Kim Mavromatis on Radioactive Waste Bill: community consent? transport dangers, on agricultural land. poor process.
Only 4.5% of SA is Agricultural cropping land. If Australia’s Nuclear Safety Agency’s site selection criteria states, nuclear waste dumps should not be placed on agricultural land – then why on earth does the Fed govt want to dump / introduce toxic radioactive nuclear waste on SA Agricultural farmland, which has an Export income for Kimba farmers of up to $80 million per year and $778 million income for Eyre Peninsula farmers. Why take the risk? And it’s also against South Australian law.
There was nothing scientific about the site selection – the farmer who submitted their farmland property near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, will be paid 4 times what they think the property is worth.
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 93 Kim Mavromatis Submission to : Senate Standing Committee Inquiry – NRWMF Bill (9-4-20)
Dear Committee Chairperson
I live in Port Pirie, within the Upper Spencer Gulf and Southern Flinders region of South Australia. I’m a filmmaker and have been following and documenting the Nuclear Waste dumps facility process for 5 years. My hometown of Port Pirie,
along with Whyalla and Port Lincoln, have been named potential Nuclear Waste ports by the NRWMF, so I live potentially along the transport route?
Nuclear Ports NRWMF Reference : Site Characterization Tech Report, Wallerberdina Pg 177 Proximity to Ports 4.1.2.1.6.
THE COMMUNITY BALLOT AND GROUPS EXCLUDED FROM VOTING 99.999% of South Australians were excluded from the Nuclear Waste Dumps facility ballot process, including the Barngarla Native Title Holders.
On 12th Nov 2019, in Federal Parliament question time, Senator Canavan (Minister for Resources and Northern Aust), stated the following : “…over 90% of people in the community (Kimba) voted – it was a voluntary vote – and around
61.5% of residents supported a facility located in their community”.
61.5% of residents supported a facility located in their community”.
The above statement is not correct – the actual percentage of Kimba “residents” supporting the vote was : 54.85% (452 yes – from 824 residents).
In Senator Canavan’s media release 1st Feb 2020, announcing Napandee near Kimba as the site for Australia’s National Nuclear Waste Dumps facility, he replaced the word “residents” with “voters” :Senator Canavan : “…61.6 per cent of voters in Kimba support the proposal”.
When the criteria all along has been “Broad Community Support”, you can’t just drop 10% of the residents from the percentages because they didn’t vote. The term “Support” means people who voted “Yes” to the nuclear waste dumps
facility – all the eligible voters need to be included in the percentages, whether they voted Yes, No or Abstained, to get a true percentage of the Community Support. All the figures need independent scrutiny.
facility – all the eligible voters need to be included in the percentages, whether they voted Yes, No or Abstained, to get a true percentage of the Community Support. All the figures need independent scrutiny.
The Fed Govt process excluded the Barngarla Native Title Holders from the Kimba ballot, so Barngarla had their own independent vote : 0% Supported the waste dumps facility (0 Yes – 83 No – from 209 eligible voters). Combining the
Kimba Council and Barngarla Independent vote gives a very different outcome : 43.75% Support the waste dumps facility (452 Yes from 1,033 eligible voters), which Does Not constitute Broad Community Support.
Kimba Council and Barngarla Independent vote gives a very different outcome : 43.75% Support the waste dumps facility (452 Yes from 1,033 eligible voters), which Does Not constitute Broad Community Support.
The Barngarla Traditional Owners have been fighting 20 years for their native
title rights and this Fed Govt National Nuclear Waste Dumps facility process has
denied them from having a voice and ignored their independent vote. This
process not only has ramifications for the Barngarla people, but for all of
Australia’s Aboriginal people – it will inform future govts of ways to ignore and
exclude Native Title Holders, without proper consultation, and get away with it.
title rights and this Fed Govt National Nuclear Waste Dumps facility process has
denied them from having a voice and ignored their independent vote. This
process not only has ramifications for the Barngarla people, but for all of
Australia’s Aboriginal people – it will inform future govts of ways to ignore and
exclude Native Title Holders, without proper consultation, and get away with it.
Barngarla Speak Out – Reference video link : https://vimeo.com/382855709
TRANSPORT ACCIDENTS AND RADIOACTIVITY
Spent Nuclear Fuel (10,000 x more radioactive than uranium ore) and waste
from reprocessed SNF (still contains 95% of the radioactivity of SNF), which
most of the world classify as High Level Radioactive Waste (Aust classify as
Intermediate), will be transported 1,700km halfway across Aust from Lucas
Heights, via road, rail or ship, and dumped temporarily above ground for up to
100 years on Eyre Peninsula farmland, near Kimba in SA.
Spent Nuclear Fuel (10,000 x more radioactive than uranium ore) and waste
from reprocessed SNF (still contains 95% of the radioactivity of SNF), which
most of the world classify as High Level Radioactive Waste (Aust classify as
Intermediate), will be transported 1,700km halfway across Aust from Lucas
Heights, via road, rail or ship, and dumped temporarily above ground for up to
100 years on Eyre Peninsula farmland, near Kimba in SA.
It concerns me that Senator Canavan and other govt officials throughout the
process have continually stated there has never been a nuclear materials
transport accident in Australia, but there has been – 2 policemen, cast aside and
abandoned, speak out about the poisoning, trauma and nightmares they faced,
after attending a fatal road accident on the Pacific Highway involving nuclear
waste from Lucas Heights.
process have continually stated there has never been a nuclear materials
transport accident in Australia, but there has been – 2 policemen, cast aside and
abandoned, speak out about the poisoning, trauma and nightmares they faced,
after attending a fatal road accident on the Pacific Highway involving nuclear
waste from Lucas Heights.
