The people of South Australia are being excluded from the discussion and decisions about the Federal govt’s planned nuclear waste dump
Flinders Local Action Group
Bob Tulloch, 5 Dec 21, IS SOUTH AUSTRALIA DESTINED TO BE A NUCLEAR STATE? Six years ago, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) suddenly burst into our lives with their push to establish a National Nuclear Waste Management Facility within our communities.Our lives, friendships and communities where fractured and torn apart, the effects still lingering today. The communities I refer to are Hawker/ Quorn in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba on Eyre Peninsular in South Australia.The ‘pro facility’ doctrine was loud, clear, and biased. Presented in a process where ‘community consultation’ was co-opted to ‘manufacture consent’. A process tightly controlled by DIIS with little room for alternative points of view, local dissent controlled with intimidation and bullying tactics.
It came as a shock to those involved, that our Government would use such tactics to push through their agenda, culminating after 40 years of failed efforts.This is when I started investigating behind the scenes in an attempt to understand why the Federal Government wanted to establish a nuclear waste facility at Kimba, so far from the main source of supply, Lucas Heights.
The Federal Government, under the NRWM Act, has the power to over ride state laws and has used these powers during the site characterisation study of the site Napandee near Kimba, which has now been officially declared as the site for a National Nuclear Waste Facility.
The Marshall Government is keen to set up a nuclear defense industry in South Australia to compliment the proposed nuclear submarine industry.Our state opposition, although opposed to the recent site selection process, is keeping very quiet, not forgetting under Jay Weatherall’s leadership in 2016, introduced the idea of importing the world’s nuclear waste to South Australia.My concern is, the people of South Australia are now being left out of the conversation and the decision making process.
Kimba nuclear dump: Premier Marshall must enforce South Australia’s legislation
“The SA Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act was an initiative of the SA Olsen Liberal government to prevent the imposition of an intermediate-level nuclear fuel waste dump in SA. The state legislation was strengthened by the Rann government in 2002. Premier Marshall should fight Canberra’s push to dump nuclear waste on SA and to override state legislation, as did Premier Olsen and Premier Rann.
The Act mandates a state Parliamentary inquiry in response to any attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump on SA and the Premier should initiate that inquiry immediately.
The Morrison government’s plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump at Kimba still faces multiple hurdles despite today’s announcement from Minister Keith Pitt that the site has been formally declared and land acquired. Those hurdles include a judicial challenge to the declaration, environmental assessment, assessment by the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA, a state parliamentary inquiry, and upcoming state and federal elections.
The Howard government had proceeded further towards imposing a dump on SA before abandoning the plan in 2004.
Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, said: “The Morrison government’s disgraceful efforts to override the unanimous opposition of Barngarla Traditional Owners will be challenged in the courts. Barngarla Traditional Owners are expected to launch a judicial challenge following today’s announcement.
“Traditional Owners were excluded from the government’s sham ‘community ballot’ so they held their own ballot. When the results of the government’s ballot and the Barngarla ballot are combined, support falls to 43%, short of a majority and well short of the 65% that the government indicated was the benchmark to determine ‘broad community support’.
“Premier Steven Marshall’s support for a nuclear waste dump that is unanimously opposed by Barngarla Traditional Owners is unconscionable, crude racism and Friends of the Earth calls on the Premier to support Traditional Owners ‒ and all South Australians ‒ instead of shamefully falling into line behind his undemocratic, racist federal colleagues.
“The SA Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act was an initiative of the SA Olsen Liberal government to prevent the imposition of an intermediate-level nuclear fuel waste dump in SA. The state legislation was strengthened by the Rann government in 2002. Premier Marshall should fight Canberra’s push to dump nuclear waste on SA and to override state legislation, as did Premier Olsen and Premier Rann.
“The Act mandates a state Parliamentary inquiry in response to any attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump on SA and the Premier should initiate that inquiry immediately.
“The proposed nuclear dump will be contested at the SA and federal elections. Friends of the Earth welcomes SA Labor’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto over nuclear projects given the sad and sorry history of nuclear projects in this state. Deputy Leader Susan Close says that SA Labor is “utterly opposed” to the “appalling” process which led to the federal government targeting the Kimba site.
“The government’s claim that most of the waste arises from nuclear medicine is a blatant lie. The claim that 45 permanent jobs will be created is implausible. When the Howard government planned a dump in SA, it said there would be zero jobs.
“Measured by radioactivity, well over 90% of the waste is long-lived intermediate-level reactor waste that the federal government wants to store above ground at Kimba until such time as a deep underground disposal facility is established. No effort is being made to find a location for such a facility so this long-lived waste would remain stored above ground in SA ad infinitum. The only deep underground nuclear waste repository in the world, in the US state of New Mexico, was closed in 2014 following an underground chemical explosion in a nuclear waste barrel.
“Intermediate-level waste should be stored at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site until a suitable disposal facility is available. The Morrison government’s plan to move intermediate-level waste from secure above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to far less secure storage at Kimba is absurd and indefensible.
“South Australians fought long and hard to prevent the Howard government turning SA into the nation’s nuclear waste dump. We fought and won the campaign to stop the Flinders Ranges being used for a national dump. We fought and won the campaign to stop SA being turned into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump. And now, we will fight until the Morrison government backs off.”
Kimba, South Australia, as a nuclear ”sacrifice zone”
Below is an article from the Port Lincoln Times. Like most articles from the region, it appears to be written with breathless delight over the joys of Kimba, South Austraklis getting a ? temporsry nuclear waste dump.
It was the headline that got me.
What do they mean – ”SACRIFICE ZONE’? Does it simply refer to what everyone knows – that the dump will be a financial white elephant, trashing the area’s previous clean green agricultural reputation?
Or does it carry the more sinister meaning, of damage to health and environment, as Rusdsia’s Mayak site, and Fukushima, have been labelled as ”sacrifice zones”?
Grants recognise Kimba’s sacrifice Bianca Iovino, 17 Nov 21,
The Kimba region will benefit from another $2 million in grants, acting as a recognition of the strain the anticipated National Radioactive Waste Management Facility has had on the community.
Kimba Mayor Dean Johnson said the grants rewards community engagement in what’s been a long and difficult conversation about the facility.
“I think there’s a real air of excitement and expectation in the community at the moment, but the truth is not everyone agrees on this, there are people who strongly appose it and that hasn’t changed,” he said.
“But to have another $2 million to spend in our community is really exciting, and I can’t wait to see the projects that get put forward.”
Resources and Water minister Keith Pitt said the program recognises the significant amount of time, effort and disruption caused to the town following an over five years consultation process regarding the facility….. The official location of the site is yet to be confirmed, but a Notice of Intention to Declare has been lodged and and an announcement is imminent. https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/7511178/grants-recognise-kimbas-sacrifice/?cs=1500&fbclid=IwAR3qWas_23kw_rcX6yKFSUePG8zM1WydYsVXgV8CN2Rz-KGaiz0AoJWnG5Q
ARPANSA admits that no safety assessment exists, for nuclear submarines in Adelaide
Following a search from ARPANSA’s senior scientist, the agency determined that such a planning or safety document “does not exist”.
No safety assessment for nuclear subs in Adelaide https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/10/22/no-safety-assessment-for-nuclear-subs-in-adelaide/
The federal government has not undertaken a safety assessment or planning study for the prospect of docking nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide, according to documents obtained by independent senator Rex Patrick. Thomas Kelsall@Thomas_Kelsall
The Port Adelaide and Outer Harbour docks are set to be the building spot for at least eight nuclear-powered submarines under the terms of the new “AUKUS” trilateral security pact, announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison in September.
But the controversial deal, which saw Australia scrap its $90 billion contract with France to build 12 diesel-powered boats, drew criticism from anti-nuclear activists and local residents concerned about the prospect of nuclear reactors in their suburbs.
No nuclear-powered warship has ever visited Port Adelaide or Outer Harbour.
Patrick, a former submariner and critic of the new subs deal, on September 21 filed a Freedom of Information request to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) for “any documents that go to the planning or prospects of a nuclear vessel visiting Port Adelaide or Outer Harbour”.
ARPANSA is responsible for providing safety assessment to the Visiting Ships Panel (Nuclear) – an interdepartmental committee overseeing arrangements for visiting nuclear ships and associated safety requirement.
Following a search from ARPANSA’s senior scientist, the agency determined that such a planning or safety document “does not exist”.
“The ARPANSA Senior Scientist, who holds the responsibility for searching ARPANSA records of documents that go to the planning or prospects of a nuclear vessel, … has instructed me that ARPANSA, at this point in time, does not have a document specifically relating to the terms of your request,” ARPANSA FOI Officer John Templeton wrote to Patrick on Thursday.
A spokesperson for the agency confirmed to InDaily it has not been asked by the Defence Department to undertake a safety assessment or planning study of the site.
Patrick said the revelation shows that the Morrison’s Government’s nuclear submarines program is “a huge exercise in filling in the blanks”.
“One might have thought that some work would have been undertaken to consider Adelaide’s suitability for at least nuclear powered warship visits before the Prime Minister’s big announcement last month,” Patrick said.
“That is a task that ARPANSA undertakes on a regular basis in relation to other locations including HMAS Stirling, Fremantle, Darwin and Brisbane.
“While the safety assessments required for nuclear submarine construction and long-term berthing facilities would be a very complex undertaking, a port visit safety assessment of Port Adelaide and Outer Harbour would have been minimum due diligence before the Prime Minister promised his nuclear subs would be built in Adelaide.”
Patrick said the lack of safety assessment means Adelaide’s docks “could not currently host even a single-day visit by any nuclear powered submarine”.
“As is so often the case, Scott Morrison’s Government hasn’t done the basic preliminaries. It’s big on announcements, but fails conspicuously on due diligence and competent project management,” he said.
ARPANSA CEO Carl-Magnus Larsson told a parliamentary last week that the agency was briefed on the plan to shift from diesel to nuclear submarines around the beginning of July.
A spokesperson for ARPANSA said the agency “has not been asked to undertake a safety assessment and/or planning study on docking nuclear submarines in Port Adelaide or Outer Harbour”.
“ARPANSA will only undertake a radiological port assessment if Defence (Navy) determines that a nuclear-powered vessel can visit a specified port,” the spokesperson said.
“Neither Adelaide nor Outer Harbor have been subject to a visit of a nuclear-powered vessel.”
InDaily contacted the Department of Defence for comment.
BHP’s legal privileges overOlympic Dam copper-uranium mine have had devastating consequences for traditional Aboriginal owners
David Noonan Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch, 20 Oct 21
· “A Way Forward” Juukan Caves Inquiry Final Report https://www.aph.gov.au/…/Nort…/CavesatJuukanGorge/Report Inquiry Report conveys a striking critique of BHP legal privileges over Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine, see Legislative exemptions from cultural heritage protections p.147-148:
“Acts such as these have had devastating consequences for traditional owners as rights to protect cultural heritage are intentionally disrupted and prevented … these Acts remain in force and even when they are repealed their associated histories of injustices will remain … States and territories as well as companies involved in such acts should seek to fast-track transitions and recompense traditional owners for injustices that have occurred.”
Rowan Ramsey, Federal Member for nuclear waste dumping, ignores HUGE PORT AUGUSTA RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK (PAREP)
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia, 17 Oct 21, You CANNOT MISS the HUGE PORT AUGUSTA RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK (PAREP) just outside Port Augusta on the approach from Adelaide on Highway 1!
Why is Rowan Ramsey so quiet over this?
It is ALL HAPPENING in his Federal Seat of Grey – and NOT ONE PEEP OUT OF HIM!!!!
NOTHING!!
Maybe he really is ONLY the Federal Member for Council Area of Kimba with EYES ONLY for a NATIONAL NUCLEAR DUMP for Kimba after all!!
Heads up Rowan! – Kimba is NOT AN ISLAND!
You drag Kimba into being a National Nuclear Dump you drag the REST of South Australia along with it!!
And in case you don’t read the article – BHP Olympic Dam/Roxby Downs is and always has been a copper mine first and foremost. The uranium contaminates the copper and they can’t sell the copper contaminated! Gold, Silver and Uranium are really just sidelines. And copper is needed more than ever for renewable energy technology.
Committing to using Renewable Energy from the PORT AUGUSTA RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK (PAREP) by BHP actually fits like a hand in glove.
 |
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929
|
Kimba Consultative Committee living in la la land over the prospect of stranded nuclear wastes.
A VIEWING PLATFORM……Soooooo….let me get this right….People from around the world, will come flooding into Kimba (this is paraphrasing Adi Paterson’s claim that it will be a “tourist” attraction), to “view” the dump from a viewing platform!!!
And it gets better – “Members seem to be strongly for the visitor centre in the township and liked Mr Osborn’s idea about the viewing platform. It was also raised that they did not want to see the visitor centre offer coffee or lunch, as it would affect local businesses.”
|
Kazzi Jai Fight to stop a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, 8 Oct 21,
For those time poor, here is a brief summary of the latest minutes of the Kimba Consultative Committee August 26th 2021
1. Downplaying Judicial Review….What a surprise! Biggest laughable line – “Choosing Napandee is an educated decision based on in-depth community consultation and extensive technical assessment work undertaken over a 4 year period, which started with voluntary land nomination by the owners of land.”!!
2. Cultural Heritage Assessment….to be done AFTER site acquisition because apparently “the work is quite costly and it would be prudent to wait until the site is acquired to spend further public money on this activity.”!!
3. Fluff words – no substance – “ARWA will work with ANSTO, CSIRO, and others to develop this research and implement an Australian appropriate disposal pathway in due course” – with respect to the “temporary” storage of Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste!
NOT ONE RED CENT SPENT YET TO DEAL PROPERLY WITH INTERMEDIATE LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE – SO NOT GOING TO HOLD ONE’S BREATH ON THIS “PROMISE”….ALWAYS “LOOKING INTO IT” SEEMS TO BE THE FALLBACK ANSWER TO “APPEASE” PEOPLE….FROM WHAT WILL BE IN FACT STRANDED WASTE!!!!! ….Again….why is there no mention of a HOT CELL should the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste be stored in Kimba? TN-81 casks ONLY have a 40 year lifetime manufacturer’s warranty. Given that it will now NOT be ANSTO’S PROBLEM – THEY ARE ONLY THE CUSTOMERS……WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE TN-81 WASTE??
4. Seems there is a REDUCTION in ACTUAL SECURITY already happening BEFORE EVEN DECLARATION OF THE SITE HAS HAPPENED!!…..”There were questions around the police presence in the community with an influx of people for construction, and whether this is something that has been considered. Mr Osborn said that this is something that needs further discussion with South Australian Police and Council. There will be security at the site, however it is yet to be decided if it will be Australian Federal Police (AFP).”
5. “Mr Osborn said that he envisaged a visitor centre in town and the possibility of there being a viewing platform at the facility where people can look over the site to get a birdseye view.”
A VIEWING PLATFORM……Soooooo….let me get this right….People from around the world, will come flooding into Kimba (this is paraphrasing Adi Paterson’s claim that it will be a “tourist” attraction), to “view” the dump from a viewing platform!!!
And it gets better – “Members seem to be strongly for the visitor centre in the township and liked Mr Osborn’s idea about the viewing platform. It was also raised that they did not want to see the visitor centre offer coffee or lunch, as it would affect local businesses.” https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
Environmentalists want independent review on plans for rocket launch from Eyre Peninsula
SA rocket launch amid calls for conservation site review Stephanie Richards, IN DAILY,
Environmentalists are calling on the State Government to order an independent review into alternate sites for a rocket launchpad facility, as a company today launches its first test rocket from the Eyre Peninsula conservation zone it hopes to make a permanent base.
Space industry company Southern Launch will today launch a 10-metre-high, three-tonne test rocket from its Whalers Way Oribital Launch Complex in a conservation zone about 25-kilomtres southwest of Port Lincoln.
The rocket, owned by Taiwan-based space company tiSPACE, will travel southwards over the Great Australian Bight, with Southern Launch using the launch to gather noise and vibration data to determine the impact of rocket launches on native wildlife.
Southern Launch was granted permission by the State Commission Assessment Panel to launch the test rockets in June, but it is still waiting on approval to build two permanent launchpads at the Whalers Way site to host regular satellite launches into orbit around the Earth’s poles.
The proposal has received significant backlash from conservationists and local residents, who argue a rocket launchpad complex should not be built in a conservation zone that is home to several state and federal-listed threatened bird species.
In a joint statement issued yesterday, South Australian conservation groups including the Nature Conservation Society, Wilderness Society, Conservation Council, the National Trust, Birds SA and Trees for Life expressed “major concerns” with the imminent launch and plans for a permanent launchpad facility at the site.
They called on the State Government to order an independent review of possible alternate locations for the launchpads, arguing “the only analysis that has been done on possible locations is by the company that stands to profit from this operation”.
“We have urged the Government to work with the company to find an alternative site for the proposed rocket launch facility, but so far, none have been put forward,” Trees for Life CEO Natasha Davis said.
According to Southern Launch’s Environmental Impact Statement, which is currently out for public consultation, the company considered several sites to build its permanent launchpad facility before settling on Whalers Way.
Alternate sites in South Australia included Kangaroo Island, Cape Jervis, Cape Douglas, Ceduna and the Mid Eyre Peninsula, while a RAAF base in regional Victoria and a national park in Western Australia were also considered.
The site was the subject of a Heritage Agreement; however, some areas of the site were specifically excluded from the agreement.”
Asked whether the Government supported an independent review into alternate locations for the launchpad facility, a state government spokesperson told InDaily that as Southern Launch’s proposal had been classed as a “major project”, the company would need to submit an analysis of why Whalers Way is a suitable site.
“The proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement is currently out for public consultation, and South Australians are urged to have their say,” the spokesperson said.
The public has until next Thursday to submit feedback via the Plan SA website.
The site was the subject of a Heritage Agreement; however, some areas of the site were specifically excluded from the agreement.”
Asked whether the Government supported an independent review into alternate locations for the launchpad facility, a state government spokesperson told InDaily that as Southern Launch’s proposal had been classed as a “major project”, the company would need to submit an analysis of why Whalers Way is a suitable site.
“The proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement is currently out for public consultation, and South Australians are urged to have their say,” the spokesperson said.
The public has until next Thursday to submit feedback via the Plan SA website.
According to Southern Launch’s Environmental Impact Statement, six threatened bird species were located during field surveys at the launch site, and another ten threatened species were known to live in the area………………..
In a Facebook post this morning, Premier Steven Marshall said the test launches “put South Australia in the box seat to tap in to the nation’s booming space industry”. https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/09/10/sa-rocket-launch-amid-calls-for-conservation-site-review/
Radioactive waste dump plan puts the Eyre Peninsula’s reputation at risk, lacks genuine community consent
Stock Journal, Terry Schmucker, Cootra 2nd September 2021 The radioactive waste site at Napandee does not have genuine community support. Farmers and farmland within as little as 20 kilometres from the radioactive waste dump at Napandee were not included in the official community vote.
Voting was centred on the Kimba local government area, which splits the community near the waste dump by the local council boundary. The vote also excluded Native Title holders because their traditional land extends beyond the council area and they live outside the district.Temporarily storing intermediate level waste at the headwaters of the Eyre Peninsula will seriously impact on the reputation of our prime food production from our agriculture and fisheries. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
Napandee nuclear waste site is in fact on farming land, and all too close to the town of Kimba
|
Roni Skipworth No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia , 2 Sept 21,
Not many people know where the nominated site ‘Napandee property’ is. Let me assist with showing you where this property is, there is a purple cross showing this property on a map. The land is not a flat unproductive site as stated in many reports as last time we travelled pass there were many sheep eating its grass https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929
Inaccuracy on the land area for Napandee nuclear waste dump
After a somewhat shaky attempt by the Editor to recant the very convincing result in the Stock Journal last week, another Stock Journal article has just been released supposedly showing both sides of the argument regarding the proposed nuclear dump. Seems Mr Baldock doesn’t actually know how much land is involved- 158 hectares is NOT the size according to OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS – so what ELSE is being said which is considered being “flexible with the truth” do you think, putting it nicely? Good interview again however by Peter Woolford.
Opposition to nuclear waste transport through the port of Whyalla, South Australia
Push for nuclear port no-no, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield 21
A Whyalla resident passionate about the issue of nuclear waste storage has called for the Whyalla City Council to move a motion against transporting nuclear waste through the steel city’s port.
Andrew Williams, who has written to the Whyalla News on the issue in the past, delivered a presentation to council during their meeting on Monday.
Mr Williams said the federal government intended to override state laws in order to transport nuclear waste through South Australia, with the Whyalla Port being a “target port” for transportation.
“The federal government have said they will ensure appropriate consultation where there is significant public interest,” he said.
It is necessary for more public interest, especially in Whyalla as Department of Industry reports name the Whyalla Port to take shipments of nuclear fuel wastes.”
Mr Williams further outlined his concerns around storing intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) at a Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) at the Napandee site near Kimba.
“The intermediate level waste consists of reprocessed spent fuel rods and reactor waste and some legacy waste which must be kept contained and secure from the environment for 10,000 years,” he said.
“Storage will require double handling of ILW which is not world’s best practice. The issue has been presented as a local economic development opportunity rather than a National Dump which will affect many generations to come.”………https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/7351332/?fbclid=IwAR1Wk-SzqygZroJ14ZA2g4_VmixtphFkTOFKKzTMnJxlHIcxiMQAwotNN4Y
Port at Cape Hardy could be the entrance place for radioactive waste transport to Kimba, South Australia.
Paul Waldon . Fight to Stop a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, 22 July 21, Fear of Whyalla as a port for receiving ANSTO’s radioactive waste has strongly been suggested recently. Mr Paterson responded to Sarah Hanson-Young’s question by saying that residents of a port town would be consulted before any such plan.
However I for one don’t believe Whyalla is on the cards, I believe the chosen port would likely be Port Hardy.
The Sentient Group (incorporated in the Caymen Islands) is the parent entity of Iron Road Limited. Iron Road put forward a plan to develop Port Hardy as a export terminal. So why would there be two deep water ports to service one region. Yes, there is only 78 kilometers from Iron Roads mining site at Warramboo and Kimba the proposed site for ANSTO’s radioactive waste.
So is there anything in it for the mining industry??? I don’t know, but it has been claimed that Iron Road is the states biggest mining operation outside Olympic Dam.
Moreover, in May 2017 when the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science proposal to burden an unwilling community in South Australia with their radioactive waste was just heating up Iron Road Limited became the beneficiary of a 21 year mining lease for magnetite mining and mineral processing. Which had 127 compliance conditions flagged.
But wait there’s more, the federal government also announced a 25 million dollar grant commitment to support development of Iron Roads Cape Hardy port precinct.
I’m not implying that Iron Road and the government are in bed together, but wouldn’t it make sense that while lanthanides are leaving a port the government would allow actinides to enter. more https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556
South Australian law demands an Inquiry into the Federal government’s nuclear waste storage plan
Robyn Wood, 10 July 21 The SOUTH AUSTRALIA NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) ACT 2000, Section 14 states:If a licence, exemption or other authority to construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility in this State is granted under a law of the Commonwealth, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament must inquire into, consider and report on the likely impact of that facility on the environment and socio-economic wellbeing of this State.
https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0jBfTQuytzlMroTWvPAkMXZraWTDPbKfYim5rrdgPl95UtR3eBSuvIOv4
Premier Marshall should stand up for South Australia: Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA
Premier Marshall should stand up for our State: Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA
David Noonan, July 2021 Premier Stephen Marshall must stand up for South Australia’s interests and push back on federal Liberal government imposition of an unlawful nuclear waste dump in our State.
Premier Marshall should stand up for our State: Reject the federal Liberal’s unlawful, unfair, unsafe and unnecessary nuclear waste dump plan for SA
David Noonan, July 2021 Premier Stephen Marshall must stand up for South Australia’s interests and push back on federal Liberal government imposition of an unlawful nuclear waste dump in our State.
- The objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.
- As Premier you should give all South Australian’s a Say and take action to instigate a required public inquiry into the impacts of a nuclear waste storage facility on the environmental and socio-economic wellbeing of this State. The NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) ACT 2000, Section 14 states:
- If a licence, exemption or other authority to construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility in this State is granted under a law of the Commonwealth, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament must inquire into, consider and report on the likely impact of that facility on the environment and socio-economic wellbeing of this State.
The Port of Whyalla is targeted for shipments of ANSTO nuclear fuel waste and communities along proposed nuclear waste transport routes across our State all have a right to have a Say.
Nuclear waste dumping is a Human Rights issue for our fellow Indigenous South Australian’s. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Stephen Marshall should support the Barngarla People’s right to say No to nuclear waste storage on their country:
- The “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People” (2007) Article 29 calls on States “to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous material shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free prior and informed consent.”
- The federal Liberal government proposes to ship and truck nuclear waste across SA into indefinite above ground storage in a fancy shed at Napandee on Eyre Peninsula – without any capacity or even a plan for its eventual permanent disposal.
- SA’s clean green reputation, and our prime agricultural lands and farming communities, deserve better than untenable imposition of toxic nuclear wastes in a shoddy reckless federal plan to park and dump wastes that require isolation from the environment for 10,000 years.95 per cent of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) in Australia are owned by Commonwealth government agencies, the vast majority is produced and held at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights reactor facility in Sydney – where it should stay in secure extended storage.
- The federal Budget provided $60 million for further decades of extended storage capacity for ILW at ANSTO Lucas Heights, building onto the operation of existing stores to 2026.
- In 2015 a separate Interim Waste Store for ANSTO nuclear fuel waste was built at Lucas Heights with a design capacity for 40 years. This store received a shipment of reprocessed nuclear fuel waste from France in 2015 and is intended to now receive a shipment from the UK in 2022, and is safety rated to 2055.
- The CEO of the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA stated in evidence to a Senate Inquiry in 2020: “Waste can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.”
- The federal Liberal government proposes to bring all these nuclear wastes to SA, along with decades of ANSTO’s further proposed nuclear waste production and future shipments of ANSTO reprocessed nuclear waste from France.
Premier – Stand up for our State!
1.This month
PETITION – Stop Nuclear Submarines for Australia
GO to https://www.foe.org.au/nonuclearsubs?fbclid=IwAR3JuFtAviP_kTDb5YX3lxHDZymQu86RWp9eW4zUWb9GV966nha3VeyFvCU The Morrison government’s decision to build nuclear submarines has shocked communities around the country.
The move, which occurred without any community consultation, undermines Australia’s nuclear-free status and will generate radioactive waste for decades.
The Prime Minister must reverse the decision to build nuclear-powered submarines and commit to keeping Australia’s military nuclear free.
global pandemic, both locally and throughout our region and on urgent action to deal with the climate crisis.
Read more about the background of this nuclear submarine proposal and why this radical shift in military capability is the wrong decision for those who care about environmental and social justice.
****************************************************************
For updates: see Adelaide group Don’t Dump on SA https://www.facebook.com/dontdumponsa
No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District https://www.facebook.com/noradwastekimba
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
Appeal for Australian Government’s Actions on Japan’s Dumping Nuclear Wastewater into Sea
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
—
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
Antinuclear 