|
Date
|
Initiative/Inquiry
|
Source
|
|
1978
|
During a meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory Health Ministers, the State and Territory Ministers ask the Commonwealth to co-ordinate a national approach to the management of radioactive waste and the development of relevant codes of practice. The Commonwealth considers the request and agrees to take on that role.
The development of the NHMRC's 'Radiation Health Series' of codes of practice for the management of wastes arising from the medical, research and industrial use of radionuclides arises from this initiative, as did the search for a national repository site for low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive wastes.
|
'Cabinet to decide on N-waste', The Age, 10 February 1978.
'National dump to take all nuclear waste', The Australian, 28 June 1978.
|
|
1980
|
A Commonwealth–State Consultative Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is established.
|
Department of Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Code of Practice on the Management of Radioactive wastes from mining of Radioactive Ores, AGPS, Canberra, 1982.
|
|
Nov 1983
|
The Commonwealth Government asks Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), Professor Ralph Slatyer, to prepare a report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. It has been argued since that the purpose of the report was to give the Hawke Government some independent advice to support a shift in ALP policy to a more liberal position on the mining and export of uranium.
The ASTEC report, released in May 1984:
supports identification of 'sites suitable for disposal of low level radioactive waste and the development of facilities for interim storage and disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive waste' (p. 23)
argues Australia should participate in the international research effort on the disposal of high level waste, and
endorses continuing research into synroc.
|
ASTEC, Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, AGPS, Canberra, May 1984.
|
|
1985
|
Following a fire in 1983 near an office basement being used to store radioactive waste, the Victorian Government selects a site for a storage site in country Victoria. As in NSW in 1978, a range of interests combine to lobby against, and ultimately defeat the proposal.
|
Rod Panter, 'Radioactive Waste Disposal in Australia', Issue Paper no. 6, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1992. 'A radioactive waste facility–Melbourne style', The Herald (Melbourne), 29 December 1985.
|
|
1985
|
The Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee on Radioactive Waste Management recommends that a 'national program be initiated to identify potentially suitable sites for a national near-surface radioactive waste repository'. State and Territory governments commence studies to identify potentially suitable sites in their jurisdictions.
|
|
|
1986
|
The studies conducted by states and territories under the Commonwealth–State Consultative Committee indicate that most states and the Northern Territory contained potentially suitable locations for a repository.
|
Bureau of Resource Sciences, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Site Selection Study Phase 3 Regional Assessment, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, 1997, p. 2.
|
|
1988
|
The Northern Territory agrees to a Commonwealth-funded feasibility study of a possible national waste repository to be located in the Territory. The study is completed in 1989.
|
Bureau of Resource Sciences, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Site Selection StudyPhase 3 Regional Assessment, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, 1997, p. 2.
|
|
Dec 1989
|
In early 1989, the Queensland National Party government builds a temporary radioactive waste storage facility at Redbank in southeast Queensland for the State's waste material. In December, following the election of a new ALP government, the facility is closed without ever being used.
|
'A damp dawn on the picket line', Courier-Mail, 17 May 1989; 'State's "hot" waste plan "temporary"', Courier-Mail, 27 May 1989; 'Redbank toxic waste dump opened, then closed', Courier-Mail, 13 December 1989.
|
|
April 1991
|
The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council (AIRAC) reports on low-level radioactive waste management, to the Hon Mrs Ros Kelly MP, Minister for the Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories.
|
AIRAC, Report on low-level radioactive waste management, (loose leaf), April 1991.
|
|
May 1991
|
The Northern Territory indicates it is no longer willing to host a repository under the Commonwealth-State cooperative process.
|
Bureau of Resource Sciences, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Site Selection Study Phase 3 Regional Assessment, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, 1997, p. 2.
|
|
Jul 1991
|
ANSTO enters into a contract with Australian Defence Industries (ADI) to condition and store radioactive waste from the ADI site at St Marys. Sutherland Shire Council responds by launching a court action against ANSTO.
|
Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste, No Time to Waste, 1996, p. 3.
|
|
Aug 1991
|
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Free) tables in Parliament the report of the Safety Review Committee, commissioned in April. The report concludes that ANSTO's waste management practices are sound and safe, but makes veiled criticism of progress on developing national waste facilities, urging that: The Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments begin the process by identifying specific objectives and target dates for appropriate low and medium level radioactive waste repositories and that they allocate sufficient priority and resources to achieve those objectives and targets.
|
Safety Review Committee, Management of Radioactive Waste at Lucas Heights Research Laboratories, AGPS, Canberra, August 1991, p. ix.
