The proposal is for a site to store low-level radioactive waste, which is currently at many locations around Australia. The case for a centralised waste store presumes that the overall risk to the community will be reduced. To justify that claim, there should be at least plausible risk calculations that compare the risk to the community of leaving the waste where it is with the risk of transporting it to one site where it would be safer. I have not seen such a calculation. It obviously should be done before we make a commitment to a centralised waste store.

The government announcement adds that intermediate level waste [ILW] could also be stored at the proposed site. This is a much more complex, and much more pressing, issue. The ILW from the decommissioning of the original Lucas Heights research reactor is due to be returned to Australia next year. This is much more dangerous and requires serious isolation from the community and the biosphere for thousands of years. It is not clear from the announcement that those offering to host waste are aware that they are likely to receive ILW as well as low-level waste.

A third issue is the need to consult traditional owners of the land and obtain informed prior consent for the proposal. Two previous attempts by the Commonwealth government to establish a site to store radioactive waste have collapsed when it became clear that the traditional owners had not given their consent. While the announcement is silent on this issue, there could be legitimate concern that the government is proposing again to assume that the traditional owners' rights can be ignored.

Whichever site is selected, earthquake risk needs to be considered. There is no such thing as an aseismic location in Australia, just locations where we haven't recorded any earthquakes yet. This may be due to lack of monitoring equipment in the region, or from a lack historical information due to sparse population in the regions.

We can potentially have a magnitude 7.5 earthquake anywhere in Australia, and the devastation that a nearby magnitude 6.1 earthquake can cause was seen clearly in Christchurch. Although earthquakes are less frequent in Australia it does not mean they will be any less damaging when they do eventually happen.

Any potential location for such a facility needs to be monitored at a micro-seismic level (for at least a year, preferably longer) to establish a baseline of seismic activity and to delineate any active faults before a decision is made as to the engineering requirement of any critical facility. Current knowledge of seismicity in the proposed regions is not sufficient to confidently evaluate the seismic hazard and therefore the earthquake resistance for engineering requirements.

The disposal facility is for low level waste. It is stuff that you can stand beside without harm. Australia produces around 40m3/year, less than one shipping container.   At present it is stored in rooms at hospitals, universities and a big shed at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site. International best practice is to have a central disposal facility and most countries in the world with any sort of nuclear activities already have this type of near surface facility. A good example is the El Cabril site in Spain

The announcement of a shortlist of potential sites is a good outcome from what has been a good process. The Independent Advisory Panel worked closely with the Department over a full year to design an assessment tool that was robust, with a heavy weighting placed on equity and community support. The response from the voluntary nomination process was stronger than anticipated with 28 sites proposed, nearly all of high-quality.

The shortlist represents sites that are all of an excellent standard to host such a facility. The important task now is engagement and consultation with local communities. The final site will be discreet in size, world-class in standard and absolutely safe to both communities and the environment.

While concerns are to be expected, I encourage all communities and stakeholders to be curious about this process and facility, to engage with the process and to use resources of the Department, the Panel and ANSTO to learn more over the course of these processes. Australia has a responsibility to manage these materials properly. That process is on a strong footing and I commend the Department for the process thus far.