Felicity Wright: appalled at effect on Aboriginal communities of decision on National Radioactive Waste Dump Site
Felicity Wright – Submision to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 98
I am a resident of the Eyre Peninsula. Whilst the bulk of this email has been taken from the ACF template I
confirm that I endorse the contents fully. As an ally and advocate for Indigenous peoples for more than 30 years
I was appalled at the terrible toll fighting the nuclear waste facility in the Flinders Ranges took upon my friends.
I watched one of my closest friends visibly age as she surrendered her art practice and her enjoyment of life to
dedicate herself to challenging it.
It does not escape my attention that the Eyre Peninsula is a significant distance from the east coast and few
politicians would be familiar with the area. Neither would their electorates, therefore it looks like a convenient
location to store something highly problematic.
I have deep concerns about the federal governments proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste
Management Act. The government has not made a clear case about the need for the planned national facility at Kimba and the process has been restricted and inadequate.
In particular, I am concerned that the planned changes:
• restrict or remove options for judicial review of the government’s site selection under current laws
• unreasonably reduce the rights and options of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and other directly
impacted parties and have not been made with proper consultation
• exempt key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws from being used.
• fail to make any clear or compelling radiological or public health case for doubling handling the long-lived
intermediate level waste (ILW) at significant public expense
• do not provide any certainty about the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive waste
• are not consistent with international best practice in relation to siting, community consultation or
procedural fairness around radioactive waste
• do not recognise or respect long standing South Australian legislation prohibiting any federal radioactive
waste facility
Against the current context of uncertainty and disruption due to the impact of Covid 19 the further uncertainty
and contest generated by the federal government’s approach to radioactive waste is not helpful or justified.
I urge the Committee not to support the proposed changes to the current legislation and instead call for a
dedicated comprehensive review of management options in order to best realise responsible radioactive waste
management in Australia.
Terry Schmucker- unfairness of community funding for nuclear dump has split the local community
It is on advice from the Kimba consultative committee that the existing funding boundary has been set. The promise of many millions of dollars isolated to one particular local government area has changed our community and the way it works. This has also extended to communication and consultation……
I ask also that funding amounts allocated to different council areas be set in law to protect vulnerable neighbourhoodslike ours from bullying and manipulation.
Terry Schmucker. SUBMISSION TO: SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification,
Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 92
I would like to put forward my views on some of the impacts this has had on my
neighbourhood and the flaws in the process that have not been addressed. This Bill should not
be accepted as there remain many unanswered questions about naming Napandee as the site.
Firstly, to limit community funding to one particular local government area will harm the
community and put the Radioactive Waste Management Facility at odds with local residents.
I live in a neighbourhood that has our land areas also known as hundreds split in half by two
local government jurisdictions; Kimba and Wudinna District Councils.
The hundreds of Cootra and Koongawa have a long and proud history of working together
and the majority of people here have descended from the original pioneers with a strong
sense of community that came from the history of schooling, socialising, and sporting clubs
covering different local government areas. Continuation of this community spirit is still most
evident in the current Koongawa sports club and the Cootra volunteer CFS brigade. Members
come from both council districts; however the majority of support comes from outside the
Kimba district. For example our CFS brigade responds to incidents in the area around or near
the proposed waste facility and it will again in the future. The majority of brigade members
will not receive any or little support from the community funding if it is limited to just the
Kimba council area.
Our neighbourhood borders the waste site at Napandee and some of my neighbours who live
in the Wudinna district are physically closer to the waste site than the Kimba township. I
have personally brought this to the attention of Minister Canavan, the Department and the
Kimba council, but with no results. I believe vested interests have excluded us from this
process. If our neighbourhood had been given an equal status in the vote we would likely
have a different result. This was the case at Hawker where the vote extended to a 50 km
radius around the waste site as well as the council area. The selected site at Napandee site is
not at Kimba and is offset within the council area.
Before the consultative committee member application process closed, my questioning
prompted the Department to announce that applicants from outside of the council area would
also be accepted. This created a fair bit of confusion and the nominations closed three days
later as scheduled. No extension was given and all the members appointed to the consultative
committee are only from within the Kimba district council area except for the independent
chairman who is not a local. This was the beginning of a bias towards our neighbourhood that
didn’t exist before.
Sue Woolford recommends the Canadian model for selecting a Nuclear Waste Facility Site
I would like to draw the committee’s attention to the Canadian leading example which has
empowered communities to self-nominate for assessment in a long-term process called
“Adaptive Phase Management”2 ensuring trust is being gained in communities prior to any
final site selection for radioactive waste disposal in a deep geological repository over a long
established timeline.
