Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

ARPANSA sits on the fence regarding Napandee choice for nuclear waste dump

ARPANSA to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 86 (Extracts)

(…….“ARPANSA does not have specific comments on the Amendment Bill per se, as the Bill does not relate to thehealth and safety criteria that are core to any review and assessment under the ARPANS Act and Regulations. It is also premature for ARPANSA to comment on the suitability of the specified site at Napandee, near Kimba in South Australia. The site, the design of the facility and the plans and arrangements for managing safety will be considered in ARPANSA’s review and assessment of an application for a licence to prepare a site for the facility”…  )

…. the IWS was designed and constructed as a contingency solution. The bulk of the activity in the repatriated waste is immobilised in a glass matrix and contained in a dual-purpose (transport and storage) TN-81 cask; and the remainder technological waste is made up of less active material in cemented form.

Additional ILW remains in the UK from reprocessing of HIFAR spent fuel, and is planned to be returned to Australia in 2022. Should the shipment take place at that time, the NRWMF will (again) not be available, which in all likelihood leaves Lucas Heights as the preferred (by ANSTO) option, and possibly the only feasible destination. ARPANSA is aware that the waste in this second shipment is likely to be immobilised and contained in a TN-81 cask with considerably less activity content than the first cask. ARPANSA expects an application from ANSTO for approval to make a change with significant implications for safety under section 63 of the Regulations10, supported by a revised safety analysis report and an updated safety case well in advance of the time the second shipment is intended to be loaded on a vessel for shipment to Australia.

8 A chemical process by which fissile material (uranium and plutonium) is separated from fission products for which no further use is foreseen and therefore considered waste; this waste is repatriated.
9 The CEO’s Statement of Reasons is at
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/regulatory/ansto/SOR operationIWS.pdf
10 Section 63 states a licence holder must obtain approval from the CEO before changing anything described in the application for the licence or modifying the controlled apparatus, controlled material or controlled facility described in the licence

Production of molybdenum-99 in the ANSTO Nuclear Medicine Facility (ANM). ANSTO received a licence to operate the ANM Facility on 12 April 2018. In the facility, molybdenum-99 (Mo-99; a fission product) is extracted from uranium plates that have been irradiated in the OPAL reactor. The immediate decay product of Mo-99 is technetium-99m (Tc-99m), used in the majority of nuclear medicine procedures.

in Australia and overseas. ANSTO was authorised to commence routine production for the domestic and international nuclear medicine markets on 24 May 2019.
The liquid residue from the Mo-99 extraction and purification process is classified as ILW. The storage tanks at the ANM can accommodate six years of Mo-99 production. ANSTO’s intention is to immobilise the radioactive substances in the liquid waste in an inert ceramic matrix in a planned facility at Lucas Heights known as the SyMo Facility. ANSTO received ARPANSA’s authorisation to prepare a site and construct the facility in 201411. Construction is under way and an application for a licence to operate the facility is preliminarily expected by mid-2021.

Implications of ILW generation and storage at Lucas Heights for the NRWMF. The licence decisions regarding the IWS were predicated on the fact that the intended storage facility (the NRWMF) was not available; that no alternative interim solution other than the IWS was feasible; and that there was some urgency as Australia was under obligations to enable repatriation from France before the end of 2015.

Furthermore, there was at the time of the decision no consideration given to disposal of ILW in the national plans, only to storage. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 198712 prevents disposal of waste at the ANSTO premises at Lucas Heights; this is supported by ARPANSA.

The CEO of ARPANSA, therefore, imposed a condition on the licence to operate the IWS which requires ANSTO to provide plans for the final management of the waste held in the IWS: “the licence holder must submit to the CEO, no later than 30 June 2020 and in a form acceptable to the CEO, plans for the removal of waste stored in the facility.”

Likewise, the CEO included a condition in the licence to operate the ANM Facility that requires ANSTO to report by 30 June 2020 on, inter alia: plans for storage and disposal of the ILW, and contingency plans should one or several components of the ILW management system not eventuate or fail. This condition complements the condition issued with the IWS licence.

