Push for high-level nuclear waste storage at Maralinga, former British atom bomb test site

IT’S the SA site that carries a terrible, shocking history. Now one high-powered company has suggested it for a high-level nuclear waste storage facility. What do you think?

Maralinga Taranaki atom bomb nuclear test site. "Caution Radiation" sign. radioactivity /SA/Maralinga /Ra...

• YESTERDAY: Historic support for high-level nuclear waste dump
• THE POLITICIANS: Some Senators push for immediate nuclear industry — not other MPs
• THE PREMIER: It’s time for a serious debate, writes Jay Weatherill
• THE REACTION: Major regional centres are wary
• THE POEM: Jay’s anti-nuclear poem from his teen years

DUMPING imported high-level nuclear waste at Maralinga after shipping it through a deepwater port south of Whyalla is being pushed by a high-powered company.

In a multibillion-dollar plan similar to that recommended by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, radioactive waste would be taken by rail to the former British atomic bomb test site.

SA Nuclear Energy Systems is proposing to bury the waste in giant pits, where soil and equipment contaminated during the British tests was stored in the 1990s, while the Royal Commission recommends underground storage.

But the site criteria, such as its arid location free from seismic activity, is similar to that proposed by the Royal Commission, as is a dedicated port.

Where could a site go?

The company’s board includes former Premier’s Department chief Ian Kowalick, two Adelaide University scientists and a former US nuclear industry executive. It is chaired by businessman Bruce Hundertmark.

The Maralinga waste storage facility would cost about $3 billion, reap revenue of more than $1 billion annually and create 4000 direct jobs.

A rail spur would be built from the existing line to Whyalla, enabling waste to be taken via the Trans Australian Railway 863km west of Port Augusta to Ooldea, the railway siding which once serviced Maralinga.

A warning sign at the Maralinga atom bomb test site.

An atom bomb blast during one of the tests at the Maralinga Test Range in 1956.

In a submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Mr Hundertmark also highlights the fully operational air strip at Maralinga which is capable of receiving the heaviest transport aircraft.

The Royal Commission’s tentative findings, released on Monday, declared SA could reap a $445 billion bonanza from creating a global storage facility for hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel and waste.

It recommended funding a deep underground storage facility by accepting an initial $2 billion fee for a first waste batch, stored in above-ground containers from the late 2020s.

The facility would be supported with a new dedicated port, airport and rail freight line.

SA’s unique attributes for such a site, the Royal Commission says, include low seismic activity, an arid environment in many parts of the state and pre-existing frameworks for securing long-term agreement with rights holders and the community.

Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce told The Advertiser some areas of the state would be excluded from consideration for a repository site.

“The geology is critical. It has to be seismically stable. That will rule out a lot of areas up and down the (Mt Lofty and Flinders) ranges, for example,” he said.

Mr Hundertmark said his firm’s plans were quite advanced and had already included talks with state and federal governments, along with the area’s Aboriginal people, but would require state and federal legislative change.

He said his company’s plan could start far sooner than the late 2020s, because of the existing infrastructure, but did not specify a precise time frame.

Taxes might not go our WA

Daniel Wills

SOUTH Australia could lose a share of the billions of dollars promised by a nuclear storage industry to national tax sharing deals that may leave it as “the next Western Australia”, experts warn.

Financial modelling released by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission on Monday predicts the state could receive $257 billion in revenue over 120 years by taking high-level waste from around the world, and need to spend $145 billion of that on infrastructure and management.

Leading tax experts surveyed by The Advertiser have raised concern some of the $100 billion remaining profit could be eaten up by cuts in the state’s GST receipts. However, several argue the risk could be avoided by keeping the dump in public hands, while any nuclear cash losses to other states would be offset by much wider employment and economic benefits for SA.

WA’s budget has been plunged into deep deficit in the past two years as the iron ore boom ended but its share of the nation’s GST pool shrunk.

University of SA school of commerce research fellow Glen Lehman said there was a significant risk the state could be left as “the next WA” as its waste payday was shared between states.

“There is that same concern the net benefit would not be as great as what is currently projected,” he said. “It’s really a federation issue, to decide how much GST comes back.”

Deloitte Access Economics partner Chris Richardson said “far and away the bulk of the upside would remain in SA, but our federal system would claw some of it back”.

Grattan Institute senior associate Brendan Coates said setting up the nuclear management company as a publicly-owned business, like SA Water, could help ensure the extra revenues remained in the state because they would be considered to be dividends rather than taxes.