I could not support the proposal as it stands.
The Kimba District Council has not done its due diligence to request an an independent risk analysis for the people it
represents
Sue Woolford SUBMISSION TO SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
RE: Inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site
Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission No 91
I would like to put forward my personal views on how acceptance of this Bill would be doing
an injustice to the responsible management of radioactive waste in Australia.
I am critical of this current process but not the value of nuclear medicine and the need to
find the right long term solution to benefit all Australians. I have advocated for a fair and
transparent process that instils trust in the public domain and believe that the National
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 and this Bill need to have proper assessment to
deliver to all Australians a morally and legally acceptable Act with lessons learnt.
The government department responsible have initiated a consultation and site selection
process under the current Act but have not truly engaged meaningfully with all
stakeholders. Standards have not conformed alongside the principles of the International
Association for Public Participation1 (IAP2) and the spectrum of public participation which is
used internationally.
I believe if more of these principles were applied to provide objective information and listen
to feedback then the key challenges to site the nations radioactive waste into a central
location with community confidence would be taken to a new level of credibility and
assurances. My submission deals with finding the right solution instead of a second rate
option in my hometown.
Currently, I don’t believe the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 has
allowed for the best and safest sites to be voluntarily put forward. The extinguishment of
Native Title holder’s rights and the Commonwealth having the authority to override states
and territories has only confirmed that the Australian example is inconsistent with world’s
best practice and is an abominable act that takes away rights of review to ensure a fair and
transparent process. Continue reading
Australian govt and ERA squabble over monitoring of Ranger uranium clean-up
|
Ranger Mine locked in stoush over funding for Kakadu uranium rehabilitation monitoring https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-19/nt-kakadu-uranium-stoush-ranger-mine-rehabilitation/12260130 By Jane Bardon,
The Federal Government is locked in a stoush with the company mining uranium on the edge of the Northern Territory’s Kakadu National Park over whether it will continue to fund monitoring of the site’s rehabilitation. Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) has flagged it wants to pull out of paying $2.5 million a year for the Supervising Scientist Branch independent monitoring agency, which it funds with the Commonwealth, at the end of June.
Community members of ERA’s independent technical consultation committee, including Dr Gavin Mudd, an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at RMIT University, have been told by the Supervising Scientist Branch its future research is in doubt because of the funding uncertainty. “That funding is no longer guaranteed for next year is a major concern,” Dr Mudd said. “This work is needed to give us confidence that what is done at Ranger actually works, including the restoration of ecosystems, how stable the landform is, the radioactivity and the surface and groundwater water quality issues.” Dr Mudd said failures in the rehabilitation of other Northern Territory uranium mines, including Rum Jungle near Bachelor, have demonstrated that there will need to be monitoring for decades after Ranger’s closure. ERA, which is owned by Rio Tinto, has been forced to close the mine by 2021 after a series of uranium leaks and spills into the Alligator Rivers system during its 35 years of operations. The company has promised the mine site will be returned to a pristine state, suitable for inclusion in the Kakadu World Heritage park by 2026, and that monitoring by the Supervising Scientist will prove that. The Federal Government provides three-quarters of the Supervising Scientist’s $8 million annual operating budget. ERA told the ABC it hasn’t made a final decision on the funding. “There has been no decision that ERA’s contribution would cease. But a spokesman for the Federal Environment Minister told the ABC the Government felt it was “unfortunate that ERA is choosing to dispute its ongoing contribution under the Deed”. “The role of the Supervising Scientist ensures the unique environment of Kakadu National Park, its Indigenous culture and its stunning wildlife are protected from the effects of uranium mining within that rehabilitation process and into the future,” he said. “The Commonwealth view is that ERA needs to continue to make an appropriate contribution to support ongoing research during the rehabilitation phase of the mine to ensure there are no shortfalls.” The spokesman added that the Minister Sussan Ley has asked the Environment Department to mediate with ERA to try to resolve the dispute. |
|
The Morrison government manipulates, to paint the coal industry as “clean” and “renewable”
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has this awkward word “Clean”
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has this awkward word “Renewable”
How can the those agencies put coal into those categories? With some difficulty.
My heart goes out to them, -like those poor gardeners in “Alice in Wonderland” – forced to paint red all the white roses , lest the Queen should cut off their heads.
Government looks to carbon capture for climate action, The Age By Mike Foley, May 19, 2020 The Morrison government is considering legislative changes to allow its clean energy agencies to fund carbon capture and storage from fossil fuel projects in a bid to unlock $2 billion of private investment to reduce greenhouse gases.
Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor has accepted 21 of the 26 recommendations from an independent panel reviewing the $2 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, including all those relating to carbon capture and storage.
The panel, chaired by former Business Council of Australia president Grant King, said the government would attract more private investment in the Emissions Reduction Fund if legislation were amended to “enable a method to be developed for carbon capture and storage”.
The King report also recommended an “expanded, technology-neutral remit” for the Clean Energy Finance Corp (CEFC) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency so they too could attract more private investment in a wider range of technologies outside renewables, such as coal or gas-fired power incorporating carbon capture and storage. This would be a significant change to the remit of the agencies, which were set up to promote the development of renewable wind and solar supplied to the electricity grid.
Carbon capture and storage, which has not yet been successfully implemented on a commercial basis, involves capturing carbon dioxide from industrial processes and transporting it to a suitable storage site for safe, long-term storage deep underground.
Mr Taylor said emissions reduction policy driven by “technology not taxes” would attract significant private investment.
“The government will target dollar-for-dollar co-investment from the private sector and other levels of government to drive at least $4 billion of investment that will reduce emissions across Australia,” he said in a statement accompanying the report’s release.
The Climate Solutions Fund was set up in 2015 with $2.5 billion funding under the Abbott government as an alternative to a carbon tax. It pays polluters to employ cleaner technologies and funds carbon capture through tree planting, soil carbon sequestration on farms and energy efficient systems in commercial properties, as well as methane capture from landfill and waste management.
Last year, the Morrison government topped up the fund with another $2 billion and rebadged it the Climate Solutions Fund. To date, it has issued 450 contracts to abate a cumulative 190 million tonnes of carbon at a total cost of $2.3 billion, or an average of $12 a tonne of carbon…….
Current legislation prohibits CEFC from investing in carbon capture and storage. But changing the legislation would enable the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund to invest in new gas, hydrogen and coal projects relying on carbon capture.
….
Morrison govt plans to direct climate action measures to promote coal industry
Coalition reveals new emissions reduction measures, including paying polluters to stay under capMorrison government also plans to allow businesses to bid for carbon capture projects via the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund Guardian Adam Morton Environment editor @adamlmorton 19 May 2020
Big polluters will be able to earn revenue by emitting less than their allocated limit under new emissionsThe Morrison government has promised new measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including introducing an incentive scheme to allow big industrial polluters to earn revenue by emitting less than an agreed limit.
It also plans to allow businesses to bid for funding from its main climate policy, the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund, for projects that capture emissions and either use them or store them underground.
Angus Taylor, the energy and emissions reduction minister, said the government had agreed to 21 of 26 recommendations in a review headed by former Business Council of Australia president Grant King, who was charged with coming up with new ways to cheaply cut emissions.
The appointment in October of the panel of business leaders and policy experts was not publicly announced, and was seen by observers as an effective concession the emissions reduction fund, now rebadged as a climate solutions fund, was failing to cut national pollution………
Recommendations agreed by the government included allowing carbon capture and storage projects to qualify under the fund, a step the government said it had began consulting with industry on last month.
In a shift likely to be criticised by clean energy advocates, the government gave in-principle support for two agencies, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), to be given a “technology neutral remit” to support “the widest possible range of technologies that reduce emissions”. The Greens previously accused the government of planning changes to the CEFC to allow it to fund more fossil fuel projects……
Recommendations agreed by the government included allowing carbon capture and storage projects to qualify under the fund, a step the government said it had began consulting with industry on last month.
In a shift likely to be criticised by clean energy advocates, the government gave in-principle support for two agencies, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), to be given a “technology neutral remit” to support “the widest possible range of technologies that reduce emissions”. The Greens previously accused the government of planning changes to the CEFC to allow it to fund more fossil fuel projects…….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/19/coalition-reveals-new-emissions-reduction-measures-including-paying-polluters-to-stay-under-cap
John Barilaro got it so wrong about Britain and small nuclear reactors
|
Electrical Review 4th May 2020
 I have to conclude that the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilaro, is a remarkable clairvoyant. He has announced unequivocally on Australian media that Rolls Royce is set to build up to 15 new small-size nuclear reactors in Britain over the next nine years.Strange this. Just 18 months ago, according to the Financial Times, Rolls-Royce was preparing to shut down altogether its R&D project to develop small modular nuclear reactors, unless the British government agreed to an outrageous set of demands and subsidies. Granted the Johnson government has bunged them a few million to keep the R&D going.
But there is as yet no sign of anything being oven-ready to come to the marketplace, let alone 15 up and running. But there remain some rather disturbing connections between small reactor projects and nuclear weapons proliferation. And Rolls-Royce does offer up one of the most glaring examples. Part of the company’s current sales pitch to the British government includes the argument that a civil small-reactor industry in the UK “would relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability” for its weapons programme. It may be true. But it is not really Atoms for Peace, , is it? https://electricalreview.co.uk/features-mm/13082-mystic-meg-from-down-under |
|
New climate models suggest that Australia could reach 7C temperature rise by 2100
Just how hot will it get this century? Latest climate models suggest it could be worse than we thought, The Conversation, May 18, 2020 , Michael Grose, Climate Projections Scientist, CSIRO, Julie Arblaster, Associate Professor, Monash University Climate scientists use mathematical models to project the Earth’s future under a warming world, but a group of the latest models have included unexpectedly high values for a measure called “climate sensitivity”.
Climate sensitivity refers to the relationship between changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warming.
The high values are an unwelcome surprise. If they’re right, it means a hotter future than previously expected – warming of up to 7℃ for Australia by 2100 if emissions continue to rise unabated.
Cameron and Toni Scott: brief but compelling critique of National Radioactive Waste Management
Cameron and Toni Scott – to Senate Committee on
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 82
We are active residents of the Kimba Community and are involved with many community organisations within
the town. We own and operate a farming business and have 3 small children.
Over the past 5 years my husband and I have been involved with this process as direct neighbours of the first
round of nominations at Kimba. We have found the process inconsistencies extremely frustrating and stressful.
I ask that you please take our views and recommendations into consideration and I would be happy to be
called as a witness to provide further information in the form of a hearing.
Ballot figures were manipulated to justify broad community support.
– Voting boundaries were restricted and disregarded active members of our community who live within
close proximity to Kimba and Napandee site.
– Submissions from locals living alongside site but outside council boundary were ignored or considered
not relevant for the Minister to report on.
– 94.5% of all submissions received were opposed to the siting of this facility in Kimba.
– Petitions were not reported in Ministers announcements.
– Doubling handling of ILW waste is unnecessary, costly and
– Farming land is not a suitable location for radioactive waste
We recommend that the Government please further investigate options of more suitable land that could
potentially permanently dispose of both LLW and ILW radioactive waste to rule out double handling and
separating the waste.
We also recommend that the Department and Minister Canavan’s figures used to justify Broad Community
Support be looked at in depth, as it is so important that a site such as a National Radioactive Waste Facility
which would be a permanent fixture of our Community does in fact have the broad community support
required for a successful outcome.
Marty and Rachel Yates: the wrong nuclear dump process- individuals nominate their own land for their own personal gain
The current process where individuals nominate their own land for their own personal gain and then seek community support is completely backwards and does nothing but cause angst and divide communities.
We recommend the Committee:
Withdraw or reject the Bill on the grounds that neighbour support has not been met. The 100%
direct neighbour support is based on just two landowners as the majority of the land
surrounding the Napandee site is owned by the nominator themselves. Almost half of the
neighbours within the 5km radius to this site remain opposed. This does not constitute broad
neighbour support.
As farmers and neighbours to the selected site, it is of deep concern that radioactive waste could
be allowed to jeopardise Kimba and the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. The entire Eyre
Peninsula is very proud of its clean and green image, however, if a nuclear waste dump is
constructed in Kimba, no matter which way you look at it, the Eyre Peninsula will never be able to
lay claim to this image again. Clean and green does not go together with nuclear/radioactive
waste.
Marty & Rachel Yates – to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 90
We are very close neighbours to the Napandee site and are active members of the Kimba
community where we continue to live, farm and raise our young family. We are third generation
farmers and completely devastated with the news that Napandee has been selected as the site to
host the National Radioactive Waste Management facility (NRWMF) because this means the
facility will be forced upon us. We would never ever choose to live near a radioactive waste dump.
Our small country town has been targeted since 2015 when Rowan Ramsey initiated the proposal
that his property in Kimba could host the national radioactive waste facility. Since then, our once
close knit community has been torn apart by a flawed process that has been designed to divide
and conquer with the promise of jobs and money. The damage caused by this process is real and
will be lasting.
It has been extremely difficult and stressful five years for us. We have done our utmost to
request a fair, open and transparent process but instead have been presented with a very one
sided affair where the goal posts have constantly moved.
