Right: a warning sign at the site of buried nuclear waste from the Maralinga tests.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of siting a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia
1. There would be major economic benefits from siting a nuclear waste storage facility in Those who support the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia argue that it would bring great economic advantages to the state.
After a lengthy discussion of influencing factors, the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission suggested that over the life of the facility it would generate a total revenue of more than $257 billion, with total costs of $145 billion.
The Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission estimated that the facility would generate a total annual revenue of $5.6 billion a year over the first 30 years of operation and about $2.1 billion a year until waste receipts were notionally planned to conclude 43 years later.
The facility is also expected to generate significant employment. Throughout the establishment phase of the project, between 1500 and 4500 full-time jobs are estimated to be created, peaking during construction of the underground facilities in years 21 to 25 of the project. About 600 jobs, in operations at both sites, and at a head office, are expected
to be created once facility operations begin.
There are also expected to flow-on effects, with the facility promoting the development and/or expansion of servicing and other related industries. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission has stated, 'The presence of such a large specialist industry in the state would be likely to support the development of associated industries serving both local and international markets, including: specialist transport and logistics equipment (shipping, rail and road), and possibly including used fuel storage cask design and manufacture for transport and interim storage; and used fuel encapsulation containers for final disposal.'
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission estimated the impact that the facility and associated development would have on the state's economy. Modelling estimated that an integrated waste storage and disposal facility would grow gross state product by an additional 4.7 per cent (A$6.7 billion) by 202930
The facility is expected to grow total employment by 1.9 per cent or 9600 full time jobs by 202930 add $3000 per person to gross state income in 202930 in current dollars.
Though he has not declared himself in favour of the establishment of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia, the premier, Jay Weatherill, is clearly aware of the economic advantages such a facility could offered. Weatherill has stated, 'The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found that, if South Australia was to accept high-level spent nuclear waste from overseas, our State could benefit from projected revenue of $257 billion.
If we were to invest this into a State Wealth Fund, this could accumulate to $445 billion for South Australia. This is the equivalent of $260,000 for every single person in our State.
As Premier, it is my duty to explore such an opportunity.'
The Premier continued by stressing the potential importance of new industries to the south Australian economy. He stated, 'As our traditional manufacturing industries decline, we need to modernise our economy to develop new industries and support the jobs of the future.
My Government believes we must pursue bold ideas and new ways of thinking challenging the assumptions of the past and being prepared to embrace the possibilities of the future.'
Former Liberal Senator for South Australia, Sean Edwards, has argued that those who deny the economic benefits to the state are either prejudiced or ill-informed. He has claimed, 'No higher authority than a royal commission has found it's demonstrably of economic benefit to South Australia, and you get these fringe-dwellers saying it's not.'
Edwards also argued that those in the Opposition who have challenged the project were playing politics and were putting the state's financial future at risk in the process. He stated, 'I say to any political party: outline your future for an economic policy which is more dramatically beneficial in the short term than this option.
The science is in it's safe; it's only the politics that will destroy what could be a very prosperous future for South Australia and I think it's a grave risk for anybody to continue to detract from any kind of positive future for South Australia.'
2. The safety issues involved with nuclear waste storage can be addressed
It has been claimed that the risks associated with developing and maintaining a high-level nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia can be effectively managed.
Those who support the establishment of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia note that the state has a number of geological and socio-political features which make it a safe and suitable location for such a repository.
South Australia's geology makes it a suitable location for underground storage of high-level nuclear waste. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission noted that the state has a number of subterranean features, each suited to a different type of underground storage and thus it offers a number of options for matching locations and storage modes.
The Commission stated, 'The underlying geology of South Australia is old and stable. It encompasses different geological environments that are suitable for the disposal of used fuel, namely, hard crystalline rock and appropriate sedimentary formations, including clay. This means that there are various disposal concepts that could be employed, depending on the site.'
It has also been noted that South Australia is, by international standards, seismically stable. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission noted, 'The state has recorded about 40 earthquakes over a magnitude of 4.5 since 1872. By way of comparison, Japan routinely records more than ten of these magnitude earthquakes in a month.' This seismic stability means that Australia is not prone to the sort of earthquakes that pose a significant risk to nuclear waste storage facilities.
It is also noted that the secure, democratic government of the state makes it a suitable socio-political location for the placement of a facility which will have to be responsibly managed for a very long period of time. The Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission stated, 'South Australia has a stable representative democratic political system that has not significantly changed since Federation in 1901.'
Though the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission noted that a small number of the nuclear waste storage facilities overseas had had leakages or accidents, it noted further that there were circumstances particular to each of these events which either did not apply in Australia or could be avoided. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission further noted that there were cutting-edge facilities in Finland and Sweden from which any facility established in Australia would be able to learn. The Commission stated, 'Any future proposal could draw on the concepts, methods and technology developed in Finland, Sweden and other countries with underground research laboratories.'
Regarding the safety of 'interim storage' (the type of above-ground storage which is used for low- and medium-level waste and for high-level waste while it cools for the 50 years required before it can be stored underground), the World nuclear Association has stated, 'The use of interim storage facilities currently provides an appropriate environment in which to contain and manage this amount of waste.'
The World Nuclear Association has claimed that the risks associated with the transportation of nuclear waste are of a very low order. It has stated, 'Nuclear materials have been transported safely (virtually without incident and without harmful effect on anyone) since before the advent of nuclear power over 50 years ago. Transportations of nuclear materials cannot therefore be referred to as mobile Chernobyls .'
The Association has further stated, 'The primary assurance of safety in the transport of nuclear materials is the way in which they are packaged. Packages that store waste during transportation are designed to ensure shielding from radiation and containment of waste, even under the most extreme accident conditions.'
3. The nuclear waste storage facility will not go ahead without the permission of the traditional owners
Those who defend the project have also noted that the South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill, has indicated that the traditional owners will have the right to veto any project which is planned.
The South Australian government's response to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission included the assurance, 'If broad social consent were to be achieved through a referendum, a local Aboriginal community would be given a final right of veto on any future facility on their lands.'
Before arriving at this position the government was careful to ensure that the views of Indigenous South Australians were heard. A two-day Aboriginal Human Services forum brought together 20 community leaders representing 11 organisations from the human services sector in South Australia. The result of their discussions was presented to the second citizens' jury to help inform its deliberations.
In a comment published in The Adelaide Advertiser on November 18, 2016, the premier, Jay Weatherill stated, 'A key finding of the citizens' jury was the importance of listening to local Aboriginal communities. Their evidence to the jury was compelling.
This final right of veto would exist if a proposed facility would affect their lands and would not be overridden by the broader community. Their voice must be heard and their consent is essential.'
The South Australian premier appears to be arguing that discussion on this issue is not yet over. His government is proposing a referendum to extend the debate on the advisability of establishing a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia. The referendum is then meant to result in a final decision being reached by the electorate after it has had an opportunity to be further informed via the discussion before the referendum.
Obviously all Indigenous South Australians will have the opportunity to vote in the referendum and will have their views considered in that way. Further, the premier has assured South Australians that if the referendum decides in favour of a nuclear waste storage facility then once a site has been selected then the particular Aboriginal communities affected would be consulted. They would have the power to simply reject the building of such a facility on their lands.
Prior to the South Australian premier's assurance that affected Aboriginal communities would be able to veto any proposed siting, the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission had recognised the legislative procedures that already exist for gaining Indigenous approval of any development that affects traditional owners. The Nuclear Fuel Royal Commission stated, 'There are frameworks for securing long-term agreements with rights holders in South Australia, including Aboriginal communities. These include Indigenous Land Use Agreements, Cultural Heritage Management Plans, mining agreements, land access agreements and exploration permits. These frameworks provide a sophisticated foundation for securing agreements with rights holders and host communities regarding the siting and establishment of facilities for the management of used fuel.'
4. The nuclear waste storage facility will not go ahead without community agreement and bipartisan political support
Supporters of the nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia argue that it will not go ahead without the support of both the community and other political parties.
It is recognised that such a significant commitment involving large-scale government expenditure and a social and environmental management responsibility that extends over hundreds of thousands of years can only be undertaken if there is full and informed support for it.
After the publication of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report on May 6, 2016, the government began a wide-ranging campaign of community education and consultation.
Following the release of the Royal Commission Report, Premier Jay Weatherill announced the establishment of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) to increase awareness of the Royal Commission's report and facilitate the community consultation process.
Among the principles guiding CARA's actions are: seeking to understand the South Australian community's perspectives on further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle; having the community, not the government, identify the issues they want to discuss and ensuring the community is informed about the issues upon which it will ultimately make up its mind.
There have been four elements in this community consultation and decision-making process - two citizens' juries and a series of more than 100 informal consultative meetings around the state at which citizens were invited to receive information and give feedback. Among these community forums were a youth forum at which The Youth Affairs Council of South
Australia (YACSA) and CARA hosted a 'Know nuclear pizza and politics' night; a Greek community forum at which representatives of CARA attended an event with members of the
Greek community at Olympic Hall, Adelaide CBD and a South Australia TAFE Colleges forum at which CARA participated in a video conference that was open to TAFE SA students across all campuses. A special briefing was also provided to the TAFE Regency Campus science and geology students.
People were also encouraged to contribute through unstructured channels, via emails, website comments, a short Twitter post, telephone calls and letters. These channels often attracted people who feel strongly for or against a particular issue, and they also allowed individuals to contribute numerous times.
The first citizens' jury, comprising a representative group of fifty citizens, helped to identify the questions that needed further clarification. The second jury of 350 people was convened to examine the feedback and present a final report to the government.
After the report of the consultative groups and the second citizens' jury, the Premier announced that the only way to establish the community's view beyond doubt was to hold a referendum. Supporters of this process argue that it displays a great respect for community opinion and ensures that no decision will be made by government that does not reflect the wishes of the people.
On the question of receiving bipartisan support from the major parties, the referendum has been proposed as a way of gaining this. The Premier has stated, 'Opposition Leader Steven Marshall withdrew the Liberal Party's support before the process had been completed, removing the bipartisanship the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission said was critical to the process.'
The Premier appears to believe that a shift in public attitude, indicated in a referendum, might see the Opposition come in behind the project. Mr Weatherill has stated, 'If the mood in the community shifts and bipartisanship is re-established we will remain open to this question.'
5. If South Australia were to establish a nuclear waste storage facility it would be acting as a responsible international citizen
Some of those who support the establishment of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia do so because they believe it is the best solution to a global problem. They argue that a safe means of storing the world's growing stockpile of spent fuel from nuclear reactors has to be found and that South Australia is uniquely well placed to help solve this problem.
Environmentalist, David Valente, has argued that South Australia would be assisting the world address a pressing environmental issue if it were to establish such a facility.
Valente stresses the geological features of South Australia which make it an ideal location to place a storage facility. He states, 'The scientists scientists mind you, not politicians or profit-driven corporate bully boys have already told us more than once that the South Australian Outback is the best, the safest, the most geologically and environmentally stable place on the planet to store the nuclear waste that already exists in stockpiles around the globe.'
Valente concludes, 'The environment is worldwide and in situations like this so should be the concerns of environmentalists& If we as environmentalists keep shouting The Earth is sick, something must be done! but at the same time steadfastly refuse to make the hard call to do something in our back yard, how and when will anything change?'
In addition to stressing the geological and socio-political features of South Australia that make it highly suitable for a nuclear waste storage facility, the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission also stressed that Australia's strong position on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons would make a south Australian site one that most of the world would trust as a repository for their nuclear waste. The Royal Commission's report states, '.Australia offers a unique political arrangement given its economic and political structures and international confidence in its non-proliferation credentials.'
There are those who argue that South Australia has a strong moral responsibility to build this facility. Freelance journalist, Mike Steketee, has argued, 'We have the world's largest known uranium resources and are the world's third largest producer (after Kazakhstan and Canada) of uranium for nuclear reactors& The waste from nuclear fuel from our uranium, together with that from other producers, is piling up around the world in temporary storages& Australia has some of the most stable geological formations in the world in outback South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. That is, the earth has not moved in these regions for millions of years. They are arid and flat, meaning there also has been no groundwater movement. And they are very sparsely populated.'
Steketee argues that by supplying the uranium Australia (including South Australia) has helped to cause this worldwide problem and as we are well placed to be able to address it, we are morally obliged to do so.