Golder Associates – another pro nuclear Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
You can access this one from http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions.
Golder Associates Submission on Management, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear and Radioactive Waste. An engineering company, its aim is to show how they have designed and developed projects, and worked with Indigenous and local communities.
Worked with Pangea , ANSTO , AREVA, Ontario Power Generation, They set out an Adaptive Phase Management approach. Set out process for building support with indigenous communities.
BHP not interested in nuclear waste import – Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
BHP’s Submission on wastes is very short. Two major points –
- reiterates call to remove uranium mining from being listed as a Matter of National
Environmental Significance 9NES) in the Federal Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). - doesn’t want to have any involvement in storage or disposal of nuclear waste.
BHP Billiton Submission to Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
EXTRACT “Management, Storage and Disposal of Nuclear and Radioactive Waste BHP Billiton’s experience with radioactive waste management and storage at Olympic Dam is limited to the storage of tailings and other low level contaminated materials generated during the treatment of ore……
Tailings storage and management is common in mining operations throughout the world, and in this respect the management of tailings at Olympic Dam is no different to that of other BHP Billiton operations not involving uranium (e.g. copper or nickel), or indeed other mining operations worldwide.
Given this similarity, the demonstrated level of environmental management and the low level of radioactivity involved, the treatment of tailings from uranium operations should be considered as akin to that of other metal mining operations. Correspondingly, it does not warrant being considered a matter of national environmental significance that triggers the requirements of the EPBC Act.
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.”
Change Australia’s Environmental Protection Laws – ANSTO”s submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
EXTRACT from ANSTO Submission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Australian-Nuclear-Science-and-Technology-Organisation-03-08-2015.pdf
Legislative and regulatory
Significant legislative changes would be required in order to develop a South Australian nuclear power industry. At present, nuclear power is prohibited in Australia. At the Commonwealth level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) effectively prohibits the construction or operation of nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, enrichment plants or reprocessing facilities.
In addition, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (Cth) prevents the CEO of ARPANSA from licensing the siting,construction or operation of such facilities by Commonwealth entities. At the South Australian level, there is a conditional ban on conversion and enrichment (see section 27 of the RadiationProtection and Control Act 1982).
In addition to the removal of those legislative barriers, legislation would also be required in order to upgrade the existing regulatory structure or create new a regulatory structure capable of performing the functions required for the licensing of nuclear power reactors. There would
also need to be legislation governing nuclear liability in order to bring Australia into line with international norms……..
BHP’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – “No particular health risks from uranium mining”
A not very exciting Submission, in which BHP outlines its work at Olympic Dam. The major point is that BHP wants to remove uranium mining from being listed as a Matter of National Environmental Significance 9NES) in the Federal Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act).
BHP maintains that the health risks from uranium mining are not really different from the risks in any other type of mining.
On the future for the uranium market, BHP is cagey, pointing out that copper is the major money-spinner from Olympic Dam
BHP Billiton – Submission to RC ISSUESPAPER 1 Exploration, Extraction and Milling http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
EXTRACT
“…..We believe this Commission to be an important opportunity to seek changes that will reduce barriers to entry into uranium extraction and exploration. We make two important recommendations: Continue reading
Australian Workers Union complacent about health, sends pro nuclear Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Not surprisingly, the AWU Submission concentrates on JOBS. They quote (to my mind) some rather ambitious and over-confident forecasts on the employment future, with the nuclear fuel chain.
AWU enthusiasm focuses on the opportunities in uranium mining, – says little about o the other phases of the full nuclear chain. Confident of the economic benefits of that chain, and keen for nuclear waste importing.
Notably, their Submission says very little about health: it is very complacent about radiation safety.
AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION SUBMISSION TO SA Nuclear Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Australian-Workers-Union-03-08-2015.pdf
Scott McDine- National Secretary The Australian Workers’ Union Level10, 377-383 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: 02 8005 3333 1 Fax: 02 8005 3300 Website: www.awu.net.au I Email: members@nat.awu.net.au
EXTRACT
“……This submission asserts that the potential economic and employment benefits of the nuclear fuel cycle are vast, and that failure to act would represent a lost opportunity for South Australia. It also acknowledges Australia’s capacity to manage the safety, environmental and security risks associated with the nuclear industry…… Continue reading
AREVA’s published Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
The RC published only one Submission, from AREVA Australia I think that we can be pretty confident that AREVA sent in other Submissions , including one on waste management.
