A Submission For The Public Good – to #NuclearCommissionSAust
ABOUT SUBMISSIONS 16 Mar 16
Today I take the unusual step of publishing several extracts from one submission. The Royal Commission has allowed very little time for people to send in submissions. So – few are available to me right now.
BUT – Paul Langley of South Australia has prepared a submission. And it is a beauty! Why? Because not only does it pack a punch, but, equally important, Langley provides a wealth of information, facts, figures, and reference sources – https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Sad to mutilate such a strong and lengthy submission, but I have done so on this website. So there are 5 extracts from the submission, on today’s page. If you have time, go to the original. If you don’t have time, at least see what Langley writes about Transport of High Level Nuclear Waste, Gawler Crater, The Law and the Profits, Gaining Public Trust, AN ALTERNATIVE to nuclear industry
Transport of High Level Nuclear Waste: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “……Transport of HLNW from around the world to a SA HLNW geologic repository
The Royal Commission apparently assumes that the movements of many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from many countries around the world to the Gawler Craton will be low risk, no problems and perfectly safe. As contradictory as those stances are. I do not accept that position of default safety. Further I do not accept that the unloading of the HLNW will be perfectly safe. I do not accept that road transport from port to repository site will be perfectly safe, even on a dedicated purpose built road.
I would recommend that Super Freighters laden with the contents of countless reactor cores not sail down the Somali coast nor in the waters to the south of Thailand for fear of pirates. They should avoid man made Islands in the South China Sea. I suppose the ships will be guarded by 6 English policemen each with two revolvers between them. Rather than half the Pacific Fleet they would actually warrant. If they ever get to leave their home ports. What is the Somali coast going to be like in 40 years? Peaceful or short of rad weapons?…….” https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission: About the Gawler Craton and Ceduna sub Basin
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “……….Response to Tentative Finding 74……….
Nuclear adventurism invariably claims to be acting in order to “save the world” from one thing or another.
In my final statement I shall remind the Royal Commission of alternatives to the current proposal. A nuclear dump on Eyre Peninsular or anywhere else will not save this planet from anything, and will impose risk upon populations.
Stability The Royal Commission tentatively finds that the Gawler Craton is stable. The Royal Commission says nothing about the stability of the climate that impacts it and which will impact it in the near future. I choose not to compare SA with lands of snow and glaciers, such as Sweden and Finland. I choose a much more relevant place:
“….even in extremely arid climates such as the Yucca Mountain site, hydrologic interaction is the most prevalent [risk]. It is the primary mechanism of which contamination can occur, and is the most prevalent consequence to other risks discussed…..”
I shall show that the US concern regarding sudden climate change – including extreme rain events – and the impact of this upon arid area HLNW Repositories is much more relevant to Australian scenario than the Swedish and Finnish concerns. …….The risks posed by sudden climate change and increasing extreme weather events include possible flood events on Eyre Peninsular. This is a section of the Gawler Craton that contains no rivers (Source: SA Water Corp). Like Yucca Mountain, Eyre Peninsular appears to be internally drained……..
Contrary to the implications of the written material made available by the Royal Commission, the Swedish and Finnish models do not provide South Australians with a moral precedent or imperative for accepting the nuclear waste generated by the rest of the world. Rather, both nations conform to the principle of clearing up one’s own mess as best one can. Importing the mess of other nations would, it seems to me, be an anathema to both nations. On one hand the Royal Commission implores us to copy Sweden and Finland. On the other hand, both those nations say no in law to what the Royal Commission is proposing and recommending.
However, no doubt, both nations would happily sell their means and methods to South Australians. The cost of this sale has not been made available by the Royal Commission as far as I am aware. No doubt royalties due to Swedish and Finnish patent licenses would apply………
The Swedish nuclear authorities were given from 1977 until 2020 to consider the mandatory HLNW geologic waste dump by the people of Sweden. That’s Forty Three years.
