17 April 2000            00/110

MINISTER CONFIRMS MARALINGA CLEAN-UP IS SAFE  The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, today confirmed the clean up of the former Maralinga atomic test site has made it safe for future use by the Maralinga Tjarutja traditional owners.

The clean-up project has been guided by the Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee (MARTAC), a group of six experts with international experience in the clean-up of atomic test sites and the management of radioactive materials.

"The program of remediation is consistent with guidelines produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency on the rehabilitation of contaminated sites and has been approved by the independent regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)," Senator Minchin said.

"The clean-up program was agreed to by the Commonwealth, the South Australian Government and the Maralinga Tjarutja traditional owners - the program being designed to take into account the needs of the traditional owners following a semi-traditional lifestyle.

"Whilst the Government was under no obligation to refer to the National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) Code of Practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992) as the Code was not specifically designed for a situation like Maralinga where there already was contamination, in the interests of enhancing safety the Government elected to observe the Code.

"I am advised by ARPANSA that the amount of plutonium buried at Maralinga is less than what is allowed for in the Code."

Plutonium is only a hazard to humans if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through cuts. External exposure to plutonium does not pose health risks.

"The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project has been completed with an excellent safety record, and no worker has ever received a measurable uptake of plutonium during the clean-up," Senator Minchin said.

"There has been extensive consultation with the Maralinga Tjarutja traditional owners and the South Australian Government throughout the clean-up. Discussions are

currently progressing with the traditional owners and the South Australian Government on the long-term management of the Maralinga site. A plan will be agreed for the long-term management of the site, including the treatment of any contamination which is discovered in the future."

Contact: Steve Ronson, Senator Minchin's office, 0419 432 664

CMR153-00



Background Information  Contamination in shirt pocket

The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project has been completed with an excellent safety record, and no worker has ever received a measurable uptake of plutonium during the clean-up.

All work procedures followed during the rehabilitation were approved by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and were audited twice during the Project.

In 1997, a contractor broke the work procedures and entered the contaminated area in normal work clothes. During the visit, the worker placed a slightly contaminated spanner in his shirt pocket, and some of the contamination rubbed onto the fabric. The individual then flew on a commercial aircraft from Adelaide to Melbourne to have a routine lung monitor at ARPANSA, where the contamination was detected

The worker did not receive any exposure to radiation as a result of the incident, and there was no danger to other passengers travelling on the aircraft.

It is important to note that, contrary to public perception, external exposure to plutonium does not pose health risks. Plutonium is only a hazard to humans if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through cuts.

ARPANSA has advised that the amount of contamination involved was less than one hundredth of the minimum amount of plutonium which may be licensed in Australia.

The airline was not notified due to the very small amounts of contamination involved, and the fact that no-one on the aircraft would have been exposed to any hazard.

After the incident, the Project Manager reinforced to workers the need to strictly follow work practices. No such incident occurred again in the clean-up

Code of Practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992) and Maralinga

The Government has always made clear that the Code of Practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992) does not formally apply to this clean-up. However the Government has chosen to comply with its requirements as it provides further guidance as to how plutonium can be safely dealt with.

The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project is described as an "intervention", that is, a situation where existing contamination is being cleaned-up. The Code, on the other hand, was written for normal "practices", that is a situation where provisions for radiation protection and safety can be made before an activity is started.

As an intervention, the conditions for the Maralinga clean-up were established taking into account the lifestyle of the traditional owners and consistent with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements for 'interventions' outlined in the 1996 publication International Basic Safety Standards for the Protection Against Ionising Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series 155

The burial of plutonium is allowed for in the Code of Practice (plutonium is one of the radioactive materials specifically included). The plutonium buried at Maralinga falls well below the levels allowed by the Code for burial of plutonium in a near-surface environment.

Removal of Alan Parkinson from working on clean-up

In 1997, prior to the commencement of the full-scale ISV work at Taranaki, the Department made the decision that the work should be managed by a large company with experience in project management. Due to the very specialised nature of the project, the isolated site, and the fact that GHD already had contract management of many of the site contractors, the decision was made to extend GHD's project management contract to cover the ISV.

