Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, GPO Box 11043, Adelaide SA 5001 [email protected] Monday 10 th August 2015 To the NFCRC,

Re: Submission to all four of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle discussion papers

The Australia Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) formed in 1997, bringing together Aboriginal people from across Australia with environmental non-government organisations and public health groups. The Alliance provides a platform for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people around the country to raise their concerns with the nuclear industry. Many people involved are actively contesting the development of projects on their homelands; from uranium mines to radioactive waste dumps and fracking proposals. Since ANFA’s inception the scope of issues and the number of affected communities has grown, ANFA members now represent most Australian states and territories as well as neighbouring islands.

Many people have passed away, great people who spent too much of their lives fighting to protect their country. We remember and honour them and their love for country and community.

We have long memories; we remember the atomic weapons test at Maralinga and Emu Fields and the ongoing denial around the lost lives and health impacts for Aboriginal people. Many people were displaced from their homelands and there is still intergenerational sickness. There has been no justice following these horrific weapons testing programs despite the huge impact on human health and cultural disconnect. We remember the broken promises from uranium miners, the accidents, the leaks and the changes to our different countries. We also remember past Royal Commissions. We remember the Royal Commission into the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the 166 recommendations that were never adopted.

We know things now - that Aboriginal people are still being incarcerated, people are still dying in police custody and police are not charged. There has been no justice for those who lost their lives, or for their families. Just like we know there are still uranium mines that are leaking pollution into the environment, places we can never go back to, families we have lost. There is still no justice for those affected, no acknowledgment, no apology - nothing.

It is the uranium companies and the Government who should be investigated. There is a legacy of this industry that this Royal Commission has chosen not to look at it. It is the history and legacy, the ongoing problems that need to be addressed in this

Exploration, Extraction, Milling

Q 1.7: Is there a sound basis for concluding that there will be increased demand for uranium in the medium and long term?

In a report from IBIS world 2 on Australian uranium it is identified that uranium mining had an annual growth rate of -2.4% between 2010 and 2015. The report states that uranium mining employs just 987 people and in fact represents just 3 businesses. Despite political support federally and in some states the unenthusiastic market has stopped and slowed uranium development and reduced production. This has not changed and there is no indication that any factor or even combination of factors will improve the uranium price in the short to mid term. Uranium is not a silver bullet for employment and royalties but an unpopular, unnecessary and uneconomic industry that most Australian states have retained or reintroduced bans on.

The uranium price has stagnated at around US$36lb - many uranium miners say new uranium mines are not warranted at that price - this is reflected in the lack of investment in new uranium mines and companies downsizing or closing existing uranium mines.

Q 1.8 Would an expansion in extraction activities give rise to new or different risks for the health and safety of workers and the community? If so, what are those risks and what needs to be done to ensure they do not exceed safe levels?

In 2010 the Australian National Radiation Dose Register was established to track the radiation exposure of nuclear industry workers across state borders and between different companies. Before we can understand the future risks to health of uranium workers it is essential to look at this huge body of evidence that, if properly, independently and transparently reviewed, would reveal the true risks to human health.

ANFA has advocated for the dose register and for studies of the health of not just workers but communities surrounding uranium mines and testing sites to prove the health impacts of radiation exposure from industry and military applications of the nuclear industry in Australia. The onus of proof should not be on Aboriginal people or workers - to show where there has been a health impact - but on the companies and Government to be transparent with the data about the health impacts.

Too many people know a brother an uncle or a father that worked at the mines and died of leukemia, or know an aunty or a niece who had a thyroid removed, or a baby born with heart disease or some deformity. The problem with radiation is that you don’t know when you were exposed; it doesn’t have a brand tag or label on it - it is hard to prove that a sickness is because of radiation.

http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=1852 The burden of proof should be on the companies and the Government. Too many times they say radiation is safe. But too many times have we seen our families sick, we know radiation is not safe, doctors have told us there is no safe level of radiation - that there is no level of radiation that does not have a risk.

Q 1.9 Are the existing arrangements for addressing the interaction between the interests of exploration and extraction activities and other groups with interests such as landowners and native title holders suitable to manage an expansion in exploration or extraction activities? Why? If they are not suitable, what needs to be done?

Australia has 30% of the world’s known recoverable uranium reserves and until very recently two of the world’s largest operational uranium mines. Both of these mines were imposed on Traditional Owners without consent. BHP Billiton has been mining Olympic Dam on Kokatha land in South Australia since 1987 and mining ancient water from the Great Artesian Basin on Arabunna country. Rio Tinto subsidiary Energy Resources of Australia's Ranger mine on Mirarr country within the World Heritage Listed Kakadu National Park has been operating for the past three decades. Other mines and exploration sites have a similar story of community division the misuse of the Native Title Act and broken promises - at Beverley, Beverley 4 Mile, and at exploration sites in the NT and WA.

Remote Indigenous communities are often most affected by the complex interface of Native Title and mining rights. These communities are often also affected by limited access to services in particular: health care, education and employment – services that are typically provided by Government in cities, towns and rural centers. This disadvantage makes remote communities particularly vulnerable to unwanted mining. In this context mining is sometimes seen as the only available means through which to acquire the basic services most Australians expect as citizenship entitlements.

Native Title does not give people rights to say no to mining. The negotiation of Indigenous Land Use Agreements means that companies find some people, get them on side and use them to tear apart communities and families. The industry has never accounted for the social impact of negotiating mine deals. But the reality is that across South Australia there are family members who no longer talk to each other because of mining deals. There is a lack of evidence in communities of the benefits from mining and plenty of evidence of the negative impacts. There are some high quality photos in annual reports, logos splashed across local football clubs but unemployment is rife, social problems on the rise, training opportunities are few, over-representation in prisons grows and life expectancies fall.

Q 1.11Given current techniques of extraction and milling and their regulation, what are the relevant lessons for the contemporary management of environmental impacts that should be learned from past extraction and milling practices?’ Q 1.10 Would a future expansion of exploration, extraction and milling activities create new environmental risks or increase existing risks? If so, are current strategies for managing those new risks sufficient? If not, in what specific respects? How would any current approach need to changed or adapted?

Olympic Dam Uranium Mine

The Olympic Dam uranium mine has had a devastating impact on community and country. From the outset the process was established to divide and conquer Aboriginal communities. Despite this, the Kokatha and Arabunna fought against the mine, as many people from ANFA and beyond still do today at significant personal cost.

The special privileges the South Australian Government has been willing to give BHP Billiton to secure ongoing mining raise serious concerns. The desperation displayed by the South Australian Government to make way for a toxic and controversial industry creates an environment where companies will take advantage. This was the case with the Roxby Downs Indenture Act and the revised Roxby expansion Indenture Act of 2011. This Act now gives BHP Billiton exemptions and special privileges and allows for huge environmental impacts and contamination.

The debate on this legislation in the South Australian parliament revealed that 3:

• No extra jobs are guaranteed (this is clearly demonstrated now with BHP planning to axe more jobs.) • The ‘net’ economic return to state coffers in years 10-20 of the project could be as low as $10 million / year – and that’s even before millions are given back to BHPB through federal subsidies like the diesel fuel rebate. • No explanation for locking in royalty rates at a low rate for 45 years - apart from that is what BHP wanted. • The SA government did not do any comparative economic analysis with similar projects interstate and overseas to ascertain if South Australians were getting a good economic deal. • There is nothing the SA government can do to make BHPB expand its domestic processing up to an additional 200,000 tonnes of ore (as has been promised by the Premier and others). • There is nothing to stop BHP exporting all ore from Roxby Downs to China (including the ore that is currently processed here). • The South Australian government has relied entirely on BHPB’s figures for the cost of processing in SA rather than exporting South Australian copper ore to China. • BHPB can continue to extract fossil water from the Great Artesian Basin until 2082, with costs capped for the next 30 years. • Third parties won’t have any right to access the railways, roads, ports and

! http://markparnell.org.au/mr.php?mr=854 airports being constructed for the expansion. • No cumulative impacts of this expansion (beyond the artificial EIS timeframe of 40 years) have been considered. • The Government doesn’t know what impact the ODX will have on the State’s greenhouse pollution reduction targets. • The toxic tailings waste dams have been deliberately designed to leak. • The final operating conditions to protect the marine environment at Point Lowly will not be known for years and will be negotiated in secret.

BHP’s EIS for the Olympic Dam expansion clearly stated that the tailings from the mine would leak 8.2 million litres every day for the first ten years. They go on to state that every day after that it would leak 3.2 million litres. BHP argued that this would be contained in limestone, but there was already an instance where the limestone barrier failed and 3 million litres of water were lost in 3 hours in 1991.4

This demonstrates more than anything that BHP Billiton is taking advantage of South Australians and that the South Australian government is weak. In negotiating with BHP Billiton South Australia showed how desperate we are for investment and jobs and how hopeless we are in negotiating strong deals with lasting benefits for South Australians. In much the same way that has taken advantage of Kokatha and Arabunna in negotiating the original mine deal.

South Australia’s Nuclear Legacy

There are a number of uranium mines and processing sites in South Australia that are polluting and in need of remedial works: Radium Hill, Wild Dog and Port Pirie. These are now a source of ongoing cost to the South Australian Government and tax-payer. These should be reviewed in this Royal Commission to expose how this government deals with contaminated legacy sites. These sites should be a warning against the creation of any new uranium mines or processing sites.

Ranger

The Ranger uranium mine was imposed on the Mirarr traditional owners in the late 1970s despite their clear opposition. Mining at Ranger started in 1980, the mine is now operated by Energy Resources Australia (ERA) a company which Rio Tinto owns the majority of.

Ranger is often cited as the most regulated uranium mine in the world yet since operations commenced there have been over two hundred accidents and incidents at the site. These range from minor spills to major environmental and human health accidents including: in 2004 when mine process water was connected to the potable water supply resulting in workers drinking and showering in contaminated water; later in 2004 a bobcat contaminated with radioactive material left the mine site unchecked

" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines s/opinion/a -case -of -olympian -incompetence -by -south - australia/story -e6frg9if -1226172260137?mid=523 and in 2011 processing was forced to halt for five months to avoid an overflow from the tailings dam.

In December 2013 a leach tank at Ranger burst spilling over one million litres of radioactive slurry onto surrounding land, infrastructure and machinery. In response to this serious accident the Federal Government shut down all processing at the mine for six months while an investigation involving Mirarr and other stakeholders was undertaken. While the initial response to the tank failure was strong, many recommendations from that investigation have not been implemented. Mirarr are concerned about the risk to Kakadu from future accidents and other management problems at Ranger.

Further Processing and manufacture

Q 2.12 What safeguards issues are created by the further participation in South Australia in activities (such as the production of uranium oxide, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication or reprocessing) necessary for uranium to be used as a fuel in electricity generation? Can those implications be addressed? If so, by what means? Further, would the possession of those technical capabilities give rise to strategic and policy issues for Australia? If so, what are those issues and how could they be addressed?

Uranium miners continue to place great store in the growth of the nuclear industry in China, Russia and India. The growth in these countries may replace the closing or cancelled reactors in Europe and the US but may not equate to growth of nuclear power. Of greater concern: these three countries have well-established issues with nuclear weapons proliferation. India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty (NPT) and has clearly stated its hopes of buying uranium from overseas will free up domestic uranium for weapons production. China while a signatory to the NPT, is notoriously secretive about their weapons program. China is also more likely to secure uranium from mines that have Chinese ownership, more possible and lucrative in Kazakhstan and Africa. The weapons proliferation issues with Russia are so clear that our current Government suspended uranium exports to Russia in December 2014.

Australia has already sacrificed nuclear weapons security for uranium sales but it has not been profitable. Since the uranium export deals with Russia and China came into force Australia’s uranium production has decreased, along with the uranium price and the share price of Australian uranium companies like Paladin and ERA.

Many ANFA members and Aboriginal people whose lands are used or proposed for uranium mining have expressed the deep concern about what happens to uranium when it leaves their country.

“I am happy that while that uranium is in the ground it’s safe, I’m concerned what it’s going to do when it comes out of the ground. Now if it’s going to start killing off people in another country, I’m concerned about that, because it’s my land that could be doing this stuff. It concerns me, it concerns my tribal group, it concerns the surrounding people.” Richard Evans - Koara elder.

For the Mirarr, traditional owners of the Ranger uranium mine, the possibility of uranium from Mirarr land being incorporated into a nuclear weapon or present at the site of a nuclear accident is of enormous concern. Despite assurances from successive federal governments that Australian uranium is only sold to nations where there is no risk of proliferation, the fact remains that there are insufficient safeguards to ensure Australian uranium does not end up in nuclear weapons.

In April 2011, following the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster in Japan, Yvonne Margarula wrote to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and expressed her sorrow at the impacts radiation is having on the lives of Japanese people. She noted that: “This is an industry we never supported in the past and want no part of in the future. We are all diminished by the events unfolding at Fukushima”

Electricity Generation

Q 3. 7 What place is there in the generation market, if any, for electricity generated from nuclear fuels to play in the medium or long term? Why? What is the basis for that prediction including the relevant demand scenarios?

Internationally the nuclear electricity industry is in decline. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency almost half of all existing reactors worldwide are slated for retirement over the next two decades. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, an independent review of global nuclear energy projects, was released in June 2015 - showing again that nuclear is in decline, but also showing that renewables are growing in global energy output and that there is an investment growth in renewables.

Q3.8 What issues should be considered in a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels as opposed to other sources? What are the most important issues? Why? How should they be analysed?

Australia has consistently rejected nuclear electricity generation and this rejection should be maintained. Nuclear electricity generation has no place in South Australia. It is an expensive and dangerous electricity source with many more negative impacts than positive.

The future of electricity generation in Australia is renewable energy. Any generation market investments in South Australia should be made in the renewables sector. The potential for South Australian growth in this field is significant and would, in ANFA’s view, be a topic far more worthy of investigation by a Royal Commission than the out-dated and damaging nuclear industry.

Q 3.9 What are the lessons to be learned from accidents, such as that at Fukushima, in relation to the possible establishment of any proposed nuclear facility to generate electricity in South Australia? Have those demonstrated risks and other known safety risks associated with the operation of nuclear plants been addressed? How and by what means? What are the processes that would need to be undertaken to build confidence in the community generally, or specific communities, in the design, establishment and operation of such facilities?

The risks associated with nuclear power stations internationally have not been adequately addressed. This is dramatically exemplified by the ongoing radiation exposure issues at Fukushima but is also evident in the high numbers of ‘events’, ‘incidents’ and ‘accidents’ (depending on definition preferences) which routinely occur at reactors across the globe. Contrary to claims that most nuclear accidents happen due to outdated or unmaintained technology, almost all of the 57 recorded accidents at nuclear power stations between 1986 and 2006 occurred in the US 5 where standards and maintenance regulations are touted as best practice. There is no rationale for saddling South Australia with the legacy of nuclear waste that would be created if nuclear power stations were established here, a problem for which there is still no long term solution anywhere in the world.

As noted earlier in this submission, Aboriginal traditional owners including many ANFA members feel a responsibility for the impact upon others of uranium sourced from their country. In the case of the Mirarr, from whose lands uranium has been mined at Ranger for over three decades, the Fukushima accident was a source of great sadness. Mirarr Senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula expressed this distress at the time in a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon: “..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.” It has since been confirmed that Australian uranium was present in each of the failed Fukushima reactors 6, a link which brings great sadness to the Mirarr.

Any expansion of the nuclear industry brings with it the risk of further accidents and impacts and to implicate Aboriginal people in this risk and danger is both unfair and unnecessary. Alternative electricity sources exist and should be pursued in South Australia.

3.12 What are the wastes (other than greenhouse gases) produced in generating electricity from nuclear and other fuels and technologies? What is the evidence of the impacts of those wastes on the community and the environment? Is there any accepted means by which those impacts can be

# #,0%&,,*2 )32 86772 4$(' )-. ,+ !/&*'%- ",1'-52 !#"! &$ !!%# "%&$! # !%" !!#%%#" '&$' "#!

$ 1 #0&)13 !.05(6 -1)'301 ")/)1%. 0* 3,) 54231%.-%/ $%*)+4%1( $ "! &#" # *)'&$#*!+&)( ,$$&"# )$ +%# '0#13-'.3 /( !/1'+). /((#+12 #.& "1#&'6 23#3'& 3*#36 7/4231#,+#. /$,+)#3'& .4%,'#1 -#3'1+#, 5#2 #3 3*' "5-53+,/& !&,,'+, 3,4)98 %)) 15342&.,&0 $&2.,&/)04&26 1//,44))3 <:;;7 #1,04 %4&0(,0* 1//,44)) 10 !%! '#!&( $ "! " &&$(**&!"')***+#*+% compared? Have such assessments making those comparisons been undertaken, and if so, what are the results? Can those results be adapted so as to be relevant to an analysis of the generation of electricity in South Australia?

The radioactive waste produced by the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels (high level radioactive waste: HLW) produces large amounts of heat and ionising radiation for up to 200,000 years and requires a stable and long term storage solution for that time.

In terms of evidence of impacts, to date there is just one operational long term radioactive waste storage facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in the US state of New Mexico, which is designed to contain intermediate rather than high level waste. The first shipments of waste arrived at WIPP in 1999 and just 15 years later 7 the first incident resulting in workers being exposed to smoke and radiation had occurred. Projecting that incident rate across the required life of the facility, there will be an anticipated 13,000 accidents during the 200,000 year life of the facility. The fanciful nature of such projections only serves to highlight how unrealistically ambitious human endeavours to contain radioactive waste are. It is impossible to provide certainty about the stability of landforms, political structures or weather patterns for these extended periods and consequently any attempts to increase the amount of HLW being produced in the world are irresponsible.

3.13 What risks for health and safety would be created by establishing facilities for the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels? What needs to be done to ensure that risks do not exceed safe levels?

It is important that the Commission understands that there is no safe level of radiation exposure . As Dr Bill Williams notes in the Energyscience publication Radiation and Health: “While high doses of ionizing radiation will cause greater health damage, even low doses are associated with adverse environmental and human consequences...there is clear evidence of increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. There is no safe lower dose”8 The risks to health and safety from establishing nuclear electricity generation facilities are significant, not only because of the risk of an accident but also because an increase in nuclear electricity generation results in an increased demand for uranium mining and a consequent increase in the health and safety risks associated with that activity.

3.14 What safeguards issues are created by the establishment of a facility for the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels? Can those implications be addressed adequately? If so, by what means?

% !'(!"$#%!&) ,*) 86793 4("/-% +& !%0 %1'#+ */#(%", 0"-.% "##'$%*. ,%)"'*- " )2-.%,253 %& %$"!#!& ! !$" ! ! #" !((&*,,)))+#)("$ '+.%$ $!##%"!$ # (!" ("$#! &# ("" !% (!""" !#$ ( "#!"" ! ( '($&)*!(#"+%, ., !

& !'#*$.+"&#'"#0(*$0!-/ !", +%##, 12/ )!$# 30 Australia does not produce fissile material ie: the material that can be diverted into nuclear weapons. If Australia was to use a nuclear power reactor, the spent fuel could then be diverted to a nuclear weapons program. Many countries produce nuclear weapons and until there is a universal ban on nuclear weapons, outlawing any and every country from manufacturing, using, storing, stockpiling nuclear weapons this will remain a risk. It is unlikely that any new country would embrace this expensive and dangerous electricity technology without a nuclear weapons agenda. Even if there was no nuclear weapons agenda diplomatic concerns would arise from other nations about a potential nuclear weapons agenda.

Industry proponents often refer to ‘strong safeguards’ arrangements, yet these have failed to stop nuclear capable missile tests in North Korea, India and Pakistan and the ongoing threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. Please see submission detail under to section 2.2 for more details on the issues with safeguards.