The published Submission is pretty boring – deals only with uranium mining and exploration. AREVA does acknowledge the current poor uranium market, but looks to future growth, without any convincing reason. I list some extracts below, – they are not very notable.
I thought that the relatively large time that the RC spent with AREVA was more interesting. Ironically, the RC in France met with AREVA on the day after President Hollande ordered AREVA to merge with EDF, to save it from bankruptcy.
4 June 15 Visit to AREVA Tricastin, France.
- Explanation of AREVA’s conversion plant and the development of the project;
- Tour of conversion plant construction site;
- Explanation of AREVA’s Georges Besse II operating enrichment plant;
- Tour of GB II enrichment plant facilities.
Visit to AREVA Melox, France.
- Explanation of AREVA’s operating mixed oxide fuel fabrication plant and the use of mixed oxide fuels;Tour of mixed oxide fuel fabrication facilities.
5 June 15 Visit to AREVA La Hague, France.
Visit to EDF Flamanville, France.
8 June 15 Meeting with AREVA.
- Discussion of future nuclear energy demand, barriers to investment in the nuclear fuel cycle and the economics of investment.
SUBMISSION SOUTH AUSTRALIA: NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
ISSUE PAPER #1 EXPLORATION EXTRACTION AND MILLING
IAN JOHN (JOE) POTTER RP GEO 24 JULY 2015
AREVA Resources Australia Pty Ltd A.B.N. 44 009 758 481 68 Greenhill Rd Wayville SA 5034 Tel: + 61 8 8292 9300 Fax: + 61 8 8377 7903 Email: infoARA@areva.com
“INTRODUCTION
AREVA is at present the world’s largest, integrated company in the nuclear cycle”…. (Ed. note. -That’s no longer true)
“CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS Continue reading
ANSTO’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – not keen on Thorium
Thorium fuelled nuclear power reactors are often put forward as a possible alternative to uranium 
fuelled reactors on the basis of a number of arguments, not all of which are accurate. For example, proponents of thorium reactors often claim that the thorium fuel cycle is resistantto proliferation risks.
However, the production of uranium‐233 during the thorium fuel cycle presents a potential proliferation risk that would require similar safeguards to those in place for the uranium fuel cycle today (ANSTO 2013).
Although the thorium fuel cycle is a theoretically feasible source of energy, there is limited evidence that significant investment in future thorium technologies would improve on the well established technologies and systems in place for the uranium fuel cycle, for which Australia is already one of the world’s largest exporters…..
ANSTO’s Submission (on all 4 Issues papers) says surprisingly little about nuclear waste management. It directs those remarks to how expert ANSTO itself is at managing nuclear waste.
It is enthusiastic about the future for nuclear power, but I note that it uses that “escape” word “potential” when predicting that good future. No author is named.
ANSTO Submission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Australian-Nuclear-Science-and-Technology-Organisation-03-08-2015.pdf EXTRACTS
“nuclear power, in countries with limited potential for hydropower, is the most efficient and cost‐effective low emissions fit‐for‐service base‐load electricity generation option……
new generation nuclear power plants under construction across the world represent a mature and safe technology; and future nuclear technology has the potential to further improve safety while reducing cost and up‐front capital investment requirements…..
“Safety Continue reading
Let’s examine the pro nuclear Submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust: here’s one
An example of pro nuke submission from an individual representing in a company. His theme is that waste import would be a great economic boon to South Australia, but only if it is part of a full nuclear fuel chain. He quotes some significant safety risks, but seems to dismiss them as not so serious. He is delightfully enthusiastic, but vague, on the economic benefits.
Henry Askin sent in a submission on Nuclear Waste (Issues paper4 ) http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Henry-Askin-24-07-2015.pdf )
Dr. Henry J Askin Director, U-SAFE PTY LTD U-Safe Pty. Ltd. was founded in 2006 to promote the construction and operation of a safe permanent storage and disposal repository for the radioactive by-products of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Askin’s conclusion is vague on the economic result of importing nuclear waste, by itself. But enthusiastic if it is part of the whole nuclear fuel chain:
“The economic benefits will depend on the extent of commitment to the full nuclear fuel cycle, the cost of studying and building the repository, the operating costs and moreover the extent of funding provided by the eventual client entities. Estimation of costs is highly problematic, since there are no equivalent benchmark projects available……
It is not practical to establish an enrichment and reprocessing facility in the state unless in conjunction with nuclear power generation as well. These processes are intensive in electricity consumption and would result in very significant greenhouse gas emissions if conventionally powered. On the other hand, if it were decided to establish a full nuclear fuel cycle industry necessarily including the adoption of nuclear power generation, the economic benefits would be incalculable.
Effects would spread directly throughout the various areas of transport, high technology processing and fabrication of fuel rods, material supply and construction and the initiation of tertiary specialist training in all aspects of nuclear engineering, and spill widely throughout the general service and retail economy.”
Economics. He starts with enthusiasm for the economic benefits of waste importing:
“It is without question that if a best in class ILW and HLW repository was accessible the electricity utilities operating the nuclear power stations and the reprocessing facilities would avail themselves of it. This is evidenced by the 1998/1999 campaign by Pangea Resources seeking to establish a deep subsurface repository in Western Australia. The company was created by British Nuclear Fuels, Golder Associates and Nagra, the latter being a Swiss radioactive waste management entity. Management of the public relations was a spectacular failure, with both WA and SA introducing legislation prohibiting the establishment of nuclear waste waste dumps in 1999 and 2000 respectively.
However Pangea, now known as ARIUS, continues efforts internationally.”
“Considering the increasing imperatives to remove HLW from vulnerable temporary storage in the vicinity of source reactors, safe disposal would not be expected to be price or cost sensitive. In fact, the generators of this waste would in all probability be prepared to fund the construction of the repository in addition to paying ongoing storage costs for the operation and maintenance of the facility.”
But it would really only be economic if Australia first had the full nuclear fuel chain:
“If the industrial capacity to conduct such full cycle processing were to be established in the state, the magnitude of the resulting economic benefits would go a long way towards the acceptance of international waste and the concomitant construction of the deep storage repository. “
On the safe storage/disposal of nuclear waste:
Within salt domes or mines ……….The most successful of these is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), opened for business in 1999 at Carlsbad New Mexico. ( ha ha successful?)
Drigg is a surface storage facility (ha ha currently threatened by flooding in Cumbria)
He then lists the technical problems in geology for waste disposal
On security risks:
“The principal security risks would appear to be related to protest activities by anti nuclear groups and more seriously, terrorist action. The former would be unlikely to penetrate the perimeter of the surrounding exclusion zone, and be limited to hindrance of transport logistics for limited periods. There is abundant experience in managing this category of essentially nuisance behavior and is not considered to be of concern.
Far more serious is the possibility of terrorist attack with the objective of acquiring ILW and/or HLW for the assembly of devices capable of area denial in populated or strategic locations, the ‘dirty bomb’ strategy. Although the material would be potentially lethal for those involved, in this age of suicide bombing this is perhaps not an inhibition. However if a deep burial repository were to be established in a remote semi desert area of inland Australia unauthorized access would be a major challenge”
On transport:
“The greatest vulnerability would lie not with the repository itself but with the waste delivery transport chain” “Transport of waste to the repository could pose hazards but is unlikely to adversely affect the environment to any greater extent than normal transport” (ha ha what about the huge derailment of sulphuric acid transport, Queensland, in December?)
How can #NuclearCommissionSAust? know waste disposal costs, when France doesn’t?
from Antinuclear Australia Observer, 14 Jan 16 When the French don’t know the cost of deep geological disposal – even within 10 billion Euro’s of an estimate – how can the SA Nuclear Royal Commission claim to know…
Presumably the higher estimate herein of circa 30 billion Euro’s is more accurate and less dependent (ie less rigged) on claimed future ‘technical optimisations’ that may not ever come to pass and shouldn’t be assumed in cost estimates for proposals for SA to take on International High Level Nuclear Spent Fuel Wastes…
The South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission has been full of interest and proposals for Storage of SNF without serious commensurate attention to the cost and implications of Disposal – a multi decade undertaking – and the real risk that in taking SNF waste for Storage the proposed Disposal plans can fail – just as they have and did in USA over last few decades…
EDF already needs to borrow money just to pay its dividend and is set to spend tens of billions of euros on upgrading its ageing reactors, building new nuclear plants in Hinkley Point, Britain and buying the reactor arm of Areva.
“This report is clearly negative for all nuclear operators, and most specifically for EDF and Areva”
EDF shares are down more than 44 percent in the 12 months,
EDF sinks to all-time low as nuclear waste cost estimate soars http://uk.reuters.com/article/edf-nuclear-waste-idUKL8N14W2RO20160112 PARIS | BY GEERT DE CLERCQ Jan 12 Shares in French utility EDF sank to all-time lows on Tuesday after the country’s Andra nuclear waste agency said that storage costs could be higher than EDF’s estimates.
Mirroring German utilities E.ON and RWE , which saw their shares hit decade lows late last year over worries about nuclear decommissioning costs, EDF fell as much as 7.3 percent before recovering to 4.1 percent lower.
A string of brokerage price target downgrades and French forward power prices falling to new decade lows only added to the gloom.
In a report released late on Monday, Andra said costs for the Cigeo deep geological storage project could be as high as 30 billion euros or as low as 20 billion depending on assumptions about different cost factors in coming years.
“There are different views on the calculation, more or less conservative, depending on estimates for future technological progress and optimisation,” Continue reading
South Australian towns could become nuclear terrorism targets
Nuclear a terrorist risk, Whyalla News Dec. 28, 2015, Local towns such as Whyalla could be made terror targets if South Australia does become part of the nuclear fuel cycle.
This risk was outlined as part of a Nuclear Royal Commission public session held at the Whyalla public library in front of a small group of locals earlier this month.
Regional engagement officer Jon Bok said that an increased threat of terrorism was one of the several risks the commission were taking into account.
“At the moment we are looking into several issues, with terrorism being one of them,” Mr Bok said.
Mr Bok declined to comment on what counter-measures could be taken to prevent a terrorist attack…… http://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/3617682/nuclear-a-terrorist-risk/
Bill Fisher spells it out on nuclear waste – Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Bill Fisher Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission – Submission – All Issues
Introduction I frequently make submissions to parliamentary enquiries on matters nuclear: most recently the Enquiry into Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and the Enquiry into expansion of the Roxby mine. My submission is usually among the large majority (about 90%) opposed to uranium mining and export. The usual 90% majority is usually ignored! The 10% who are listened to are uranium industry representatives, governments and government departments, and a few scientists who are on the payroll of the uranium industry or the government. While this is a significant problem in the case of federal governments, it is far worse in South Australia, where the Roxby Downs Indenture Act is designed to override virtually all other legislation, and government departments which are supposed to monitor mining and export also act as promoters and protectors of the industry…..
Biased South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission
Royal Commission vs Community Permission: Environment groups assess performance of SA nuclear Royal Commission
National and state environment groups have today released an assessment of the state Royal Commission into the nuclear industry in SA. The report – commissioned by Conservation SA, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth Australia – looks at the Commission’s progress since its surprise unveiling by Premier Jay Weatherill ten months ago.
The report raises serious concerns about the Royal Commission, from the unrepresentative and unbalanced composition of the Expert Advisory Committee, conflicts of interest, the Royal Commission’s unwillingness to correct factual errors, to a repeated pattern of pro-nuclear claims being uncritically accepted and promoted.
“The nuclear industry embodies unique, complex and long lasting safety, security, environmental and public health challenges,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins. “The sector lacks a secure social license and it is imperative that any consideration of an expansion of the industry is predicated on the highest standards of evidence, rigour, transparency and inclusion. Sadly this report shows these standards are not being reflected in the current Royal Commission.”
The Royal Commission has been criticised by civil society groups including environmental, public health and Aboriginal organisations for its restricted processes and limited information flows.
“Unlike most Royal Commissions this one was not a response to a pressing public issue, but rather it is a calculated political initiative with a pro-nuclear agenda,” said ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney. “As a result the Commission looks less like an objective risk-benefit analysis and more an industry feasibility study. Environment groups and others will continue to closely track this deficient process.”
The Royal Commission is set to make an interim report in February 2016 with a final report due no later than 6 May 2016.
“We are concerned about skewed and inaccurate information and assumptions, especially in relation to nuclear growth and reactor longevity and so-called small modular reactors,” said Friends of the Earth Australia’s Dr Jim Green, a co-author of the report. “The Royal Commission praises the United Arab Emirates for the speed of its nuclear power program without making any mention of the elephant in the room: undemocratic countries can build reactors more quickly than democratic countries. Statements by the Royal Commission regarding the impact of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters are incorrect – and the list goes on.”
The groups have called for an expanded Advisory Committee, increased Aboriginal access to information and decision points and dedicated studies into the potential for growth in SA’s renewable energy sector as important steps to bring some much needed balance into the Commission’s deliberations.
The report is posted at: http://www.foe.org.au/rc-critique
Direct download: http://www.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/RC-critique-16Dec2015-final.pdf
__._,_.___
How much is the #NuclearCommissionSAust farce costing the taxpayer?
How much has the South Australian tax-payer already spent on the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission? The public should be informed – how much are they paying Kevin Scarce and his overwhelmingly pro nuclear merry men for all their ‘hearings’ and ‘information sessions’ and junkets to rural Australa, and to Japan, France, Canada, South Korea etc?
Blind Freddy could tell that the purpose is now, and always has been , to set up an international nuclear waste importing business – aimed at enriching a very few South Australians – and bugger the costs to the State’s children their children their chilred and beyond.
A whole heap of blah has gone on about nuclear power stations – which, everybody knows, is not an option, due to their astronomic expense. Then Kevin Scarce presumably will look good when he rules that one out, and just goes for the waste dump.
Anyway, it’s about time we all knew how much this whole sorry farce is costing.
ABC News reported thuis week that an extra $3 million will be pumped into the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
Film “Containment” timely, as #NuclearCommissionSAust blocks environmental and Aboriginal voices
It would certainly be beyond their comprehension that any community, any government, would actually volunteer to take other countries’ nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. Yet in Australia, this is what nuclear proponents, the SA premier, and now the prime minister are backing.
South Australia’s Royal Commission has refused Australian environmental movement experts ACF and Friends of the Earth permission to appear. On 8 December Rose Lester, a second-generation Yankunyjatjara nuclear survivor, found her own plea blocked by Commissioner Scarce.
Fears and fictions in SA’s nuclear waste tussle, Eureka Street, Michele Madigan | 10 December 2015 The long anticipated arrival of reprocessed nuclear fuel rods in the first week of December has thrown the spotlight again on Australia’s nuclear industry. Greenpeace’s highlighting of the deficiencies of transport gives little hope that government plans will fit with the usual assurances of ‘world’s best practice’ in this, the world’s most dangerous industry…….
At a screening last month of his film Containment, Harvard Professor Robb Moss agreed with me regarding the ‘providence’ of its timely showing to Australian audiences. Five years in the making, Containment shows, among other sequences, how the US is attempting to tackle the massive problem of dealing with their own high level radioactive waste.
It includes interviews with government officials and regulator personnel amid their attempts to contain the radioactivity for the expected 10,000 years — a time frame that will embrace ‘people who will not share our language, our nation and even our civilisation’. It’s unsurprising that the oft repeated phrase from those from the nuclear industry was that ‘the hardest thing is to get the community onside’. Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 