Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Olympic Dam Expansion OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development questions about the dust risk from the Olympic Dam expansion. Leave granted. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: All members would be aware of the incredible dust storms that have been sweeping across the eastern states. It has been raining mud in Sydney, and the snowfields are now red with dust. There are reports that much of this dust originated in the Northern Territory and South Australia. This highlights the risk of dust exposure related to the Olympic Dam expansion, not just for the workers there and the residents of Roxby Downs but also for the wider community. The Olympic Dam EIS outlines an intention to create the largest and most toxic radioactive tailings dam in the world and, on top of that, there will be an enormous waste rock facility—neither of which will be capped for decades, exposing thousands of hectares of toxic material including, according to the EIS, arsenic, lead and, of course, uranium. The EIS states: Members of the public most exposed to radiation from the expanded operation will be the residents of Roxby Downs. As noted earlier, current doses to members of the public are low, however, it is expected that doses would increase as a result of the expansion. It goes on to say: The major exposure pathway is the inhalation of radon decay products from radon emanation from the mine, the rock storage facility (RSF), the tailings storage facility (TSF) and the metallurgical plant. I note that the government's own submission to the Olympic Dam EIS points out that the National Air Quality Standards will be exceeded at Roxby Downs on approximately 10 days per year, which is double the recommended exposure in that health-based standard. During the operations at Olympic Dam, a dust suppression program will temporarily inhibit the airborne transport of acidic and radioactive material, but there are a number of problems associated with the management of dust. One is that the acid drainage from the rock stockpile has a timescale of a few hundred years, while radioactive material has a timescale of a few hundred thousand years, and it is not clear how long BHP Billiton proposes to manage on-site dust. The EIS acknowledges that air quality compliance will be a challenge, and this presents a serious health threat to Roxby Downs residents, on-site workers and all living things. My questions to the minister are: 1.	How will you guarantee that Olympic Dam workers and residents of Roxby Downs will not be exposed to potentially toxic dust storms picking up and dumping tonnes of radioactive and other toxic material from the Olympic Dam site? 2.	Will you commit to guaranteeing that the health of Roxby Downs residents will not be affected by exposure to toxic materials transferred by dust storms similar to the one that we have seen this week? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:28): We have gone through a process of consultation on the environmental impact statement for the expansion of Olympic Dam. There were over 4,000 submissions, including those from government agencies, and the government itself prepared a whole-of-government response to that EIS in which it required answers. That process is now under way. BHP Billiton will have to prepare a supplementary EIS in which it will address the sorts of issues that the honourable member has raised. Obviously, issues of dust can become a problem but they can also be addressed and adequately resolved. BHP will have to assure the state authorities that it can do so before it will get permission. But, clearly, we are going through that process at the moment where BHP will be required to respond to that and to a number of other issues which have been raised by members of the public and by the government agencies themselves.