Long haul for South Australia nuclear waste dump project, and serious risks
Australians face big decision on nuclear waste dump, news.com.au MAY 10, 2016 ….. ” it’s not going to be an overnight fix for the state’s budget problems. A permanent facility would take 28 years to build, and this construction could only start once local residents were on board. The commissioner has suggested it could take 10 years to get this approval.
Even if an interim facility was built to take used fuel while the permanent version was under construction, this would still only be operational 11 years after a decision on the project was made.
SAFETY ASPECTS
Used nuclear fuel, stored as a solid ceramic in metal cladding, generates heat and is highly radioactive and dangerous.
According to the commission, radiation levels reduce quickly during the first 30 to 50 years of storage and the most radioactive elements decay within 500 years. But less radioactive elements in nuclear fuel do require storage and isolation for at least 100,000 years.
The commission noted that the most serious consequences of disturbing nuclear fuel were linked to potential exposure to radiation.
And certainly nothing focuses the mind like considering the wasteland of Chernobylor Fukushima………
the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, even low-level waste, which needs be stored for up to a few hundred years, have been illustrated in the US and France.
America’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was compromised when a drum of radioactive waste burst open in the underground facility. Most disturbingly, the rupture was blamed on someone putting the wrong type of kitty litter in the drum, possibly due to a typo in a policy manual.
A WAR BEGINS
Conservationists have accused the commissioner of downplaying the risks of nuclear storage and have threatened to ramp up their campaign against the dump.
“We’ll be increasing our profile, our presence and our concerns,” Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney told AAP……..
Invitations will be sent this week to 25,000 people seeking an expression of interest in being part of a 400-person jury that will consider the state’s approach…….
Treasurer Scott Morrison said the Federal Government would work constructively with SA to address any issues arising out of the Royal Commission…….
#NuclearCommissionSAust bizarre attack on renewable energy
In its final report, the commission draws from the usual nuclear play-book on renewables: that wind and solar can’t do the job, that other renewable energy technologies are untested, and that renewables will require expensive and additional back-up power.
So far, South Australia has got to 50 per cent wind and solar without the need for any additional back-up power. Indeed, there is still surplus capacity.
Royal Commission wants rules changed on nuclear power in 
Australia http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/royal-commission-wants-rules-changed-on-nuclear-power-in-australia-28210 By Giles Parkinson on 10 May 2016 The Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has concluded that nuclear power generation is not a commercially viable option for Australia, and won’t be until the 2030s – if at all, but it still wants governments to repeal laws that ban nuclear generation.
The main findings of the Royal Commission centred around the creation of a nuclear waste dump, despite widespread criticism of the move. That recommendation will be reviewed by the South Australia government over the course of the year.
But on the same day that the last coal-fired power generator in the state was closed down, the commission has also argued the case for nuclear, saying it “might” be needed post 2030.
The Royal Commission seems to accept that nuclear power is not just too expensive, but too big to fit into the South Australia market, and it would be too risky for the state to build “new generation” technology, such as the “generation IV” reactors often promoted in nuclear circles.
Yet, further into the report, it expresses support for small modular reactors, despite the fact that this technology will likely be even more expensive, due to reduced economies of scale, and forms part of the “new generation” technologies because the first of its kind are not likely to appear within the next decade.
The commission gives some bizarre interpretations in the state of the market, Continue reading
Paragraphs in the Royal Commission report that deserve scrutiny
Michelle Drummond, South Australia, 11 May 16 After reading the summary of the report I wanted to highlight a couple of points that I see as being important, and worth consideration. Firstly it seems obvious to me that the dump is actually the wedge to introduce the rest of the Nuclear industry into Australia.
It is interesting that the opening statement highlights that being involved in Nuclear activities brings environmental, social, financial and safety risks.
In the next paragraph they talk about the 120 year life span of the project and ignore that there is still another 99,880 years to maintain the safety of the dump.
In paragraph 3 it is firmly stated there needs to be agreement by the South Australian Community (Citizens Jury now offered as the method for reaching agreement I have found that it is open to abuse, unless everyone is well informed across the topic.)