ARPANSA is aware that some stakeholders have interpreted ARPANSA’s decisions regarding the IWS as a requirement for relocation of the waste stored in the IWS, even suggesting that there is an urgent need for relocation. This is not correct. ARPANSA has not raised safety concerns regarding storage of waste at the IWS. ANSTO seems to share this view. ANSTO has indicated to ARPANSA that the mandatory recertification of the TN-81 casks every 10 years can be carried out at the IWS; and in response to a request for identification of contingency measures in the short to medium term, ANSTO Identified the following:

Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal optionRetention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of the NRWMF for storage

……..Regarding the ILW planned to be processed in the SyMo facility, ARPANSA anticipates that information on storage, including whether this would involve the NRWMF, is included in the forthcoming report developed by ANSTO, in compliance with the condition issued with the operating licence for the ANM facility.

Radioactive Waste at Woomera
CSIRO holds just under 10,000 drums of waste at the Woomera Prohibited Area. CSIRO currently estimates that less than 200 of these barrels would require management at a future NRWMF. These 200 barrels are estimated to be LLW, with no ILW currently detected. These drums are undergoing characterisation work to improve the inventory of waste held. ARPANSA has been monitoring CSIRO’s characterisation work since 2016. This includes environmental monitoring of radiation levels. CSIRO is developing a pilot program to test new methods to manage their waste, however, this will require ARPANSA’s approval prior to implementation.

Radioactive Waste at ARPANSA
ARPANSA has custody of approximately 68 m3of radioactive waste, being legacy waste from activities carried out by the ARL and its predecessors at a time these organisations were involved in production of radiopharmaceuticals. The waste will be kept in safe storage until such time it can be safely disposed of in a suitable facility.

About half of the waste is stored at ARPANSA’s premises in Melbourne, comprising 137 x 220 litre steel drums (i.e. approximately 30 m3). Most of these drums are filled with building material contaminated with radium. This material was recovered from the decontamination and subsequent demolition of the former Commonwealth Radiation Laboratory (one of ARL’s predecessors) in Melbourne. About 27 m3 could be considered LLW, with the remaining three m3 considered ILW due to its radium content.

The waste at the Defence site comprises 76 x 220 litre steel drums (i.e. approximately 15 m3) and 42 x 540 litre High Integrity Containers (i.e. approximately 23 m3). Much of this waste is a mixture of disused
medium-lived radioactive material (cobalt-60, cesium-137 and strontium-90) and long-lived laboratory waste from the operations of the ARL and the Materials Research Laboratory. There are also a number of drums and containers enclosing consumer materials recovered from the public, such as watches and compasses with radium dials and luminous paints containing radium. About 27 m3 could be considered LLW, whereas about 11 m3 could be considered ILW.

ARPANSA’s requirements for a licence application for the NRWMF
The requirements ARPANSA places on an applicant for a licence for a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility are in accordance with the ARPANS Act and Regulations, regulatory guides and ensures that international best practice is considered.
The licence requirements are extensive and can be found in the ARPANSA Regulatory Guide: Applying for a Licence for a Radioactive Waste Storage or Disposal Facility, REG-LA-SUP-240L v3.1 January 2019. In addition, any disposal facility for solid radioactive waste should meet the requirements set out in nationally agreed Radiation Protection Series (RPS) C-3 Code for Disposal Facilities for Solid Radioactive Waste 2018……

June 19, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Kimba community unaware that Australia’s medicine does not need nuclear reactor

even ANSTO is using cyclotrons for generating imaging isotopes! And we actually have imaging/cyclotron partnerships set up in almost every major city in Australia….do not produce nuclear wastes.……..(expanding nuclear production) so that ANSTO can become one of the major players in the global export market. Where was this information in the glossy handouts given to Hawker and Kimba?

Name withheld. to Senate Committee on  National Radioactive WasteManagement Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 39  Excerpt

“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”…according to the DIIS – “Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework April 2018”page 7
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-
04/australian_radioactive_waste_management_framework.pdf

And what about the requirement of the diagnostic isotope for Australians? It is afterall in our best interests to maintain this? This is an interesting question. In Senate Estimates Adi Paterson in 2017 stated…. ”As we submitted to the question on notice, currently approximately 28 per cent of molybdenum-99 produced by ANSTO is used domestically. Approximately 72 per cent of Mo-99 produced by ANSTO is exported, meeting a global need for access to life-saving nuclear medicines.” https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%
2Festimate%2F0493150c-8738-423c-a856- 9cb37d9e9073%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F0493150c-8738-423c-a856- 9cb37d9e9073%2F0000%22

He then goes on to say later at the Senate Estimates, “The research use of isotopes predominantly takes place in our Camperdown facility, where we produce flourine-18, carbon-15 and oxygen-11.
These are cyclotron-based isotopes which are used for different types of clinical development of new imaging techniques, for developing new drugs and understanding the biological function of human living systems. That is a research cost for the production of those isotopes. There are small
amounts of isotopes whose inclusion into clinical trials we support. We do that under a very careful set of rules that ensures that should those clinical trials be successful we will be able to sell into the market the isotopes we produce that have supported the clinical trials. We have very good protocols on that which are very clear. We also sometimes undertake trials with stable isotopes, which are sourced from different jurisdictions. These are not radioactive isotopes, but with our careful tracing capabilities we can make use of those isotopes as well.”

So, even ANSTO is using cyclotrons for generating imaging isotopes! And we actually have imaging/cyclotron partnerships set up in almost every major city in Australia. For example Adelaide has one set up in the SAHMRI building. The thing about cyclotrons is that the isotopes are generatedon site, and do not have a distance factor involved and do not produce nuclear reactor quantities of nuclear waste!

And just for those interested, there are now advancements being made in immunotherapy and nanotechnology which means that patients can now receive treatment in a way which does not disrupt normal cells as a consequence. Immunotherapy is genetically modifying your own cells and
then reinjecting them into you to fight the cancer cells specifically. And nanotechnology is a way of specifically directing chemotherapy drugs specifically to cancer cells. Scott Morrison has injected almost half a billion dollars into Victoria to aid in this cutting edge technology. And neither involve nuclear reactors. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/nanocrystals-could-change-the-waycancer-
is-treated/7079958
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-to-become-globallifesaving-
cancer-treatment-hub-under-budget-boost/newsstory/
7e6e0880ddac37973d1588c56c13a064

But getting back to the quantities of Molybenum-99 produced by ANSTO. Only 28% is used by Australians. This is for 550,000 doses produced per annum. And 72% is exported. Now, ANSTO has a brand new ANM building which they are intending to use to generate 10 MILLION DOSES PER
ANNUM, so that ANSTO can become one of the major players in the global export market. Where was this information in the glossy handouts given to Hawker and Kimba? With higher production of course comes higher levels of nuclear waste. It is one of the reasons why Canada exited the global
market scene because it was too expensive for their own taxpayers to continue to subsidize. 

“Scheduled to be turned on just next year, once the ANM Project is fully operational, Australia will go from producing 550,000 doses of medicine a year to more than 10 million doses a year.“Our medicine production will increase exponentially. We’ll be producing enough medicine to meet more than a quarter of world demand,” said ANSTO CEO Dr Adi Paterson.” https://anstoprod.
cd.pnx.com.au/news/four-million-nuclear-medicine-doses-produced-and-going-strong

The ANM Project received operational licence by ARPANSA in late 2018.So for people like our MP’s to say that we all as Australians use the medical isotopes and therefore are responsible for the nuclear waste generated runs a bit hollow when we are actually propping up a major player in an export market!…..”

June 18, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, health | Leave a comment

Why we must fight miners’ push to fast-track uranium mines

Expensive, dirty and dangerous: why we must fight miners’ push to fast-track uranium mines  https://theconversation.com/expensive-dirty-and-dangerous-why-we-must-fight-miners-push-to-fast-track-uranium-mines-139966?fbclid=IwAR173tiUPtRX3YkqQh5VlmoWHWWCUHxSFtCFxFIxKtuvI3IaghgbGhAEBAM, Gavin Mudd, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, RMIT University, June 18, 2020    Of all the elements on Earth, none is more strictly controlled under law than uranium. A plethora of international agreements govern its sale and use in energy, research and nuclear weapons.

Australian environmental law considers nuclear actions, such as uranium mining, as a “matter of national environmental significance” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This means uranium involves matters of national and international concern for which the Australian government is solely responsible.

The states, which own minerals, cannot exercise such oversight on uranium exports and use. So any new uranium mine needs both state and federal environmental approvals.

The Minerals Council of Australia wants to change this. In a submission to a ten-year review of the EPBC Act, the council argues that uranium’s special treatment is redundant, as environmental risks are already addressed in state approval processes.

