Australian news, and some related international items

Azark says: nuclear waste site process unfair and Napandee unsuitable

Azark Project Pty Ltd    to Senate Inquiry: National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures ) Bill 2020.  Submission No1


This submission is made by Azark Project Pty Ltd who, in conjunction with the Shire of Leonora did apply to be the site to house the storage facility. We were not chosen.

Our submission will deal with, what we believe, was an unfair inquiry by the Department of Industry Innovation and Science who ran the inquiry having already decided that the facility would be above ground. They said as much when they stipulated when calling for applications that “they required no less than 100 hectares of land for the facility”………

The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility project has a Facebook page. Posted on the Facebook site on the 5 March at 16.01 was this statement: “Intermediate level waste will be stored at the NRWMF until a permanent disposal solution is developed. (Attachment 2).

Intermediate level waste disposal will require a different solution- likely a deep geological repository that will take several decades to site and build.” Attachment 3……….

Our submission would like to concentrate on the most important factors in recommending to the senate that this bill not be passed.

There is no greater responsibility that the government has to its people than to keep them safe. The current Corona Virus is a good example. The proposed site at Kimba fails miserably on this score. ILW is deadly to humans if they are exposed to it.

The Kimba proposal by the government admits that it can only be a temporary site for ILW and that it will have to be shifted before that time. This double handling presents yet another danger…………

The second factor the committee should consider is the cost to the taxpayer.Press reports, which have not been denied, put the construction cost of the Kimba facility at $325M. Because this will be borrowed money there is an
additional interest bill of $6.5M per year. That is $65M for ten years and they have a time frame of 30 years……..

There is also the cost of finding a new “deep geological repository” and constructing it within 30 years. It is safe to assume that this will run in to hundreds of millions of dollars given the cost of the current proposal.

At Attachments 4 and 5 are letter from two prominent SA geologists, with over 90 combined years of studying the Kimba region, who both state that the site at Kimba is not suitable and both of them saying what we are saying and that is

Don’t choose Kimba as the site to store ILW.  Bury it underground  Kimba is in an active earthquake zone

Another major consideration is the stability of the land on which the storage facility is sited………  What is important is that the real responsibility for the safe storage is regulated by ARPANSA and it is that body that will enforce the public safety standards

June 9, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

James Shepherdson – no true community support for Napandee nuclear waste dump, and alternative site ignored

James Shepherdson to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 8    In regards to the federal government process of site selection for a radioactive waste repository, please let it be known to this inquiry that I being a local Kimba resident for thirty two years have observed in the past five years of the events that have taken place a number of obvious examples of what I can only describe as being a very premeditated, deceptive, unbalanced process of manipulation with an agenda to reach an outcome of support for such a facility regardless of the obvious division it has created in my community.

The following points I make are to me evidence of a completely flawed process.
1. Community was given no consultation therefore no right to make a decision prior to a land owner nominating their land.

2. The process continued regardless of the fact Minister Frydenberg conceded there was not broad community support for the initial land nominations.

3. The main criteria for the proposal to move forward was that of broad community support ,however there has never been a clear definition of what constitutes broad community support.

4. The criteria for what described a direct neighbour in the first land nominations was when two properties could share a road between them but in the second round of nominations this was changed to then to deem them to not be direct neighbours therefore the minister being able to declare that all direct neighbours were in support of the
facility when in fact they were not.

5. The traditional owners denied the right to vote.

6. Community supporting members of the Kimba district denied the right to vote just because they happened to be outside the Kimba district council boundary.

7. Given the fact that the traditional owners and residents outside of the Kimba boundary were not given the right to vote the minister always reiterated that all submissions would be taken into account when making his decision ,however by his own admission declared that only submissions from inside the Kimba boundary were taken into
consideration.This deemed 2789 submissions from concerned residents of the Eyre Peninsula and the wider community to be completely irrelevant in his view .

8. A nomination of a much more favorable site in Western Australia in 2017 was completely overlooked .This particular site had already been declared by experts to be suitable for not only the disposal of low level radioactive waste but also the deep geological burial of the intermediate level radioactive waste.

June 9, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment