SA’s nuclear debate: Choosing a waste storage site would take years and require extensive consultation

CHOOSING a site for a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository might take up to five years if the plan is backed by the community, says former Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce.

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commissioner Kevin Scare with his final report. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe

• NUCLEAR DOSSIER SPECIAL REPORT: Everything you need to know about SA’s nuclear debate

CHOOSING a site for a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository might take up to five years if the plan is backed by the community, says former Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce.

In an interview with The Advertiser, Rear Admiral Scarce said safety should be the first consideration when assessing the merits of storing spent nuclear fuel deep underground.

More than 100 sites across South Australia will be visited during a three-month public engagement program, starting today, involving more than 60 suburbs and towns.

People will discuss findings of Rear Admiral Scarce’s Royal Commission, which recommended on May 9 the State Government investigate the feasibility of storage and disposal of international used nuclear fuel and intermediate-level waste in SA.

A waste disposal facility could be safely operated and generate $257 billion in total revenue, the Royal Commission said, with costs of $145 billion over the project’s 120-year life.

Rear Admiral Scarce said evidence-based public discussion was critical, as was ensuring community consent for the decision-making process and possible eventual site.

He said this process had taken up to five years overseas but this did not necessarily apply to SA.

“I think the time imperative is a little more acute for us. If this does take a long time, then community values can change, there’s the issue of potential for competition and also the potential for jobs,” he said.

“That might mean that we are a little more careful on time frames and certainly don’t rush it but we might have a process that is a little quicker than some overseas nations.”

Rear Admiral Scarce said international experience also demonstrated that communities did not like being dictated to, particularly when considering infrastructure lasting hundreds of thousands of years.

“So the engagement is a critical factor in the success of any program. We have to spend time, we have to explain the challenges, the risks and how the risks are mitigated,” he said.

“You can’t do it quickly and you need to bring the community along, so they have an opportunity to learn, they have an opportunity to make the decision.”

Any subsequent site selection would, Rear Admiral Scarce said, need to involve picking generic geological characteristics, then having a discussion with the many relevant communities.

Some communities might then want to learn more about the storage process, while others would opt out.

“That could lead you to two or three serious discussions with communities. That’s when the sort of detailed geological work — and also the benefits — start to become discussed in detail,” Rear Admiral Scarce said.

A citizens’ jury has identified the key questions to be considered during the debate.

In October, a second citizens’ jury of about 350 people will evaluate the community feedback and produce a summary report for the State Government to consider, ahead of its response by the end of the year.

The chief of the government agency leading community consultation, Madeline Richardson, said the citizens’ jury and statewide process was about examining different perspectives.

“This is why we are going to every corner of the state, sharing information and answering the questions people may have,” said Ms Richardson, the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) chief executive.

“We want to provide South Australians with the tools they need to get involved in this conversation.

“We’d like people to be confident that they know the facts, understand what choices we have as a state and what further activity in the nuclear fuel cycle might look like.”

Ms Richardson said the consultation format also was designed to explore the 12-page Citizens’ Jury report, which identified the key issues the jury believed fellow South Australians should discuss to help form their own views.