Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Vital questions for Senate Nuclear Waste Committee – on NOMINATIONS, EXPERT EVIDENCE, RADIONUCLIDES, RESET INITIATIVE

The following are some brief extracts from Peter Remta’s Additional submission

HOW DID THE NOMINATIONS COME ABOUT   ?……..the government has persistently refused to provide true copies of the nominations claiming personal confidentiality.

This is a puerile excuse as the prescribed nomination form (being attachment B to the government’s own nomination guidelines issued in November 2016) specifically provides that a nominating landowner by its nomination confirms consent to the public disclosure of the nomination

For this reason your committee should request the Department to produce to it for public examination the nominations for Napandee and Lyndhurst and this should quickly establish the veracity of the claims as to the  nomination and selection of those sites…..

WHY IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE NOT HEARING EXPERT EXTERNAL EVIDENCE?  As it appears that your committee is drawing to the conclusion of its enquiry
I still ask why it has not availed itself of hearing from internationally renowned experts on the management of nuclear waste as I previously suggested………

WHY IS THE COMMITTEE ACCEPTING “EVIDENCE” FROM UNQUALIFIED PERSONS WITHOUT INFORMATION CONFIRMING IT? I am staggered by what was accepted as undisputed evidence by not necessarily qualified persons and without any attempt to gain further information or confirmation.

About agriculture The first of these is how the establishment of the facility at Napandee will give rise to agricultural and scientific research locally without any information to support that claim.

This becomes even more nonsensical when viewed in the light of the most recent protests by agricultural communities in European countries as to the presence of nuclear waste production and disposal……

About jobs. The other is the number of jobs arising through the establishment of the facility and now the new agency based in Adelaide as the numbers suggested are completely outside of the realm of reality.,,,,

WHY NO AUTHORITATIVE AGENCY LIKE  AMERICA’s RESET INITIATIVE?  While there are several examples that your committee should have studied perhaps the most apt at present is the United States of America initiative and experience known as the Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management – Strategies and Policies but for brevity is referred to as the Reset Initiative…… Reset is an effort to untangle the technical, administrative and public concerns in such a way that important issues can be identified,understood and addressed”………….

none of this has occurred with the selection of Napandee……

WHY THE SILENCE ON RADIONUCLIDES? Through a safety case, an implementer reveals its understanding of the management and repository site and how it expects the radionuclides to behave in the repository over long periods of time………….  One important aspect of the risk and safety of storage and disposal of nuclear waste included in the Reset relates to the radionuclides activity of the waste.

Again and despite my raising it previously there has been pointed silence in both the submissions and the personal evidence to your committee of the radionuclides inventories in the intermediate level waste which rather strangely is not known to ARPANSA.

Th Reset Initiative explains that most of the radionuclides in nuclear waste will decay away during the first 1,000 years of management but some will persist for tens of thousands to over one million years…….

It is therefore very difficult to understand how the government has chosen Napandee for its facility before and without any study of the site with regard to the radionuclides and the type of waste as this is the most preliminary and important factor in seeking a suitable location.

The results of the study should also determine the style and nature of the storage and disposal of the nuclear waste.

NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PLAN  FIRST – NOT “SUBSEQUENT PLANNING”  This is something that cannot be cured by so-called subsequent planning and engineering and according to the expert advice should be a determining factor in rejecting the ultimate licence applications for Napandee………

In conclusion the importance and relevance of the Reset Initiative are best gauged by the suggestions that the Reset will be adopted with appropriate variations by IAEA as a principal part of its standards and codes relating to nuclear waste management which by treaty obligations would then become Australia’s prescribed standards.

August 4, 2020 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump

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: