SA nuclear dump: let the fight begin
By Jim Green
South Australians are gearing up for a crucial stage in their fight against a federal government plan to turn the northern part of the state into Australia's nuclear waste dump.
A major conference in Adelaide will debate the issues on March 4-5. Several actions will take place around the state to protest the planned dump on March 26. And in coming months, the federal government will carry out a sham environmental assessment.
The government faces a number of obstacles to its plan, including the widespread understanding that an underground dump for low-level waste will be the thin edge of the wedge, almost certainly followed by an above-ground store for long-lived intermediate-level waste within a few years.
Longer-term possibilities include a reprocessing plant to treat spent fuel rods from the nuclear reactor in the Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights, and a deep underground dump for high-level nuclear waste from Australia and/or overseas.
The possibility of the state hosting a store for long-lived intermediate-level waste attracted considerable attention in 1999. SA premier John Olsen said in parliament that, while the state government supports siting a low-level waste dump in SA, "the storage of long-lived intermediate-level waste, such as reprocessed fuel rods from Lucas Heights, is an entirely separate issue ... I wish to make it very clear that I am opposed to medium- to high-level radioactive waste being dumped in South Australia."
Contradicted
Senator Nick Minchin, the federal minister for industry, science and resources, has dismissed Olsen's comments as political puff — and he may be right. Minchin claims that co-location of the store with the underground dump is just one option and that no decision has been made.
However, his claim contradicts comments made by every government agency with any involvement in nuclear waste issues.
When asked during a parliamentary inquiry last year whether spent fuel wastes would be dumped in SA after reprocessing in Europe, the executive director of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) simply said, "Yes".
A 1999 report from the federal environment department states unequivocally that reprocessing wastes will be dumped in SA.
Clearly the government is downplaying the issue of co-location of higher-level waste because of the upsurge of political opposition in SA last year (which was also responsible for Olsen's statement in parliament).
The federal government's strategy is equally transparent: get the low-level dump up and running now and then attempt to force the store for higher-level waste on South Australians later.
The government continues to deny that the dump is primarily a clearing exercise for ANSTO, designed to reduce opposition to the planned new reactor in Sydney. Once again this line of argument has been undermined by government departments and agencies.
The federal environment department said last year that ANSTO is "a major contributor" to the total amount of nuclear waste which would be dumped in SA. The head of ANSTO's radioactive waste management section also said that there is "no doubt" that ANSTO holds "the major fraction" of the waste which would be sent to a national dump.
The federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) has published figures suggesting that ANSTO would be only a modest contributor to any national dump, but the figures are incomplete and therefore inaccurate — no wonder, since they were provided by ANSTO and were not checked by DISR. Moreover, DISR's figures are misleading as they give waste volumes whereas total radioactivity and isotopic composition are far more important variables for assessing public health and environmental risks.
International dump
If the federal government succeeds with its plan to use SA as the dump for all of Australia's nuclear waste, then Pangea Australia, the company which wants to dump 75,000 tonnes of high-level waste from around the world, can be expected to try its luck in SA.
The federal government claims that it is scaremongering to claim that the national dump could lead to an international dump. Yet Pangea has admitted lying to the Australian public, the government has a proven track record of dishonesty and evasiveness in relation to nuclear issues, and the government refuses to legislate to ban Pangea. Pangea's presence at the March 4-5 conference in Adelaide is likely to fuel speculation.
The federal government's priority is to provide a short-term fix to the problems of sections of the Australian nuclear industry, in particular ANSTO. Pangea Australia may have to be sacrificed in order to advance domestic nuclear interests.
Government bureaucrats are believed to have floated the idea of legislating to ban Pangea's international dump plan — in return for support from the minor parties for the domestic nuclear dump. However, it is highly unlikely that support for the national dump will be won and it is perhaps a sign of desperation that the government even floated the idea.
Deals
It is possible that a deal may be struck between the federal government and the SA Liberal government to secure state government support for a store for higher-level waste.
In 1995, then SA premier Dean Brown wrote to Prime Minister Paul Keating saying, "The South Australian government believes a prerequisite to establishing 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 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."
The Murdoch-owned Advertiser, the only mass-circulation establishment paper in SA, has also floated the idea of a deal. The Advertiser said in a 1998 editorial that, while being "distinctly less than enthusiastic about the idea", a dump might be acceptable depending on one "all-important" issue: what's in it for SA. The Advertiser suggested some sort of "environmental" pay-off, anything from better quality water to safer roads.
Environmental impact sham
Another challenge for the federal government will be to convince South Australians that the environmental impact assessment of the dump plan will not be a bureaucratic whitewash.
However, there will be no surprises with the sham assessment. The government department entrusted with the dump project will write an environmental impact statement, the public will have about three months to make written submissions, and the federal environment department will approve the project, with some ambiguously worded and largely meaningless conditions attached.
In a nutshell, the government has decided to dump nuclear waste in SA, and it will write, "review", and approve the environmental impact statement itself. No complaints will be entered into.
Anyone questioning the integrity of the process will no doubt be told of the government's extensive "consultation" with South Australians before and during the sham assessment. However the "consultation" involves nothing more than the provision and publication of information and misinformation; it certainly does not involve any decision making power.
Opponents of the dump must decide whether or not to involve themselves in the formal environmental assessment. Since it is a sham and the outcome predetermined, it would be naive to hope to influence the outcome of the assessment. Therefore, involvement in or abstention from the process is purely tactical.
Whatever tactical decision is taken in relation to the sham assessment, the key point is that it should not divert energy and attention from the broader political campaign against the dump.
The campaign against the dump has become increasingly organised and widespread in the past year. Public opposition is strong in Adelaide (as indicated by the attendance of almost 1000 people at a public meeting in the Adelaide Town Hall in November), in rural SA, and along possible transport routes in SA and New South Wales.
The campaign also has a great deal of passive support. Research commissioned by Greenpeace last year revealed that a majority of Australians are opposed to SA being used as the national nuclear dump, and 86% of South Australians are opposed to the dump. Ninety-three percent of respondents to a Channel 7 poll conducted in SA last year expressed opposition to the dump.
For more information on the March 4-5 conference, visit the conference web-site, <www.adhills.com.au/peoplesconference.com.au> or phone Greg Were on (08) 8388 0016. The conference will be broadcast live on the internet at <http://sw.mtx.net/nc/index.html>.