How is it that the people of South Australia have been given only from 2016 to 2020 to consider the same issue? A mere Four years? The people of Sweden were time generous to the nuclear industry. That same industry now attempts to railroad us into a “fast buck for them” solution……
The Royal Commission has not disclosed whether the HLNW geologic repository/dump will be hot or cold. Will it be flooded with ground water as the Swedes intend for theirs?…………
Where is the groundwater coming from if in SA the repository is to be flooded as proposed by the Swedish text quoted above? Where will the ground water subsequently move to from the repository? Is there in fact any basis for an unthinking acceptance of the Swedish solution in South Australia? How wheat and mutton is produced above the deep, geologic Scandinavian nuclear sewers? Do they wish they did not have the problem at all? Yes, but sadly they do have the problem. They may have solved their problem. Is their solution to become our problem? Given we do not share much with them, either in environmental type, chemistry or need………
Tentative Finding 78
parts a – c state: “For the management of used fuel and intermediate level wastes, South Australia has a unique combination of attributes which offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuel. They include: the underlying Archaean geological structure, the Gawler Craton, at an appropriate depth for disposal. low levels of seismic activity overall and, in some parts, very low levels relative to elsewhere in the world. an arid environment in many parts of the state.”
The Gawler Craton
The Royal Commission does not provide a map that defines the area covered by the Gawler Craton. ……There are many maps showing the Gawler Craton and most of them vary radically from one another…..
The Royal Commission cannot consider the actual location of the HLNW geologic repository, other than to inform that it will be located within the Gawler Craton. While advocating for the repository, the Royal Commission cannot apparently consider Southern groundwater chemistry as compared to Swedish or Finnish groundwater chemistry or any other technical factor. The only technical data it cites in its tentative findings are promotional statements.
The Gawler Craton appears to be very big. I am familiar with some geologic events of the recent past that indicate not all places located over the Craton are “stable” in the common sense.
I refer to the Bight Basin and in particular to the Ceduna Sub Basin of the Bight Basin.
What are the hydrologic and other dynamics of the Gawler Craton? How well is it understood by modern Geology?
“Owing to sparse outcrop, the geology of the Gawler Craton is relatively poorly understood, and its boundaries are entirely subsurface, being interpreted from total magnetic intensity and gravity data combined with outcrop and drillhole information (Schwarz et al., 2006)”. Source: “Geodynamic Synthesis of the Gawler Craton and Curnamona Province” Edited by N.Kositcin, GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA record 2010/27, Australian Government, athttp://minquest.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Genesis-of-the-Gawler2.pdf……
There is evidence of instability within the Ceduna Sub Basin……..
The proposed HLNW geologic repository may be (or may not be) flooded with ground water after completion – as part of the design criteria. I have to ask how such a repository might impact occupants of the Peninsular.
“Agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and mining industries, all reliant on sustainable natural resources, contribute over $2.5 billion to the economy in an average year. Despite low rainfall and low soil fertility, around 45% of SA’s wheat and 20% of SA’s barley harvest come from the Eyre Peninsula. In addition, the region contributes 45% of the state’s seafood harvest. Some 95% of farms are broad acre, of which 85% depend on grain growing alone, or a mix of grain and livestock farming. Given all this, the Eyre Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to a hotter, dryer future.” Source: “Effective Adaptation Policy Making: A case study from the Eyre Peninsula” National Climate Change Adaption Research Facility, athttps://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/case-study-eyre-peninsula https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Renewable-based energy system cheaper than fossil fuels – new research
New modelling shows renewable-based system cheaper than fossil fuels, REneweconomy, (good graphs) By Giles Parkinson on 14 March 2016 New modelling from a group of engineers, energy analysts and IT experts in Western Australia shows that a high penetration renewable energy system would be cheaper based around existing fossil fuel generation.
The modelling, known as SIREN, looks at the West Australian grid, known as the South West Interconnected System, and shows that an electricity system with 85 per cent renewable energy will be cheaper than “business as usual” – an average of $124/MWh compared to $127/MWh – and around the same price as current costs.
A system with 91 per cent renewable energy penetration would be slightly higher ($136/MWh), while three separate scenarios for 100 per cent renewable energy would be more expensive (ranging from $157/MWh to $164/MWh).
The modelling assumed that there will be 6,000MW of wind and 3,000MW of solar PV in the high renewables scenarios, and 5,000MW of wind and 2,000MW of solar PV in the 100 per cent renewable energy scenarios. The difference in the 100 per cent renewables scenario is the addition of 1.2GW of solar thermal and storage.
The SIREN modelling template will soon be used for an updated assessment and costing of the main grid in Australia, the National Electricity Market. “We intend to use this to lobby government and show (utilities) Western power and Synergy what we have found, and what they can do,” says Ben Rose, one of the authors.
Some may quibble with the fact that it compares new investment in each scenario, but the fact remains that most of the current generation in W.A., particularly its coal assets – and indeed the rest of Australia – is reaching its used-by date and will need to be replaced by 2030. Yet, says Rose, few politicians are addressing this issue.
The results are also based on relatively conservative technology cost assessments included in the AETA survey done by the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics.
Many of these costs, particularly the solar thermal costs used in the 100 per cent renewable energy scenarios, are expected to come down quickly, and well below the 2025 forecasts included by AETA. Most of the technologies are already cheaper than those forecasts……….http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-modelling-shows-renewable-based-system-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-55032
Draconian anti-protest laws for New South Wales?
The proposed protest laws would give police new powers to break up protests, to search and destroy private property. If police say just one person obstructs traffic, they can shut down an entire peaceful assembly.
This is a slippery slope that gives police discretion to silence dissent and could turn NSW into a police state. Far from being a moderate, Baird is taking NSW down the sad road of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland.
The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest. Police would be able to arrest you and confiscate and destroy your car, for example, if they think it will be used to disrupt business in a protest. What has happened to the presumption of innocence?
Protesters could be fined more for opposing illegal mining activity than miners could for operating illegally.
Mike Baird’s anti-protest laws risk turning NSW into Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-anti-protest-laws-risk-turning-nsw-into-bjelke-petersens-queensland-20160315-gnj4to.html March 15 2016 Naomi Hodgson
*Poll: More than 60 per cent of voters opposed Mining protesters could face seven years’ jail
*Freedom of speech and freedom of association are cornerstones of democracy. Continue reading
The Law and the Profits: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “…..The Law and the Profits.
Nuclear nations all have their own laws regarding nuclear matters. For instance the United States has many laws, including the Atomic Energy Act, as currently amended, associated laws and regulations. It has long been an issue that the US Act prevents full disclosure regarding “special nuclear material” – that is plutonium and uranium as used and produced in a reactor. This matter has long been a concern in the US democratic setting. For instance, see CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8.
The HLNW repository is promoted by the Royal Commission as being South Australian, owned by the government and benefitting the people of SA. To what extent then, in the course of contract negotiations, will the government and people of SA become beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure and other matters in regard a client nation’s HLNW? Will the contracts be commercial in confidence ? Will provisions alien to SA law be invoked in order to comply with contracted obligations? Will such provisions restrict our right to know and our freedom to speak? Will the full nature of the stockpile resident in the HLNW repository be secret in any way? Will the people be able to study each contract? What is an unclassified restricted document, and what happens if an ordinary person figures out it’s contents? ……..” https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Gaining Public Trust: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16
“……..Gaining Public Trust. Relevant Safety Assurances made by nuclear “experts” in my life time.
In the 1980s, the government of South Australia returned ownership of the Maralinga Lands:
“In 1984, the South Australian Government returned the freehold title for the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands to its Traditional Owners. Concerns over radiological hazards prevented the handback of Section 400.” Source: “Maralinga Tjarutja Lands: handback of Section 400” , The Anangu Lands Paper Tracker, at http://www.papertracker.com.au/archived/maralinga-tjarutja-lands-handback-of-section-400/
As I recall at that time the then Premier, the Late John Bannon, visited the Maralinga Lands, along with Peter Burns and other ARPANSA scientists. Peter wrote a detailed description of the problem at Maralinga in a Saturday Advertiser centre page spread at that time. Mr. Bannon was appalled and surprised at the state of some areas of the lands and though the land was handed back, it was too dangerous to permit the owners to return on a permanent basis.
Full handback was not possible until the 21st century………..
For decades the relevant nuclear experts – especially those under Professor Titterton – had assured Australia and Australians that Maralinga was “perfectly safe”. From the 1950s until 1984. Many individuals who contested the opinion of these experts were threatened with jail for breaching the official secrets act. (Source: Mr Kevin Wakefield, Ex RAN, Monte Bello Island, Mr Terry Toon, Ex Maralinga, Mr Alan Batchelor, Ex Maralinga. Mr John Hutton, Ex Maralinga.) While some ordinary people knew the truth, they were not allowed to tell it. And when they did speak out, they received threats and disbelief. It is reasonable to think, given that the RAN surveyed the Monte Bello Islands until 1975, the same would be true of the Army and Maralinga. Everyone is a Sergeant Schulz on that one.
Well it was not perfectly safe. Was it? This is one of South Australia’s formative experiences with nuclear authorities. Professor Titterton remained entrenched at the Federal level as a nuclear safety “leader” until the era of the Whitlam government.
This is not ancient history. It is for some people like yesterday. The 1984 McClelland Royal Commission records an exchange between Titterton and the Royal Commissioner. In this exchange Titterton admits he could not disclose all he knew about safety to the Safety Committee due to the fact that he was constrained by the secrecy provisions of both the United States and Great Britain. Will history repeat in this regard? What will Jay not be able to say the people of South Australia? Will silence due to “American and British secrecy provisions” reign again? The Royal Commissioner McClelland found that some Australians in authority were akin to Fifth columnists acting more in the interests of foreign lands than they were towards Australia and its people.
This earlier Royal Commission also found that nuclear experts had stated to the effect that the critical interests of “a handful of natives” were not going to “stand in the way of the BritishCommonwealth of Nations.” (Royal Commission, Conclusions, 8.4.38 – 39). Saving the world required some local sacrifice. As far away from the North as possible. The ones closest in are the ones most affected. Shall we do it again Jay W.?
Nuclear history is the art of waiting for historic promises to be exposed for what they are at some future point……..
The proposed repository is a sociological experiment. It will take decades for it to provide the history lesson. A very costly higher education.
“Perfectly Safe”, in the History of South Australia, has been a nuclear science fiction, and anyone can prove it. It has never actually true, and contaminated land remains from the time when the owners were forcibly trucked off it in the 1950s. To be concentrated in camps near the Ceduna sub basin of the Bight Basin, which overlays, in part, the Gawler Craton. Such history lies beneath the apparently solid rock statement made by today’s youngster biologists who claim expertise as nuclear people……” .https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Mary Robinson criticises Australia’s cuts to CSIRO climate research
Mary Robinson joins chorus against CSIRO cuts, says climate science ‘imperative, not luxury’ By Sara Phillips, ABC News, 16 Mar 16 Former president of Ireland Mary Robinson criticised the proposed cuts to CSIRO climate science in a speech made last night at the University of Melbourne’s Sustainable Society Institute.
Key points:
- Mary Robinson says CSIRO cuts ‘wrong message to be sending at the moment’
- Says research ‘an investment … not a luxury’
- Joins growing number of international voices to criticise the cuts
The highly-decorated former politician was last year a United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change.
She was a key player in brokering the global agreement on climate change reached in Paris in December.
But on Tuesday night she said she was concerned about proposed cuts to long-running climate science programs.
CSIRO chief Larry Marshall announced structural changes to Australia’s national science agency in February, paring back efforts to observe and measure climate change and instead emphasise research into how Australia should prepare for it.
Approximately 350 climate science jobs are expected to be affected.
The cuts were condemned around the world, with an open letter from nearly 3,000 scientists from around the world calling on Dr Marshall to reconsider his plans.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-chair and even the World Meteorological Organisation also spoke up against the proposed cuts.
‘I urge Australia to continue to provide leadership’
Ms Robinson, a career diplomat, was forthright in adding her voice to the chorus.
“I think it’s the wrong message at the moment. We need the research at all levels and more of it,” she said.
“Research is an investment in our shared future. It’s not a luxury……….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/climate-change-research-‘imperative’-not-‘luxury’-mary-robinson/7249596?section=environment
AN ALTERNATIVE: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16
“……..An Alternative We are told Secure Base load Electrical Power is a certainty upon which our civilization rests. Not withstanding the constantly falling price of off grid generation and storage of domestic and industrial power.
