Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Senate Report on Selection Process for Nuclear Waste Facility in South Australia

The report is at  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility/Report

It is 77 pages. I confess to have only skimmed through it at this stage.  It appears to be a careful attempt to bless the process, while not having a real opinion about it, one way or the other.  To be fair, it does contain a few questions, does not appear to be a “full go ahead” recommendation.

Coalition Senators Senator Jane Hume Senator Dean Smith put in Additional Comments. Short and not very interesting.

Greens, Senator Hanson-Young put in a longer Dissenting Report report, strongly criticising the process.

Senator Rex Patrick put in Additional Comments, also criticising the process

RECOMMENDATIONS in the Report

Chapter 2 Community sentiment

  1. 22. Recommendation 1 2.67 If a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility were to be sited in an agricultural region, the committee recommends that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science work with local stakeholders, so that part of the remaining 60 hectare buffer zone can be used to grow and test agricultural produce, in order to reassure the community and agricultural markets that the produce from the surrounding region does not contain excessive amounts of radiation and is safe for consumption.
  2. 23 Chapter 3 Indigenous support
  3. 31 Recommendation 2 3.40 The committee recommends that the Minister intensify and expedite efforts to fully engage with the Indigenous stakeholders near Kimba and Hawker so that comprehensive heritage assessments for all nominated sites can be completed
  4. 33 Chapter 4 Financial compensation and incentives to communities

p.36. 4.22 The committee notes that it is unfortunate for a former politician, particularly one with significant exposure to the nuclear waste issues, to place the government in the invidious position of p. 37 deciding whether he should receive financial compensation for hosting a NRWMF on his property, thereby further politicising an already contentious process.

Recommendation 3 4.25 The committee recommends that the government undertake an independent valuation of the land to be acquired to ensure that the financial compensation is consistent with the original proposal to compensate the landholder at four times the land value.

  1. 43 Chapter 5 General comments about the site selection process
  2. 49 Recommendation 4 5.35 The committee recommends that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science make submissions received during the consultation process publicly available in the circumstances where the authors originally intended for their submission to be made public. ((That requirement has apparently been fulfilled)
  3. 50 Recommendation 5 5.37 The committee recommends that the Office of the Chief Economist within the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science undertake a policy evaluation of the first two phases of the site selection process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

The committee made no other general recommendation)

Advertisements

August 15, 2018 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: