nuclear installations17: • In 1972, hijackers took control of a plane and threatened to crash it into the Oak Ridge nuclear research reactor. • In 1973, guards at a nearly completed nuclear power reactor at Lima, Argentina were overpowered in an attack by 15 armed men. • In 1977, Basque ETA terrorists set off bombs damaging the reactor vessel and a steam generator and killing two workers at the Lemoniz nuclear power plant under construction in Spain. There were several other attacks in the following years causing more deaths and more damage to the plant. • In November 1979. a bomb damaged a transformer at the Goesgen reactor in Switzerland just after it had gone into operation. • In 1982, four rockets were fired at the nearly-completed Superphenix fast breeder reactor at Creys-Malville, France, damaging the containment vessel. • In 1982, ANC fighters set off four bombs inside the Koeberg plant under construction in South Africa, despite tight security. • In 1983, nine sticks of gelignite, 25 kg of ammonium nitrate, three detonators and an igniter were found in an electrical substation inside the boundary fence at the Lucas Heights nuclear site south of Sydney. A detonator was set off but did not detonate the main explosives. • In 1993, a man crashed his station wagon through the security gate and into the turbine building of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.

16 http://www.redcross.org.au/files/IHLnuclear.pdf

17 see The Dirty Dozen: Let the facts Speak, summary, pp17-18 for details; full version at http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/ltfs-full.pdf Appendix 5: Accidents and Safety We have all heard of the major accidents: Chernobyl, Windscale, Chelyabinsk, Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Fukushima. Let the Facts Speak: the Dirty Dozen (published by the office of Scott Ludlum) is a summary which covers the arguably twelve worst accidents. The full version (4th edition) covers incidents from the 1940s to 2012. It is hard to quantify the additional deaths from major accidents such as Chernobyl, involving the dispersal of radioactive isotopes over a wide area. Most of the effects aren’t immediate, but rather the extra deaths from additional cancers caused by the exposure. These cancers develop over ten to forty years later. Figures vary widely, depending on assumptions, and the area varies from just the three countries in the CIS to most of Europe. Jim Green from Friends of the Earth summarises some of the estimates18 The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) cites an estimate from an international expert group − based on collective dose figures and risk estimates − of around 4,000 long-term cancer deaths among the people who received the highest radiation doses from Chernobyl.

The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates a total collective dose of 600,000 person-Sieverts over 50 years from Chernobyl fallout. Applying the LNT risk estimate of 0.10 fatal cancers per Sievert gives an estimate of 60,000 deaths. Sometimes a risk estimate of 0.05 is used to account for the possibility of decreased risks at low doses and/or dose rates (in other words, 0.05 is the risk estimate when applying a 'dose and dose rate effectiveness factor' or DDREF of two). That gives an estimate of 30,000 deaths.

UN reports in 2005-06 estimated up to 4,000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations (emergency workers from 1986−1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas) and an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

The estimated death toll rises further when populations beyond those three countries are included. For example, a study by Cardis et al reported in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths. Dr Elisabeth Cardis, head of the Radiation Group at the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, said: "By 2065 (i.e. in the eighty years following the accident), predictions based on these models indicate that about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur. About two-thirds of the thyroid cancer cases and at least one half of the other cancers are expected to occur in Belarus, Ukraine and the most contaminated territories of the Russian Federation."

UK radiation scientists Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr David Sumner estimate 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. Dr Fairlie notes that statements by UNSCEAR indicate that it believes the whole body collective dose across Europe from Chernobyl was 320,000 to 480,000 Sv, from which an estimate of 32,000 to 48,000 fatal cancers can be deduced (using the LNT risk estimate of 0.10).

18 http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/chernobyl Appendix 6: Waste The suggestion that Australia should host a dump for international high-level nuclear waste is not new; it has been suggested most recently by Pangea, and roundly rejected when the leaked video showed that the experts expected the dump to eventually leak. Locating it in outback Australia was apparently as fr away from the population centres in Europe and the US as they could imagine. As the US Nuclear regulatory commission notes19 Because of their highly radioactive fission products, high-level waste and spent fuel must be handled and stored with care. Since the only way radioactive waste finally becomes harmless is through decay, which for high-level wastes can take hundreds of thousands of years, the wastes must be stored and finally disposed of in a way that provides adequate protection of the public for a very long time. The time period usually mentioned is in the region of 240,000 years. The best guess is that a stable geological structure, perhaps a granite mound, separated from the water table, might be the best bet. Salt dome have been tried and failed (mainly due to the introduction of moisture). The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is the most recent deep geological repository to close because of accident. The Southwest Research and Information Center released a report on April 15, 201420 about the radiation release that took place on Feb 14th 2014: “one or more of 258 contact handled radioactive waste containers located in Room 7, Panel 7 of the underground repository released radioactive and toxic chemicals. The location of the leak was estimated to be approximately 1,500 feet (460 m) from the air monitor that triggered the contaminants in the filtration system. The contaminants were spread through more than 3,000 feet (910 m) of underground tunnels, leading to the 2,150-foot (660 m) exhaust shaft into the surrounding above-ground environment. Air monitoring station #107, located 0.5 miles (0.8 km) mile away detected the radiotoxins. “The filter from Station #107 was analyzed by the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center (SMERC) and found to contain 0.64 becquerels (Bq) per cubic meter of air of americium-241 and 0.014 Bq of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 per cubic meter of air.The DOE agrees that there was a release of radioactivity from the repository, and confirms that "The event took place starting at 14 February 2014 at 23:14 and continued to 15 February 2014 14:45. The DOE also confirmed that "A large shift in wind direction can be seen to occur around 8:30 AM on 2/15/14." The EPA reported on the radiological release on their WIPP News page. After analysis by CMERC, the Station A filter was found on February 15, 2014 to be contaminated with 4,335.71 Bq of Am-241 per cubic meter, and 671.61 Bq of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 per cubic meter. Bob Alvarez, former DOE official, stated that the long-term ramifications of the WIPP issue as being grounded in the fact that the DOE has 66,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste that has not been disposed of due to the fact that there are no long-term disposition plans in order for transuranic waste, including 5 tons of plutonium that are in-situ at the Savannah River Site, as well as water from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State “

19 http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html

20 Southwest Research and Information Center. "WIPP Radiation Release, April 15, 2014, 2014" (PDF). SRIC. Retrieved 15 April 2014 In an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists21, Alvarez wrote that "Wastes containing plutonium blew through the WIPP ventilation system, traveling 2,150 feet to the surface, contaminating at least 17 workers, and spreading small amounts of radioactive material into the environment." It is hard to imagine secure storage of high level waste for even a thousand years, let alone for hundreds of thousands of years. With climate change, we cannot guarantee the centre of Australia will be dry and geologically stable: it was only at the start of the decade that major flooding delivered large amounts of water to the centre of Australia. Even if we organise a foundation to protect the site from smugglers and terrorists for thousands of years, there’s still the problem of transporting high level waste from around the globe to outback Australia: the odds of an accident are very, very high. The reality is that we have no experience in isolating high level waste from the environment for even a hundred years, let alone the hundred of thousands which would be required.

21 Alvarez, Robert. "The WIPP problem, and what it means for defense nuclear waste disposal". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://thebulletin.org/wipp-problem-and-what-it-means-defense-nuclear-waste-disposal7002 Attachment: Slideshow from Tilman Ruff’s presentation The global health imperative to phase out nuclear power and eliminate fissile materials The global health imperative to phase out nuclear power and eliminate fissile materials

Tilman Ruff Nossal Institute for Global Health, SPGH, University of Melbourne International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Consultant: Australian Red Cross, WHO, occasional vaccine manufacturers

Nuclear power workshop Adelaide 16 June 2015 Thanks: Michael Leunig, John Mathews, Tim Mousseau, Mike Mills, Alan Robock, Richard Tanter Yami Lester – Yankunytjatjara elder “I was just playing with the other kids when the bomb went off. … it was a strange noise … the earth shook … a strange black smoke, it was shiny and oily. A few hours later we all got crook, every one of us. We were all vomiting, we had diarrhea, skin rashes and sore eyes. … Some of the older people, they died.”

age 10, Wallatinna Station, 1953 Totem explosion, SA Taranaki contamination

End‐products of the nuclear chain

• Tailings, processing waste

• Contaminated facilities

• Fission products: – radioactive discharges – Radioactive waste – radioactive fallout, contamination

• Nuclear weapons

Physical and biological nuclear realities •The strong nuclear force is about 100,000 – 1,000,000 times stronger than chemical bonds

•A nuclear reactor increases the amount of radioactivity around 1 million times

•Fissile materials will be toxic and weapons-usable for geological periods that make the timeframe of human institutions irrelevant

•Approach should be based on inherent dangers of nuclear weapons and fissile materials and primary prevention of catastrophic effects, not the changing complexion of leaders, governments, institutions, societies

Long‐term connections and consequences (36 M)

Fukushima Disaster – March 11, 2011 – more than 10,000km2 land are significantly contaminated, unknown impacts on the marine system.

The Australian connection

• About 30% of uranium sourced by TEPCO comes from Australia • “We can confirm that Australian obligated nuclear material was at the Fukushima Daiichi site and in each of the reactors –maybe five out of six, or it could have been all of them; almost all of them.”

– Dr Robert Floyd, Director‐General, Australian Safeguards and Non‐ proliferation Office, before Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Canberra, 31 Oct 2011 – http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j412.pdf The Australian connection • Yvonne Margarula to Ban Ki‐Moon 6 April 2011: “We Aboriginal people opposed Ranger’s development and even though our opposition was overruled it has never gone away. .. It is likely that the radiation problems at Fukushima are, at least in part, fuelled by uranium derived from our traditional lands. This makes us feel very sad.”

Fissile materials Global stockpiles 2014 Weapon Plutonium Highly • Highly enriched uranium (HEU) yield enriched –1345 tons HEU uranium –99% in weapons states 1 kiloton 1 – 3 kg 2.5 – 8 kg –~63,000 nw@ 15 kg/weapon

• Separated plutonium –500 tons 20 kiloton 3 - 6 kg 5 – 16 kg –>½ civilian, growing Nagasaki –All weapons usable bomb 6 kg –~114,000 nw@ 3 kg weapons- grade, 5 kg reactor-grade

IAEA 8 kg 25 kg •India, Pakistan and possibly Israel “significant (Pu) continue to produce fissile quantities” material for weapons; North Korea capability; Russia reportedly Modern 3-4 kg 15-25 resumed HEU prod for civilian export thermo- US declassified 2012 nuclear nw (US 12) kg –Global fissile material report 2015 www.fissilematerials.org

Illegal nuclear trafficking networks •A Q Khan network • “the Wal-Mart of private proliferation” (ElBaradei) •Centrifuge design and components, Chinese nuclear weapons designs •Transit points and dealers in ~ 30 countries •Supplied at least Pakistan, Iran, Libya, North Korea •Implausible could have acted without government •Protected by Pakistan government •ElBaradei: Khan “the tip of an iceberg” • Uncertain if network disrupted or persists

Cirincione J et al. Deadly arsenals. 2nd ed. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2005

IAEA International Incident and Trafficking Database 2014

•125 participating states •Repeated appearance of HEU •2-3 y reporting lag in metal recycling outside •146 incidents confirmed 2013 regulatory control •16 confirmed incidents involving HEU or Pu 1993- •“the availability of unsecured 2013 nuclear and other radioactive – some involving attempts to sell or materials persists” traffic internationally –Some involving kg quantities –For some, indications that seized material was a sample from a larger unsecured stockpile –Some organised, better resourced involving perpetrators with a track record in trafficking nuclear material IAEA ITDB Factsheet 2014 Nuclear history 1

• “the atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends.”

• S Possony, DOD consultant to Psychological Strategy Board, 1953

• Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech, UN, 8 Dec 1953 – “Ultimately, the technical capabilities transferred by the Atoms for Peace programs would help support the exploration of nuclear weapons options in over 20 countries.”