On Monday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that BHP’s proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam copper-uranium-gold-silver mine in South Australia was one of 15 major projects set to be fast-tracked for environmental approval. This would include a single, joint state and federal assessment.

But responsibility and past performance make a compelling case to maintain our federal environmental laws more than ever. Here’s why uranium mining must remain a federal issue.

Our international obligations

Australia is a signatory to several international treaties, conventions and agreements concerning nuclear activities and uranium mining and export.

These include safeguards to ensure Australian uranium is used only for peaceful nuclear power or research, and not military uses.

As of the end of 2018, the nuclear material safeguarded under international agreements derived from our uranium exports totalled 212,052 tonnes – including 201.6 tonnes of separated plutonium.

Making sure our uranium trading partners don’t redirect that material for the wrong purpose has been the raison d’être of our nuclear foreign policy since 1977. It’s clearly a national legal and moral obligation, and something the states simply cannot do.

In response, a spokesperson for the Minerals Council of Australia said a national mechanism to manage safeguards already exists through the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, adding:

Uranium is further regulated through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) […] under the provisions of the ARPANS Regulations 1999. The object of the ARPANS Act is “to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation”.

But ARPANSA regulates radiation safety and not uranium exports. If uranium mining was removed as a nuclear action, then there would be no public process involving our uranium exports – creating more secrecy and reducing scrutiny.

Successful rehabilitation has yet to be seen

Uranium mines are difficult to rehabilitate at the end of their lives. In my 24 years of research, including visiting most sites, I’ve yet to see a successful case study of Australia’s 11 major uranium mines or numerous small sites.

For example, the Rum Jungle mine near Darwin, which operated from 1954 to 1971, left a toxic legacy of acidic and radioactive drainage and a biologically dead Finniss River.

As a military project for the Cold War, it was Australian government-owned, but operated under contract by a company owned by Rio Tinto. The site was rehabilitated with taxpayer money from 1983-86, but by the mid-1990s the works were failing, and pollution levels were again rising.
The Northern Territory government is proposing a new round of rehabilitation. After accounting for inflation to 2019 dollars, Rum Jungle has cost taxpayers A$875 million for a return of A$139 million. The next round of rehabilitation is expected to cost many millions more.

The former Mary Kathleen mine, also part of Rio Tinto’s corporate history, operated from 1958-63 and 1976-82.

Rehabilitation works were completed by 1986 and won national engineering awards for excellence. But by the late 1990s, acid seepage problems emerged from the tailings dam (where mining by-products are stored) and overlying grasses were absorbing toxic heavy metals, creating a risk for grazing cattle.

Rare earth metals are also present in these tailings, leading to the possibility the tailings will be reprocessed to fund the next round of rehabilitation. The site remains in limbo, despite its Instagram fame.

Both Rum Jungle and Mary Kathleen were rehabilitated to the standards of their day, but they have not withstood the test of time.

Australia’s biggest uranium mine, Ranger, is fast approaching the end of its operating life.

Rio Tinto is also the majority owner of Ranger. Despite Ranger’s recent losses, Rio has retained control and given Ranger hundreds of millions of dollars towards ensuring site operations and rehabilitation.

In recent years the cost of rehabilitation has soared from A$565 million in 2011 to A$897 million in 2019, over which time A$603 million has been spent on rehabilitation works.

Site rehabilitation is required to be complete by January 2026, with Rio Tinto and Ranger assuming 25 years of monitoring – although plans and funding for this are still being finalised.

The legal requirement is that no contaminants should cause environmental impacts for 10,000 years, and no other mine has ever faced such a hurdle.

Recently, it emerged that Ranger had not agreed to continue its share of funding the scientific research required for the rehabilitation – an issue still unresolved. So despite promises of world’s best ever rehabilitation, concerns remain.

The Conversation contacted Rio Tinto to respond, and it referred us to Energy Resources Australia (ERA), which operates Ranger. An ERA spokesperson stated:

Since 1994, ERA has made an annual contribution to research into the environmental effects of uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region under an agreement with the Commonwealth. The agreement provides for a review of funding contributions at fixed periods or at either party’s request to acknowledge changes in Ranger operations.

ERA is required to cease processing in January 2021 in accordance with the expiration of its Authority to Operate under the Commonwealth Atomic Energy Act. Given the impending cessation in processing, ERA believes it is appropriate and reasonable to review the current research funding arrangements.