We were neighbours to the original nominated site at Cortlinye which was removed, along with
Pinkawillinie, from the process in 2016 due to lack of community support. To our dismay, a group
of locals did not accept this decision and in early 2017 proceeded to nominate two more sites in
Kimba. One called ‘Napandee’ and one called ‘Lyndhurst’. Despite being told by the Department of
Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) that this would never come back to Pinkawillinie, it did,
because Napandee is located in the Hundred of Pinkawillinie. We now find ourselves even closer
neighbours to the Napandee site than we were to Cortlinye. We have continually stated our
opposition as neighbours but because we don’t share a fence it feels like we don’t really matter.
As farmers and neighbours to the selected site, it is of deep concern that radioactive waste could
be allowed to jeopardise Kimba and the Eyre Peninsula’s agricultural industries. The entire Eyre
Peninsula is very proud of its clean and green image, however, if a nuclear waste dump is
constructed in Kimba, no matter which way you look at it, the Eyre Peninsula will never be able to
lay claim to this image again. Clean and green does not go together with nuclear/radioactive
waste.
Only 4.5% of South Australia is arable land. There is so much unproductive land in the whole of
Australia that would be a more suitable option than farming land to store radioactive waste. This
is where the current process falls down because it only allows nominations from volunteer
landowners so even though there may be better options out there, this process won’t allow them
to be considered because they have not volunteered.
We find it staggering that Kimba was allowed to re-enter the process after initially being removed
due to lack of community support but the Leonora nomination was not accepted even though they
say they are able to provide a final deep burial site for Australia’s most toxic waste which would
completely remove the need to double handle the waste and save many tax payer dollars. Continue reading
The push to weaken Australia’s law regulating the uranium industry, in the review of Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act
Uranium, extinction, expedited approvals and extreme risks: the need for stronger environmental laws, https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20887
| By Mia Pepper – 14 May 2020 |
This year a Review Committee is examining the cornerstone of Australia’s environmental laws – the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. This review comes hot on the heels of three inquiries into nuclear power driven by conservative politicians and pressure from the nuclear lobby. This cohort are pushing for the removal of laws banning nuclear power, a push the current federal government has already ruled out.
They are also pushing to weaken regulatory requirements for uranium mine assessments through the EPBC Act. There is currently no national prohibition on uranium mining, but prohibitions exist in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, WA, Tasmania and Victoria. SA and the NT have a long and contested history of supplying uranium to fuel nuclear power plants overseas. Uranium from SA and the NT fuelled the Fukushima reactor during the 2011 meltdowns, fires and explosions ‒ a discomforting legacy given that there was ample evidence long before the Fukushima disaster of corruption and inadequate safety standards in Japan’s nuclear industry.
Following the Fukushima disaster the UN Secretary General advised that Australia have “an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of mining fissionable material on local communities and ecosystems.” No such assessment has been carried out. Worse still, the appointment of a former uranium mining company executive to the EPBC Review Committee suggests that there may be some support within the government for a weakening of uranium mining regulations rather than the necessary strengthening.
The reality of uranium mining in Australia has been one of leaks, spills, accidents, license breaches and a failure to rehabilitate. Of the 15 uranium mines that have operated, just two are still mining (Olympic Dam and Beverley Four Mile), one is preparing for closure (Ranger), another is preparing for a second round of rehabilitation failing previous attempts (Rum Jungle), three are on life support in extended care and maintenance; and the remaining sites are all contaminated and require ongoing monitoring and maintenance at the expense of taxpayers.
That track-record strongly suggests the need for greater scrutiny and a strengthening not a weakening of regulations. Proposed changes by the nuclear industry include changing the definition of ‘nuclear actions’ in the EPBC Act to remove the “mining and milling” of uranium. The impact of this would reduce requirements for whole-of-environment assessments for uranium projects and reduce federal oversight. Existing processes desperately need improvement given recent failures around transparency, upholding principles and objects of environmental laws, political influence in decision making, expedited process and unfounded exemptions.
The Ranger uranium mine in the tropical NT, owned by Rio Tinto and operated by ERA, will begin rehabilitation in 2021, a project set to cost in excess of $1 billion. There are ongoing concerns about the funding and adequacy of the proposed rehabilitation. Meeting the regulatory requirement to secure radioactive wastes and other toxins from the environment for 10,000 years is inherently difficult, not least because there is a long history of routine, daily leakage of large volumes of contaminated liquid.
Not far from Ranger, the government-owned Rum Jungle mine has been leaking radioactive and acidic materials into the East Branch of the Finniss River since it was closed in 1971. The NT government has released new plans to remediate the site which is likely to cost in excess of $300 million, but there is still no commitment from the NT or Federal governments to fund this important work.
The legacy threats from uranium mines are unlike the threats from other mines and a repeated failure to contain this waste suggests that mining uranium should be banned, or at the very least have the strictest possible regulations.
There are many other examples of industry and regulatory failure. At the former uranium mine at Radium Hill in SA, the tailings dam was shoddily constructed and was not capped when the mine closed. The Port Pirie uranium treatment plant in SA is still contaminated over 50 years after its closure. SA regulators failed to detect a mining exploration company’s dumping of low-level radioactive waste in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. At the Beverley Four Mile in-situ leach uranium mine in SA, contaminated wastewater is routinely dumped in groundwater ‒ a process permitted by regulators who should know better.
In yet another regulatory failure, BHP’s proposal for a new tailing’s facility at its Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine in SA has been fast-tracked without requirements for federal approval. The decision not to assess the new tailings dam came after the Australian National Committee on Large Dams gave three existing tailings dams at Olympic Dam a risk ranking of ‘extreme’ – this ranking is given to tailings facilities that if failed would cause the death of over 100 people. The independent review of tailings followed the Samarco tailings disaster in Brazil, a joint venture project between BHP and Vale, which killed 19 people. The new proposed tailings should be assessed to determine the risk and likelihood of failure; instead, the facility has been fast-tracked avoiding scrutiny under the EPBC Act.
Cameco’s proposed Yeelirrie mine in WA provides another example of unseemly haste and unseemly exemptions. The WA EPA recommended that Yeelirrie not be approved because of the likelihood the mine would cause multiple species extinctions. Despite this recommendation the former State Environment Minister approved the mine weeks before losing his seat and the Liberal party lost Government in the 2017 WA election. In a similar scenario, the mine was given federal approval on the eve of announcing the 2019 federal election. That federal approval followed direct lobbying of Ministers and the Department and resulted in a set of conditions that no longer require the company to prove the mine won’t cause species extinction.
A 2003 report by the federal Senate References and Legislation Committee found “a pattern of underperformance and non-compliance” in the uranium mining industry and it concluded that changes were necessary “in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage”. The same could be said now. Subsequent reviews of uranium mining regulations in Queensland, WA and Canada identify unique risks with uranium mining and calls for improved and increased regulations that meet those specific challenges and risks.
The push from the industry to weaken regulations should be wholeheartedly rejected and instead the EPBC Committee could consider advice from former UN Secretary General to hold an “in-depth” assessment of the uranium sector and its impacts.
The torture that awaits Julian Assange in the US.
From the frying pan into the fire. The torture that awaits Julian Assange in the US.https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/05/10/from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire-the-torture-that-awaits-julian-assange-in-the-us/
Tom Coburg 10th May 2020 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is currently held in Belmarsh prison awaiting hearings that could see him extradited to the US to face prosecution for alleged espionage-related offences.
Award-winning US journalist Chris Hedges described the torture that would await Assange in the US prison system, adding “they will attempt to psychologically destroy him”. If extradited, Assange would likely be detained in accordance with ‘Special Administrative Measures’ (SAMs). One report equates this to a regime of sensory deprivation and social isolation that may amount to torture.
Journalists speak out
US journalist Chris Hedges spoke about the treatment Assange is likely to receive in the US. He argues that the US authorities will “psychologically destroy him” and that conditions imposed could see him turned into a ‘zombie’ to face life without parole:
Australian journalist John Pilger agrees:
If Julian is extradited to the US, a darkness awaits him. He’ll be subjected to a prison regime called special administrative measures… He will be placed in a cage in the bowels of a supermax prison, a hellhole. He will be cut off from all contact with the rest of humanity.
From the frying pan…
Assange is already in a precarious position, alongside all other UK prisoners. Belmarsh is a high-security Category A facility and, as with all other prisons in the UK, inmates there are at risk to infection from coronavirus (Covid-19).
On 28 April, the BBC reported that there were “1,783 “possible/probable” cases of coronavirus – on top of 304 confirmed infections across jails in England and Wales”. Also that there were “75 different “custodial institutions”, with 35 inmates treated in hospital and 15 deaths”.
Vaughan Smith, who stood bail for Assange, reported that the virus was “ripping through” Belmarsh:
We know of two Covid-19 deaths in Belmarsh so far, though the Department of Justice have admitted to only one death. Julian told me that there have been more and that the virus is ripping through the prison.
Assange has a known chronic lung condition, which could lead to death should he become infected with coronavirus. Assange’s lawyers requested he is released on bail to avoid succumbing to the virus, but that request was rejected.
As for the psychological effects of segregation, a European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment report argued that it can “can have an extremely damaging effect on the mental, somatic and social health of those concerned”.
…and into the fire
It’s likely that Assange will be placed under SAMs if he is extradited to the US. The Darkest Corner, a report authored by the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic and The Center for Constitutional Rights, describes how SAMs work.
In its summary, the report explains that:
SAMs are the darkest corner of the U.S. federal prison system, combining the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world. Those restrictions include gag orders on prisoners, their family members, and their attorneys, effectively shielding this extreme use of government power from public view.
It continues:
SAMs deny prisoners the narrow avenues of indirect communication – through sink drains or air vents – available to prisoners in solitary confinement. They prohibit social contact with anyone except for a few immediate family members, and heavily regulate even those contacts. And they further prohibit prisoners from connecting to the social world via current media and news, limiting prisoners’ access to information to outdated, government-approved materials. Even a prisoner’s communications with his lawyer – which are supposed to be protected by attorney-client privilege – can be subject to monitoring by the FBI.
It ominously adds that: “Many prisoners remain under these conditions indefinitely, for years or in some cases even decades”. Moreover, these conditions can be used as a weapon to force a prisoner to plead guilty:
In numerous cases, the Attorney General recommends lifting SAMs after the defendant pleads guilty. This practice erodes defendants’ presumption of innocence and serves as a tool to coerce them into cooperating with the government and pleading guilty.
The report provides further details on how SAMs incorporate sensory deprivation and social isolation measures that “may amount to torture”. Also, it argues that the SAMs regime contravenes both US and international laws.
ECHR article 3
Should the UK courts agree to extradite Assange, he could face months, if not decades, of psychological torture. However, Article 3 of the European Court of Human Rights states clearly: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Under that article, the US extradition request should be rejected by the UK courts.
For a publisher to be subjected to such a nightmare scenario would be intolerable.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency now has the chance to prove they put health and safety first
James Shepherdson No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia , 13 May 20, This should be a huge opportunity for arpansa to step up and prove to the Australian people that they really are going to put public safety at the forefront of their decision and reject any licence application for the temporary secondary storage of intermediate level waste . If not one can only conclude that they are just as corrupt as our pollies ,not independent at all and prepared to ignore what they themselves claim to be world’s best practice https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
A Covid-19 Green Recovery for Australia
Seizing the moment: how Australia can build a green economy from the Covid-19 wreckage, As the government prepares plans for economic recovery, investors and green groups alike say this is a once-only opportunity to move towards zero emissions
This is the first a new series, The Green Recovery, looking at the environmental challenges of a post-pandemic world, Guardian, by Adam Morton 13 May 20 There is a growing case that recovery from the coronavirus offers Australia a chance to succeed where it has failed for more than a decade: to break away from the climate wars and head in a new direction.
Here and overseas, the idea of helping jumpstart an economic rebuild after the pandemic-forced shutdown by also tackling the other great existential challenge of the time is gaining currency across the political spectrum.
It has been supported not just by climate activists and conservationists, but by industry, banks, energy companies, unions and major investors.
Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the International Monetary Fund, articulated the push in late April while addressing the heads of 30 countries at the annual Petersberg Climate Dialogue. She rejected the suggestion that the health crisis and the economic crash caused by the “great lockdown” that followed meant steps to fight the climate crisis should be paused.
“Nothing is further from the truth,” she said. “We are about to deploy a massive fiscal stimulus which can help us address both crises at the same time.
“If this recovery is to be sustainable – if our world is to become more resilient – we must do everything in our power to promote a green recovery. In other words, taking measures now to fight the climate crisis is not just a ‘nice-to-have’. It is a ‘must-have’ if we are to leave a better world for our children.”
Implicit in Georgieva’s call is that this may be a one-off opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid what scientists warn would be a catastrophe for vast swathes of the planet.
Others agree. The German government has called for recovery programs to invest in future-proof jobs that would cut emissions, rather than return to business as usual. Britain has proposed an accelerated take-up of green technologies, saying it could have a profound impact on “our societies’ future sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, wellbeing”.
The idea of a green stimulus has been supported by governments in countries as diverse as Pakistan, Portugal, Canada and the United Arab Emirates, backed by major business energy giants including BP and Shell, and promoted by the World Bank, which has published a series of blog posts with detailed suggestions of how to respond.