Paragraph 6 states that the government needs to pursue simplification of both state and federal legislation in regards to uranium mining.
Paragraph 8 is all about expanding mining, and exploration and removing barriers. At the end of this paragraph it was pleasing to see the idea that mining companies should be held financially responsible for remediation and decommission.
Paragraph 11 discusses the removal of legislation so that Australia could reprocess waste as well as storing it.
Paragraph 13 states that Nuclear power should not be discounted based on safety.
No national referendum on nuclear waste importing? Just shonky “citizen juries”
Citizen juries to weigh SA nuclear dump https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/31561735/citizen-juries-to-weigh-sa-nuclear-dump/
AAP on May 10, 2016 South Australians will be asked to take part in citizen juries to help decide whether the state should host a high-level nuclear waste dump.
A jury of 350 voters will be asked to produce a report in November outlining the community’s views on the proposed dump and other nuclear issues, with the government to outline its decision by year’s end.
The government will also launch an advertising campaign encouraging people to “explore the facts” on the nuclear fuel cycle, Premier Jay Weatherill told reporters on Tuesday.
These are the recommendations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia
Former Governor Kevin Scarce recommends go ahead for nuclear storage in SA The Advertiser, May 9, 2016 DANIEL WILLSSTATE POLITICAL EDITOR
“……..The recommendations
1. Simplify approvals for radioactive ore mining, ending the duplication at state and federal processes
2. Make more SA geophysical data available publicly to aid exploration.
3. Undertake more geophysical surveys areas where mineral prospectivity is high.
4. Commit to increased, long-term government spending to search for new mineral deposits.
5. Ensure the full costs of closing down radioactive ore projects are secured before mining starts.
6. Remove state and federal bans on uranium processing activities.
7. Promote commercialisation of more research at the SA Health and Medical Research Institute.
8. End a national ban on nuclear power so it can be used to cut Australia’s carbon emissions.
9. Develop a national energy policy that considers all technologies, including nuclear.
10. Work with the Federal Government to better understand available nuclear power options.
11. Pursue establishment of a used nuclear fuel waste storage and disposal facility in SA.
12. Abolish state laws preventing further taxpayer-funded investigations of the industry.
(Condensed from formal recommendations) http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/former-governor-kevin-scarce-recommends-go-ahead-for-nuclear-storage-in-sa/news-story/c320cdebf7f0b3bc745ecb447abf9aef
Both Labor and Liberal supporting South Australian nuclear waste dump importing
SA nuclear royal commission sets 10-year timetable MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 10, 2016
South Australians could be ready in 10 years to accept nuclear waste from overseas for storage, royal commissioner Kevin Scarce said yesterday following the release of his final report.
The report, released 14 months after Mr Scare’s appointment, made 12 recommendations. It said the state could “safely increase its participation in nuclear activities”, with a storage facility generating more than $100 billion over a 120-year lifespan.
But Mr Scarce said there would be “10 to 15 years, 10 years I hope, to get to a point where we’ll make a decision’’, with ongoing community support required and consultation to start as soon as possible through an independent agency.
“I would hope that if there’s strong social consent, we might get there faster,” he said. “We need to take the time to explain the steps, to explain the safety concerns.’’
At the same time, the agency should also determine general criteria for an appropriate dump site, he said.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said the commission’s findings had bipartisan support but required strong public approval. A community engagement process would begin “within days” to inform the government’s response by the end of the year…..
Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said both sides of politics would need to work together……http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-sets-10year-timetable/news-story/35c622dec6665e53850407ce47777041
Scarce Royal Commission Report urges nuclear waste dump – “as soon as possible”
Scarce urges SA nuclear waste dump – “as soon as possible”, INDaily, SENIOR JOURNALIST Tom Richardson, 9 May 16
South Australia will take a leap into the unknown with a nuclear future firmly on the agenda, after the release today of the final report of the Scarce Royal Commission. The report emphasises the “safety” of increased participation in the nuclear fuel cycle – with a high-level global repository for spent fuel now a viable prospect – and the “significant and enduring economic benefits” to the local community.
“SA can safely increase its participation in nuclear activities,” the report summary begins – before again re-emphasising that a nuclear waste dump could generate a potential “$100 billion income in excess of expenditure”.
That would include a $32 billion reserve fund for facility closure and ongoing monitoring.
However, given the significance of the potential revenue and multi-decade timeframes under consideration, the commission – headed by former Governor Kevin Scarce – concluded such an enterprise “must be owned and controlled by the State Government”, and the wealth “preserved and equitably shared for current and future generations of South Australians”……
“The commission’s firm conclusion is that this opportunity should be actively pursued, and as soon as possible.”…..
His report concluded that “the risk of an accident occurring that could breach a cask of used fuel and cause radiation to be released is very low”……..
It also urges the Government to remove state prohibitions on the licensing of further processing activities, “to enable commercial development of multilateral facilities as part of nuclear fuel leasing arrangements” – and to push for similar removals at a federal level.
In a sign of further nuclear expansion in years to come, the report also recommends pursuing the removal of federal restrictions on nuclear power generation – “to allow it to contribute to a reliable, low-carbon electricity system, if required”.
The commission report was – like its February missive – bullish about the economic benefits of a waste dump, with its modelling estimating such as facility would grow the gross state product by “an additional 4.7 per cent – or $6.7 billion – by 2029-30”, adding 9600 full-time jobs to the workforce. http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/05/09/scarce-urges-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-as-soon-as-possible/
Submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust show up 10 things wrong with its case
10 holes in the Royal Commission’s pro nuclear dump case, Independent Australia Noel Wauchope 9 May 2016, IT WOULD BE no surprise that South Australia’s questionable Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC) is recommending that Australia become the world’s nuclear waste import hub.
That has been the intended outcome from the beginning, when the Commission was set up, over a year ago.
The questionable integrity of the NFCRC was discussed in a submission by Yurij Poetzl over a year ago. Poetzl pointed out Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce‘s conflict of interest, as a shareholder in Rio Tinto, and as a member of the Committee for Economic Development In Australia (CEDA).
CEDA’s Policy Perspectives of November 2011 clearly supports and promotes the growth of South Australia’s nuclear industry. The Royal Commissioner selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the Commission’s Expert Advisory Committee. The Expert Advisory Committee had no involvement from health or medical professionals. Poetzl went on to list 22 significant questions that were not addressed in the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference.
Speaking in November 2014 at Flinders University, Scarce acknowledged being
“an advocate for a nuclear industry.”
This doubt is raised again, in the latest batch of submissions, which were published on the Royal Commission’s website on 2 May. In a submission that is neutral, not anti-nuclear, Gary Rowbottom notes that:
Mr. Scarce, in his delivery of the tentative findings, a mere day after the release of these findings, seemed to be critical of any comments made in opposition to deepening Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, often citing lack of evidence for viewpoints expressed.
there is a fair bit of evidence that the commission members themselves are in the majority, clearly quite pro nuclear. I am not happy at the lack of subjectivity that may have brought to the findings, particularly on the waste issue. Whilst Mr. Scarce did say that they did look at the negative sides of all the Issue papers, there is not much evidence of that in the Tentative Findings.
Kevin Scarce, would, I am sure, dismiss such criticisms as just “opinion” or “emotional”, “not fact-based” or “formed upon fear”.
The Royal Commission’s problem is that criticisms of its findings are fact-based.
The latest batch of submissions brings up many unanswered questions
1. Aboriginal rights……. ~ Anggumathanha Camp Law Mob, ……
2. Economics…….The Royal Commission’s Tentative Finding, that substantial economic benefits could be obtained at low risk from the storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel in South Australia, is not soundly based……. ~ Dr Mark Diesendorf,
…..The proposal is that we should accept waste before the repository has been completely built and tested. This proposal is so reckless, as to be negligent. We would face the very real risk of being left with high-level nuclear waste, and no technology to properly handle it. ~ Dr Andrew Allison
…..If this is such a great deal, how come no other country has grabbed it before now? ~ South Australian Greens…….
In the event of a disaster the Government (and therefore, the taxpayer) will be required to sort out the mess. ~ Graham Glover.3. Safety……We are asked in the Tentative Report to take these recommendations “on faith” given that the proposed high-level waste dump is not operational anywhere on earth — and, further, that the dump proposed for our state is twenty times larger than that planned (not actual) for Finland. ~ Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia
4. Transport dangers…… I do not accept that road transport from port to repository site will be perfectly safe, even on a dedicated purpose built road. ~ Paul Langley……..We are concerned at the obvious dangers of transporting overseas high level radioactive wastes into our state and country. ~ Catholic Religious South Australia
5. Climate change…..
Has the NFCRC incorporated the potential impacts of climate change on the ecology and geology the State? ….~ Trisha Drioli……. There is no analysis of the potential impacts on the environment into the future…….~ Mark Parnell
6. Health …. Factual evidence is given in this submission by Dan Monceaux
7. The legality of the Commission under question ……THE WASTE REPOSITORY PROPOSAL VIOLATES EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND AUSTRALIAN LAWS ~ Dr Andrew Allison
8. Lack of transparency…….there is no transparency. Local get-togethers do not equal public engagement. These are serious matters which are of national concern. ~ Anne McGovern
9. Impact on other industries ……The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings Report contains many generously overstated ambitions, almost no analysis of the environmental, tourism or agricultural consequences with its focus on narrowly supported economic benefits…. ~ Holly-Kate Whittenbury …….
SAWIA notes that its members have genuine concerns about the potential risks to the reputation of the South Australian wine industry in the event of a nuclear accident occurring on South Australian soil…..~ South Australian Wine Industry Association Incorporated
10. Deceptive spin about medical wastes… Even if the waste depot did only receive low level, medical waste, the facility would not be economically viable; medical waste, as described by physician Louise Emmett, only needs to be stored for such a short time that it would hardly make it to the waste facility for dumping, before it breaks down;‘In the vast majority of nuclear medicine practices the storage issue is not particularly current in terms of what we keep. It’s waste products have a short half life, up to eight days half life, so it would be difficult to take that long distances for storage.’ (Baillie, R. 2012.)
‘It is at best misleading and at worst a lie to claim that a large-scale nuclear waste repository such as what is being proposed would be solely justified to handle the minuscule amounts of nuclear medicine waste generated in Australia.’ (Parnell, M.2015.) ~ Holly-Kate Whittenbury https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/10-holes-in-the-royal-commissions-pro-nuclear-dump-case,8966
Today – Nuclear fuel cycle royal commission final report to be made public
Nuclear fuel cycle royal commission: Final report expected to reiterate support for dump, ABC News 9 May 16 By Daniel Keane The final report arising from South Australia’s nuclear fuel cycle royal commission is almost certain to leave crucial questions about possible future dump sites unanswered, an anti-nuclear spokesman says.
Key points:
- Final report to be made public after commissioner Kevin Scarce briefs Government
- Report expected to reiterate support for waste dump
- Bipartisanship by major parties could benefit Greens, political expert says
The report was handed down to the State Government on Friday, but its contents will not be made public until later today, after royal commissioner Kevin Scarce briefs State Cabinet.
Tentative findings released in February recommended the creation of a high-level waste nuclear dump that would store 138,000 tonnes of spent fuel from around the world, as well as a separate “above-ground interim storage facility”.
Friends of the Earth’s national nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said South Australia could end up with “the biggest waste stockpile in existence”, but said it was the interim storage site that could prove the greater security concern.
“The plan is to import the waste and store it above ground – perhaps on the Eyre Peninsula, perhaps somewhere further north – for some decades before they even begin to consider the option of ultimate disposal of this waste,” he said.
“The reason they’re configuring it that way is because it will cost so many tens of billions of dollars to build a nuclear waste dump that they simply won’t have those funds until they’ve imported vast amounts of waste in the first place.”……..
He said the interim report had ignored accidents, such as the closure of a New Mexico waste repository because of a chemical explosion in 2014.
“There was also no mention in the tentative findings report of the royal commission about a fire at a nuclear waste dump in Nevada in the US last year,” he said.
“There’s no mention of a nuclear waste dump in Germany where they’re in the process of exhuming 126,000 barrels of nuclear waste because of water infiltration and corrosion.”…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-09/nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-final-report-to-be-revealed/7394400
Nuclear Commission Special this week – some other news, too
Nuclear dump investigation by Committee For Adelaide backs SA waste storage plan, ABC News, 6 May 16 By Nathan Stitt and Simon Royal An Adelaide team has returned from an overseas investigation of a nuclear fuel dump having concluded South Australia has an extraordinary opportunity to follow the same path.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that the science is safe (!!) ,” delegation leader Matt Clemow said. The former journalist and political adviser now heads up the Committee For Adelaide, a group of community and business leaders which promotes investment in Adelaide.
They visited Finland to investigate the handling of nuclear waste, visiting facilities which deal with low and medium-level waste. “The high-level [facility] is yet to be built (!!) alongside the site. We went into the facility 448 metres underground and were standing where the waste would be delivered into,” Mr Clemow said.
“It was a warehouse-type facility, largely computer-operated.” Mr Clemow said safety standards were high. “You essentially have a fuel rod which is put in a canister, which is then embedded into a type of clay which is scientifically proven to last hundreds of thousands of years (!!) ,” he said.
Mr Clemow said it remained vital the wider community became as convinced of the benefits as the delegation had been…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-06/nuclear-dump-investigation-committee-for-adelaide/7391554
Woman arrested in SA nuclear protest , 9 News 6 May 16 An anti-nuclear protester has been detained by security as South Australia’s nuclear royal commission handed over its final report.
The 65-year-old woman attempted to walk through the gates of Adelaide’s Government House shortly before Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce delivered his final report to Governor Hieu Van Le on Friday.Police said the woman had been reported for trespass and would be summonsed to face court at a later date….. The ceremonial handover marked the end of SA’s nuclear fuel cycle royal commission…….. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/06/03/46/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-report-due#BAvriHKbizdAMBy3.99
Locals at nominated nuclear dump site share concerns in fiery public meeting, ABC Radio AM Natalie Whiting reported this story on Saturday, May 7, 2016 ELIZABETH JACKSON: It’s been a week now since the Federal Government named a South Australian cattle station as the preferred site for its nuclear waste dump. Last night, the first public meeting since the announcement was held in the nearby town of Hawker – and it was at times a fiery event.
Government representatives faced a barrage of questions from people opposing the proposal, including several traditional owners who say important cultural sites will be put at risk.
It’s the start of an extended consultation period, but some locals are concerned that the waste facility is already a done deal, despite Government assurances to the contrary. Our reporter, Natalie Whiting, attended the meeting and filed this report from Hawker:……http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4457862.htm
Senator Scott Ludlam – jobs, economics, national aspects of Nuclear Royal Commission’s findings
SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM AUSTRALIAN GREENS SENATOR FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA – Response to the Tentative Findings of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
“………I would like to point to some research conducted by the Climate Institute that was done in collaboration with Ernst and Young and identifies that there is potential in South Australia to produce enough renewable energy to power 3,000,000 homes, remove pollution equivalent to 450,000 cars, and create close to 5,000 new jobs.
The report suggests that if a renewable energy industry were pursued there could be the creation of 5,178 new jobs including 1,300 permanent ongoing jobs, 2,688 jobs during construction and over 1,189 jobs in manufacturing.
It was very encouraging in December 2015 to see the South Australian Government release the “Low Carbon Investment Plan for South Australia” which looked at a $10 billion investment in low carbon energy – with the hope that by 2025 renewable energy would power 50% of South Australia and 100% by 2050ii . It seems that South Australia is making leaps and bounds, even without this significant investment. It was also encouraging to hear Premier Jay Weatherill’s commitment to renewable energy at the Paris climate summit. Being at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology suits South Australia. I welcome the commitment, enthusiasm and the exciting opportunities this presents to the state……..
While we welcome the preliminary finding that there are no prospects for nuclear power it is disturbing the preliminary findings ignore many serious and ongoing issues with the industry. While the economics are a clear barrier to nuclear power there are a range of safety issues that should be considered as well as suite of safeguards and proliferation considerations that do not appear to have been addressed by the NFCRC……..The world’s only deep geological repository that contains waste is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, USA. The Onkalo facility in Finland has been in the pipeline since 1983, and the total expected costs for the waste disposal is upward ofAUD $4.4 billion. The Sure facility in France is still under construction but earlier this year there was a collapse in the tunnel killing one worker and injuring and trapping another.
The WIPP facility, designed to contain radioactive waste for 10,000 years had a major radiological incident due to a chemical explosion within the first decade. 21 individuals received low level internal contamination; and there was a measurable leak of waste from the site discharged directly into the environment. The trial facility cost $19 billion to establish and will cost another half a billion to clean up after the 2014 radiation leak. The facility is still closed as the clean-up continues two years later.The preliminary findings of the NFCRC make no mention of the issues at WIPP or other facilities. This lack of consideration of real examples of waste management failures is a clear diversion from the fact based premise of the Royal Commission.Consideration of deep borehole waste storage also relies on optimism rather than evidence. There is no operating or trial deep borehole waste storage globally. There is one proposed trial in the US that will not be using radioactive waste.
The economic scenario put forward by Senator Sean Edwards to take International waste has been heavily criticised. Some of the issues with the Senator Edwards proposal identified by leading Australian economists include:• There is no plan for the management o fthe 56,000 tonnes of waste out of the 60,000 tonnes of waste proposed to be imported.
• There is no plausible case for the suggestion that another country would pay Australia US $lmillion per tonne to dispose of waste
- The proposal to convert nuclear waste into fuel for PRISM reactors is not warranted given that PRISM reactors don’t exist, and trials of PRISM reactors have been abandoned due to unacceptable risks
Over the last 30 years Australia has failed to come up with an acceptable solution for managing our own nuclear waste. The proposal to store international radioactive waste relies on Australia doing what other countries have failed to do since the inception of the industrial nuclear industry.
This issue is not just an issue for South Australia but has relevance for all Australians and for people globally. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Ludlam-Scott.pdf
Adelaide University questions the Nuclear Royal Commission’s attitude to Aborigines
Comments on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings of 15 February 2016 – University of Adelaide , Consent and the Siting of a Nuclear Waste Storage Facility By Mr John Podgorelec*, Dr Alex Wawryk and Dr Peter Burdon†
“……Given many Indigenous communites have already expressed opposition to a storage facility, potential conflict lies ahead. While the finding that free, prior and informed consent must be obtained is welcome, the question remains as to whether this will be followed by the existing, or future, governments. Although intended to guide government, the Tentative Findings arguably provide no strong assurance to communities. For example, they fall well short of making a finding that specific legislation be passed, or the Native Title Act be amended, to provide a right of veto over nuclear activities, including the storage of toxic wastes. ….
Michael Wallis-Smith examines indigenous, ethical, economic aspects of the Nuclear Royal Commission’s findings
SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION TENTATIVE FINDINGS, Michael Wallis Smith A sad little Submission to the Nuclear Royal Commission – from Terrestrial Energy
Response to the Tentative Findings of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – Terrestrial Energy
(Terrestrial Energy is a company marketing the not yet existent Generation IV nuclear reactors, such as , the Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR))
“……There is little in the Tentative Findings to reflect the exciting commercial and manufacturing opportunities available in advanced nuclear technologies. South Australia might be well-positioned to proactively engage with this sector yet it appears to have been overlooked.
Terrestrial Energy strongly disagrees with the statement that innovative, non-lWR designs will not be
available for the foreseeable future…….http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Terrestrial-Energy.pdf
Humphrey Hunt calls for a federal referendum on The Royal Commission’s nuclear waste import plan
Humphrey Hunt’s Hand- written submission – recommends that there should be a federal referendum on the question of importing nuclear wastes, and he warns of the dangers to prsent and future generations http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/Hunt-Humphrey.pdf
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 