Nuclear Waste Crash COVERUP – Poisoned Police Speak Out Nuclear Materials Transport accident – Reference video link :
Reference Graph below [on original+]– Radioactivity of Spent Nuclear Fuel compared to
Uranium ore – Nuclear Waste Management Org, Canada
ARPANSA
Uranium ore – Nuclear Waste Management Org, Canada
ARPANSA
ARPANSA SITE SELECTION CRITERIA – NOT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND
Australia’s Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) site
selection criteria states : “the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known
significant natural resources…and has little or no potential for agricultural or
outdoor recreational use”.
Australia’s Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) site
selection criteria states : “the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known
significant natural resources…and has little or no potential for agricultural or
outdoor recreational use”.
Only 4.5% of SA is Agricultural cropping land. If Australia’s Nuclear Safety Agency’s site selection criteria states, nuclear waste dumps should not be placed on agricultural land – then why on earth does the Fed govt want to dump / introduce toxic radioactive nuclear waste on SA Agricultural farmland, which has an Export income for Kimba farmers of up to $80 million per year and $778 million income for Eyre Peninsula farmers. Why take the risk? And it’s also against South Australian law.
There was nothing scientific about the site selection – the farmer who submitted their farmland property near Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula, will be paid 4 times what they think the property is worth.
Eyre Peninsula farmers have had their lives turned upside down by the Fed
govt’s nuclear waste dumps facility process
govt’s nuclear waste dumps facility process
Eyre Peninsula Farmers – Reference video links:
SAVE SA FARMLAND RALLY
SAVE SA FARMLAND, KIMBA
SAVE SA FARMLAND, KIMBA
ARPANSA Site Criteria Reference document : Code for Disposal Facilities for
Solid Radioactive Waste – Radiation Protection Series C3 – Site Selection : 3.1.22a
Reference Income Figures : 18/19 RDA Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula Report.
Solid Radioactive Waste – Radiation Protection Series C3 – Site Selection : 3.1.22a
Reference Income Figures : 18/19 RDA Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula Report.
COMPARE FINLAND’S SOLUTION TO AUST NUCLEAR WASTE PROCESS
The world’s first permanent underground solution for Spent Nuclear Fuel (High
Level Nuclear Waste) is being built at Onkalo in Finland (20 years to build), right
next to some of the reactors that produce it – it’s costing billions – will contain all
of Finland’s Spent Nuclear Fuel (High Level Radioactive Waste) – and built to last
100,000 years.
SAVE SA FARMLAND RALLY
The world’s first permanent underground solution for Spent Nuclear Fuel (High
Level Nuclear Waste) is being built at Onkalo in Finland (20 years to build), right
next to some of the reactors that produce it – it’s costing billions – will contain all
of Finland’s Spent Nuclear Fuel (High Level Radioactive Waste) – and built to last
100,000 years.
SAVE SA FARMLAND RALLY
Finland are building a permanent underground solution for their Spent Nuclear
Fuel (High Level Radioactive Waste), but our fed govt process involves
temporarily dumping Australia’s Spent Nuclear Fuel and waste from reprocessed
SNF (from Lucas Heights) above ground on SA farmland for upto 100 years? Why
double handle the waste and move it twice? Why not leave the Spent Nuclear
Fuel and waste from reprocessed SNF at Lucas heights until a permanent
solution is found? Why take the risk?
Fuel (High Level Radioactive Waste), but our fed govt process involves
temporarily dumping Australia’s Spent Nuclear Fuel and waste from reprocessed
SNF (from Lucas Heights) above ground on SA farmland for upto 100 years? Why
double handle the waste and move it twice? Why not leave the Spent Nuclear
Fuel and waste from reprocessed SNF at Lucas heights until a permanent
solution is found? Why take the risk?
In the film (link below), presenter Tom Scott states “Here (Onkalo, Finland)
they’re building a tomb for something that really is dangerous….Right now there
is no permanent geological storage facility anywhere for High Level Radioactive
Waste, the Spent Nuclear Fuel, the really nasty stuff, that can cause disasters, if it
leaks. Right now around the world, high level radioactive waste is generally
stored near reactors, first in water ponds that require active cooling, and then in
concrete casts that will last as long as a concrete building would, not long
enough”.
they’re building a tomb for something that really is dangerous….Right now there
is no permanent geological storage facility anywhere for High Level Radioactive
Waste, the Spent Nuclear Fuel, the really nasty stuff, that can cause disasters, if it
leaks. Right now around the world, high level radioactive waste is generally
stored near reactors, first in water ponds that require active cooling, and then in
concrete casts that will last as long as a concrete building would, not long
enough”.
Reference Onkalo Finland video link
Onkalo : Inside the tunnels that will store nuclear waste for 100,000 years.
isCS-3m 2 inKRM7CAXGWLnmdtI8FBrGKvwpcRHCgumzQs
Onkalo : Inside the tunnels that will store nuclear waste for 100,000 years.
isCS-3m 2 inKRM7CAXGWLnmdtI8FBrGKvwpcRHCgumzQs
Concerned South Australian Citizen
Kim Mavromatis
Kim Mavromatis
No comments yet.
Antinuclear 
Leave a Reply