Nuclear Royal Commission a promotional exercise for Nuclear Industry vested interests, targeting rural South Australia
BHP Billiton looked into uranium enrichment and so called ‘value adding’ and ‘fuel leasing’ and rejected these ideas, stating to the Federal government’s Switkowski Nuclear Review in 2006, that: “Enrichment has massive barriers to entry “ including access to technology and approvals under international protocols… We do not believe that conversion and enrichment would be commercially viable in Australia… Nor do we believe any government imposed requirement to lease fuel, as distinct from acquiring uranium would be acceptable to its major customers…
Community are being misled by claims these Nuclear actions are viable. The conduct of this Nuclear Commission risks a promotional exercise for Nuclear Industry vested interests and in effect targets Outback SA and custodian’s country for Nuclear waste dumping. This is an ill-considered and unconstructive Nuclear Commission into Nuclear actions that pose unique and unprecedented long term risks and present significant unacceptable impacts that run contrary to our public interest
“Outback SA is a target for both International and National Nuclear Wastes”by David Noonan B.Sc., Coober Pedy Regional Times, by David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St. Environment Campaigner 09 July 2015 “……..International Nuclear wastes were made illegal in WA (1999), SA (2000), NT (2004) and Qld (2007). The Parliament of Australia has prohibited nuclear power reactors, uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication, and Spent Nuclear Fuel reprocessing under multiple key legislative powers, in the: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 Section 10 Prohibition on certain nuclear installations; AND Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) Section 140A No approval for certain nuclear installations.
Nuclear actions are “Matters of National Environmental Significance” under the EPBC Act. The ALP and Australian Greens are committed to retain these Decision powers at the Federal level. Further, the ALP National Platform presents policy commitments for the 2016 Federal election: “Labor remains strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste in Australia that is sourced from overseas”.
International Nuclear wastes would involve a range of Federal powers and decisions that are outside of SA’s jurisdiction, including under the Customs Act, the EPBC Act, and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act.
To date, the Nuclear Commission that is supposed to be investigating risks and opportunities has itself failed to credibly inform or engage the public on key legal and public policy issues. Information Papers provide only passing reference to ‘prohibitions’ and meetings held at Universities and elsewhere fail to even mention the fact that our State laws prohibit an array of Nuclear wastes that the Nuclear Commission is considering.
The Premier’s Nuclear Commission is arguably an International Nuclear waste storage agenda. This International Nuclear waste agenda appears premised on interim but open ended storage as a pecuniary interest to irrevocably bring Nuclear waste to SA without a capacity to dispose of it.
In contrast, International experience demonstrates that High Level Nuclear Waste Deep Geological Disposal entails multi-decade national proposals and extensive studies and site Safety cases. Further, this Commission is failing to address key Nuclear waste siting issues and related transport routes and the question of which South Australian port is to be targeted to bring in nuclear wastes?
As a result of this Nuclear Commission the north and west of SA is targeted for International Nuclear waste dumping and the country of traditional owners is at the forefront of that agenda. Nuclear waste agenda’s impact disproportionately and unfairly on Indigenous People’s, threaten their human rights and cultural interests, and typically fail to provide Free, Prior and Informed Consent – proclaimed by the United Nations in 2007 as a right and as a standard to be pursued.
All nuclear roads lead to highly toxic nuclear wastes. Nuclear reactors are unnecessary, uneconomic, illegal and unwelcome in SA. And so called Generation IV Nuclear reactors are decades away if ever, with Nuclear Commissioner Kevin Scarce acknowledging the level of uncertainty on potential commercial availability of Gen IV reactors as“not much before 2040″ (on 891 ABC, 29 June
Nuclear is not ‘peaceful’. Proposed uranium enrichment and Spent Nuclear Fuel reprocessing are restricted ‘dual use’ sensitive technologies to produce fissile materials with potential for nuclear weapons use. Reprocessing is a highly polluting, discredited, and dangerous link in the nuclear chain, to separate and stockpile plutonium, the fissile material of choice of nuclear weapons builders and terrorists alike. To promote plutonium reprocessing is reckless and akin to promoting nuclear in-security.
In any case, the claimed Gen IV reactors to use this reprocessed Plutonium fuel are decades away if ever – so why is the State wasting time, energy and funds enquiring into these dead ends?
BHP Billiton looked into uranium enrichment and so called ‘value adding’ and ‘fuel leasing’ and rejected these ideas, stating to the Federal government’s Switkowski Nuclear Review in 2006, that: “Enrichment has massive barriers to entry “ including access to technology and approvals under international protocols… We do not believe that conversion and enrichment would be commercially viable in Australia… Nor do we believe any government imposed requirement to lease fuel, as distinct from acquiring uranium would be acceptable to its major customers…
BHP Billiton believes that there is neither a commercial nor a non-proliferation case for it to become involved in front-end processing or for mandating the development of fuel leasing services in Australia. … BHP Billiton has no intention to use the [Olympic Dam] mine as a basis to begin providing fuel leasing, conversion, enrichment, nuclear power or national or international waste disposal/storage services. … There is no evidence that a change to current Australian Government policies to facilitate domestic enrichment, fuel leasing and high level waste disposal would lead to significant economic opportunities or reduce proliferation risks in the foreseeable future. …
It would also put at risk our reputation with customers of being a reliable supplier of uranium concentrates and our ability to enter into the long term supply arrangements that underpin expansion of uranium mining. Noting that a nuclear fuel leasing industry “ if permitted by the regulatory framework “ is most unlikely to be commercially viable, BHP Billiton would strongly oppose any policies to artificially support the premature development of such an industry by requiring BHP Billiton’s customers to use Australian conversion, enrichment or fabrication services “ or to quarantine reserves to underpin such a domestic capacity in the future.
It would put customer relations and the investments those underpin at risk.” Nothing has changed in these key issues and uranium enrichment capacity remains significantly over supplied around the world.
Community are being misled by claims these Nuclear actions are viable. The conduct of this Nuclear Commission risks a promotional exercise for Nuclear Industry vested interests and in effect targets Outback SA and custodian’s country for Nuclear waste dumping. This is an ill-considered and unconstructive Nuclear Commission into Nuclear actions that pose unique and unprecedented long term risks and present significant unacceptable impacts that run contrary to our public interest https://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/news-paper/
No comments yet.
Antinuclear 
Leave a Reply