It’s debatable whether a national nuclear dump is an appropriate waste management strategy. Like many others, I don’t think it is, which makes the issue of siting irrelevant. Nevertheless, for so long as the federal government is pushing its plan to use South Australia as the national nuclear dump, it’s worth revisiting the questions: why was SA chosen for the dump, and why does the government persist with the argument that SA is the “safest and best” site when that claim is demonstrably false?

The federal government has repeatedly said that the centre-north of SA was found to be the “safest and best” site on scientific/environmental criteria. For example, Senator Nick Minchin said in the Advertiser on 14/2/03 that: “As a result of an exhaustive, eight-year nation-wide search conducted by Australia's best scientists, the Woomera region was identified as the safest and best place in Australia to locate the national repository for low-level waste.”

However, it can only be concluded that the decision was made on political criteria as well as scientific/environmental ones.

A 1997 government document shows that suitable sites were identified in five states/territories - WA, NT, SA, Qld, NSW. (Bureau of Resource Scientists, 1997, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia - Site Selection Study - Phase 3 - Regional Assessment - Public Discussion Paper, pp.8-9.)

The government claims that SA was chosen from among these sites because it has the largest area of suitable land. However, that is a furphy - the 1997 document shows that other states/territories have areas which are regarded as suitable and could accommodate hundreds or thousands of 100x100m dump sites (Billa Kalina / SA, Olary / NSW+SA, Tanami / NT, Jackson / WA, Maralinga / SA, and to a lesser extent Mount Isa / Qld). (Bureau of Resource Scientists, 1997, pp.8-9.)

The federal government identified an area within the Olary region in western NSW, north-west of Silverton, which:
i) is equally suitable for a dump as the centre-north of SA (both meeting all 13 of the government’s criteria),
ii) has sufficient land to host thousands of 100x100m dump sites, and
iii) is closer to the main waste source, Lucas Heights. (Bureau of Resource Scientists, 1997, pp.8-9.)

So why was SA chosen ahead of NSW given that the argument about area is a furphy? The government concocted an answer to that question in late 2002 - science minister Peter McGauran wrote in the 8/9/02 Sunday Mail that “unlike the Olary region in western NSW, the [SA] region did not overlap the Great Artesian or Murray-Darling Basins which are important water resources”. However, that claim is demonstrably false: the SA region partly overlaps the Great Artesian Basin in precisely the same way that the Olary region partly overlaps water basins - see the 1997 Bureau of Resource Scientists document, pp.6-7. If the partial overlap of short-listed regions with important water basins was sufficient to justify the exclusion of Olary, the same standard ought to apply to SA. THERE IS A CLEAR DOUBLE-STANDARD AT WORK.

Other arguments simply don’t justify choosing SA over other states. For example, one of the favourite lines of former science minister Nick Minchin was that SA should accept radioactive waste because 20,000 South Australians benefit every year from isotopes produced by the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor (see for example his 17/5/00 media release which mentioned that magical 20,000 figure three times). Current science minister Peter McGauran likewise makes frequent, emotive, illogical connections between nuclear medicine and the planned dump. It is a nonsense argument. According to data from ANSTO (1993, Research Reactor Review Submission), in comparison to SA, there are seven times as many nuclear medicine procedures are carried out in NSW, four times as many in Victoria and twice as many in Queensland.

It is a safe bet that the government will concoct further pseudo-scientific reasons to justify the selection of SA. It will attempt to muddy the debate - and it may succeed unless it gets its facts completely wrong yet again (another safe bet?!).

By a process of elimination, it can only be concluded that that the decision to dump nuclear waste in SA was based in part on the premise that public/political opposition in SA could be overcome more easily than other equally suitable sites (some of them more suitable in that they are closer to Lucas Heights). Were there discussions between the federal and state Liberal/Coalition governments in the lead-up to the February 1998 announcement that SA was to host the dump? Was some sort of deal struck - perhaps something along the lines of the 1995 proposal from SA Premier Dean Brown in a letter to PM Paul Keating that the SA government would reconsider its opposition to a national dump if the federal government abandoned plans for a World Heritage listing for the Lake Eyre region (see below)?

(Much of the waste debate assumes the 'need' for a centralised, underground dump. However, a 1996 Senate report recommended above-ground storage, not a shallow trench (which is what the federal government is planning). (Commonwealth of Australia, 1996, “No Time to Waste”, Report of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste.) Siting criteria for above-ground storage are different to those used for underground dumps. There are other debates about the wisdom of centralised storage, which involves the risks entailed in transportation, provides a bigger target for saboteurs/terrorists etc, and also provides an out-of-site-out-of-mind option for radioactive waste producers and therefore discourages waste minimisation.)

Further support for the view that SA was chosen for the national nuclear dump on political not scientific grounds:

Questions from Jim Green (emailed repeatedly from 13/9/02 to 16/11/02).

Answers from Information Officer, Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), received by email 22/11/02.

QUESTION 1. Am I right that the chunk of land in the Olary region of NSW, N-W of Silverton (Phase 3 discussion paper, pp.8-9):
(a) meets all the scientific/geological criteria
(b) is large enough to host, hypothetically, hundreds of 100x100m repository sites, and
(c) is a significant distance from the fringes of the Murray-Darling and Great Artesian water basins.

DEST - ANSWER 1: In 1997, the central-north region of South Australia (formerly Billa Kalina) was selected for siting studies for the national repository as it had the largest area of suitability against the relevant selection criteria. All eight regions identified in 1994 had potential areas of suitability against the selection criteria at the national scale, but the central-north region was selected as the best region for siting studies for the repository.

COMMENTS - JG:
* DEST makes no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.
* DEST doesn’t dispute the three points made about NSW/Olary.
* DEST acknowledges that “all eight regions identified in 1994 had potential areas of suitability against the selection criteria” which contradicts science minister Peter McGauran’s assertion in the September 8 Sunday Mail (and many similar assertions in recent years from the government) that “the central-north region of South Australia is the best and safest place to site the national repository”.
* The argument that SA was the logical choice because it had the “largest area of suitability” is a furphy since at least four of the eight regions have sufficient land meeting the government’s criteria to accommodate hundreds or thousands of 100x100m dump sites (judging from the diagram on pp.8-9 in Bureau of Resource Scientists, 1997, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia - Site Selection Study - Phase 3 - Regional Assessment - Public Discussion Paper). That being the case, other criteria, such as the distance of the eight regions from the major waste source (Lucas Heights), ought to take on much greater significance.

QUESTION 2. Could you please confirm that the Government has never once used the ‘overlap’ of the Olary region in NSW with the Murray-Darling and Great Artesian Basins to exclude Olary until the September 8 Sunday Mail article from science minister Mr. McGauran?

DEST - ANSWER 2: The position of the Olary region with respect to the Murray-Darling and Great Artesian Basins is clearly indicated in the 1994 and 1997 public discussion papers on the national repository. The position of the Olary region with respect to both basins was noted at meetings with stakeholders.

COMMENT - JG: But there is a significant land area in the Olary region (and other regions) meeting all the government’s criteria and some distance beyond the fringes of the water basins. Moreover, the selected Billa Kalina region in SA overlaps the Great Artesian Basin, which begs the following question ...

QUESTION 3. Why wasn’t Billa Kalina excluded since it overlaps the Great Artesian Basin (Phase 3 discussion paper, pp.8-9)?

DEST - ANSWER 3: The small part of the central-north region [of SA] which overlapped the Great Artesian Basin was excluded from the siting studies.

COMMENT - JG: So why not do exactly the same for NSW/Olary, i.e. simply exclude those parts overlapping the water basins from consideration? In fact, that is precisely what was done throughout the protracted site selection process - it was spelt out that land overlapping the water basins (inc. relevant parts of the Olary / NSW and Billa Kalina / SA regions) would not be considered, but the two regions weren’t ruled out altogether.

QUESTION 4. Can you confirm that the Billa Kalina region overlaps the Great Artesian Basin and that Minister McGauran was incorrect when he said in the September 8 2002 Sunday Mail that “unlike the Olary region in western NSW, the [Woomera] region did not overlap the Great Artesian or Murray-Darling Basins which are important water resources”?

DEST - ANSWER 4: The Olary region overlaps both the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basins. The small part of the central-north region [of SA] which overlapped the Great Artesian Basin was excluded from the siting studies.

COMMENT - JG: DEST acknowledges that there is overlap between the SA region and the Great Artesian Basin, so McGauran was wrong in the September 8 Sunday Mail.

Below is the text of a 1995 letter from then SA premier Dean Brown to then Prime Minister Paul Keating. It suggests striking a deal which had nothing whatsoever to do with scientific siting criteria. Brown said the SA government "seeks an agreement from the Commonwealth that it will not proceed with World Heritage Listing of the Lake Eyre Region on the grounds that such listing is inconsistent with the location of storage sites for the radioactive waste on the edge of that region. If the Commonwealth Government is able to give these assurances to the satisfaction of the State Government, then the State Government will reconsider its position."

Commonwealth of Australia, 1996, “No Time to Waste”, Report of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste, page 173: "Ethical considerations. 8.82: The Committee is also concerned that the siting of a national facility should be based on issues of public safety rather than political expediency. The South Australian Premier, the Hon Dean Brown suggested to the Prime Minister that: “... the South Australian Government believes a prerequisite to establishing radioactive waste storage sites or repositories in the Woomera region is that the adjacent Lake Eyre region should not be considered for World Heritage Listing. It therefore seeks an agreement from the Commonwealth that it will not proceed with World Heritage Listing of the Lake Eyre Region on the grounds that such listing is inconsistent with the location of storage sites for the radioactive waste on the edge of that region.”

Text of the letter:

DPC 496/94

28 February 1995

Hon. P J Keating MP
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Prime Minister Paul

I refer to the Commonwealth Government’s decision to move, in about late April or early May, an amount of radioactive waste from St Mary’s in Sydney to Rangehead at Woomera for storage.

You will recall my letter to you of 20 December in which I raised matters of concern the South Australian Government has regarding the long term management of this waste and the Lucas Heights material transferred to Woomera previously.

The South Australian Government has considered the proposed method of transport and storage of the St Marys waste. My Government does not accept the Commonwealth’s decision to store the waste at Woomera Rangehead until certain assurances are given and uncertainties clarified. The Commonwealth must clarify the period of time this, and the Lucas Heights material, will remain in “temporary storage” pending permanent disposal. We note that some of the St Marys material is classified as ‘Category S’ for disposal purposes and is therefore not suitable for “near surface” disposal as envisaged in the proposed ‘National Repository’. This suggests long term storage at Woomera until either a suitable deep repository, or a permanent storage site becomes available.

Further, in the interests of the safety of the South Australian community, we wish to liaise with the appropriate Commonwealth authorities to ensure that a competent carrier, preferably experienced in the successful transport of radioactive materials, is selected to transport the waste and that appropriate contingency plans, to cover any incidents and emergencies, are prepared.

In addition, the South Australian Government wishes to discuss with the Commonwealth the possibility of transferring to the bunker at Woomera Rangehead, some radioactive waste that is presently held in temporary storage sites in South Australia. Initially we would request that officials discuss the types and quantities of waste which could be accepted for storage at the Woomera Rangehead facility.

Finally, the South Australian Government believes a prerequisite to establishing radioactive waste storage sites or repositories in the Woomera region is that the adjacent Lake Eyre region should not be considered for World Heritage Listing. It therefore seeks an agreement from the Commonwealth that it will not proceed with World Heritage Listing of the Lake Eyre Region on the grounds that such listing is inconsistent with the location of storage sites for the radioactive waste on the edge of that region.

If the Commonwealth Government is able to give these assurances to the satisfaction of the State Government, then the State Government will reconsider its position.

In recent discussions with Senator Cook’s office about the transfer of radioactive material to South Australia, the Commonwealth has recognised the desirability of achieving bi-partisan support at the State level for such transfers. Accordingly, it would be appreciated if you could ensure your State political colleagues are briefed about the transfer of the St Marys material once we have finalised all arrangements, and support the proposal.

Yours sincerely
s/ Dean Brown MP
Premier.