As each day passes, alternatives grow in attractiveness. As usual old industries, such as nuclear industry, bemoan the competing technology as inadequate. The odds are by the time today’s five year child is twenty five they will generate, store and use their own off grid power simply, easily and at a cost that would make TEPCO and Westinghouse executives go green. At the moment though the nuclear industry remains a dedicated future-phobe. Those who call for a nuclear revival merely confirm, in the shrillness of their demands, the proven failures of the industry over time, all over the globe.
A large solar power plant, used for both day time power generation and day time sea water electrolysis, could provide 24 hour base load power. An onsite hydrogen fuelled generator station, generating at night or as required, fuelled by solar produced Hydrogen, could transform the SA economy. The benefits would not have to be weighted against risks spread population wide. This is 2016. Hydrogen is in daily use around the world. In SA there are potential energy sources as yet resolutely untapped.
A hybrid solar hydrogen power plant could be constructed with current knowledge and hardware. But of course, it would be an inappropriate icon in a state dominated by the nuclear promise.
A far thinking Parliament would not be bound to digging holes in the ground for a living. It might actually originate and facilitate something that actually could save the planet. Sadly it won’t. It does not have the creative will to do so. Such things would already be done if it had.
Such ideas are deemed crazy ones in the halls of nuclear power, in that place where thinking differently seems to be a sin against the prayer book of a compulsory religion.
No thanks, I do not wish to buy this product. It sucks very badly. Have you got anything else? Preferably something sensible and compatible with the future. Not some rust belt thing that the children of all tomorrows curse us for giving them. https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Excellent previous submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust
The website of South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, is not all that user friendly – hard to find the previous submissions. However they are at
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?query=&cat=View+all&search=Submissions&max_page_items=50&sort_by=
some of the best submissions are on THIS website, even if not complete.
Here they are, not in any particular order:
SUBMISSIONS FOCUSING ON NUCLEAR WASTE IMPORTATION
Sisters of St Joseph make a powerful case against radioactive trash dumping
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC – Management, Storage and Disposal of Wastes. also on impact of unclear waste import on Tourism etc
Christine Anderson – nuclear waste no bonanza for South Australia
Environmental Defenders Office (SA)
Noel Wauchope – Answer Points on Importing Nuclear Waste
BHP not interested in nuclear waste import
Bill Fisher spells it out on nuclear waste
Plans for radioactive trash dumping on Aboriginal land ?
West Mallee Protection – an Aboriginal Perspective
Clean Bight Alliance Australia
MORE GENERAL SUBMISSIONS
Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle
South AustraliaEnvironment Groups
South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission Issues Paper 4 – misleading and serious omissions
Dr Helen Caldicott’s Submission on all 4 Nuclear Royal Commission Issues Papers
Dr Caldicott’s submission concerning radiation
Medical Association for Prevention of War & Public Health Association of Australia
Annie McGovern Addressing questions of WATER
Construction Forestry & Mining. Also Uranium Free NSW.
Rebecca Keane Renewable Energy way ahead of nuclear
Electrical trades Union of Australia dispels the hype about Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
John Quiggan demolishes the case for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in South Australia
Ally Fricker & Bob Lamb for ENuFF
Yurij Poetzl scrutinises Questionable Integrity of the Royal Commission
City of Port Adelaide Enfield notes poor prospects for New Nuclear Technology
Nuclear power is now redundant: dispelling the “baseload” myth
Dispelling the nuclear ‘baseload’ myth: nothing renewables can’t do better! Ecologist 10th March 2016 The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it’s the only low carbon power source that can supply ‘reliable, baseload electricity’, writes Mark Diesendorf – unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.We have all heard the claim. We need nuclear power because, along with big hydropower, it’s the only low carbon generation technology that can supply ‘reliable baseload power’ on a large scale……
Underlying this claim are three key assumptions. First, that baseload power is actually a good and necessary thing. In fact, what it really means is too much power when you don’t want it, and not enough when you do. What we need is flexible power (and flexible demand too) so that supply and demand can be matched instant by instant.
