General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5

Debate resumed from 21 October 2008.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.20 p.m.]: As Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, I draw the attention of the House to the committee's report on the former uranium smelter site at Hunters Hill. Land and marine contamination can be a sensitive and controversial subject. For local communities it can be accompanied by fear and unhelpful innuendo. If there is one lesson to be taken from this inquiry it is that we must ensure that adequate information is retained about contaminated sites and that that information is readily accessible to the public for full assessment.

Many of the broad issues of contaminated land management faced by the inquiry were discussed during debate last year on the Contaminated Land Management Amendment Bill 2008, so I will not go to great lengths to canvass the broader themes of the Hunters Hill inquiry into contaminated land. However, I wish to emphasise during this take-note debate the inquiry's recommendation on proper site characterisation and the remediation process. The committee received 23 submissions from a range of stakeholders, including current and past residents, local councils, government agencies and departments, contamination specialists and health experts. All those submissions helped to guide the committee on technical and complex matters. The committee is indebted to the witnesses who shared their extensive expertise during the inquiry.

The inquiry's recommendations published in the report set out key processes and criteria to manage contamination of the Nelson Parade site in a holistic and consistent manner. There is a clear theme running through the recommendations to ensure a whole-of-government approach to contaminated land management. I am hopeful that the Department of Health and the Department of Environment and Climate Change can work cooperatively to address historical deficiencies in site assessment and remediation. The report outlines a pathway for forensically examining and characterising the scope of contamination. Hopefully it will provide the missing pieces and fill in the blanks that play on the local community's concerns.

The recommendations are extremely reasonable and sensible. Any governmental divergence from the processes outlined by the inquiry would be deeply disappointing and would deny the community the reassurance and understanding it deserves. This is the heart of the problem: communication and engagement with the community in Nelson Parade has been less than satisfactory. Ms Phillipa Clark, who is the coordinator of the Nelson Parade Residents Group, raised a number of problems with the approach adopted by New South Wales Health to keeping the community informed. Ms Clark stated that the owners of 21 Nelson Parade "only learnt through the media that their house were supposedly absolutely unsafe".

Dr Nicholas Brunton, who is the legal representative of the current owners of 11 Nelson Parade, described the document discovery process in which he engaged on behalf of his clients as "protracted" and "difficult", and he stated that "the Department of Health has, quite frankly, being less than cooperative". While it is noted that the State Property Authority, on behalf of New South Wales Health, provided some advisory services to the public, the general sentiment from the property owners and residents is that that was insufficient. In the light of that, complete acceptance of recommendation 6 is necessary to ensure proper and adequate dissemination of test results, and all efforts must be made to fully inform the community.

One of the first things that puzzled me about the Nelson Parade site was the different characterisations of contamination of the site that required different layers of regulation and bureaucratic engagement. For example, 7 Nelson Parade and 9 Nelson Parade were not considered a significant risk of harm under the Contaminated Land Management Act because the radioactive contamination was sealed, fenced and contained, yet the foreshore of the properties was considered to be a significant risk of harm, and was regulated under the Contaminated Land Management Act due to the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and lead and arsenic in the foreshore soils. There is also the issue of potential marine environment contamination adjacent to the Nelson Parade properties. The end result is that one segment of the land is dealt with under the planning regime and State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 55, one under the Contaminated Land Management Act, and one remaining unclear, due to inadequate evidence on contamination.

Diverging characterisation has the potential to segment and fragment remediation and testing programs, thereby delivering an inefficient process. Recommendations 1 and 4 are aimed at ensuring consistent site remediation by requiring the same site auditor to oversee the remediation of both 7 Nelson Parade and 9 Nelson Parade and the foreshore area. Recommendation 4 ensures that the marine environment adjacent to the site is thoroughly surveyed prior to finalisation of the overall remediation plan. As I have already stated, the most important element that we all should take away from this inquiry and that should guide the Government's consideration of this report is the fundamental need for vigilant documentation in relation to contaminated land.

Recommendation 3 advises that an extensive testing program should be undertaken to rule out or confirm the distribution or seepage of the contaminants beyond the borders of 7 Nelson Parade and 9 Nelson Parade. The recommendation is clearly focused on addressing the deficiencies in historical assessment of the property and surrounding land. The lost documentation on the 200-litre drum that was relocated to the Lidcombe site of the Department of Health's radiation health services branch demonstrates that diligent management of the contaminants was not in the forefront of the minds of previous site managers. It was mismanagement of previous contamination clean-up attempts that has created in the minds of committee members a concern that the whole area may not have been properly characterised in terms of contamination.

The fear and hysteria that has been ignited and spurred on by reports of contamination can be ameliorated and confronted only by an open and transparent approach to environmental information. Section 55 certificates under the Public Health Act and section 149 certificates under the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act are important elements in informing the public of historical land use and tracking environmental damage. When we do not maintain adequate information on historical land use and industrial pollution, people acquire property that could pose a threat to their health. Amendments moved by the Greens during debate on the Contaminated Land Management Bill were aimed at enhancing the paper trail on contaminated lands.

Moving from issues related to transparency and effective site management, the committee also contended with more technical issues related to the practical characterisation and management of waste contaminants. Recommendation 5 states that New South Wales Health and the Department of Environment and Climate Change should ensure that current testing commence as soon as is practical, with regard to the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment. That recommendation stems from the debates about what instruments should have been used to measure background levels. There was considerable debate from the witnesses about which measuring instruments were the most accurate in measuring gamma radiation levels. This is an important recommendation. Part of the controversy surrounding the Hunters Hill matter arises because of the different findings by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [ANSTO] and Australian Radiation Services.

In particular, New South Wales Health engaged the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to conduct a gamma radiation survey of the area. Based on its interpretation of the results, New South Wales Health declared that residents need not have any health concerns and that radiation levels were within the guidelines of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [ARPANSA]. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence given to the inquiry by New South Wales Health—that exposure levels at 11 Nelson Parade were within the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency guidelines—should not have been based on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's 2008 report. The New South Wales Government itself describes that report as "not designed to be a comprehensive health risk assessment".

Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 provide some guidelines and considerations for the practical remediation of the site. These recommendations are driven by a desire for any hazardous waste to be handled in a responsible manner that poses the least degree of risk to the community in transportation. The commission made clear, and the Waste Classification Guidelines reflect a similar sentiment, that the contamination level should not be downgraded by diluting contaminated soil with clean soil. The committee also stated that it wants waste to be taken to a landfill that is authorised to accept the waste.

Without detracting from the serious nature of contamination of the Hunters Hill site, we should not be aiming to have an inquiry every time a contaminated site is transformed into a highly charged emotional event. In this sense the themes and issues examined by this inquiry should translate to principles that will guide the relevant departments in all contaminated sites characterisation, management and remediation. The themes canvassed and recommendations made broadly should be adopted in all cases, whether managed under the planning framework or under the Contaminated Land Management Act.

I thank the committee members for the robust debate and discussion in formulating the recommendations presented by the inquiry. I also express my sincere appreciation to the clerks of the committee, Jonathan Clark, Beverly Duffy and Christine Nguyen, who did a magnificent job in wrangling with the difficult subject of nuclear science and collating all the material in the way that has made this report so accessible. The staff effectively translated for the committee the different methods and assessments of radiation levels, which historically from time to time change. Without the assistance of the staff, we found ourselves comparing apples with pears, and it was a difficult process simply to understand the safe levels and how high the radiation levels were. Every generation of assessment had a different reading calibration. So the job done by the clerks on this extremely complex matter was effective and helpful for the deliberations of the committee. With that, I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.30 p.m.]: I support the comments of the Chairmen of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, the Hon. Ian Cohen. The inquiry into the former smelter site at Hunters Hill was born out of a number of discussions held by various members of this Parliament and a range of media reports of illnesses caused by radioactivity on a number of blocks of land in a residential area and remnant radioactivity in vacant buildings and on vacant blocks of land in Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill. The terms of reference were specific and related to an assessment of any rehabilitation and remedial works that had previously been undertaken on the site, the extent of the contamination and radioactivity levels and the impact of any contamination on public and environmental health, and the appropriateness of the Government's proposed remediation strategy and disposal of contaminated waste from the site.

The term "smelter" is actually incorrect, as smelting involves the melting of ore and floating off impurities, leaving the pure uranium metal. This was not the process undertaken at the Hunters Hill site; it was actually a refining process to produce radium from uranium ore by a wet chemical process. Throughout the report the committee decided to refer to the facility by the correct name; that is, as a refinery rather than a smelter. It is important to understand a little of the science of uranium. As the chairman pointed out, nuclear science can be complicated and difficult to understand, but I will attempt to explain the important components of it as quickly as possible. As someone with a science background, I found this information particularly useful in helping me to understand the nuclear processes presented to the committee.

Uranium 238—the 238 refers to the atomic weight of the element—is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth, but it has an unstable nucleus due to an excess of tiny particles collectively known as nucleons. The uranium atom attempts to achieve stability by throwing off those excess nucleons. It is a bit like having a flat spinning wheel with small holes in the centre and putting some marbles on it; there are more marbles than there are holes, so as the wheel spins the excess marbles fly off due to the centrifugal force of the spinning wheel. The process of throwing off those nucleons is called radioactive decay, and the tiny nucleons have a certain amount of energy and radiation as they are emitted.

As the uranium atoms emit the energy and the mass of nucleons, a new isotope of the metal is formed and eventually it degrades into a completely new element. Uranium 238 decays initially into uranium 236; then it goes into thorium 232, actinium 227, radium 226, radon 222, and polonium 209, and eventually ends up as lead 207, which is a stable element that no longer emits radiation. The two elements that are the subject of most discussion in the report are radium 226 and radon 222. Wherever uranium is found there will also be varying amounts of the daughter elements as well; as the radioactive decay process naturally occurs from uranium to stable lead there will be a suite of the daughter elements present along the way.

The rate of decay of these elements is known as their half-life, and refers to the time taken for half of a given amount of the material to decay. Uranium 238 has a very long half-life of 4.47 billion years, which means that it emits its radiation very slowly but it will be there for a very long time. That has obvious problems for the disposal of uranium bearing nuclear waste. On the other hand, radium 226 has a half-life of 1,600 years and radon 222, which exists normally as a gas, has a half-life of 3.8 days. This is important because radon 222 emits a huge amount of radiation compared to uranium 238, and as it exists as a gas it can be the source of a dangerous radiation that can unknowingly be inhaled by humans.

Residential block numbers 5, 7, 9 and 11 on Nelson Parade are the site of the refinery that was refining uranium 238 to produce radium 226 between 1911 and 1915. Approximately 2,000 tonnes of uranium, which came from the Radium Hill mine in South Australia, were processed. The refinery, which was operated by the Radium Hill Company, had the capacity to process 10 tonnes of uranium ore per week, and the driving motivation for the refinery was the world price of radium at the time, which in 1911 was valued at about £13,000 per gram. The facility produced just 1.8 grams of radium, and that was all exported to the well-known scientists Earnest Rutherford and Marie Curie, who used it in their research into nuclear processes. The plant was closed in 1915 as a result of reduced demand during World War I and was left as a derelict site for years after.

As I said, approximately 2,000 tonnes of ore were processed on the site. The tailings from the wet chemical process left a sandy textured material which was dumped at random sites in the area, and the wet waste was probably discharged onto the land, further contaminating the soil and rocks in the area. In addition to the remaining uranium 238, it has been estimated that up to 7 grams of radium remain on the site, and as this decays into radon gas comparatively high levels of radiation can be present due to the gaseous nature and the fast decay rate of radon to persons living and working in the adjacent area. Block numbers 7 and 9 were built on many years ago, on the upper level adjacent to Nelson Parade—that is assumed to be some time in the 1920s—with the bulk of the building occurring in the 1960s.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sandy tailings material was used as sand in the mortar for the brick work on some of these buildings. As the sand contains uranium 238, radium 226 and radon 222, radon gas would have been emitted from this brickwork continuously, making these residences extremely unsafe to live in. The New South Wales Government subsequently acquired the residences and ordered the demolition in 1982, with the residences actually being demolished in 1992. An issue of great concern is that none of the organisations interviewed during the inquiry could confirm what happened to the radioactive material following the demolition of the residences. I strongly support the committee's comments in sections 5.32 and 5.33 relating to that issue. As the committee chairman pointed out, we do not know where a number of 205 litre drums went, and I am concerned that there is no evidence of where a lot of building materials on the site—bricks, roofing materials, frame materials, et cetera—were transported. There is some discussion that the materials were buried on the site, but wherever it is it would still be highly radioactive.

While it is easy to say in hindsight that mistakes were made in the assessment and administration of the potential problems with this site by New South Wales Health and local councils, current best practice on exposure to radiation states that there is no safe lower limit, although we are all exposed to very low levels of radiation every day. The health dangers from constant exposure, as families living in those homes would have experienced, is well known and intolerable. The 12 recommendations contained in the report relate to the remediation processes on the contaminated blocks and a full assessment of nearby properties and streets to ensure that there are no other currently unknown hot spots in the vicinity; that all the activity in the future should be open and transparent, with the local community kept fully informed at all times; and that all costs associated with the processes should be borne by the New South Wales Government. I commend the staff who helped us with this inquiry. As the committee chairman said, it was a difficult issue to come to grips with, and the staff did a tremendous job in advising us and making it clear to us exactly what we were looking at. So it gives me great pleasure to commend the report to the House.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.40 p.m.]: Firstly I thank the committee secretariat for its work on this quite technical committee and for the preparation of the detailed report. In the early 1900s a uranium refinery was located on the foreshore of Hunters Hill. That area is now the site of residential houses, in particular the properties at numbers 5, 7, 9 and 11 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill. The site is split into two levels with an upper level separated from the lower level by the sandstone cliff. Iron ore was shipped to the site from South Australia for refining and a reported approximately 10 tonnes of ore shipped per week. One ton of ore, however, would produce radium to be measured by the milligram and at £13,000 per gram radium was highly sought after.

In a 1912 report to shareholders the directors of Radium Hill Company reported 95 tonnes of ore was treated for 350 milligrams of radium. Based on that calculation 500 tonnes would produce one gram ceteris paribus. A by-product of the process was radioactive tailings. These tailings were thrown into several dumps on site. Some of the dumpings were subsequently used as fill behind retaining walls. The houses built on the upper level of 7 and 9 Nelson Parade may have been built as early as the 1920s. The bulk of the residential housing was built in the mid 1960s. In 1965 the New South Wales Department of Health undertook a detailed radiation survey of the site. I believe it is important to note that what we know about radiation has greatly changed over the past 40 years.

A final report was delivered in 1966. It covered the sites now known as 5, 7, 9 and 11 Nelson Parade and included measurement of external dose rates, soil activity and radium uptake in vegetables and herbs. Whilst at the time, based on the report, the New South Wales Department of Health concluded that the radiation dose was not unacceptable, the report did recommend that the radiation branch with the cooperation of the four householders concerned, coordinate the removal of certain areas of high activity soil. In 1977 the New South Wales Health Commission conducted a survey of numbers 3 to 13 Nelson Parade. The aim of this report included the investigation of the contamination over the lots. At this time some contaminated soil was removed from number 3 and placed behind the seawall on number 7. Another survey was undertaken in 1987 on behalf of the New South Wales Department of Health and again in 1999-2000 as a two-stage survey and in 2004. In 1982 it appears that soil was removed from numbers 5 and 11 and relocated to numbers 7 and 9.

In 2008 a private survey was undertaken on behalf of the residents of 21 Nelson Parade and a survey was undertaken by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on behalf of New South Wales Health. Following the 1977 report the Department on Health purchased numbers 7 and 9 Nelson Parade. Number 11 was also purchased at the request of the owners of number 11. It was later sold to the owners of number 7. Number 11 was later on-sold to its current owners. The current owners became aware of the contamination only on receipt of a notice that the site had been declared a remediation site under section 21 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1977. The houses on numbers 7 and 9 were demolished in 1992. At that time contaminated material from numbers 5, 11 and 13 was placed on the now vacant numbers 7 and 9. Numbers 7 and 9 were then covered, landscaped, vegetated and fenced.

As can be seen by that history the contamination on this site goes back to the early 1900s and since the first survey was undertaken in 1965 there have been numerous different State governments. Also, the science and technology behind this type of contamination has changed significantly over this period. The most relevant outcome from this committee is that residents will have surety over the identification of contamination where there was much confusion about which sites may be contaminated and to what level. This was particularly of concern for some of the long-term residents who had been aware of ongoing testing. New South Wales Health has made recent attempts to communicate more fully and clearly with residents of Nelson Parade.

More importantly, there is obviously distress amongst residents who are concerned about the health impacts from contamination levels on the site. It is hoped that the recommendation for an independent auditor to oversee the remediation of numbers 7 and 9, and any other area identified as requiring remediation, will go some way to providing confidence in the process. It was the committee's view that remediation of all identified contaminated areas should proceed irrespective of cost and that the cost of remediation be borne by the New South Wales Government. I thank those who gave their time to the inquiry, in particular the local residents who, at the end of the day, are the primary concern in this process.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.45 p.m.], in reply: I will be brief. I thank all participants in the inquiry and in the take-note debate. It has been clearly indicated that the processes were very complicated when dealing with material, as was well explained by the Hon. Rick Colless, and the breakdown of uranium to the end product of lead, and then one of those daughters that we identified, the product Radon that has a very short half-life but has a distinctly high impact on human health. The committee grappled with those issues in the inquiry and found learning about the process very beneficial. I appreciate that there have been failures to remediate in the past. I concede that in the past these issues were not fully appreciated. Today we have both the knowledge and the appropriate equipment. The issue of equipment was often in debate during the inquiry as to how to assess what is a silent killer, in actual fact. It is one of the big issues surrounding radiation and industry has found it impossible to assess without the use of high-tech equipment.

As the Hon. Lynda Voltz said, the first surveys were undertaken in 1965. This matter has a long history but now we have a greater degree of clarity and thankfully a greater degree of communication from NSW Health to remedy the situation once and for all in order to have a clean living environment for those people affected over the years at Hunters Hill and to put an end to what has been a very difficult matter for the residents. I am pleased that this inquiry will be a step in the right direction to clean up these sites to create a much more liveable environment for all. I commend the inquiry and the report to the House.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.