Nov 16 Royal Commission public hearing with Maralinga Tjarutja & Yalata Community Incorporated
In all the drama about nuclear waste returning from France, we need to be mindful that this has nothing to do with the Royal Commission proposal to import the world’s radioactive trash to Australia.
On 16 November the RC’s public hearing topic will be COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & NUCLEAR FACILITIES – ENGAGEMENT WITH ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES. TThe speakers will include two representing the Maralinga Tjarutja & Yalata Community Incorporated – a group whose Submission to the RC was not negative.
Strong objections to nuclear waste dump sites
Why is it that THE AUSTRALIAN and most media go on about medical wastes, but don’t mention the REAL problem – Lucas Heights nuclear reactor wastes returning from France?
Nuclear waste dump goes against the grain, THE AUSTRALIAN, REBECCA PUDDY ANDREW BURRELL, 14 Nov 15, Grain farmer Cameron Scott is no green activist, but he promises to fight any move to build the nation’s first nuclear waste dump on his doorstep in South Australia’s wheatbelt.
Mr Scott is a key member of a coalition of neighbours in the town of Kimba, almost 500km northwest of Adelaide, who are strongly opposed to the region hosting a facility to store the nation’s low-level and mediumlevel radioactive waste.
“The first thing that hit me was safety — we’ve got kids, we’ve been here for three generations and we want to look after their future,” Mr Scott said yesterday, as he acknowledged deep tensions in his local community over the issue.
“What will this do for our price of land, who wants to buy land next to a radioactive waste dump and what will happen to the price of our grain?”
Kimba is ground zero in the deeply personal battle over the location of the dump, with two of the six shortlisted sites across Australia — all of which were voluntarily nominated by landholders — located in the district……… Continue reading
Australian govt to pay 4 times land value for nuclear dump site, plus #10 million to local community
Sallys Flat should be removed from nuclear waste shortlist, residents say, ABC News 13 Nov 15 By Joanna Woodburn, “……The Government says it needs to build a facility to store the low and intermediate nuclear waste that’s been accumulating in at hospitals, universities and at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney.
Landowners were asked to volunteer their land, with the government offering to buy it at four times the market value. Local communities are being offered $10 million for local projects.”… http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/take-sallys-flat-off-nuclear-waste-shortlist-residents-say/6937442
Danger in transporting radioactive trash to Queensland
Goondiwindi mayor raises issues over transport of nuclear waste to Queensland, ABC News 13 Nov 15 The Mayor of a southern Queensland region shortlisted to store nuclear waste is concerned about how it will be transported, but is keeping an open mind to the proposal.
Oman Ama, 250 kilometres southwest of Brisbane,is one of six sites earmarked by the Federal Government, including three in South Australia, one in New South Wales and one in the Northern Territory. Goondiwindi Mayor Graeme Scheu said he did not want to jump to conclusions.
“The main question around it would be transportation, where it goes, so, so many questions that we don’t even have an answer for and the facts,” he said……..
The Federal Government is offering sweeteners to the community that agrees to house nuclear waste…..
Transporting waste to Queensland ‘total lunacy’
National secretary of the Australian local government nuclear free zones secretariat, Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, said “total lunacy” had overtaken the Federal Government.
Mr Tully said the federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will put major cities across southeast Queensland under threat with hundreds of trucks a year carrying nuclear waste across the region.”They will be transporting nuclear waste from the Lucas Heights reactor west of Sydney and other parts of Australia to Queensland,” he said.
“We don’t want Queensland to become the dumping ground for dangerous waste from NSW.”
He said similar plans in 1989 for a radioactive waste dump at Redbank in Ipswich had been thwarted after major environmental concerns were raised.
Kirsten Macey from the Queensland Conservation Council said regional communities should not be used as the scapegoat for a “dirty” nuclear industry. She wants the waste left in Sydney.
“We believe that where the regulator is – where they have the capacity to store it and monitor it, that’s where the nuclear waste should be stored,” she said. “That’s at Lucas Heights where the nuclear waste is being generated.”http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/mayor-goondiwindi-transport-nuclear-waste-queensland/6937570
Australian Conservation Foundation wants wide-ranging public review into Australia’s nuclear materials
Nuclear waste: Review needed before permanent disposal site, say environmentalists, SMH Jane Lee, Legal affairs, health and science reporter November 13, 2015“……Environmentalists fear that a permanent site would pave the way for the nuclear waste of other countries to be stored in Australia, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last month remarking that Australia could expand its nuclear industry, including leasing local uranium overseas.
Dave Sweeney, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s national nuclear campaigner, said on Friday: “There is no public health or radiological imperative to rush the movement of material.”
He said there should be a wide-ranging public review into how, where, and why we produce nuclear material, with clear policies “best worked through when you’re not searching for a postcode”.
Mr Sweeney, a member of the government’s independent advisory panel on nuclear waste, insisted this was “not a stalling tactic”. Environmental groups were prepared to approach a review in good faith, he said: “We genuinely believe that getting a lasting, scientifically responsible solution that enjoys a high level of community consent is through an open review process, with a full range of management options.”
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) existing facility in Lucas Heights in Sydney, was the “least worst” option for storing waste until a national independent review was completed, he said, with federal police and people with nuclear expertise already based there.
The site held most of Australia’s more-radioactive waste, and now included a national facility for extended interim storage, he said. It would also hold nuclear waste which is due to return to Australia next month, after being sent to France between 1996 and 2009. Continue reading
Darling Downs, Queensland, residents shocked at proposal to site nuclear waste there
Darling Downs locals opposed to potential Oman Ama nuclear storage site, 9 News, 13 Nov 15, A property near the Darling Downs town of Oman Ama has been shortlisted by the Federal Government as a potential storage site for low-to-intermediate nuclear waste, but locals have told 9NEWS they are seriously concerned by the plan.“Initally, horror, shock, how could they?” Liff Parr said. “I would hate to find something like that happening in our area,” Jo Clark said.
Locals had not received any notice of the plans, Andrew Clark-Dickson said. “Up until seven o’clock this morning I knew nothing about it,” he said. “It’s got to be put somewhere, but I really don’t think it should be on top of the Murray-Darling Basin.”
Organic olive farmer Gesine Owen echoed his concerns. My biggest fear is the water contamination,” she said. Ms Owen said she had spent many years investing in infrastructure to attract tourists to the town.“We just don’t see why we should be picked,” she said.
The residents realise one landowner has volunteered to sell their property for the purpose of establishing a nuclear waste site, with the government offering to pay four times market value for the selected site………
The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance said Australian Aboriginal communities “are reeling from this announcement”.
“We are concerned about the lack of consultation with Aboriginal communities, which are already under attack due to unconventional gas mining, coal proposals and the roll-back of Aboriginal heritage protections,” Alliance co-chair Adam Sharah said in a statement. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/11/13/19/51/darling-downs-locals-opposed-to-potential-oman-ama-nuclear-storage-site#fg1Io11Df1AmGg61.9
MP Warren Snowdon sceptical about siting nuclear waste dump in Northern Territory
No reason to fear nuclear waste dump says owner of shortlisted farm near Alice Springs, ABC News, By James Oaten, Xavier La Canna and Nathan Coates, 13 Nov 15 “……….MP can’t see significant benefits The federal Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, whose electorate includes the farm, said the Government had done the right thing in starting a consultation process, but was sceptical about the benefits the project could bring. “I don’t think there’s any question that if the community is opposed to this site around Alice Springs, it won’t happen,” Mr Snowdon said.
“I’ve always been a sceptic about the nuclear industry but this is a process that needs to be followed through. “There would be minimal employment opportunities. “I can’t see significant benefit from this.”
Mr Snowdon said he believed it was best to have such a facility closer to where the nuclear waste originated from…..
“It’s always been my view probably better off elsewhere, closer to where the bulk of the radioactive waste is rather than being transported long distances.”
‘Just the starting point’, environmentalist says
Director of the Alice Springs-based Arid Lands Environment Centre, Jimmy Cocking, said he was concerned the proposal may be a precursor to storing more dangerous nuclear waste.
“Low-to-intermediate waste is generally the starting point,” Mr Cocking said.
“So our concern is, if established, it will in the long term not just have low to intermediate waste.
“We are opposed to it being in Hale, we think it should be located at Lucas Heights [in New South Wales] where the expertise is.”http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/date-farm-south-of-alice-springs-shortlisted-for-nuclear-waste/6938126
Australian Parliament House will soon be 100 per cent renewably powered.
Tom Swann says ACT government will have last laugh at climate sceptics, Canberra Times, November 13, 2015 John Thistleton Reporter for The Canberra Times. “…..researcher and campaigner Tom Swann says whether the former treasurer or prime minister or anyone else in Federal Parliament likes it or not, the Australian Parliament House will soon be 100 per cent renewably powered.
This is one of the implications of the ACT government’s clean energy policies, the most ambitious in Australia, which Mr Swann will explain at the Progressive Canberra Summit on Saturday morning, at a gathering of people discussing energy, housing, social justice and sustainability in this city and globally.
Mr Swann will point out the ACT government plans to completely decarbonise the territory’s electricity system and its moves to decarbonise its investments, by starting to divest from fossil fuels.
He will ask a group of people how can Canberra make the most of this leadership? “How do we ensure this transition engages all of Canberra, using local energy and expertise and providing options to those on lower incomes?” Mr Swann said.
He will present research from public policy think tank Australian Institute which shows three in four Canberrans surveyed (78 per cent) support the 100 per cent renewables target, a majority strongly supporting it. The polling also found an interesting national perspective.
“Canberra’s leading position on renewables is the envy of the rest of the country,” Mr Swann said.
The research is based on two polls in September, one by ReachTEL of 731 residents in Fraser electorate and 717 residents in Canberra electorate, while a separate poll by Research Now surveyed 1407 people across Australia.
Three in four Canberrans (75 per cent) said they were willing to pay more on their bills to achieve the 100 per cent renewables target and almost two in three (62 per cent) said they would be willing to pay at least $5 per week more on household electricity.
Almost three in four Australians from outside of Canberra (72 per cent) said they wanted a similar policy in their own state……..http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/tom-swann-says-act-government-will-have-last-laugh-at-climate-sceptics-20151113-gky8vd.html
Australia making ’empty promises’ on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies – report
Australia and its fellow G20 nations are “paying fossil fuel producers to undermine their own policies on climate change”, a British think tank says.
In a report released on Thursday, the Overseas Development Institute questioned why the Australian government continued to provide more than $5 billion a year to support fossil fuel production, despite a G20 commitment to phase out subsidies six years ago.
The report, titled Empty Promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production, comes ahead of the G20 summit in Turkey on November 15, and says that G20 governments collectively spend more than $640 billion a year to support the production of fossil fuels – almost four times the total of global subsidies for renewable energy. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australia-making-empty-promises-on-phasing-out-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report-20151111-gkwbrb.html
Radioactive trash dump would damage tourism – Sally’s Flat residents say “NO”
Sallys Flat should be removed from nuclear waste shortlist, residents say, ABC News 13 Nov 15 By Joanna Woodburn, Residents have slammed a proposal to store nuclear waste at Sallys Flat, near the historic gold mining village of Hill End in New South Wales’ central west.
The association’s Ross Brown said the historical significance and population of the area made it a poor choice for a nuclear facility…….
Bathurst Climate Action Network head Tracy Carpenter said Bathurst, which is an hour away from Sallys Flat, had been a sister city with Okuma in Japan, one of the towns affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. “People cannot occupy [Okuma] since the tsunami and earthquake and the result [of] the nuclear disaster, and now we’re being slated as an area to dump nuclear waste,” she said. “It’s just appalling.”…….
NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley said he would be surprised if the site was chosen……….”I think people in New South Wales will take an enormous amount of convincing for such a repository to be placed in our state, somewhere around Bathurst.
“We’re not talking about the outback, we’re talking about a pretty well populated area.”…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/take-sallys-flat-off-nuclear-waste-shortlist-residents-say/6937442
Australia two-faced at OECD discussions on coal and climate change
In addition, taking a blocking position at the OECD has the potential to damage Australia’s credibility in other international negotiations and particularly as its role as co-chair of the Green Climate Fund. Overall, to address climate change, our policies on energy and climate change will need to align. As the US, EU and China step up their leadership on climate change, Australia will come under increasing pressure to reconcile its different positions.
OECD coal discussions highlight tensions in Australia’s position on climate change, The Conversation, Katherine Lake November 13, 2015 While the UN Paris talks approach at the end of November, attention is currently focused on another forum, the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), where member countries are negotiating a deal to limit public finance to overseas coal projects in emerging and developing countries.
Australia and South Korea are reportedly opposed to an agreement struck by the US and Japan and supported by other member countries, notably Germany and France, to prevent public finance to all but the very cleanest power plants.
How will these discussions at the OECD impact on the UN Paris negotiations? Australia’s approach to these international meetings would seem to be inconsistent……..
Australia is walking a fine line in climate diplomacy
Are Australia’s positions on climate change in the UN and the OECD inconsistent?
On the one hand, Australia supports the objective of keeping the global temperature rise within 2℃ and is willing to make some domestic emission reductions to assist in achieving this.
On the other hand, it is not yet willing to place any real limits on its coal exports to developing countries. It justifies this position on the basis that coal is required by developing countries to alleviate poverty and that it is not for Australia to decide how other countries allocate their public finance. Continue reading
Yami Lester, victim of nuclear testing urges communities to fight nuclear waste dumping
SA Government ‘open’ to nuclear waste dump proposal despite previous opposition: Weatherill, ABC News, 13 Nov 15, “…… Greens MP Mark Parnell said he wanted to see more detail on the proposal, but was suspicious of the agenda from Canberra. He was concerned accepting a site in South Australia could lead to the storage of high level radioactive waste.
“It’s no surprise that the Federal Government has its eyes on South Australia for its nuclear waste dump,” Mr Parnell said. “But what will worry people in this state is whether this is a precursor to a high level radioactive waste dump.”…
Indigenous man Yami Lester, from Mintabie in the APY Lands, said the state and federal governments should not mine uranium, let alone store it.
Mr Lester was blinded from a radiation fallout in 1953 when the British and Australian governments conducted uranium testing near his community, west of Coober Pedy.
“It was terrible. Some older people died, I went blind and my cousin went blind, skin rash, diarrhoea and all that sickness,” he said.
“We had no treatment at all, the hospital nearest the clinic was 160 kilometres [away] at Ernabella, and we were sitting here, no doctor nothing.
“That’s why I’m scared of the government mining uranium. Better to leave it under the ground. Don’t touch it.”
Mr Lester urged the communities close to the proposed waste sites to fight against the dumps.
He said the state and federal government should learn from past mistakes.
“I don’t agree with [experts] at all. The Australian Government and the South Australian Government, people haven’t learnt from the mistakes that happened overseas, in Germany, Japan they haven’t learned from that,” he said…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/sa-govt-consider-nuclear-waste-proposal-royal-commission/6937530
NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP IN SA: TROJAN HORSE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP?
13 Nov 15 The Federal Government has released the shortlist of six sites for the location of a national radioactive waste dump. Three of these sites are in South Australia.
Friends of the Earth Adelaide is cautious about the Federal Governments genuine commitment to a voluntary site nomination and selection process.
“The test will be how the government handles community opposition, how inclusive and transparent the site selection process will be, and how it will handle the issue of existing South Australian legislation banning the establishment of a nuclear waste dump,” said Nectaria Calan of Friends of the Earth Adelaide.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, the Act governing the site selection process, over-rides existing state legislation prohibiting the establishment of a nuclear waste dump.
“Will the Federal Government impose a nuclear waste dump on states that have legislated against it, or communities that do not want it?” asked Ms Calan.
“The location of a waste dump cannot simply be decided through individual nominations,” said Ms Calan. “It affects the wider community, particularly those in close proximity to the site. Radioactive contamination knows no property boundaries. The principle of voluntarism extends beyond the individual where an action has wider ramifications,” continued Ms Calan.
“There is yet to be an independent inquiry into all our radioactive waste management options, so the nominations process is premature,” said Ms Calan.
Additionally, here in South Australia the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle is considering the feasibility of an international nuclear waste dump. “Will a national nuclear waste repository in SA be the trojan horse for an international high level nuclear waste dump down the track?” asked Ms Calan.
“Rather than considering existing nuclear waste in Australia as an intractable problem, the SA government and some proponents of the nuclear industry seem to consider radioactive waste a business opportunity and want to import it, astounding given that so far globally there has been no success in establishing even one facility for the long term storage of high level waste.”
“ The one deep underground repository for intermediate level waste that does exist, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, saw an incident in February last year where a waste barrel exploded, leading to an aboveground release of airborne radiation, after only 15 years in operation,” said Ms Calan. “According to the US Department of Energy, twenty-two workers tested positive to low-level radiation exposure.”
Friends of the Earth Adelaide has serious concerns regarding the regulatory framework that may be applied to a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, whether national or international.
“BHP Billiton, operator of the Olympic dam mine, is exempt from key regulating legislation in SA, including the Freedom of Information Act, and parts of the Radiation Protection and Control Act and the Environmental Protection Act. With such a precedent here in SA for the regulation of the nuclear industry, where is the guarantee that other nuclear projects such as a nuclear waste dump would not also be exempt from laws regulating radiation, environmental protection, and transparency?” asked Ms. Calan.
Scrutiny on the Australian govt’s plan for Lucas Heights nuclear waste
Community consent must be forthcoming and it must be informed consent. Defining the relevant affected community can be fraught. For example, people living on transport routes clearly have an interest but are rarely given a say. Several states and territories − indeed all four of the short-listed states and territories − have legislation banning the imposition of nuclear waste repositories. The nomination of sites in those jurisdictions suggests the federal government may be willing to ignore or override legislative bans.
An immediate problem is that visits to affected communities by government officials may not be illuminating or helpful. Government officials will insist the waste is safe and communities will wonder why it isn’t buried beneath Parliament House − or at a local landfill − if the waste is as safe as the government insists it is.
the government should go back to the drawing-board and ask whether a remote repository is needed at all. About 95 per cent of the waste is securely stored at two locations: the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s Lucas Heights site in southern Sydney, and Defence Department land near Woomera in SA. There is no obvious reason why that waste should be moved.
Government must learn from past mistakes on nuclear waste Anica Niepraschk & Jim Green, 13 Nov 2015, Climate Spectator www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/11/13/policy-politics/government-must-learn-past-mistakes-nuclear-waste
After failed attempts to impose a national nuclear waste repository in South Australia and the Northern Territory, the federal government has embarked on its latest attempt to find a site.
To its credit, the government has learnt from past mistakes. Instead of attempting to impose a repository (to be precise, a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground store for intermediate-level waste), the government called for land-owners to nominate potential sites. The two-month nomination period ended in May. That was followed by a desk-top study to evaluate the sites’ suitability according to a number of social, environmental and economic factors. Twenty-eight sites were put forward and six made the short-list: three in SA and one each in NSW, Queensland and the NT.
The announcement of the short-list will now be followed by a public consultation period, then detailed site characterisation studies to further assess the suitability of the sites. An announcement of a preferred (but not yet selected) site will be made in mid-2016 at the earliest.
A community compensation package of up to $10 million is on offer − a pittance considering the repository would be operational for around 300 years and hazardous for thousands of years beyond that.
Two of the SA sites are near Kimba, 150 km west of Port Augusta. It is agricultural land and there is overwhelming opposition from local farmers. The South Australian debate also feeds into a debate as to whether the state might offer itself up as the world’s nuclear waste dump, accepting high-level nuclear waste from power reactors around the world. Despite extravagant claims about the potential revenue stream from high-level nuclear waste, less than one in six South Australians support the proposal.
A strong coalition of Aboriginal communities and civil society organisations in South Australia has already clearly announced its opposition to hosting a nuclear waste repository and is prepared to follow in the footsteps of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, senior Aboriginal women who successfully prevented a repository being foisted on their land from 1998−2004. Continue reading
A Non-Reactor Future for Lucas Heights
The Australian govt continues to hype the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, as though
it were some grand asset to this nation. Well, it’s not. It’s major function is ceretainly not medical, as the government would have you believe.
Indeed, is its major function an excuse to justify the toxic nuclear fuel chain?.
Friends of The Earth, Jim Green, 1. Summary
* most of the work at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights facility does not depend on the operation of a reactor.
* a good case can be made for greater investment in non-reactor technologies/programs at Lucas Heights.
* pursuit of a non-reactor future for ANSTO offers several advantages, including a large reduction in the generation of radioactive waste……
4. Research reactors are yesterday’s technology:
“The future direction of nuclear medicine lies with cyclotron produced products and accelerators. …
Over half of all research reactors ever built have been closed and the number in operation continues to decline…. the number of cyclotrons in operation continues to increase. Some multipurpose research reactors are being replaced by reactors, but most are not being replaced or are being replaced by non-reactor technologies..
6. Alternatives to a domestic reactor for medical isotope supply:
Ongoing reliance on existing cyclotrons in Australia, plus a greater reliance on imports, is a perfectly viable alternative to a domestic reactor.. http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/lh
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
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 