Go to top of page

Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (RPS C-3)

ARPANSA is engaging in public consultation on the draft Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (Radioactive Waste Disposal Code).

Consultation tabs

The Issue
Start/End Date: 
Thursday 21 December 2017 - 09:00 to Friday 2 March 2018 - 17:00

What is radioactive waste?

Radioactive waste is material with an activity content or concentration above a predefined level, for which no further use is foreseen. Disposal is the recognised end point for the management of radioactive waste under a hierarchy of waste controls; however, storage of some wastes for periods of tens of years is often a necessary precursor.

What is the exposure risk to the public and the environment?

Radioactive waste management includes the potential for people to be exposed to radiation during the operation and closure stages of a waste facility.  Therefore the operator must demonstrate that protection of people and the environment has been considered and that there will be minimal risk of any radiation exposure. In this regard, the operations and closure of waste facilities are regulated in the same way as any other radiation practice.

Is the current Code out of date?

Yes. Since 1992, the basis of regulation for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia has been the requirements of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Code of practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia (1992) (Radiation Health Series RHS No. 35).  Since the promulgation of the 1992 Code of Practice, there have been significant international advances in radioactive waste safety. For example, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has revised its radiation protection limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has published a range of revised waste safety standards. These changes have been progressively reflected in other Australian standards and codes.

Australia’s system of radiation safety is now developed through the Radiation Health Committee (RHC), which was established under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. The RHC is developing the Radiation Protection Series of publications, which will include the review and replacement, where appropriate, of existing publications in the NHMRC Radiation Health Series.

What’s changing in the new Code?

It expands the scope of the 1992 NHMRC Code to include disposal of solid radioactive waste in all types of disposal facility (not just near-surface disposal). The publication will inform potential applicants for a licence to dispose of radioactive waste in a disposal facility, other stakeholders and the public of the issues that will have to be addressed by the applicant. The Code describes objectives for protection of human health and of the environment, drawing upon international best practice in relation to radiation protection and radioactive waste safety.

The draft new Code is fully consistent with the disposal aspects of ARPANSA’s recently published Regulatory Guide Applying for a licence for a radioactive storage or disposal facility, and both are based on the IAEA Safety Requirements standard SSR-5 and on Australia’s national Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations (RPS C-1) (ARPANSA 2016). The ARPANSA Regulatory Guide provides information for Commonwealth applicants applying for a licence for a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.

Introducing the Safety Case

An applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed disposal facility will achieve the level of protection anticipated by this Code. They will do this by developing a ‘safety case’ that draws upon the organisational and technical arrangements put in place, the nature of the waste to be accepted, the characteristics of the site, the design of the facility including engineered barriers, and the arrangements for its construction, operation, closure and post-closure stages.

Is a Commonwealth regulatory impact statement required?

No. The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) advised ARPANSA that no consultation Regulatory Impact Statement was necessary for the version of the Radioactive Waste Disposal Code as the proposed Code does not substantially alter existing arrangements and will predominantly bring into effect internationally agreed best-practice standards that are deemed fit for the Australian context.

What will happen to the current Code?

As RHS 35 was a joint publication with the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the predecessor of Safe Work Australia (SWA), formal agreement has been received from SWA to withdraw RHS 35 once the Radioactive Waste Disposal Code is published.

Making a comment

Comments can be made by completing the web form below, or by completing the submission template and emailing StakeholderCommentatarpansa.gov.au. All comments will be published within 7 business days of receipt. You have the option to remain anonymous by selecting 'Remain Anonymous' in the web form below. Comments made on submissions by other parties will not be published.

Submission template

Draft - Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (RPS C-3)

PDF icon Draft - Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (RPS C-3)
File Draft - Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (RPS C-3)


21 Dec 2017 - 09:00
2 Mar 2018 - 17:00
Days Remaining 0 of 71

The following formal submissions have been made public.

Amy Koch

Submitted: Monday, February 19, 2018 - 09:43

I am from Kimba and I say NO!!
If there is no issue with this effecting our business then there is no reason that we can't get a guaranteed from our industry representatives that our profitable farming business will not be effected by the proposed sight?
A clear indication of "Broad community support" is a must. Minister canivan stated support of 65% was needed to go forward into phase two and yet he put kimba through with Only 57% there is a huge difference there. Clear guidelines needed!


Submitted: Thursday, February 8, 2018 - 16:56

ATLA Adnymathana Traditional Lands Association voted unamiously against the Radioactive Waste Dump proposal at Wallerbedina in the Flinders Ranges.ANSTO ignored the Media release by ATLA in 2016


Submitted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 - 11:57

Particle accelerators are providing a cleaner (no highly radioactive, long lived waste) alternative to nuclear reactors for producing medical isotopes.


Submitted: Monday, February 19, 2018 - 09:24

I am strongly against this and this whole process. It has made my Community divided, my family stressed and finally my decision to leave this town.


Submitted: Monday, February 19, 2018 - 11:50

This whole process has been flawed from day 1, with promises it will be fair & all aboveboard, but unfortunately this has not been the case. Nuclear waste has no place on agricultural land, & it must be put back on the drawing board & a more suitable position found for it ie Woomera


Submitted: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 - 15:36

Australian Conservation Foundation

Submitted: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 - 15:48

Barbara Walker

Submitted: Thursday, February 22, 2018 - 11:46

I am from the Flinders Ranges and I am vehemently opposed to any changes or relaxation to any part of the Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (RSPC-3). Radioactive waste is not guaranteed safe under any circumstances now, and for thousands of years to come. I strongly oppose the storage of nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges (Wallerberdina) or Eyre Peninsula (Kimba). The people in these areas have been pushed to their limits with lies, bullying, bribery and manipulation. We say no dump

Brett Burnard Stokes

Submitted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 - 10:12

I denounce the covert administration of radioactive poisons to pregnant Australian women and their children.

I demand that production of radioactive poisons cease and that the perpetrators of these poisonings be brought to justice.

I challenge the perpetrators to actually measure the effects of their covert administration of radioactive poisons to pregnant Australian women and their children.

I denounce the current use of junk science to justify these covert poisonings,