OLYMPIC DAM

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:55): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation a question regarding radiation management plans for Olympic Dam.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In August last year, I applied under the Freedom of Information Act to the EPA for a copy of the radiation management plan for the Olympic Dam mine and processing site. On 17 June this year, 10 months later, I finally received a response.

BHP Billiton is required by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, also known as ARPANSA, under the Code of Practice and Safety Guide for Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing, to keep updated and relevant radiation management plans outlining their procedures and practices at Olympic Dam. The purpose of these plans, according to ARPANSA, is to control the exposure of employees and members of the public to radiation. Yet, in response to my freedom of information request, the EPA admitted that the most recent plan is 15 years old (it is dated 1998), and some plans are even older.

Between 1998 and 2013, an extraordinary amount of change has occurred in the regulation of radioactive material, with increasing awareness of the risks to workers and the natural environment and advances in processing. Changes over the last 15 years that should have triggered a revision of these plans include: first, revised commonwealth regulatory standards for the Ranger mine in 1999; the revision of the ARPANSA code in 2005; recommendations in 2003 by the esteemed European Committee on Radiation Risk for worker radiation exposure to be radically reduced (and that is a recommendation that was backed in 2009 by the US-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research); and, also, commitments that were made by BHP Billiton itself in its environmental impact statement that a revised exposure level for workers at Olympic Dam would be prepared.

Each of these should have triggered the relevant authority, the EPA, to ask BHP Billiton to revise its radiation management plans. At the very least, on page 37 of the code, there is a trigger of 'a change in the order of 30 per cent or more in production capacity'. In 1998, Olympic Dam was producing 220,000 tonnes of copper concentrate; it is now producing around 600,000 tonnes—a near tripling of size and far more than the 30 per cent trigger. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why hasn't the EPA, as the relevant regulator, required BHP Billiton to update its radiation management plans for the Olympic Dam operations since 1998?

2. Does the EPA have the resources to adequately regulate a project of this size and complexity?

3. As minister, do you approve of such a hands-off regulatory approach for one of the most toxic substances known to humankind?

4. When will these radiation management plans be updated?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:59): I thank the honourable member for his most important question. As a requirement of the Roxby Downs Indenture Ratification Act 1982 (the indenture act) BHP Billiton must provide regular reports to the Environment Protection Authority. The purpose of these reports is to describe results of monitoring, including radiation exposures to workers and the environment. The information is also presented to allow the EPA to monitor trends in radiation exposures.

BHP Billiton must also report to the EPA when events, such as elevation of radiation exposure levels, occur during its operations that trigger radiation protection actions. Once received by the EPA, the reports are assessed and, where necessary, further discussions are held with BHP Billiton to ensure follow-up or ongoing reports are provided to demonstrate that any mitigation measures are effective.

The Hon. Mr Parnell mentioned that he has accessed a number of reports from the EPA through FOI processes. He should know then that those documents that have been released show that Olympic Dam radiation doses from operations have not exceeded regulatory limits. In addition, all incidents reported have resulted in either no dose or insignificant doses to workers or members of the public.

It is important that these statements are made and are made publicly because the honourable member is making certain assertions or accusations about inadequacy of provisions and he needs to be able to sustain the point that there is, in fact, an evil being done here—and there is none. The documentation he has shows that the operations have not exceeded regulatory limits and there has been no dose or insignificant doses to workers or members of the public.

Incidents resulting from abnormal operating conditions that require further investigation are reported to the EPA, including summarising mitigation measures aimed at preventing recurrences. While the documentation shows increased radium in the air sampling between July and December 2011, these increases were noted in ambient air sampling and found to be caused by natural variation in radium levels at depth in soil that was disturbed during routine civil works projects being conducted at the Olympic Dam village.

The documentation also reveals that small traces of polonium 210, which is a decay product of uranium that is present in unrefined copper, are released into the smelterer's dust, leading to a potential exposure source. Exposure to this dust is monitored and controlled through process changes and work rules for respiratory protection. The EPA has assessed BHP Billiton's monitoring and control strategy and is satisfied, I am advised, with the measures taken to date to control exposures to this emission source. It is also important to note that doses reported by BHP Billiton are worst case, as it assumes no respiratory protection is worn by workers. I am advised that the use of respiratory protection significantly reduces doses.

Overall, the actions taken by BHP Billiton ensure that exposures to workers are kept as low as reasonably achievable and within regulatory limits. BHP Billiton has acknowledged that under the indenture act it is not required to provide the subject reports, but the cooperative relationship maintained by the EPA has been a key factor in the information being made available under the FOI applications that the honourable member mentioned.