The federal government is facing questions over how it will dispose of highly-radioactive waste produced by Australia's future nuclear-powered submarine fleet, as concerns about a controversial nuclear dump in outback South Australia grow.
After 40 years of searching, the federal government last year announced it had chosen Napandee, a 211-hectare property near the town of Kimba, to consolidate Australia's low-and-intermediate nuclear waste.
The vast majority of the waste stored near Kimba will come from Australia's nuclear medicine program.
But last June, the federal parliament passed a range of amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act.
One of the changes allows defence waste to be stored at the site too.
Fourth generation wheat farmer Terry Schmucker has long opposed the dump, fearing the site could lead to contamination.
"As a farmer have become connected to the land and I've come to realise how precious topsoil and agricultural land are," he said.
He said the changes to legislation had added to his anxiety.
"I always expected that the dump was the thin end of the wedge … but it's disappointing that the government hasn't come straight out and said 'this is how it is'," he said.
A Department of Defence spokesperson said Australia’s defence programs already generated a “range of low-level radioactive waste” which was currently stored in two temporary facilities.
In September 2021, three months after the amendment bill passed through parliament, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Australia would acquire nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS defence pact.
Mr Schmucker said the deal raised "serious questions" about how and where the federal government would dispose of high-level radioactive waste generated by the submarines.
"I think it's going to come here, that's just the way it is," he said.
"If the waste site is set up at Kimba, there's nothing to stop [the government] from bringing even worse stuff than what's going to come out of the submarines and putting it here in agricultural land."
Could submarine waste really end up in Kimba?
The legislation explicitly prevents high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel — which is what the submarines would produce — from being dumped at the Napandee site.
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) chairman Jason Bilney said he was concerned that could be changed with the stroke of a pen.
"We all know what the government is like, the government can change that at any given time and try and slip it through," he said.
Former senator and submariner Rex Patrick was part of the parliament that passed the legislation, and said he believed it was unlikely that protection would ever be removed.
"The parliament that passed the facility were of the clear understanding that high-level material would not be stored at the site," he said.
"Now, of course, [legislation] can be changed by a future parliament. And so, there is a risk there.
"But I think more importantly, the site at Kimba is not suitable for high-level radioactive storage, because that sort of storage normally takes place in a deep geological site."
Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said the community had been "assured" by the federal government that highly-radioactive waste would never end up at the Napandee site.
"I am absolutely certain, as far as I can be, that this will not be a high-level waste facility," he said.
"It would make no sense at all for [the federal government] to change their mind on that one."
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation has launched two legal challenges in the Federal Court of Australia in a bid to stop the site from going ahead altogether, and maintain traditional owners were never consulted.
In reply to questions on notice, the federal government last month revealed it has spent $607,613 fighting BDAC's claims since litigation began in December 2021 — compared to the corporation's $124,000 in legal fees.
"We were excluded from the community vote because we're not ratepayers in the Kimba council area. We never got a say," Mr Bilney said.
"We spent 21 years fighting for our native title, we will fight this for another 21 years or as long as it takes."
If not Kimba, then where?
Fellow grain farmer Roslyn Stringer, whose property neighbours the proposed dump, wants to know where Australia's future high-level nuclear waste will go, if not to Kimba.
"It scares me that it's taken the government 40 years just to find this site … and it's for low-and-intermediate waste," she said.
"The government does definitely need to start looking at where they're going to put the submarine waste."
Resources Minister Madeleine King acknowledged community concerns and said she would "continue to work with the Barngarla people and the local community".
She also acknowledged that long-term solutions were needed.
"We need to be responsible for the waste we create, and this includes developing permanent disposal solutions," she said.
A Department of Defence spokesman said decisions "in relation to future radioactive waste management associated with Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines are being considered as part of the AUKUS process".
Neither Ms King or the department specified if permanent solutions were being sought domestically or with overseas partners.
US an example of 'misery and failure'
Geoff Fettus is the nuclear program director for non-profit advocacy group, Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), based in Washington DC.
He said Australians should not anticipate that the US would take our future nuclear waste.
"As far as I'm aware, no-one has raised their hand to take the world's nuclear waste," he said.
"And I don't expect that anybody will."
Mr Fettus advises Congress on nuclear fuel cycle regulation, and described the US's attempts to dispose of high-level nuclear waste over the past 60 years as a "fundamental misery and failure".
"One of the problems and the failures of the United States to address its spent nuclear fuel and high-level defence waste has been we've always gotten the question backwards," he said.
"We've always decided where it's going to go, and then we've tried to put it there, no matter the cost to communities or the environment."
Mr Fettus said the lesson from the US experience was to develop a regulatory framework with strong environmental and social justice standards before acquiring nuclear-powered weapons.
"If Australia takes a wiser course and talks about the standards it would need to set to protect both the workers and communities … and then figure out a process where people feel consulted instead of having a burden foisted upon them … then you might have a chance going forward.
"But if you don't do that, you will have the exact same experience."