Significant money supports this stance. Global investor groups representing members responsible for more than $55tn in assets warned governments to avoid focusing on short-term, big-emitting projects when backing clean growth, which could create jobs while improving things that have a less obvious monetary value – such as clean air. Again, the opportunity borne from crisis was central to the message. “The path we choose in the coming months will have significant ramifications for our global economy and generations to come,” the groups said in a statement……
States lead, federal government drags its feet
In Australia, the discussion about a green recovery did not begin as urgently as elsewhere, reflecting perhaps the country’s notoriously difficult climate politics and a media tendency to treat climate as a second-order issue unless it is the subject of a political fight.
That began to change last week. Industry groups the Smart Energy Council and Clean Energy Council hosted online summits on green recovery themes with attendances in the thousands. Speaking at both, Innes Willox, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and setting a path for net zero were overlapping issues that should be dealt with together to boost growth.
The AIG is among a number of Australian interest groups, research organisations and experts working on what a sustainable rebuild could look like, built on evidence that renewable energy is now the cheapest source to invest in.
Just as striking as Willox’s call was that, across the two summits, every state and the ACT was represented either by a premier, energy minister or, in Tasmania’s case, state-owned clean energy agency. Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk spoke about the potential to develop a battery manufacturing industry and claimed green hydrogen resources would eventually surpass the state’s liquefied natural gas exports. South Australia’s energy minister, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, praised his Labor predecessors for helping develop the state into a world leader in renewable energy generation (while taking a swipe at them over cost) and said he hoped the state would run on 100% clean electricity before 2030.
Fellow Liberal Matt Kean, from New South Wales, said his government was considering its electricity strategy and net zero plan in the wake of the pandemic to see what measures could be brought forward to support the economy. He said they would be subject to three tests: “Will they deliver decarbonisation? Will they deliver jobs? And will they deliver faster economic growth?”
On Thursday, the Tasmanian Liberal government went further, launching a draft renewables energy action plan for reaching 200% renewable energy generation by 2040, a goal that means the creation of a vast clean export industry. The state’s energy minister, Guy Barnett, said the shift to renewable energy was more important than ever in the wake of the pandemic.
“As a result of Covid-19, there are unprecedented challenges facing Australian households and industries. By seizing Tasmania’s immense potential, renewable energy can grow our economy, attract investment, create jobs and support Australia’s transition to renewable supply,” he said………
Practical solutions on the horizon
Environment Minister Sussan Ley not to support protection of Murray-Darling river systems
Murray-Darling systems not assessed for endangered listing after officials warned Coalition would not 
support it
FoI documents reveal struggling systems were ‘clear candidates’ for protection but Sussan Ley ‘unlikely to support’ it, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Wed 13 May 2020 Struggling river and wetland systems in the Murray-Darling Basin were not assessed for listing as critically endangered after officials warned the Morrison government would not support protecting them.
Environment department staff said the two ecological communities were “clear candidates” for assessment for a critically endangered listing, documents released under freedom of information show. But the environment minister, Sussan Ley, was “unlikely to support” their inclusion on the 2019 list of species and habitats under consideration for protection, they told the threatened species scientific committee.
The department also told the committee the work required to do the assessment would have “significant resource implications”.
The two communities are known as the “wetland and inner floodplain of the Macquarie Marshes”, and the “Lower Murray River and associated wetlands, floodplains and groundwater systems from the junction of the Darling River to the sea”.
Both were listed as critically endangered by then environment minister Mark Butler in the final days of the Labor government in 2013.
After the Coalition won government, both listings were disallowed under the new environment minister, Greg Hunt. It followed a campaign against the critically endangered listings by the National Irrigators Council.
Humane Society International, the organisation behind the nomination that led to the 2013 listings, renominated the river and wetlands systems for assessment for a critically endangered listing last year.
In a briefing to the threatened species scientific committee, officials said a tool the department used for conservation assessments had ranked the two communities as the highest priorities from a conservation perspective among a group of five ecological communities nominated for listing in 2019.
But neither made it on to the proposed priority assessment list, which is given to the environment minister to consider before they determine the nominations that will make it on to the final list.
The briefing to the committee is the same document that led to Guardian Australia last week revealing the government had stopped listing major threats to species under national environmental laws…….
Labor’s environment spokeswoman, Terri Butler, said it was “outrageous” the Morrison government had not followed scientific advice. She said the government was attempting “to influence the outcomes of scientific processes designed to protect our environment”.
Richard Kingsford, the director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science at the University of New South Wales, said the scientific research on the two communities showed both had high levels of biodiversity and were degrading significantly as a result of reduced flooding.
“The question would be: why were they ruled out at that first step?” he said…… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/13/murray-darling-systems-not-assessed-for-endangered-listing-after-officials-warned-coalition-would-not-support-it
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 