|
|
Sept 1991
|
Primary Industries Minister Simon Crean officially seeks the participation of all governments in a coordinated search for a site for a single national radioactive waste facility. All states and territories except Western Australia agree to participate.
|
|
|
1992
|
Western Australia constructs the Mount Walton East Intractable Waste Disposal Facility, for the disposal of low level radioactive waste and other intractable wastes. Community interests in the Goldfields region opposed the facility. The availability of the site underpins Western Australia's subsequent resistance to involvement in the search for a national waste repository site.
|
'Mt Walton for WA waste only', The West Australian, 20 June 1992.
|
|
Oct 1992
|
The Commonwealth releases its report National Radioactive Waste Repository Site Selection Study, Phase 1 for public comment by December 1992. The Phase 1 report is prepared by the National Resource Information Centre (NRIC), a science unit within the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE). The report:
describes the nature of radioactive wastes
briefly describes the criteria for assessing the suitability of sites for hosting a waste repository
outlines a Geographic Information System based system for applying the criteria, and
describes the way a repository would be constructed.
|
NRIC, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Methods for Choosing the Right Site, DPIE, Canberra, 1992.
|
|
Dec 1992
|
A consultant's report into the future economic development of the Mt Isa region in Queensland suggests establishment of a nuclear waste facility as one possible option. The proposal draws the support of the town's mayor, contributing to a decision to include the Mt Isa region in more detailed analyses by the Commonwealth of potentially suitable sites for a national nuclear waste repository.
|
'Mt Isa will take Sydney A-waste', Sun-Herald, 13 December 1992.
|
|
August 1993
|
The Commonwealth releases its Report on Public Comment on Phase 1 of the site selection process for a low level waste repository.
|
|
|
July 1994
|
The Commonwealth releases its report National Radioactive Waste Repository Site Selection Study, Phase 2 for public comment by September 1994. The Phase 2 report:
describes the revised GIS-based model for assessing sites (now called ASSESS: A system for selecting suitable sites)
applies the model to a data set covering the Australian continent
selects eight regions for more detailed assessment (five on the basis of application of the model, three as a result of consultation processes)
applies the model in more detail to those eight regions, and
concludes that all eight regions contained potentially suitable sites for a nuclear waste repository.
|
NRIC, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Site Selection StudyPhase 2, DPIE, Canberra, 1994.
|
|
December 1994
|
South Australian Liberal Senator Grant Chapman gives notice of a motion in the Senate to establish a Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste. The Committee is formally established on 9 March 1995, despite the ALP government's opposition, and reports in April 1996.
|
Senate Debates, 9 December 1994,p. 4416; Senate Journals, 9 March 1995, p. 3059.
|
|
Nov 1995
|
The Commonwealth releases its Report on Public Comment on Phase 2 of the site selection process for a low-level waste repository
|
|
|
April 1996
|
The ALP government in NSW indicates it is opposed to the location of a nuclear waste repository in the Broken Hill area, one of the eight regions identified in the Phase 2 report on selecting a site for a low level nuclear waste repository.
|
'NSW refuses to aid N-dump', Sydney Morning Herald, 25 April 1996. NSW Legislative Assembly Debates, 24 April 1996, p. 471.
|
|
April 1996
|
Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste releases its report, No Time to Waste. The report:
criticises the Department of Industry, Science and Technology for a lack of cooperation with the inquiry process
recommends that the Commonwealth's nuclear regulatory agency have no involvement in the nuclear industry
recommends that there be statutory third-party enforcement rights in radiation safety laws
suggests possible disposal of the lowest-level wastes in active uranium mines, and
that 'a national above ground storage facility be established which has the capacity to take low, intermediate and high level radioactive waste' (p. 134).
|
Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste, No Time to Waste, Tabled 21 May 1996. Parliamentary Paper no. 7/1996.
|
|
Nov 1996
|
The Commonwealth Government responds to the No Time to Waste Report, indicating:
it is currently considering establishing a separate regulatory body
that third-party enforcement of the laws is unnecessary
willingness to conduct a feasibility study into disposal of certain low-level wastes in uranium mines, and
rejection of an above ground facility for all waste, maintaining that 'international standards and practice clearly indicate that near-surface disposal is appropriate' for low level waste.
|
Senate Debates, 21 November 1996, pp. 583136.
|
|
1997
|
The Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee on Radioactive Waste Management reaches in-principle agreement on the need for a national intermediate level waste store. The Committee also endorses the co-location of the intermediate level waste store with the low level waste repository, and the government accepts this as a possible approach.
|
Safe Storage of Radioactive Waste: The National Store Project: Methods for Choosing the Right Site: Report Responding to Public Comment, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2002, p. 13. Senator Warwick Parer, 'SA region selected for National Radioactive Waste Repository site', Media Release, 18 February 1998.
|
|
Nov 1997
|
The Commonwealth releases its report National Radioactive Waste Repository Site Selection Study, Phase 3, as part of an information kit and consultation process, for public comment by April 1998. The Phase 3 report:
uses improved data sets to re-apply the ASSESS model to the eight regions identified in Phase 2
states that the aim of the process is 'to select the region with the largest areas of high suitability' (p. 10), and
concludes that the preferred region for detailed assessment is Billa Kalina, the region of outback South Australia that happens to include Australia's largest uranium mine (Roxby Downs) and Woomera, to which a considerable amount of radioactive waste had already been transported in 1995.
|
Bureau of Resource Sciences, A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Site Selection StudyPhase 3 Regional Assessment, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, 1997.
Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Our radioactive waste: managing it safely, Community consultation 1998 (information kit).
|
|
June 1999
|
The Commonwealth releases its Report on Public Comment on Phase 3 of the site selection process for a low level waste repository.
|
|
|
Aug 1999
|
The Western Australian ALP Opposition, reacting to the leaked Pangea high-level waste dump proposal, introduces into the West Australian Parliament the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Bill 1999. The Bill is intended to enshrine in law a prohibition on establishing a facility that would store radioactive material derived from nuclear reactors, weapons, reprocessing facilities or isotope enrichment plants. The government supports the bill, with some amendments.
Takes effect 7 Dec 1999
|
Western Australian Legislative Assembly Debates, 11 August 1999; 13 October 1999.
|
|
Late 1999 early 2000
|
Aboriginal residents in the Billa Kalina region, including the Kupa Piti (Kungka) Tjuta (Coober Pedy Aboriginal Women's Council), indicate their opposition to the construction of a low level waste repository in the Billa Kalina area, which is the Commonwealth's preferred site for the facility.
|
Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, irati wanti website
|
|
November 1999–May 2000
|
The leaked Pangea high-level waste dump idea, together with Commonwealth proposals for a national waste repository, stir up sufficient anti-nuclear sentiment in South Australia that the Government, Opposition and the Australian Democrats each introduce separate Bills into the South Australian Parliament aimed at banning the construction of nuclear waste management facilities, with the exception of facilities to manage low level wastes. The Democrats introduce the first Bill, in late 1999, followed by the ALP Opposition in April 2000, and finally the Liberal government in May. The Opposition and Democrats' Bills are both called the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Bill, while the government's Bill is the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition No. 2) Bill.
Bill passed in November 2000
|
South Australian Assembly Debates,13 April 2000, p. 923; 31 May 2000, p. 1313.
South Australian Legislative Council Debates, 17 November 1999.
|
|
Aug 2000
|
The Commonwealth announces the formal commencement of the search for a site for a storage facility for intermediate level radioactive waste. The announcement fuels conflict over whether South Australia should host both the low and intermediate level waste repository sites.
|
|
|
Jan – Feb 2001
|
The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) announces that a preferred site has been chosen for the low level waste repository. The site, known both as 52a and Evetts Field West is within the Woomera Prohibited Area.
The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources also issues a media release in which the Minister says the Federal Government will establish a purpose built facility on Commonwealth land for the storage of national intermediate level radioactive waste produced by Commonwealth agencies. The Minister says he has 'ruled out co-location of the national intermediate level radioactive waste store with the national low level repository in South Australia'.
|
|
|
July 2001
|
The Commonwealth releases its report Safe Storage of Radioactive Waste: The National Store Project: Methods for Choosing the Right Site, for public comment by 31 August. The report:
describes the intermediate level waste to be stored, and distinguishes it from low level waste, and
outlines the site assessment methodology to be used in the project. This will involve using the ASSESS geographic information system already utilised in the low level waste repository process.
|
|
|
May 2002
|
The Commonwealth releases its Report Responding to Public Comment on the Safe Storage of Radioactive Waste: The National Store Project: Methods for Choosing the Right Site.
|
Safe Storage of Radioactive Waste: The National Store Project: Methods for Choosing the Right Site: Report Responding to Public Comment, Department of Industry, Science and Resources.
|
|
July 2002
|
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the National Low Level Radioactive Waste Repository is released for public comment. Submissions are accepted until 23 October. Six hundred and sixty seven submissions are received.
|
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the National Radioactive Waste Repository, Department of Education, Science and Training and PPK, Main Report (Volume 1) and Summary, 31 May 2002.
|
|
May 2003
|
The NSW Government announces a parliamentary inquiry into the sourcing, transport and storage of radioactive waste.
|
NSW Legislative Assembly, Votes and Proceedings, 8 May 2003, item 17(12), p. 90.
|
|
May 2003
|
Following controversy over Department of Defence resistance to siting a nuclear waste repository at the preferred location, 52a, the Commonwealth announces that site 40a on a pastoral property called Arcoona Station (one of two alternative locations analysed in the Environmental Impact Statement) will be the location of the low level waste dump.
|
'N dump named', Daily Telegraph,10 May 2003.
|
|
May 2003
|
The Minister for Science (Mr McGauran) announces that South Australia will be ruled out as the host for the national intermediate level nuclear waste store. Western Australia and the Northern Territory both react immediately, indicating they will fight any proposal from the Commonwealth to site the store in their jurisdiction.
|
Peter McGauran MP, 'SA ruled out', Media Release, 9 May 2003. 'Premier warns Commonwealth to keep its waste out of WA', Media Release, 9 May 2003; 'No nuclear waste dump for the Territory', Media Release, 9 May 2003.
|
|
July 2004
|
The Prime Minister announces that the Federal Government has abandoned its plan to establish a national low-level waste repository at site 40a at Woomera, as well as any national facility for intermediate level wastes to be co-located there. Further: 'the Australian Government will seek a commitment from all states and territories that they will adopt world's best practice in the management of radioactive waste materials in their jurisdictions. This should include:
1. undertaking an immediate and comprehensive inventory of all low level waste within their jurisdictions;
2. establishing safe and secure storage facilities for low level waste held within their jurisdictions;
3. establishing appropriate disposal arrangements.'
The Australian Government will be examining sites on Commonwealth land, both onshore and off shore, for the establishment of a suitable facility. The announcement creates a furore.
|
Prime Minister Hon John Howard MP, 'Radioactive Waste Management', Media Release, 14 July 2004. Editorial, 'Politics trumps policv on nuclear waste' The Australian, 16 July 2004, p. 12.
|
|
February 2005
|
The South Australian Government announces the start of a study to select a site for a State nuclear waste management facility to take only South Australia's generated waste. The Western Mining Corporation Olympic Dam site appears to be the likely choice.
|
Daniel Clarke, 'Low level radioactive dump search soon', The Advertiser,
1 March 2005, p. 24.
|
|
July 2005
|
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, announces three potential locations to be investigated for the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The three locations are properties located near Katherine and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory: Fishers Ridge, Department of Defence property, southeast of RAAF Base Tindal; Mt Everard, Department of Defence property, northwest of Alice Springs; and Harts Range, Department of Defence property, northeast of Alice Springs. The new facility will co-locate low-level and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.
|
The Hon Brendan Nelson MP, 'Responsible Management of Radioactive Waste in Australia', Media Release, 15 July 2005 MIN 1157/05.
|
|
October 2005
|
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 is introduced into the Parliament in an attempt to override any external actions to thwart its investigation of sites in the Northern Territory. A review by the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee is split on party lines. The Bill subsequently passes on 7 December 2005.
|
Australian Parliament, Hansard.
|
|
March 2006
|
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Bill 2006 is referred for review to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee. The Bill provides for ANSTO to fully participate in actions possibly required by the Commonwealth and its agencies in the management of radioactive materials and waste beyond ANSTO’s operations. In practice, this would enable ANSTO to handle the complete pre-disposal management of the Commonwealth’s holdings of radioactive wastes. The Opposition registers its reservations that the Bill would be used to allow waste transfer to a nuclear waste repository to be constructed in the Northern Territory, with the ANSTO Lucas Heights facility to become the de facto national site.
|
House of Representatives, Debates, 30 March 2006, p. 8
|
|
May 2010
|
A Senate inquiry report has endorsed the Federal Government's plan to site a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.
|
Jane Bardon, ABC, 7 May 2010
|
|
Dec 2010
|
Advisory Report on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010
The purpose of the Bill is to: ‘establish a facility for managing, at a single site, radioactive waste currently stored at a number of locations across the country’.
|
|
|
Aug 2018
|
Senate Economics Reference Committee inquiry: "Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia"
|
|