• Feiveson 2014 92

– Peter Kuznick Bulletin Atomic Sci 13 April 2011 Nuclear history 2

• “Now, while the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain so vivid, construction of such a power plant in a country like Japan would be a dramatic and Christian gesture which could lift all of us far above recollection of the carnage of those cities.” • AEC Commissioner T Murray

• “Many Americans are now aware … that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not necessary. … How better to make a contribution to amends than by offering Japan the means for the peaceful utilisation of atomic energy. How better, indeed, to dispel the impression in Asia that the United States regards Orientals merely as nuclear cannon fodder!” • Washington Post editorial, early 1950s

• “First, baptism with radioactive rain, then a surge of shrewd commercialism in the guise of ‘atoms for peace’ from abroad.” • Mainichi newspaper, 1956

Nuclear history 3

• Project Plowshares: peaceful nuclear blasts for harbour and canal building, underground reservoirs, freeing inaccessible oil deposits, alter weather patterns eg hurricanes:

– “highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favourable to weapons development and tests.” • AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss

• Massive US nuclear escalation under Eisenhower to >30,000 nw ~ 1,360,000 Hiroshima bombs by 1960s Proliferation

•“It is clear that no international safeguards system can physically prevent diversion or the setting up of an undeclared or clandestine nuclear programme.” •IAEA.Against the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: IAEA Safeguards in the 1990s. 1993

•“It would be so easy for us to produce nuclear warheads – we have plutonium at nuclear power plants in Japan, enough to make several thousand such warheads.” •Ichiro Ozawa, while president of the Liberal Party, Japan, lecture in Fukuoka, April 2002

•“In the eight years I served in the White House, every weapons proliferation issue we faced was linked with a civilian reactor program.” •Al Gore, Guardian Weekly 2006; 174 (25):17-18 (9-15 June)

The American veto of Australian nuclear weapons: Secretary of State Dean Rusk: “I opened up all stops.” “In my talk with Prime Minister Gorton I ran into a full battery of reservations about the Non-Proliferation Treaty. ..Gorton is deeply concerned about giving up the nuclear option for a period as long as twenty-five years when he cannot know how the situation will develop in the area. He sounded almost like De Gaulle in saying that Australia could not rely upon the United States for nuclear weapons under ANZUS in the event of nuclear blackmail or attack on Australia.

I opened up all stops. One of the things which s getting in the way is objections coming out of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and Defense on all sorts of picayune problems on which we have been able to satisfy the Germans and others.” Secretary of State, U.S. Embassy Canberra cable 4842 to Department of State, 6 April 1968

Source: “Australia's Prime Minister Wanted ‘Nuclear Option’", 40th Anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, National Security Archive, 1 July 2008. Document 16A. But the policy continued until 1972: Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy ‐ 1971 Department of Defence (cabinet paper)

192. Finally there is, in our opinion, no present strategic need for Australia to develop or acquire nuclear weapons; but the implications of China’s growing nuclear military capacity, and of the growth of military technology in Japan and India, need continuous review. We consider that the opportunities for decision open to the Australian Government in future would be enlarged if the lead time for the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability could be shortened. We recommend regard to this, without undue claims upon resources, in the future development of Australia’s nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes, in the Defence research and development programme, and in other relevant ways.

Lowy Institute et al: back to hedging on a nuclear future “Australia might decide that it can take its time hedging. But there’s a problem: long lead‐times. To retain the option of nuclear hedging in the future, we’d need to grow the prerequisites —nuclear expertise, a nuclear industry, proficiency in the sensitive technologies of enrichment and reprocessing, and the delivery vehicles that might offer assured penetration to target (which is important for an arsenal with relatively few warheads).” –Australian Voters’ Guide to International Policy: Non‐proliferation and Arms Control, Martine Letts, Lowy Institute, 15 Oct 2007

•“Australia will need to review a nuclear weapons option if the circumstances get out of hand”.

– Martine Letts: Deputy Director of the Lowy Institute, former Australian Ambassador to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay; Deputy Head of Mission and Australian Deputy Permanent Representative to the Interna ional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna; former Secretary-General of Australian Red Cross Global Fissile Material Report 2009

•“Reprocessing plants … present the greatest dangers in a nuclear weapon-free world. They provide the most plausible route to get weapon-usable material, and they shorten the time for a breakout to days or weeks.

•“Even with stringent and equitable new rules to govern nuclear power, its continued operation and certainly any global expansion will impose serious proliferation risks in the transition to nuclear disarmament. A phase-out of civilian nuclear energy would provide the most effective and enduring constraint on proliferation risks in a nuclear weapon-free world.”

–International Panel on Fissile Materials. Global Fissile Material Report 2009

Plutonium - IPFM 2010 •“There is no good economic or waste-management reason today to separate out this plutonium..” •International Panel on Fissile Materials. The uncertain future of nuclear energy. Sep 2010.

•Reprocessing justified by uranium-conservation and waste-reduction provided cover for nuclear weapons programs in: –Nuclear armed: India, Pakistan, France –Programs stopped prior to weapons: Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan

•UK used 8 dual-purpose CO2 cooled reactors for Pu and tritium for NW, and power (and swapped Pu for US HEU and tritium); France also used power reactors for Pu and tritium for NW •FeivesonHA et al. Unmaking the bomb. MIT Press 2014:51, 54 HEU •Re uranium enrichment (gas centrifuge) plants: “such plants can easily be used or reconfigured to produce weapons-grade uranium and a plant sized to fuel a single 1-gigawatt electric LWR could produce enough material for 25 nuclear weapons a year.” •Countries that have national enrichment plants therefore are virtual nuclear weapons states.” Feiveson 2014 100 •NW under cover of “civilian” enrichment eg S Africa •Laser enrichment pioneered at Lucas Heights makes enrichment more compact, concealable, cheaper •HEU is easily smuggled

•An improvised HEU bomb could be as simple as one subcritical mass dropped onto another •Luis Alvarez, Manhattan scientist, Adventures of a physicist 1987 125

Fissile materials and nuclear reactors

•Supplied with HEU-fueledreactors before they developed NW: –India 1956, Israel 1960, North Korea 1965, Pakistan 1965

•Means to produce fissile material are freely available and inseparable from capacity to operate nuclear reactors –egNorth Korea •YongbyonPuproduction reactor based on published 1950s UK design •Enrichment program based on technology transfer from Pakistan –AQ Khan network –enrichment technology, Chinese NW designs

•All 44 states with nuclear power &/or research reactors must ratify Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty before it can enter into force Fissile materials and nuclear power

•“A state with a domestic enrichment industry could build a clandestine facility within a year or so, or within a few weeks convert a civilian enrichment plant to produce HEU. A state with already separated civilian plutonium stockpiled at a domestic reprocessing plant under national control would be able to obtain weapon-usable material immediately. The IAEA assumes that plutonium or HEU could be converted into weapons components within 1 to 3 weeks.” •IPFM. Global Fissile Material Report 2009:113

•“If the spread of nuclear energy cannot be decoupled from the spread of nuclear weapons, it should be phased out.” •International Panel on Fissile Materials. The uncertain future of nuclear energy. Sep 2010.

Existential challenges •End to human civilisationor human extinction, and drastic degrading of capacity of biosphere to support complex organisms: •Collision with large celestial body –Of human origin, unprecedented: •Rampant climate disruption, resource depletion

•Nuclear war –Nuclear weapons are unlike any other weapons –Single nuclear weapons have been built with more destructive power than all weapons used in all wars throughout human history • All human efforts and progress could come to nought unless these existential threats are resolved

Hiroshima

6 August 1945 A 15 kT bomb killed 140,000 people

Note: 15 kT = 0.015 MT = 1/1,000,000 of the 1985 world arsenal = 3/1,000,000 of the current world arsenal While current weapons are mostly more powerful than the initial one, if one Hiroshima-sized bomb were dropped every two hours from the end of World War II to today, it would still not use up the current arsenal.

10 kt groundburst in Washington DC High consequence scenario 95th percentile

Total injured persons: 1.6 million National capital region: Available hospital beds : 2177 Persons suffering trauma: 343,000 Available ICU beds: 118 Moderate-severe trauma: 267,000 Available ventilators: 200 Unoccupied burn beds: 5 Persons suffering acute radiation Available staff: - sickness: 201,000

Nationwide: Unoccupied burn beds: 580 of 1760 Unoccupied ICU beds: 9400 of 118,000

Effects of fires not included

National Capital region key response factors for the aftermath of nuclear terrorism Nov 2011, LLNL-TR-512111 DiCarlo A et al. Disaster Medicine Public Health Preparedness 2011;5:S32 Effects of nuclear war on health and health services, WHO 1984 • “It is obvious that no health service in any area of the world would be capable of dealing adequately with the hundreds of thousands of people seriously injured by blast, heat or radiation from even a single 1-megaton bomb.” • “… the only approach to the treatment of the health effects of nuclear explosions is primary prevention of such explosions, that is, the primary prevention of atomic war.”

Accidental nuclear war

Soviet leadership mistakenly concluded that a large scale NATO exercise, Able Archer 83, was the cover for a planned surprise attack

Chatham House, 2014 •Command and Control - 13 case studies Eric Schlosser, 2013 –Accidents and Incidents Involving nuclear Weapons 1957-67 – report obtained under FOI –> 1000 accidents/incidents

•Bruce Blair, former ICBM officer –1200 incidents involving nuclear weapons over Cold War period Cyberwarfare and nuclear weapons

•More than 20 nations -including Russia, US, China and North Korea – have developed dedicated computer attack programs •Attack programs deploy viruses to disable, confuse, and delay nuclear command and warning processes –false early warnings inclmultiple, simultaneous? –Hack into launch circuits (launch order transmission takes microseconds)? –Insider collaboration –access to launch codes?

•Threshold of offensive use of cyberattack against nuclear facilities by states has been crossed (US, Israel targetting Siemens centrifuges Iran eg Stuxnet)

•Comprehensive review of vulnerability to cyberattack not yet done (Blair, Nayarit, 2014)

2015: It is 3 minutes to midnight

"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth.”

… the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads—thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties.

Nuclear power reactor fuel damage or partial core meltdown

• Total of 14 including Fukushima Daiichi 1‐3

• 12 power reactors, 11 produced electricity

• Multiple types, different countries

• Some dual use –electricity plus plutonium for weapons

• All now permanently shut down

• Core melt accidents: 1 in 1300 reactor years – For BWRs with Mark 1 and 2 containment: 1 in 630 reactor years

• Many near‐misses • Brice Smith, Insurmountable risks IEER 2006; Thomas Cochran, NRDC US Senate testimony 12.4.11

Chernobyl disaster – April 26, 1986 – nuclear fire burned for 10 days More than 200,000 km2 significantly contaminated land or abut half the land area of Japan

Nuclear industry workers 1

•15 country retrospective cohort study of cancer mortality auspiced by IARC •Largest such study ever conducted •Workers involved in fuel enrichment or reprocessing, reactors, weapons or isotope production (excl uranium mining) •407,391 workers (90% male): –employed ≥ 1 y –monitored for external photon (X and gamma) radiation –> 90% whole body dose from external photons rather than neutrons or internal exposures •Total FU 5.2 million person y Cardis E, et al. BMJ 2005 (29 June 2005) BMJ,doi:10.1136/bmj.38499.599861.EO

Nuclear industry workers 2

•Doses to colon used for all and solid cancer, active bone marrow for leukemia analyses, lagged by 2 y for leukemia and 10 y for other cancers

•Doses: –Average 19.4 mSv –90% < 50 mSv –< 0.1% > 500 mSv

•Total deaths 6516 from cancer other than leukemia, 196 from leukemia excl CLL

Public health, humanitarian imperatives 1

• Avoidable, severe harm which cannot be managed or controlled must be prevented

• Preventing nuclear war is an absolute requirement for global survival, sustainability and health ‐ this requires eradication of nuclear weapons

• This requires elimination of fissile materials that make NW possible –ending production, securing and where possible eliminating stockpiles

Public health, humanitarian imperatives 2

• Nuclear power: – Inherently generates fissile materials, exacerbating the dangers of nuclear weapons – Risks catastrophic radiological releases – Imposes vast transgenerational risks and burdens through creation of large amounts of the most mutagenic, hazardous materials known

• Benign, sustainable alternatives with negligible security risks ‐ rather health and security benefits ‐ are available

• Nuclear power must therefore be rejected on global health, humanitarian and ethical grounds