ERA has followed due process in this matter and welcomes the Commonwealth’s decision to support a process of mediation to resolve the issue.

No other former uranium mine in Australia can claim long-term rehabilitation success. Nabarlek, Radium Hill-Port Pirie, South Alligator Valley and other small mines all have issues such as erosion, weeds, remaining infrastructure, radiation hot-spots and/or water contamination. They all require ongoing surveillance.

Uranium mining is set to be outcompeted

Australia’s uranium export revenue from 1977 to December A$2019 was A$29.4 billion. Lithium has now overtaken uranium in export revenue – from 2017 to 2019, lithium earned Australia two to three times our uranium exports.

Even if Olympic Dam expands (and especially if it stops extracting uranium in favour of tellurium, cobalt and rare earths also present), this trend is expected to increase in the coming years as Ranger closes and the world transitions to renewable energy and electric vehicles to help address climate change.

In response, the Minerals Council of Australia stated that lithium’s contribution to large-scale electricity storage is just beginning, arguing:

With the development of new nuclear technologies such as small modular and micro reactors, the prospects for the future of both uranium and lithium are positive and no one should be picking winners apart from the market.
Ultimately, uranium remains an element with immense potential for misuse – as seen with North Korea and other rogue nuclear states. Federal oversight of uranium mining must remain. After all, the price of peace is eternal vigilance.

June 18, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, reference, uranium | Leave a comment

Gabrielle Costigan- another one revolving from tax-paid jobs to weapons industry!

Gabrielle Costigan MBE   https://www.michaelwest.com.au/gabrielle-costigan-mbe/

MILITARY INDUSTRY REVOLVING DOOR

A former Colonel in the Australian Army who led logistic operations for the Australian and US governments. Left the military to move into a US-based military industry company. Currently, CEO of BAE Systems Australia.

Current Positions

Corporate
CEO, BAE Systems Australia (1.1.18-present)

Publicly funded
Chair, Council for Women and Families United by Defence Service (term: 17.5.19–14.5.2021)

Previous Positions

Corporate positions
CEO (designate), BAE Systems Australia (2.10.17-31.12.17)
CEO, Linfox International Group (May 2014-June 2017)
Vice President, Military Programs and Business Development Commercial Aircraft, VAS Aero Services, LLC (USA) (July 2013-Mar 2014)
Vice President, Military Programs, VAS Aero Services, LLC (USA) (July 2012-June 2013)

Publicly funded positions
Board member, Australia-ASEAN Council [Joined board while at Linfox; no longer listed on board. Emailed DFAT-AAC for dates 15.2.20; no reply]

Military positions
Director, Multi-National Logistics Division, United States Central Command (Jan 2010-July 2012)
Military Assistant to the Chief of Joint Operations Command, Australian Defence Force (Jan 2008-Dec 2009)
Australian Command and Staff College, Australian Defence Force (Jan 2007-Dec 2007)
Australian Army, various positions (Jan 2002-Dec 2006)

Defence departmental positions
Project Manager–Simulation, Defence Department (1999-2002)

Related Items

June 2019: Awarded MBE by the United Kingdom, Queen’s Birthday honours list, “for services to UK/Australia relations.”

June 18, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Another Australian wonderful lead – in CLIMATE DENIAL!!!!

The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds, The Conversation, Caroline Fisher, Co-author of the Digital News Report: Australia 2020, Deputy Director of the News and Media Research Centre, and Assistant Professor of Journalism, University of Canberra, Sora Park, Lead Author of Digital News Report: Australia 2020, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of Canberra, June 16, 2020 Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries. That’s according to new research that surveyed 2,131 Australians about their news consumption in relation to climate change.

The Digital News Report: Australia 2020 was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020.

Read more: Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous

It also found the level of climate change concern varies considerably depending on age, gender, education, place of residence, political orientation and the type of news consumed.

Young people are much more concerned than older generations, women are more concerned than men, and city-dwellers think it’s more serious than news consumers in regional and rural Australia.

15% don’t pay attention to climate change news

More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious.

Out of the 40 countries in the survey, Australia’s 8% of “deniers” is more than double the global average of 3%. We’re beaten only by the US (12%) and Sweden (9%).

While most Australian news consumers think climate change is an extremely or very serious problem (58%), this is still lower than the global average of 69%. Only ten countries in the survey are less concerned than we are.

Strident critics in commercial media

There’s a strong connection between the brands people use and whether they think climate change is serious.

More than one-third (35%) of people who listen to commercial AM radio (such as 2GB, 2UE, 3AW) or watch Sky News consider climate change to be “not at all” or “not very” serious, followed by Fox News consumers (32%)……. https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450

June 18, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, media | Leave a comment

Kimba farmer, neighbouring Napandee, stands firm against nuclear waste dump on agricultural land

Confidential Submission. National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 37  Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste  Management Amendment

I am a farmer residing and working on a cereal crop and sheep property near the nominated site Napandee, within the Kimba District Council region. I have a good understanding of the project and I remain strong in my opposition to the siting of a Radioactive Waste Management Facility on agricultural land. Please find following my response in relation to the site selected.

The site selection process declared that the location should not be on agricultural land. The Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste provided by ARPANSA clearly stated that the siting of a Radioactive Waste Management Facility should not be on agricultural land:
“Section 3.1.29 (a) the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant natural resources, including potentially valuable mineral deposits, and which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use.”

The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Nomination of Land Guidelines, November 2016 also clearly stated in Attachment A, Section A8 under the Community Well Being Objective the criteria: “Is the site located within an area that is likely to be expanded upon for community or industrial use or for natural/agricultural use in the foreseeable future”. The weighting to this criteria when taking site selection into consideration according to the guidelines was stipulated as “High”

Both these documents show that the facility should not be located on agricultural land, and yet the nominated site at Kimba is specifically located on a farm. Directly next to farming country, and entirely neighboured by productive farms.

That this part of the ruling is not being enforced is beyond me. It would be apparent to most people that under best practice the production of food should be separated from the production or storage of nuclear waste. That it is not the case in other countries does not provide adequate reason as to why Australia should lower their standards with regards to this.
It is imperative that this part of the legislation is upheld and made mandatory, rather than being optional. The increased focus globally on the production and storage of food shows that society values a clean green source of food highly and the scrutiny around this is ever increasing.

Lack of Broad Community Support. The requirement for broad community support has never been defined which has created chaos and confusion throughout the process. Neither the definition of community, nor the term “broad” were explained prior to any research being undertaken, so any suggestion of support or otherwise has been clearly manipulated to ensure the required outcome is achieved. The constantly moving goalposts throughout this project has been an obvious undertaking, so that opposition is selectively removed. The division and angst created through the district is genuine and has had devastating effects. It has bred an attitude of bullying and intimidation, resulting
in a strong feeling of mistrust throughout the community.

Project of Best Practice. I note that a recent development project of significant size occurring on the Eyre Peninsula has secured an Aboriginal Land Use Agreement (ALUA) showing genuine commitment to working with the Barngala people in an inclusive manner. It provides evidence that the Barngala people are not opposed to development within their region, and for the Australian Government to not be able to achieve a similar agreement with the Barngala people should be a significant red flag process to trample over the opinions of both the Barngala people and the South Australian people. In
the attempts of best practice, ensuring that the South Australian law prohibiting the storage of nuclear material is upheld (not overridden) and that the unanimous opposition shown by the local indigenous community is acknowledged (not overridden) this site should have been removed as a contender. While overriding these things is possible, it clearly does not support the attitude of a “best practice” approach.

If the government was genuinely focussed on best practice, there would be a good explanation as to why the Leonora, WA site has been continually disregarded. I can only feel that there is a political agenda being pushed here, rather than a genuine effort to find a permanent solution.

June 16, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Scott Morrison gives a boost to uranium mining at Olympic Dam

Poor old BHP. My  heart bleeds!     The so-called “Big Australian”  (about 70% owned by overseas interests), is so poor that it’s had to get exemptions from just about every regulation that matters.  The SA Roxby Downs Indenture Act legislation allows the mine to operate with wide-ranging exemptions from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Natural Resources Act, and the Freedom of Information Act.   There are constant problems with tailings such as ongoing seepage and large numbers of bird deaths.  

Probably  worst of all,  BHP plans to increase extraction of precious Great Artesian Basin water to an average 50 million litres per day for the next 25 years, with likely serious adverse impacts on the unique and fragile Mound Springs ‒ which are listed as an Endangered Ecological Community and are of significant cultural importance to Aboriginal people.

BHP plans to  to increase extraction of Great Artesian Basin fossil water “up to total maximum 50 million litres a day annual average” (above the volumes last assessed in 1997 and set at a max of 42 Ml/day) and give BHP rights to take GAB water – potentially up to 2070
Mining industries are becoming increasingly mechanised and automated.  If Scott Morrison were serious about promoting jobs, he’d be giving support to the service industries. But then, that would mean more jobs for women, and of course, Australia needs more “real’ jobs, blokey jobs

Olympic Dam expansion on fast track,e InDaily, 15 June 20

The Olympic Dam expansion is being fast-tracked as part of a Federal Government plan to boost employment and reduce the length and severity of the coronavirus-induced recession.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is expected to today announce $1.5 billion to immediately start work on priority projects identified by the states and territories…….

BHP is proposing for a staged increase in copper production at Olympic Dam from 200,000 to up to 350,000 tonnes per annum.

The expansion has been granted Major Development status by the state government  …. https://indaily.com.au/news/2020/06/15/olympic-dam-expansion-on-fast-track/

June 16, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, Olympic Dam, politics | Leave a comment

Coalition’s push to deregulate environmental approvals will lead to extinction crisis

Scientists fear Coalition’s push to deregulate environmental approvals will lead to extinction crisis
Scott Morrison’s announcement in wake of bushfires is ‘distressing’ and puts threatened species at risk, ecologists say, Guardian,   Lisa Cox, Tue 16 Jun 2020  Scientists have expressed dismay and frustration at Scott Morrison’s latest push to deregulate the environmental approval process for major developments, noting it comes just months after an unprecedented bushfire crisis and during a review of national conservation laws.In a speech on Monday, the prime minister said he wanted to slash approval times for major projects by moving to a streamlined “single touch” system for state and federal environmental assessments.

Morrison said the change would be informed by the review of Australia’s environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, which is under way. But his speech did not mention the environment or the act’s objectives to protect threatened species and ecosystems. ……

Scientists and environmentalists argue the act is failing to prevent an extinction crisis. Just 22 of 6,500 projects referred for approval have been knocked back in the act’s 20-year history.

Australia has the world’s highest rate of mammalian extinction. Reporting by Guardian Australia has found the government has failed to implement or track measures for species known to be at risk, stopped listing major threats to species, and not registered a single piece of critical habitat for 15 years.

The listing of species and ecosystems as threatened has been delayed by successive ministers, funding has been directed to projects that did not benefit threatened species and hundreds of plants and animals have been identified as requiring urgent attention after the summer bushfire disaster.

The government has framed its commentary about the review around a desire to speed up approval times for projects as the country moves out of the economic shutdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. …..

Megan Evans, an environmental policy researcher at the University of New South Wales in Canberra, said one of the reasons approvals could be slow was because the capacity of the public service had been cut. …… we have highly ambiguous wording [in the act] which provides maximum discretion to the minister that reduces certainty and puts all power in the hands of the minister of the day. You can’t on one hand complain about the lack of certainty but then on the other shy away from measures that would actually provide greater certainty.”

The climate scientist, Bill Hare, said Australia’s approach to its natural environment was damaging not only for the country’s ecosystems, but its democracy…….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/16/scientists-fear-push-to-deregulate-environmental-approvals-will-lead-to-extinction-crisis

June 16, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Is Napandee another Maralinga?

Kim Mavromatis Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges, 15 June 20, 

The similarities between Napandee and Maralinga are frightening.

The dangers of British Nuclear Bomb Testing and Radioactive Fallout were downplayed and sugarcoated by the British and a complicit Australian Federal govt at Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950’s and 60’s.
In 2020, 60 years later, the dangers of Radioactive Nuclear Waste, to be dumped on farmland in South Australia, is also being sugarcoated and downplayed by the federal govt.
Spent Nuclear Fuel (other nations classify as High-Level Radioactive Nuclear Waste, which is 10,000 times more radioactive that uranium ore) and reprocessed Spent Nuclear Fuel (still contains 95% of the radioactivity of HLRNW), is to be transported halfway across Australia, from Lucas Heights in NSW and other unknown sites, and dumped at a farmland facility in South Australia.
The Federal govt sugarcoating of the Radioactive Nuclear Waste dumps process is eerily similar to the way the British and complicit Australian Federal govt at the time handled Nuclear Bomb testing and Radioactive Fallout at Maralinga. Aboriginal rights (and the Black Lives Matter movement) are being swept aside in South Australia by the Australian Federal govt, just like Maralinga, and the farmland site selected for the radioactive nuclear waste dumps, Napandee, near Kimba on Eyre Peninsula, has the potential to become another notorious modern-day Maralinga.
ABC series “Operation Buffalo” about British Nuclear Bomb testing at Maralinga.  ABC TV : Sundays at 830pm  https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/

June 15, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australia’s Environment Laws have no teeth, are in much need of strengthening

‘No checks, no balances’: push for change to environment laws, The Age, By Mike Foley, June 14, 2020 Australia’s 20-year-old flagship environmental protection laws are failing badly and in urgent need of an overhaul, the crossbench senator who helped the Howard government install the landmark legislation says.

“Clearly it’s not working well,” former Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said ahead of an imminent review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. “The most obvious failure is despite the fact conditions can be attached to project approvals, there are just so many cases where conditions aren’t adhered to. There are no efforts to check and no penalties.”

Mr Bartlett stared down bitter opposition from some powerful players in the conservation movement and sided with the Howard government against Labor and the Greens to vote for legislation in 1999.

The act was an attempt by the Howard government to modernise environmental protection laws and was controversial because it significantly increased the environment minister’s powers, such as allowing them to intervene in project approvals to protect threatened species.

Since the act’s introduction, Australia’s list of nationally threatened species and ecosystems has grown by more than one-third – from 1483 to 1974.

The act is being reviewed by the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Graeme Samuel, who is due to complete his report for Environment Minister Sussan Ley later this month.

Both conservationists and industry are unhappy with the application of the act. Conservation groups say successive governments have not used the powers in the act to protect threatened species, while industry argues the act has delayed development because of so-called “green law-fare”.

Australian Conservation Foundation policy co-ordinator James Trezise said “the idea that vexatious litigation is rife under national environment law is not borne out by the evidence”.

“There have been less than 50 public interest cases under the EPBC Act in 20 years,” he said.

Professor Hugh Possingham, one of the scientists who advised the Howard government on the legislation, said the act had failed to protect the environment.

“There’s no ambiguity in the science, the EPBC Act isn’t delivering,” Professor Possingham told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. ……

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists’ submission to Mr Samuel’s review said the “objectives of the [EPBC] act are not being met”….. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-checks-no-balances-push-for-change-to-environment-laws-20200610-p55180.html

June 15, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Government -owned Woomera a better site than agricultural land, for nuclear waste dump

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Town of Kimba depicted as failing, desperate to have nuclear waste dump for its survival

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, secrets and lies, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Former weapons chief executive now South Australian Premier’s top advisor

This could shed some light on the South Australian government’s silence on the Federal plan for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.  We can expect the South Australian government to now support the nuclear waste dump at Napandee, and to promote schemes to make south Australia a nuclear hub, especially with nuclear submarines production.

 

June 13, 2020 Posted by | politics, secrets and lies, South Australia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Anne Wharton- appalled at exclusion of Barngarla from nuclear waste dump decision-making: a national issue, not just local

Anne Wharton to Senate Committee on  National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]  Submission 43 
I am appalled at the Federal Government’s decision to site a nuclear waste dump at
Kimba. I am especially appalled that the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation
were denied the right to vote in the community ballot and the Federal Court has now
dismissed their appeal. The people in these communities have never been asked what they
think about having a nuclear waste dump on their land, and they need to be listened to.
This is a huge transgression of their basic human rights.
For the last 20 years, SA has had legislation prohibiting any nuclear waste dump being
established in SA (the “Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000”).
Recently the Federal Morrison Government has introduced legislation to over-ride this
legislation. This is appalling – another violation of every citizen’s basic human rights.
I urge the Federal Government to withdraw this Bill and observe the rights of all citizens.
As this affects every citizen of Australia, there should be a national inquiry into the need
for, and role of, a national nuclear waste dump in Australia.

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australian Government’s Covid-19 advisory body – stacked with fossil fuel big-wigs, but their conflicts of interest kept secret

June 13, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »