Business South Australia wants nuclear waste import, worried about public opinion.
BUSINESS SA’s Submission to South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Business-SA-03-08-2015.pdf
“South Australia’s clearest economically viable expansion opportunity in the nuclear fuel cycle will be in the form of used fuel storage and disposal”
“South Australia must focus on what the world needs, particularly in the case of used nuclear fuel storage or disposal.”
“In order to build community confidence, it is likely that a pilot storage site would need to be constructed first and this should form part of the Royal Commission’s deliberations.”
Business South Australia’s Submission clearly promotes the nuclear industry, with a commercial argument that completely ignores the negative effects that this would have on other industries in that State.
While its main focus is on the benefits of nuclear waste importing, (as a way of creating jobs, and fixing the budget deficit), Business South Australia is in fact favouring the whole nuclear fuel chain:
“the opportunity to recycle used fuel as technology advances will be lost if South Australia only considers its complete disposal. Storing used nuclear fuel in a deep geological repository will at least enable us to take advantage of advances in areas such as Generation IV nuclear reactor design”
It supports nuclear fuel reprocessing, with touching faith that a safe method will be found, some time in the future:
“Purex technology was developed in the 1950’s and the future of re-processing through the next generation of reactors should not be overlooked on the basis of the pros and cons of this technology alone. Furthermore, there is a view that in future a different process could be used to recover all anions together, including plutonium, to reduce the risks associated with Purex.”
Their submission is ambivalent about uranium enrichment, conversion and fuel fabrication, and nuclear power, but keen on the idea of South Australia developing a shipping industry geared to transporting nuclear fuels and wastes.
They are reassuring about any anxieties over safe transport of radioactive materials, especially shipping, but also about air transport:
“we request the Royal Commission to investigate the practicality of using air freight to deliver used nuclear fuel to a dedicated air strip adjoining a storage or disposal site.”
The State Government’s Industry Participation Advocate is seen to be an important aid to their case for South Australia expanding its nuclear industry role.
Business South Australia is worried about public opinion – it seems that they would like to have nuclear matters decided on by nuclear experts, rather than by the people of South Australia:
“ the Royal Commission should not be fixated on just what the general public prefers, but rather what is in the best interests of the State.”
Australia should not be guinea pig for new nuclear reactors – Australia’s Chief Scientist
Dr Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, recommends that IF Australia gets ‘new generation’ nuclear reactors, they should be proven successful first, in some other country:
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. President Dr Alan Finkel Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
EXTRACTS
“ If the Royal Commission should favour establishment of a nuclear power plant, ATSE recommends that ‘first of a kind’ (FOAK) technology – specifically, Generation IV reactors should not be considered by South Australia at this time”
Finkel supports a nuclear waste import industry:
“South Australia and thus Australia as a whole is well positioned to undertake waste storage as part of the nuclear fuel cycle.”
But qualifies this:
“The opportunity for South Australia to provide commercial permanent waste storage facilities for overseas nuclear power plant spent fuel owners could exist and would certainly offer commercial opportunities for the State. However, based on the negative public reaction to the poorly explained and marketed Pangea proposal some years ago, the public may still find this concept unacceptable”
It is a careful submission, thorough, and with qualified support for the nuclear fuel chain.
On URANIUM MINING – he recognises that the market is at best uncertain.
On URANIUM ENRICHMENT PROCESSING & FUEL FABRICATION –he is in favour but with some serious qualifications.
On NUCLEAR POWER – only vaguely in favour.:
“ – may require government guarantees and/or government capital injections to encourage investment. This could possibly require the South Australian or Commonwealth governments becoming a stakeholder in the establishment of a nuclear power plant.”
“Any feasibility would also establish the likely cost of power from such reactor technologies and the guaranteed selling price to the grid. If this is not an equitable situation then the project would not be able to proceed. If nuclear power is to proceed in its development it will need to be competitive against carbon fuelled generation including carbon capture and storage (CCS) in its supply of baseload generation, and likely renewable energy generation if storage methods continue to improve”
“EPBC Act would need to be amended. South Australian legislation also regulates environmental and transportation matters, including the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 and the Radiation Protection and Control (Transport of Radioactive Substances) Regulations 2003.”
As mentioned above, Finkel is opposed to Australia being the test place for the first Generation IV reactors
ASSOCIATION OF MINING AND EXPLORATION COMPANIES (AMEC) wants Pro Nuclear Public Education
Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission –ASSOCIATION OF MINING AND EXPLORATION COMPANIES (AMEC)
A common theme is emerging in the pro nuclear Submissions to the RC. Apart from the common factor these Submissions mostly come either directly or indirectly from vested interests, their common agenda is very often that the RC should recommend public education about the nuclear industry. (and I don’t think that they mean informing the public about the environmental, health, safety, economic hazards – quite the reverse.)
- An equally important theme is to push for removal of laws that accept the nuclear industry as especially hazardous, due to its special danger of ionising radiation:
EXTRACT
AMEC wants “The removal of “mining or milling of uranium ore” from the definition of ‘nuclear action’ in section 22(1)(d) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”
- AMEC confines itself to promoting the uranium industry – getting tax-payer incentives for exploration, easier licensing, Commonwealth funding, and lessening regulations, weakening environmental approval processes e.g:
“Early implementation of the ‘one stop shop’ environmental assessment and approval process.”
“it is important that the policy barriers applying to container ports identified for uranium export are removed”
- Importantly AMEC wants to make making it easier to get around Native Title:
“Priority focus on resolving outstanding Native Title claims.
Mechanisms that will provide greater clarity and certainty to third parties who need to engage with the Applicant and native title claim group outside the claims process (for example in the context of making future act and heritage agreements) are required.
That consideration should be given as to whether an Applicant can authorise an agent to act on its behalf, and what powers can be abrogated to the agent.”
- And on course – the public education bit:
“The development of a national public education and awareness strategy” The challenge is to increase public education, awareness, confidence and acceptance of the uranium industry.” …’ http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Association-of-Mining-and-Exploration-Companies-24-07-2015.pdf
Why on earth is the nuclear issue taboo in Australia ?
Why on earth have Australian governments, media, and corporate world been able to put it over the Australian public? I think that the mainstream media are especially to blame? Are they really that stupid? Are their jobs really on the line? So that they can just keep mum about what’s going on in South Australia, because it’s only a South Australian issue?
Only today The Ecologist has discussed the serious terrorism risk in transporting nuclear waste across the world. It is serious concern in UK, USA, in Japan – wherever nuclear waste is piling up.
Only in Australia it doesn’t matter, apparently. Doesn’t get a mention in the articles about what issues Australia faces in 2016. No mention of this very dubious Royal Commission in South Australia. No mention that the ALP will be reviewing its policy on nuclear power.
No other country in the world has considered a nuclear waste importing industry. USA and Japan tried it on Mongolia, receiving a strong and definitive knock-back.
Because of course – it matters only to South Australia?
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission will release its Tentative Findings in Adelaide on Monday 15 February 2016.
“The Commission will then undertake a week-long public information program, visiting key regional South Australian cities and towns including Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Mt Gambier, Ceduna, Renmark and Aboriginal communities in the Far North and West Coast.
Commissioner Kevin Scarce said the release of the Tentative Findings would provide an opportunity to update progress and highlight how the community might comment on the report during a five week feedback period…..
“The Tentative Findings will be a document that reflects the Commission’s current thinking and the evidence behind it. The community then has five weeks to provide written comments on the findings and the evidence upon which it is based.
The Tentative Findings will be available to download from thewww.nuclearrc.sa.gov.au from 11am, February 15, 2016 or by contacting the office on 08 8207 1480. Feedback on the Tentative Findings can be provided to the Commission via its website, email or through traditional mail delivery. Details on this process will be on the NFCRC website soon.”
Royal Commission Public Meeting details:
* Monday, 15 February – Adelaide Town Hall (6pm)
* Tuesday, 16 February – Port Pirie Yacht Club (1pm), Port Augusta Institute Theatre (6pm), Ceduna Foreshore Hotel (6pm)
* Wednesday, 17 February – Whyalla Mt Laura Homestead (12.00pm), Port Lincoln Hotel (6.30pm), Coober Pedy United Club (6pm)
* Thursday, 18 February – Mt Gambier Main Complex (6.30pm) Renmark Hotel Galaxy Room (6pm)
* APY, Umuwa and Oak Valley community meetings are also being planned for February.
George Bereznai’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – religious faith in “new nukes”
This is a comforting submission that the world can keep on making radioactive trash, in the religious belief that, with faith, sometime in the future, geewhiz nuclear reactors will solve that problem. ( – “it is expected” by whom? Those with clear or vested interests in the nuclear industry.)
Bereznai ( engineering qualifications) wants nuclear power for South Australia.
He’ s not keen on uranium enrichment, but thinks that nuclear fuel conversion and fabrication might be viable.
He pushes for nuclear power – “ the supply of electricity needs to be centrally managed, and must meet the demand at all times. ….base load” . For nuclear as pretty much greenhouse emissions free. Wants the RC to supply information to get “social licence”
“waste. …… is in reality a unique feature, and can be seen as a key advantage of nuclear-electric generation.”……
“The safe management and storage of fuel that has been irradiated in the normal operation of a nuclear reactor has been well established and demonstrated by several thousand of reactor-years of operations”
“It is expected that by the time radioactive fuel needs to be moved from above ground dry-storage to deep geological repositories, fast reactor technology will have reached a level of economic viability wherein the reprocessing of previously used nuclear fuel will be implemented.
While some long lived radioactive by-products may remain after reprocessing and subsequent passes through fast reactors, these volumes will be very small, and can be permanently stored in deep geological repositories.”
“significant benefits to South Australia’s citizens would accrue in the areas of economy, environment, health and safety by …. the construction and operation of nuclear electrical generating units in South Australia.”
Geoff Russell Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust: convince public that radiation is OK
Geoff Russell’s Submission is all about how to overcome public dislike of the nuclear industry.
I love it! Russell doesn’t bother with the nuances of argument, or indeed, even with the facts. Here he goes on radiation:
“The demonstrated health risks associated with the Fukushima meltdowns are various and it’s simple to show that radiation was and remains the smallest. Fear of radiation demonstrably killed more people than radiation could ever have. “
Note the use of the word “demonstrated”. As with smoking, the cancer cases from ionising radiation appear decades later – but not much in the early years after exposure, can’t be “demonstrated then) .
Russell explains that public concern about Fukushima radiation is due to “ignorance” and ““incompetent news reporting”. He tries to demolish any information that Chernobyl nuclear radiation caused illness or death. He’s good at dazzling you with jargony non-science : – “Put another way, normal DNA damage is about 10,000-15,000 times greater than the public was getting from radiation at Fukushima”
Russell’s forte is rubbishing well known people, authors Guy Rundle and Mark Willacy, Professor Ian Lowe, and also governments: “But it isn’t just the news media that seem to go out of their way to ignore evidence, the Government of Japan provides an excellent, but tragic, example with its response to the meltdowns at Fukushima in 2011” He rubbishes the Japanese government’s response to the Fukuhsima nuclear disaster as an over-reaction, with the evacuation as unnecessary.
He rubbishes the idea of ionising radiation as a cause of cancer, except for these odd remarks
“only a small section of the community will generally be at any significant risk at all; young children and pregnant woman…….The Hiroshima and Nagasaki doses and outcome makes it clear that any general outcome from Fukushima can only be, at worst, a slight ripple in cancer rates….”
(Now we know who matters to Geoff Russell, and who doesn’t!)
He attacks the accepted Linear No Threshold Theory (LNT) of radiation – the one endorsed by World Health Organisation (WHO) all reputable health organisations world-wide:
“Radiation experts know that LNT is simply a model which is useful in some circumstances but quite clearly wrong; both for high doses and low doses”
“……If this Royal Commission is to present an expansion of the nuclear industry as a viable option in South Australia it must deal explicitly with the causes of the Fukushima evacuation. ….. The truth is that the Fukushima meltdowns never posed any significant public health risk and that the Government of Japan mishandled the event from the outset and at every subsequent point.”
Russell goes on to a big jargony waffle about why ionising radiation in water is of no concern. Then he wanders all over the place about other causes and mechanisms of cancer development.
Russell’s conclusion:
The Royal Commission is uniquely placed to learn from the past, but it will need to deal with the drivers of nuclear fear in the community. To build confidence in the community, the Commission’s report will need to convince both sides of politics to speak with one voice about the misinformation that drove (and drives) the Fukushima evacuation. Appeasement, in the form of more and more levels of safeguards and protocols to attempt to say that “it can’t happen here” isn’t the answer.
There will always be accidents despite every effort to avoid them. Planes still crash, but people understand the relative risks and board them regardless of personal fear. They understand that fear is their personal problem and not a function of the objective facts…….
In Australia in 2010-11 there were 7730 Worker’s45 Compensation claims for serious injury resulting from falls from a height. How many were associated with rooftop solar panels? As far as I can see, nobody is even counting, but a million solar rooftops means more people on ladders; many of them amateurs. This is real danger, the kind that can put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Geoff-Russell-22-07-2015.pdf
Floating nuclear reactors – a Submission to #NuclearCommissionSaust
Geoff Hudson’s Submission to the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission recommends SeaBurn – floating Portable Generation IV Reactor Development to process existing used fuel rods.
“…..It is expected that one or more foreign companies like Transatomic Power, GEHitachi, or Westinghouse would be involved. A consortium involving a South Australian Government authority (to be created), one or more overseas companies (to be chosen) and possibly the United States Department of Energy would develop the technology, first on land near a waste repository, and then in ships or submarines.
A major contribution from South Australia will be a significant fraction of the funding. It is expected that the source of that funding will be part of the income from a waste repository. The repository needs SeaBurn to offer reduction in the life time of the wastes, but will support SeaBurn from its income. This synergy means that SeaBurn should not be adopted if there is no waste repository……http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Geoff-Hudson-15-06-2015.pdf
Geoff Russell: a pro nuclear Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Geoff Russell seems to have sent two Submissions. He is preoccupied with the need for the Royal Commission to build public confidence in the nuclear industry.
“There is extensive evidence that people in Australia are strongly opposed to any artificial nuclear process, and in the view of the author, the entire work of the Commission could easily be wasted because of this opposition.
A procedure to address this opposition is presented, beginning with surveys, passing through production of media materials, to a referendum.”
MANAGEMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE On building public confidence in the nuclear waste dump plan:
“1. The relationship between knowledge of nuclear processes and the desire to limit any nuclear activities or industry. I keep in touch with colleagues who also studied Nuclear Physics, To a man, they regard the great bulk of the general phobia about all things nuclear as an aberrant result of lack of knowledge combined with passionate but incorrect argument.
- The cost of an insurance premium to cover any damage caused by any nuclear accident or leakage. If you can take out a policy which, for example, will pay you $1,000,000 if your farm becomes unsafe for food production for $100 per year, then you are much more inclined to take a rational view of the risks”
Russell advises the Commission to survey public knowledge and level of aversion:
“Measure Correlation between Knowledge and Aversion Check the correlation between the knowledge and the level of aversion shown in the survey. Most people trained in nuclear physics expect that strong aversion will be correlated strongly with low knowledge.
Publicize the Correlation In the event that the correlation anticipated above is observed, then publicise that fact. The ABC or SBS may be willing to assist here. …..”
“Prepare Communication Materials on Nuclear processes Prepare general materials (e.g. a short film) suitable for high schools to explain the actual risks of radioactivity and the actual risks of other industrial processes, especially power production. Provide copies of these materials to schools and the media. Having produced two Ockham’s Razor talks on nuclear issues, as well as a keynote presentation to the Uranium conference held in Adelaide and to a U3A group, I feel able to contribute to this activity, and would welcome the opportunity to do so…”
He suggests an insurance plan for damage to life or property from an nuclear waste establishment.
“…….Analysis The strong public resistance to nuclear power and the storage of nuclear waste means that the chance that nothing will come of this Royal Commission, other than affirmation of the existing public opinion, is very high. This is the elephant in the room, and failure to address it is an admission that the cost and effort of the Commission will be wasted.”……. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Geoff-Hudson-15-06-2015.pdf
John Emerson’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – wants a BHP waste dump
John Emerson wants BHP to set up a nuclear waste dump http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/John-Emerson-22-07-2015.pdf – a pity that BHP has ruled this out in its own Submission :
BHP Billiton does not handle or manage intermediate and high-level radioactive wastes. Nevertheless we understand that current thinking is toward long term storage rather than disposal, as it is foreseeable that the contained energy may be able to be harnessed in the future. Irrespective of whether storage or disposal is preferred, BHP Billiton considers that either option would be inconsistent with our core business of mining and the production of high quality copper and associated by-products at Olympic Dam. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
Likely Recommendations of the #NuclearCommissionSAust
Dan Monceaux , Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Watch 19 Jan 16 List of what I believe are possible or likely recommendations (in no particular order):
– the repeal of state and federal prohibitions blocking nuclear industrial development
– the consideration of the establishment of a nuclear waste repository in SA
– the development of a ‘nuclear fuel leasing scheme’, whereby Australian miners (inc. BHP Billiton & Rio Tinto) receive spent fuel which was created from Australian uranium, and profit from its receipt
– the establishment of an advanced research centre to support the development of next generation ‘nuclear waste recycling’ reactors
(most likely via the newly formed Future Industries Institute, UniSA)
– the consideration of nuclear energy as a ‘low-carbon energy source’ in the future replacement of coal-fired power plants in Australia’s Eastern states
– the relaxation of safety regulations for nuclear industrial workers (inc. uranium miners) including, potentially, the rejection of the LNT hypothesis https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1126636220701367/
February 15 #NuclearCommissionSAust’s tentative findings & feedback available
Tim Bickmore Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Watch 19 Jan 16 The Tentative Findings will be available to download from the www.nuclearrc.sa.gov.au from 11am, February 15, 2016 or by contacting the office on 08 8207 1480.
Feedback on the Tentative Findings can be provided to the Commission via its website, email or through traditional mail delivery. Details on this process will be on the NFCRC website soon. 16 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1126636220701367/
For the public good: Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust from Robert Eastman
Robert Eastman’s Submission to South Australia Nuclear fuel Chain Royal Commission – on the issue of Nuclear Waste Importing. Eastman provides documentary information on various requirements.
A song of praise for Synroc – Roger Smart’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Roger Smart’s Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.
– a very short submission on the subject of nuclear wastes. It canned be summed up as a Song Of Praise for the Synroc Technology for storing nuclear wastes.
EXTRACT: “The safest and cheapest option available for disposal of high level nuclear waste”
Nuclear Waste Management (NWM) — an Adelaide based Company founded in 1985……..
In 1991 NWM signed a Heads of Agreement with Mayak Production Enterprise, owned by the Russian Ministry of Power and Energy and Greenlawn Association of the Russian Federation to commence a study for the construction of a SYNROC plant. The Russians selected SYNROC as their preferred waste form for the treatment and disposal of their high level waste. They also commenced geological studies to find sites for the disposal of SYNROC in deep drill holes.
………. it proved impossible to find the political/financial and corporate leadership to secure the funding. The reasons were many but during the 80’s and 90’s, the nuclear industry was on the defensive and investment, other that in programs already in place, was greatly reduced. Consequently, NWM ceased operation in 1998
……. A detailed brochure and other material on SYNROC and NWM have been provided to the Executive of the Royal Commission”
**********************************************************************************************
Nuclear accident much worse than reported , April 28, 1993 The nuclear accident at the Tomsk-7 reprocessing plant in Siberia on April 6 was much bigger than first reported, and now may seriously impede expansion of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia.
Spokesperson John Hallam for the antinuclear groups Friends of the Earth and Movement Against Uranium Mining said, “Proposals to build a replacement research reactor in Sydney and a nuclear waste repository in the NT based on Synroc technology would be compromised by a public realisation that both projects depend on the same sort of technology for waste handling that failed so badly at Tomsk”.
Hallam said that information from Russian green groups indicated that the accident was not a 3 on the international nuclear event scale, as earlier claimed, but at least a 5. Chernobyl was a 6…..www.greenleft.org.au/node/4227
ARIUS ASSOCIATION’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust confuses ethics with greed
AriusAssociation Submission to the Royal Commission on Management, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear and Radioactive Waste
Arius is a a non profit body, (but friendly to the nuclear industry). It addresses nuclear waste disposal. It details structures and measures needed. Arius relies heavily on information from [the failed South Australian] Pangea Project. Its purported aim is for an “ethical project” – ‘to fulfil our ethical responsibilities to future generations’
Arius is upbeat about economic advantages, upbeat about safety and security. It appears to be complacent about a safe uneventful future for nuclear industry.
Nowhere does Arius discuss the historic disasters of the nuclear industry, its intrinsic connection with nuclear weapons proliferation, not the increasing risks of terrorism.
In discussing nuclear waste from an ethical point of view, the option of just stopping making the stuff is not considered.
Despite Arius’ confidence in nuclear industry waste disposal technology, they are ware of the implications:
” The Extremely Long Times that must be considered Repository safety analyses are routinely carried out for a million years into the future. These time scales challenge the conventional basis for the design of technological systems. Designs for such systems are usually based on a combination of past experience and theoretical projections, which can be supported by testing and observations of performance on relevant time scales. Because it is not possible to test and observe the engineered components of a repository over representative time scales, a repository’s safety would ideally be guaranteed by natural processes that have already demonstrated their performance over millions of years.”
However, their central theme seems to be to enthuse over the financial benefits to South Australia.
David Bowman’s Pro Nuclear Submission – Nuclear waste dump to help wildlife!!
Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Professor David Bowman, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania
EXTRACT
“I believe there is scope to use uranium mining and nuclear waste storage as a source of funding to tackle the urgent challenge of biodiversity, and particularly the threats to our unique and threatened Australian mammal fauna in the longer term
…….Australia’s insularity, tectonic and political stability make it an ideal setting for high-level nuclear waste storage. Uranium mining and waste storage could potentially provide a funding base for an internationally significant conservation intervention throughout outback Australia. To provide this capital and revenue, I suggest the expectations of mine site restoration are changed from attempts to restore mined areas to their original condition, and instead focus on containing pollution from these sites.
Savings should be invested in establishing at least ten very large predator-proof exclosures (> 500 km2) in the surrounding unmined landscapes in outback Australia. Further, exhausted sites associated with mining in geological stable and arid areas like Olympic Dam could be used for high-level nuclear waste disposal. Income associated with storage of nuclear waste, and the requirement they are managed over the long term (> 100 years), would provide funding for ongoing Aboriginal ranger programs to manage country throughout outback Australia…..”
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 