The second assumption is that nuclear power is a reliable baseload supplier. In fact it’s no such thing. All nuclear power stations are subject to tripping out for safety reasons or technical faults. That means that a 3.2GW nuclear power station has to be matched by 3.2GW of expensive ‘spinning reserve’ that can be called in at a moments notice.
The third is that the only way to supply baseload power is from baseload power stations, such as nuclear, coal and gas, designed to run flat-out all the time whether their power is actually needed or not. That’s wrong too.
Practical experience and computer simulations show it can be done……… Continue reading
Until 18 March, South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission will accept responses to its Tentative Findings
It’s a well kept secret from the whole of Australia, but the nuclear lobby plans to invite in the world’s most toxic nuclear trash – to poor old South Australia – the State with the greatest potential to be a world – leading renewable energy hub.
This plan can be stopped – as it has been before.
One step in exposing and stopping this noxious plan by a few greedy people is to RESPOND TO the ROYAL COMMISSION’S TENTATIVE Findings. their Guidelines are here
It’s not that difficult. The Commission put up fewer obstacles this time. Say what you really think.
You can find good advice on sending a response at Action Australia
By the way, the COVER SHEET has to be signed, which implies that the comments should be posted. I am posting mine, but because of concerns about the postal service these days, I am sending it by email, too. It’s not as hard as last time – much as the Royal Commission would probably like to intimidate us all into not bothering. Please bother! Comments can be lodged via email to: enquiries@nuclearrc.sa.gov.au
What does the Australian govt REALLY plan about long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste
What should the government do about LLILW?
First, the government needs to carry out a thorough audit/inventory of LLILW, considering the following issues:
- volume/mass and radioactivity of LLILW at each current storage site;
- whether waste production is ongoing at each particular site and if so, whether storage capacity has been reached or is approaching and if so, whether increasing storage capacity is an option;
- nature and adequacy/inadequacy of current storage conditions;
- nature and adequacy/inadequacy of institutional control.
Second, the government should initiate a thorough, transparent process to consider all options for management of LLILW. There is no logical reason for the initiation of that process to wait until “the National Facility Project is underway” as the government now states. The delay is not only illogical, it also feeds uncertainty and suspicion.
What does the government plan to do with long-lived intermediate-level waste (LLILW)?
Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, 8/3/2016. Here is the government’s formal position (8/3/16 email from Department of Industry, Innovation and Science):“Australia’s current management approach toward long-lived intermediate-level waste is for long-term above ground storage pending future disposal. The preferred option for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, as identified in the Initial Business Case, provides for the centralised management of intermediate-level waste in a purpose-built storage facility. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science will undertake a detailed consideration of disposal pathways for Australian generated intermediate level waste once the National Facility Project is underway.”
What is the government really planning?
1. The government is already considering deep borehole disposal of LLILW. It might be at intermediate depth, perhaps 200 metres underground.
2. Deep borehole disposal of LLILW could possibly be pursued at the same site as a shallow repository for lower-level radioactive waste. That option is floated in an ARPANSA document (see below).
3. Or the government could go in a very different direction – a stand-alone shallow repository for lower-level wastes without co-location of a LLILW store (or a deep borehole for LLILW disposal). Government representatives have said in public meetings that ILW would not be moved to the shallow repository site (for above-ground storage) for 10-20-30 years after the shallow repository is established, and presumably the reason for that is that the government is considering alternative options (borehole disposal at a different site, or perhaps above-ground storage at a different site). Or perhaps the statement that ILW wouldn’t be moved to the site for 10-20-30 years isn’t true, or at least it certainly isn’t locked in, and it is simply designed to quell public opposition.
4. Even if the government does decide that borehole disposal of LLILW is the best way forward, it would likely take decades to progress that project. So above-ground storage of LLILW for many decades at the same site as the shallow repository remains a distinct possibility.
5. The government must be considering the potential to reduce opposition to a shallow repository for lower-level wastes by separating that project completely from its half-baked plans for LLILW. That separation could be enshrined in the MoU that the government plans to establish with the host community for the shallow repository. It could also be enshrined in legislation.
