Ivan Quail says -No logic in double handling of nuclear waste, and makes 14 strong recommendations
There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee says it
breaches international best practice
It should further be borne in mind that we in Australia currently enjoy an international
reputation for clean green agricultural products and food. Are we prepared to put that at risk?
Ivan Quail to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 12
Intermediate level radioactive waste should not be stored above ground. Low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes are buried in geological repositories. These repositories must isolate the nuclear waste from the biosphere for as long as 100,000 years. Only solid wastes are stored; liquid wastes are solidified by cementation or bitumen. The strategy adopted by many countries for the disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes requires an engineered repository placed at considerable depth underground.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/intermediate-level-radioactive-waste
Long-lived intermediate-level (category S) wastes will be stored above ground in an engineered facility designed to hold them secure for an extended period and to shield their radiation until a geological repository is eventually justified and established, or alternative arrangements made.
doubled (from 47,388 to 116,580 cases).1
In 2012, cancer was estimated to be the leading cause of burden of disease in Australia,
accounting for approximately 19 per cent of the total disease burden.3
Cancer and other neoplasms $3,000 million (In 2013–14,)
Source: AIHW disease expenditure
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016. Australia’s health 2016. Australia’s health series
no. 15. Cat. no. AUS 199. Canberra: AIHW
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/3be568f2-d938-4575-bf1f-8742bad4d2ce/ah16-2-2-howmuch-
does-australia-spend-on-health-care.pdf.aspx
(Prohibition) Act, introduced by the SA Liberal Government in the year 2000 and
strengthened by the SA Labor Government in 2002. The federal government is expected to
take the draconian and unacceptable step of using regulations to specifically override the SA
Nuclear Waste Facility (Prohibition) Act. South Australians are opposed to the proposed
nuclear waste facility: a 2015 survey found just 15.7% support for a nuclear waste dump, and
a 2018 survey found that those who strongly agreed with stopping the dump outnumbered
those who strongly disagreed by a factor of three (41:14).
could be allowed to jeopardise the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. Indeed the
government’s proposal is a clear breach of the National Health and Medical Research
Council’s ‘Code of Practice for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia’
which states that “the site for the facility should be located in a region which has no known
significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has
little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”
Lucas Heights site in NSW accounts for an overwhelming majority (>90%) of the waste
destined for the nuclear waste facility in SA. There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee says it
breaches international best practice
informed consent. The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Act
systematically disempowers and dispossesses Traditional Owners, and the Amendment Bill
worsens the situation. Legal advice in a Feb. 2020 report by the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Human Rights notes that the Bill “would enable native title to be extinguished,
without the consent of the traditional owners”, and it raises further concerns about the Bill’s
intention to permit the acquisition of land for an access route without any Parliamentary
oversight or right of appeal.
1. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee should recommend the withdrawal or
rejection of the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 (in which
case a number of following recommendations are redundant) and repeal of the National
Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Act.
13(1), and of the Bill’s sections 34GA(1)(c) and 34GB(1), as unacceptable draconian
overrides of existing State and Commonwealth legal protections for Indigenous people’s
heritage and traditions.
proposed amendments, and the proposed nuclear waste facility, on Aboriginal rights, interests
and traditions. This should include consideration of the impacts of the government potentially
issuing a Regulation to override the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, so as to legally impose
the nuclear waste facility over State law.
particular the principle of free, prior and informed consent.
then SA Premier Jay Weatherill in 2017 that traditional owners should have a right of veto
over any proposed nuclear waste facility on their lands. Mr. Weatherill’s letter noted that
“Aboriginal people’s history with the nuclear industry demonstrates a need for significant
healing” and it noted the SA Labor Government’s policy that a right of veto would apply to
any comparable state initiative.
from above-ground interim storage at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site to above-ground interim
storage near Kimba, for no logical reason and despite the obvious inefficiencies and risks
associated with this double-handling of nuclear waste.
proposed double-handling of intermediate-level waste is consistent with national and
international standards and what ARPANSA’s approach will be to a licence application that
proposes double-handling.
double-handling of intermediate-level waste, the Committee should recommend that
intermediate-level waste stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site should remain there until a
long-term solution is realised.
the government’s own benchmark for broad community support has not been met (43.8%
support among eligible voters in the combined ballots).
government’s nuclear waste agenda put on hold, until such time as public opinion among
other relevant stakeholders is determined (including state-wide opinion in SA; and opinion
along potential transport corridors).
or rejection of section 34GB (1)(b) of the Bill, both of which seek to compromise and
undermine operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Government’s claim that 45 jobs will be created at the facility. That job figure is deeply
inconsistent with comparable facilities overseas and it assumes that Australian workers are at
least 10 times less productive than workers at comparable facilities overseas. Successive
federal governments have claimed there would be zero, six or 15 jobs, and the current figure
of 45 jobs is implausible.
low or intermediate level waste thus reducing the operating cost and minimizing the creation
of potential jobs and costs in the health care system. Not to mention the pain and suffering
caused to cancer patients and their families.
reputation for clean green agricultural products and food. Are we prepared to put that at risk?
No comments yet.
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net/
Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] has again postponed the date for their report from 31 August 2020 to 14 September 2020.
You can still send Submissions to them on that same page. Read Public hearings transcripts : the latest (28 August) is now available.
of the week
Committee for Future Generations
https://climatetippingpoints.info/
Join my fight to free Julian Assange and stop US extradition
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/julianassange/
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
EVENTS
WEBINARS – Details at YELLOWCAKE COUNTRY http://www.ccwa.org.au/yellowcake_country_webinar_series
30 September – Webinar – Uranium and Nuclear Power Wednesday 5.30 pm (AWST) 7.30 pm (AEST)
18 November – Webinar – Maralinga to Mulga Rock the Spinifex Story Wednesday 5.30 pm (AWST) 7.30 pm (AEST) |
No nuclear waste dump in South Australia
ACT NOW: NO PLACE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE https://www.conservationsa.org.au/no_place_for_nuclear_waste?fbclid=IwAR24tyFotCN96nobPpPuhGCqBMlW8zjPixIzmEj8ud8b_J7tRigzlXLpjJc
https://www.change.org/p/release-julian-assange-from-belmarsh-prison-before-covid-19-spreads
Antarctica Nuclear Power Plant Cancer Disaster on Day 1 Say Navy Shipmen
Antarctica nuclear reactor caused many cancers. Several countries insisted the US to clean up the nuclear waste via treaty. 5 On Your Side Investigation in March 2011 revealed at least “438 malfunctions from 1964 through 1972.” Our report found “leaking water surrounding the reactor” as well as “hairline cracks in the reactor liner” and prompted two federal hearings that upheld our report’s findings. The plant was eventually shut down and dismantled in 1972, but in the decades that followed, repeated cancer claims for service-connected disability filed by veterans were routinely turned down or ignored by the Veterans Administration. “There is no question that the water was contaminated,” said Wilborn, who was granted a service-connected disability after a hearing before the Board of Veterans Appeals. The appeals board also found that Wilborn’ s exposure was “grossly underestimated” and “evidence strongly suggests that others may have been exposed to higher levels” as well. Source Ron Reagan http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-ne…
McMurdo has attempted to improve environmental management and waste removal over the past decade in order to adhere to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed October 4, 1991, and entered into force January 14, 1998. This agreement prevents development and provides for the protection of the Antarctic environment through five specific annexes on marine pollution, fauna, and flora, environmental impact assessments, waste management, and protected areas. It prohibits all activities relating to mineral resources except scientific. A new waste treatment facility was built at McMurdo in 2003, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo…
Leave a Reply