Following the extension of GHD's contract, the contract of the company of Alan Parkinson was terminated and Mr Parkinson was removed from MARTAC. Mr Parkinson was unsuccessful before the Industrial Relations Commission in a claim for unfair dismissal arising from the termination of his company's contract with the Department for his services as engineering adviser to the Maralinga Rehabilitation Project.

Decision not to continue with ISV

In March 1999, an explosion occurred while the eleventh pit at Maralinga was being treated by ISV - no-one was injured by the explosion, or exposed to radiation as a result of it.

The Department and its advisers do not consider that the cause of the explosion has been conclusively identified.

In July 1999, having regard to the safety issues and uncertainties involved in further vitrification, the Commonwealth decided to treat the remaining pits by exhuming the pit contents and burying all the remaining material in a deep trench under a layer of at least 5 m of clean soil.

Detailed assessment of the ISV process revealed that earlier reasons for preferring ISV over exhumation and reburial were no longer valid for two reasons:-the pits were not as highly contaminated with plutonium as originally expected; and

1.

experience gained from the safe exhumation of other debris pits at Maralinga, 2.

proved that exhumation and reburial could be conducted safely without placing workers at risk.

The technical advisory committee to the Project, the Maralinga Technical Advisory Committee (MARTAC), recommended the adoption of this approach (5 out of 6 committee members supported burial) and ARPANSA approved the procedures after examining a detailed risk assessment of the treatment method.

Burial was considered by the experts as being a satisfactory method for the treatment of contaminated pit debris, taking into account the Maralinga environment and future likely land use.

The ABC's allegations focused on the views of the dissenting member of MARTAC on this issue. It did not report that the other five experts on MARTAC disagreed with his assessment. Like any group of experts, such as the Full Bench of the High Court, members will come to different views on issues. The Government would be irresponsible to not follow the advice proffered by the near-unanimous recommendation of this committee on a technical issue.

Buried drum

A drum was dug up from one of the pits during the excavation of contaminated debris and was reburied in the burial trench The drum was not opened as there was no work procedure to cover such an activity, and it was decided that burial was the most appropriate method of

treatment

Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

The drum was not a pressure vessel or cylinder.  Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

Comparison of clean-up at Maralinga to that at Double Tracks, Nevada Test Site

Suggestions that the Maralinga clean-up should be conducted in the exact same manner as the clean-up of the Double Tracks Test Site in the US ignore vital differences between the two sites.

The Double Tracks test site is located on the Nevada Test Site, which is controlled by the US Defence Forces, and is still used for weapons testing.

The situation is quite different from the one at Maralinga where the intention has always been to return the site to the traditional owners.  Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

At Double Tracks, the clean-up is an interim action as final clean-up levels have not been established by the regulator (the State of Nevada) The aim of the clean-up was to return the site to the control of the US Air Force Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â» There is still considerable (1.5 kg) of plutonium remaining on the surface at

Double Tracks.  Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

The waste arising from the Double Tracks clean-up was considered to be low level waste, and was disposed in a low level waste repository on the Nevada Test Site The low level repository is not guarded by the US Army, but, because the Nevada Test Site is used for weapons testing and has other military uses, there is

Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

security for the entire site.

New contamination discovered

ARPANSA is currently undertaking final monitoring of various areas around Maralinga, including areas which were used for decontamination during the testing and subsequent clean-ups organised by the British Minor contamination was discovered in late February at an old decontamination

area (HP2) Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

The contamination was removed and buried at depth in one of the burial trenches Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â» The contamination was referred to in Senator Minchin's press release of 1 March 2000 on the Maralinga site.  Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

In the last few weeks ARPANSA detected further minor contamination at an area which had been used for biological testing The contaminated material was removed and placed at depth in a burial trench.  Ã¢ÂÂÃ¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»Ã¯Â¿Â»

The Maralinga Tjarutja Aboriginals and the South Australian Government were informed about both discoveries, and the remedial action taken.

Action if future contamination is discovered

The Commonwealth, the Maralinga Tjarutja traditional owners and the South Australian Government are currently considering the issue of the long-term management of the Maralinga Test Site.

At a complex site like Maralinga where the historical records are poor, there is the possibility of further future discoveries.

The stakeholders are currently in the process of putting together a plan for the long-term management of the site, which would include a process for the clean-up of contaminated material.



Media Release index | ISR Home Page