That separation might indeed reduce public opposition, although it wasn’t effective in SA in the early 2000s. From 1998–2003, the Howard government planned co-location, and by the time it reversed that position and decided to separate management of lower level wastes from LLILW, opposition was so entrenched and widespread that it made little difference. The Howard government established a National Store Committee to develop plans for LLILW disposal, but it was disbanded in 2004, at the same time as the government abandoned its plan to impose a repository for lower-level wastes in SA……… Continue reading
Joint civil society groups comment to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project.
(please note that this comment refers to the ANSTO radioactive waste, which Australia is bound to accept back from its processing overseas. It is a separate issue from the South Australian Royal Commission’s purpose to invite in the world’s radioactive trash, as a supposedly profit-making industry)
Recommendation:
We believe that extended interim storage of radioactive waste at ANSTO – which is already the site and source of most of Australia’s higher level radioactive waste – would provide the time and opportunity required to build on the foundation work of the NRWMP and Detailed Business Case process.
Coupled with an independent and robust assessment of the full range of radioactive waste management options, we would also support a joint federal-state process to audit the adequacy of existing waste storage facilities and address any deficiencies, identify legacy sites that may be retired and provide an accurate analysis of current and future waste streams and volumes.
The vast majority of Australia’s radioactive waste is currently stored at secured and defined Commonwealth facilities at Lucas Heights (NSW) and Woomera (SA).
Both of these facilities have confirmed they have the capacity to continue appropriate storage of this material for many years, providing an opportunity to revisit this policy arena in order to realise the most effective, equitable and lasting outcome.
Joint civil society groups comment to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project. March 11, 2016
Our groups represent many Australians across different regions and sectors who share a common desire to advance and realise responsible radioactive waste management in Australia.
We write to provide formal comment on the approach taken to facility siting in the revised National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) that was established following the end of the protracted and fiercely contested plan to develop a national radioactive waste facility at Muckaty in the Northern Territory.
For over two decades, successive Australian governments have sought to manage Australia’s radioactive waste inventory through the development of a co-located remote central dump and store at locations chosen by the Commonwealth without adequate consultation or clear community consent.
This approach has repeatedly failed to win social license and has been characterised by division, contest and the inability to realise a site.
Our organisations welcome the commitment repeated through the course of the NRWMP to date not to impose a facility without broad community support.
It is our view that this essential project pre-condition has not been realised at any of the six sites currently being considered. Continue reading
Community struggle against government plans for nuclear waste dump
The Government should scrap these sites, admit they got it wrong, and then apologise to the people this has affected. They should then start a responsible and correct process to decide what to do with the waste- not just pushing it on regional and rural communities with promises of financial gain. They need to find out a way to stop making more nuclear waste and research what we can do or use instead.
We’re under a nuclear cloud but we’re not backing down, Beyond Nuclear March 11, 
2016/ By Robyn Rayner. Farmers contend regularly with fire, flood and drought, but fine wool producer Robyn Rayner never expected to be fighting off plans for a radioactive waste dump across the road from her property
How would you feel if you woke up one morning and was told via a media report that you could be living next door to a nuclear waste dump?
On November 13 last year the Federal Government announced a shortlist of six sites, from twenty eight volunteered properties around Australia, for a proposed national radioactive waste dump. A property at Hill End was named. Since then our lives have been turned upside down. My husband Geoff and I, along with our family, own and run Pomanara Merino Stud directly across the road from the proposed site. It is just 1.5km from our family home. We are second-generation woolgrowers and our son James would like to be the third. This may not be important to Government Departments, but it is to us. This nuclear waste will also be around for generations to come, wherever they put it.
We have worked long and hard to achieve the clean, green and sustainable label that we have today. Our region is renown for growing the best superfine wool in the world and we have won many major awards for the sheep we breed. At no time did the landowner who nominated his property consult with neighbours, nor did he take into consideration the environment or the village of Hill End, located nine kilometres away. Hill End is a historic precinct that host 5000 school children a year and over 100 000 other visitors. The nominated property backs onto the Turon River, a major waterway for the food bowl of Australia. Continue reading
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 