Management, Storage and Disposal of waste

Q 4.1 Are the physical conditions in South Australia, including its geology, suitable for the establishment and operation of facilities to store or dispose of intermediate or high level waste either temporarily or permanently? What are the relevant conditions? What is the evidence that suggests those conditions are suitable or not? What requires further investigation now and in the future?

4.9 Bearing in mind the measures that would need to be taken in design and siting, what environmental risks would the establishment of such facilities present? Are there strategies for managing those risks? If not, what strategies would need to be developed? How would any current approach to management need to be changed or adapted?

The suggestion that the long term storage of high or intermediate level radioactive waste should take place in South Australia must be questioned before any response to this question is offered.

The waste produced in nuclear reactors − called spent nuclear fuel − is orders of magnitude more radioactive than fresh uranium fuel. It takes around 200,000 years for the radioactivity of spent fuel to decline to that of the original uranium ore body. Annually, nuclear power plants around the world produce about 12,000 tonnes of spent fuel and about 200,000 m3 of low and intermediate level waste. About 350,000 tonnes of spent fuel have been produced in power reactors around the world. About one third of that amount has been reprocessed and the remainder is stored.

There is no long term disposal or storage solution for radioactive waste yet uranium mining continues and nuclear power stations continue to produce the waste. The absence of a long-term solution after more than six decades of the nuclear power industry would suggest a more prudent approach is needed. The most sensible approach is to stop production of this highly toxic and unmanageable waste rather than generating more whilst casting around for a willing recipient nation.

Australia, with its landscape of operational and abandoned uranium mines, is already committed to a long-term radioactive legacy. The successful clean up of which has proven close to impossible at the sites where it has been attempted, most notably Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory. As the closure of Ranger uranium mine draws near and attempts will be made to rehabilitate that site to a state whereby it can be incorporated into the Kakadu National Park World Heritage Area. There is no precedent for such a rehabilitation task anywhere in the world. A similar effort will eventually be needed at Olympic Dam.

Australia is past the point of no return with these toxic commitments, it is ludicrous to consider committing our landscape to further radioactive exposure and risk by accepting the high level waste of the world’s reactors.

In terms of the small amounts of nuclear medicine waste being used as rationale for the current proposed dump, a fundamental assumption in this question is that a waste repository is needed. As noted by radiologist Dr Peter Karamoskos: “It is at best misleading and at worst a lie to claim that a large-scale nuclear waste repository such as what is being proposed would be solely justified to handle the minuscule amounts of nuclear medicine waste generated in Australia.” Alternative storage solutions exist and should be explored.

The South Australian landscape currently being (re)considered as a potential site for radioactive waste is the traditional country of several Aboriginal clans. Aboriginal people in South Australia have lived on and cared for their country for over 50,000 years as part of the oldest continuous living culture on earth.

ANFA members representing South Australian Aboriginal families and clans know that South Australia is no place for a radioactive waste dump. They are clear in this knowledge as they were back in the late 1990s and early 2000s when they led the successful campaign to stop the radioactive waste dump that was then proposed for the lands of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta (the Kungkas).

As detailed in the response to question 3.12, there are no working examples of long term storage for high level waste anywhere in the world. The only site that has been established for intermediate level waste to date has already experienced failures within the first 15 years of operation. This does not instill much confidence for a secure outcome over the next 200,000 years.

The question that has not been asked by the Royal Commission, that should be asked, is what are the human rights implications of storing international radioactive waste? What are the risks not just to the environment but the public health of remote communities and to the cultural values of those places?

Many politicians have promoted international radioactive waste storage in Australia as a solution to systemic disadvantage on Aboriginal communities. There is no evidence for this, there is no example where this has been the case and there is certainly no evidence of advantage coming from other aspects of the nuclear industry for Aboriginal people.

ANFA members remain fundamentally opposed to the establishment of any type of radioactive waste storage facility on their lands and will stand with and support any members of the community facing a similar imposition.