HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

OLYMPIC DAM

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Environment and Conservation a question about radiation protection levels for workers at Olympic Dam.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: For a while now I have been concerned about the exposure of employees at the Olympic Dam processing plant to radioactive polonium airborne dust. Polonium is a particularly toxic and dangerous radioactive substance as it is readily breathed in and dispersed into the bloodstream, where it causes cell destruction in organs, tissues and bone marrow. The risk of even minute contamination by polonium was dramatically demonstrated by the assassination of Russian defector Ivan Litvinenko in London in November 2006.

Following that incident, the UK health authorities recommended a maximum exposure dose of 6 milliseverts per year, not the 20 milliseverts allowable limit described in the promotional report for the uranium industry published in today's Advertiser. The system for monitoring and reporting exposure to radiation, including polonium, by workers at Olympic Dam is controlled entirely by BHP Billiton.

Over the past 12 months, I have obtained, under freedom of information, copies of the BHP Billiton reports sent to relevant government authorities, including the EPA and PIRSA, detailing radiation exposure at Olympic Dam. These reports raise serious concerns about how often testing occurs; for example, sampling of airborne radiation levels is not done at night, when most of the smelting occurs, nor during cleaning, when dust is raised.

The reports also show personal monitoring devices are worn only part of the time by some, not all, exposed workers. These often record readings above the allowable level. However, by swapping workers out of these areas, the average over a year is kept below 20 milliseverts. If exposed workers were monitored 24/7 and did not rotate out of high emission areas, the 20 millisevert dose would certainly be regularly exceeded.

Up until October 2006, the company was required to provide to the radiation section of the EPA a monthly report detailing when, where and how often testing occurred. This showed an average of about four to eight over-exposure instances per month. Then a new radiation officer was appointed by BHP Billiton.

In September 2006, the EPA agreed to downgrade the reporting requirement to a simple one-page fax detailing instances when unsafe levels of exposure occurred. Between September 2006 and May 2007, there were 21 fax reports provided to the EPA; however, these were all for the mine, not for any other part of the plant.

Even more surprising, between August 2007 and March 2008 (the latest time frame I have been able to obtain under FOI) there were no reports at all—not one report. There are two possible explanations: either BHP Billiton has radically changed its production processes to substantially reduce all airborne radiation throughout the complete mining and processing chain, or it has changed its testing regime to ensure that it has no negative findings.

To make the first scenario even less likely, I understand that failure of an electronic furnace in September 2007 meant that molten slag tipped out onto the ground under the smelter for around six weeks. This process has, apparently, no fume capture and would have contributed to significant radiation levels in the smelter building. My questions are:

1. How is it possible for the Radiation Protection Branch of the EPA to determine exactly when, how often and where BHP Billiton monitors radiation exposure to its workers at Olympic Dam?

2. Why were there no elevated radon decay product concentration reports between August 2007 and March 2008? Have there been any since then?

3. Has the EPA challenged the absence of elevated radiation levels reported; if so, what was the response from the company and, if not, why not?

4. Why did the EPA agree to downgrade the monthly reporting process to a single-page fax reporting individual incidences of exposure?

5. Why is the trigger radiation exposure level for reporting to the EPA 20 milliseverts per year when 6 milliseverts is provided by the UK national guidance on radiological protection of workers under the relevant ionising radiation regulations?

6. Will the minister guarantee that no workers at Olympic Dam are exposed to unsafe radiation levels?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. Occupational health and safety standards and the safety and wellbeing of workers are paramount to this government. The honourable member has asked a number of very detailed questions and, within them, he has made a number of assertions I need to clarify. I am happy to take his questions on notice and bring back a response.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT