6 April – 6 May : Assessing the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission before its results are released on 6 May
It’s one month until the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission will announce its findings. And everyone knows what they will be – “nuclear waste importing will be a bonanza for South Australia”
This is the first of the significant posts that will appear on this site each day, ,until 6th May.
Kevin Scarce has dismissed opposition to the plan as largely “emotional”, not “factual” . I suspect that will be the way in which the Commission will deal with the opposing Submissions. Here’s today’s:
The Greens SA’s submission to the Nuclear Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings rejects the suggestion that an economic bonanza awaits our State if South Australians would only resign ourselves to becoming the world’s nuclear garbage bin.
“The Royal Commission has been blinded by imaginary wealth and sucked into believing that a project that has never succeeded anywhere else in the World is South Australia’s for the taking”, said Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“The most obvious question is being ignored: If this is such a great deal, how come no other country has grabbed it before now?
“The Greens are urging the Royal Commission to “get real” and critically examine the supposed economic benefits alongside the ongoing economic, social, environmental and reputational costs.
“Washing your hands of responsibility for a toxic legacy left to future generations is just immoral.
“The solution to South Australia’s current unemployment problems won’t be solved with mythical jobs that are decades into the future with the creation of toxic liabilities that last hundreds of thousands of year.
On releasing the “Tentative Findings” Report to the media on 15th February 2016, Commissioner Kevin Scarce stated, “The community needs to understand the risks and the benefits.” The Royal Commission’s “Tentative Findings” highlights many purported benefits but is scant on detail when it comes to the profound risks.
According to the Greens’ submission, the “Tentative Findings” suffer from:
1.Unrealistic expectations of the magnitude of the project;
2.Failure to appreciate 6 decades of international failure to solve the nuclear waste problem;
3.Missing costs, unfunded liabilities, missing contingencies and failure to recognise inevitable cost blow-outs
4.Heroic assumptions of other countries’ willingness to pay for SA to take their nuclear waste;
5.Lack of recognition of the potential for irrecoverable sunk costs and unlimited future liabilities;
6.Failure to address reputational damage and impact on other sectors of the economy; and
7.Naïve expectations that South Australia would get to keep all the profits from a nuclear waste dump in our State, without having to share them with other States.
“The Commission’s final report due on 6th May should recommend that the folly of South Australia’s increased involvement in the nuclear industry be abandoned.
“In relation to the other Terms of Reference, increased uranium mining, uranium processing or nuclear power were never really an option for SA and the Royal Commission was an expensive way to tell us what we already knew”, concluded Mark Parnell.
Valdis Dunis – a caution on #NuclearCommissionSAust’s enthusiasm for nuclear waste importing
Valdis Dunis comments on important aspects of #NuclearCommissionSAust’s enthusiasm for importing nuclear wastes and storing them in South Australia – on soil behaviour, seismic risks, poor history of waste disposal world-wide, delays and cost overruns, and problems of financing and insurance.
“Limited Financing and Insurance Sources for Nuclear Projects: As nuclear programs in Europe, Japan, China and USA have shown, commercial banks usually decline funding nuclear programs due to the risk factors of repeated technical problems, delays and construction and maintenance cost rises seen in many projects involving nuclear fuel. Funding thus falls to government, government-linked banks and the companies building the projects themselves (such as EDF in China and Europe). This limits who funds can be sourced from.
Similarly, commercial insurance companies do not insure nuclear installations, with the risk falling on governments”
Valdis Dunis’ Response on NFCRC’s Tentative Findings, 17 Mar 16 “………My comments below apply to the one area where your initial findings found that our state has a chance to have a significant profitable business, namely storage of high-level nuclear waste from other countries. Continue reading
Greens call on Nuclear Royal Commission to “get real”
The Greens SA’s submission to the Nuclear Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings rejects the suggestion that an economic bonanza awaits our State if South Australians would only resign ourselves to becoming the world’s nuclear garbage bin.
“The Royal Commission has been blinded by imaginary wealth and sucked into believing that a project that has never succeeded anywhere else in the World is South Australia’s for the taking”, said Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.
“The most obvious question is being ignored: If this is such a great deal, how come no other country has grabbed it before now?
“The Greens are urging the Royal Commission to “get real” and critically examine the supposed economic benefits alongside the ongoing economic, social, environmental and reputational costs.
“Washing your hands of responsibility for a toxic legacy left to future generations is just immoral.
“The solution to South Australia’s current unemployment problems won’t be solved with mythical jobs that are decades into the future with the creation of toxic liabilities that last hundreds of thousands of year.
On releasing the “Tentative Findings” Report to the media on 15th February 2016, Commissioner Kevin Scarce stated, “The community needs to understand the risks and the benefits.” The Royal Commission’s “Tentative Findings” highlights many purported benefits but is scant on detail when it comes to the profound risks.
According to the Greens’ submission, the “Tentative Findings” suffer from:
1.Unrealistic expectations of the magnitude of the project;
2.Failure to appreciate 6 decades of international failure to solve the nuclear waste problem;
3.Missing costs, unfunded liabilities, missing contingencies and failure to recognise inevitable cost blow-outs
4.Heroic assumptions of other countries’ willingness to pay for SA to take their nuclear waste;
5.Lack of recognition of the potential for irrecoverable sunk costs and unlimited future liabilities;
6.Failure to address reputational damage and impact on other sectors of the economy; and
7.Naïve expectations that South Australia would get to keep all the profits from a nuclear waste dump in our State, without having to share them with other States.
“The Commission’s final report due on 6th May should recommend that the folly of South Australia’s increased involvement in the nuclear industry be abandoned.
“In relation to the other Terms of Reference, increased uranium mining, uranium processing or nuclear power were never really an option for SA and the Royal Commission was an expensive way to tell us what we already knew”, concluded Mark Parnell.
ENuFF RESPONSE To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
ENuFF RESPONSE To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission February 2016 TENTATIVE FINDINGS Everybody for a Nuclear Free Future, March 2016
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzGxGaq45dRNd2RqT3d0VTVEWjA/view (on original the authors of this response provide source references for their statement)
Noel Wauchope: Response to Tentative Findings of Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
Noel Wauchope 16 Mar 16 INTRODUCTIONIn view of this waste importation focus by the Commission, I ma here responding to that issue. For simplicity, I have stated passages from the “Tentative Findings in pink.
MANAGEMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
STABILITY
The storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel in South Australia is likely to deliver substantial economic benefits to the South Australian community. An integrated storage and disposal facility would be commercially viable and the storage facility could be operational in the late 2020s.
The late 2020s How come Australia could have this nuclear wase facility operational so soon, when other countries have still not satisfactorily completed such a facility over many decades?
The Royal Commission must know that this requires – first of all, overcoming Federal environmental law, and overturning South Australia’s State law against importing nuclear wastes. And that’s only the beginning in overcoming public rejection (1A)
78. For the management of used fuel and intermediate level wastes, South Australia has a unique combination of attributes which offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuel.
They include:
a. the underlying Archaean geological structure,
the Gawler Craton, at an appropriate depth for disposal
Earthquake hazard: For either temporary or permanent storage of radioactive wastes, South Australia poses great risks. While the whole State has a small earthquake hazard zone, there are large sections which have an increased earthquake hazard. Particularly in the South of the State (1)
Risk to precious artesian water. While the South of the State has earthquake risks, almost the entire of the rest of the State covers the Great Artesian Basin. (2)
Effectively, this means there is almost no part of South Australia that could safely store radioactive trash for decades, let alone for thousands of years.
I am grateful to Paul Langley, who has set out the problems in relation to the Gawler Craton – “The Royal Commission does not provide a map that defines the area covered by the Gawler Craton. ……There are many maps showing the Gawler Craton and most of them vary radically from one another.”
Langley also drew attention to instability within the Ceduna Sub Basin – “The proposed HLNW geologic repository may be (or may not be) flooded with ground water after completion – as part of the design criteria. I have to ask how such a repository might impact occupants of the Peninsular.”
“Agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and mining industries, all reliant on sustainable natural resources, contribute over $2.5 billion to the economy in an average year. Despite low rainfall and low soil fertility, around 45% of SA’s wheat and 20% of SA’s barley harvest come from the Eyre Peninsula. In addition, the region contributes 45% of the state’s seafood harvest. Some 95% of farms are broad acre, of which 85% depend on grain growing alone, or a mix of grain and livestock farming. Given all this, the Eyre Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to a hotter, dryer future.” Source: “Effective Adaptation Policy Making: A case study from the Eyre Peninsula” National Climate Change Adaption Research Facility, athttps://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/case-study-eyre-peninsula https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
84. Given the quantities held by countries that are yet to find a solution for the disposal of used fuel, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be an accessible market of sufficient size to make it viable to establish and operate a South Australian repository.85. There is no existing market to ascertain the price a customer may be willing to pay for the permanent disposal of used fuel.
What would the (overseas) holders of radioactive wastes be willing to pay for disposal and storage of radioactive wastes in South Australia?
This question really has no answer. The Commission’s conclusion of total revenue of more than $257 billion, despite all the high-sounding financial statements, sounds like a nice figure just plucked out of the air. At present every country with nuclear facilities is struggling with the unanswered question of what do do with their radioactive trash. Even Finland, which has built a 500 metre deep burial place, will not have enough space for their accumulating radioactive trash. So far, there is no room for Fennovoima’s waste in the Onkalo repository in Olkiluoto. (2)
At this stage there are no proposals for exporting nuclear waste. Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce, in his recent report on the Commission’s overseas visit, said “We haven’t done the financial study”. When anyone does do the financial study, they will need to factor in the financial costs of insurance, of security for hundreds, thousands, of years, as well as of environmental degradation.
Another factor would be the comparison of the commercial value of renewable energy not pursued, tourist and agricultural opportunities lost as government money went into fostering nuclear schemes rather than South Australia’s more positive activities.
There would be no revenue for at least 30 years – probably longer – until the waste disposal facility were to be up and running. Who pays up for it all in the meantime? Does South Australia have to borrow heavily – and then – what if it all does not eventuate, anyway?
TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
I am astonished at the minimalist approach Tentative Findings report towards the transport of radioactive wastes. It’s as if the subject does not matter!
135. During the past 30 years, approximately 11 000 containers of uranium oxide concentrate (UOC) have been exported from Australia. There have been a
number of incidents during the transport of UOC where containers have been knocked or dented. However, given that UOC has low radioactivity and is transported
in sealed drums inside shipping containers, there has never been an accident in Australia resulting in the release of UOC to an extent that has adversely affected
workers, the public or the environment. (They don’t count the Ranger spill in 2014 https://antinuclear.net/2014/10/23/toxic-spill-report-critical-for-ranger-uranium-mine/)
transport packages….
It’s as if the Royal Commission had never heard of the modern facts about climate change – extreme weather events increasing in frequency and severity. (3)
It’s as if the Royal Commission had never heard of the increasing dangers, and increasing sophistication of terrorist attacks.
It’s as if the Royal Commission had never heard of the growing objections of many communities, to having nuclear waste ships pass near them or through their ports. (4)
155. There is no compelling evidence from any international experience that the development of nuclear facilities in South Australia would adversely affect other economic sectors, provided those facilities are operated safely and securely. There is a perception there would be an impact, which would need to be addressed in the process of obtaining community consent for any proposal. In the event of a major nuclear accident, adverse impacts on the tourism, agriculture and
property sectors could potentially be profound.
Of course – there’s no evidence at all – as it has never been done before – to set up a nuclear waste importing business to a non nuclear country – particularly in a State such as South Australia, with its renowned wine industry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture, including innovative schemes such as Sundrop Farms
In the past, countries like France accepted the risks of nuclear power, and their other industries thrived. Now, even in France, there is concern about polluting industries. For some time after the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe, the French wine industry was severely depressed., because the wine growing regions were squarely in the path of the ionising radiation fallout. (5) There is concern in Washington State about the impact of Hanford nuclear waste facility on the wine industry. (6)
SECRECY ISSUE: LAWS AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO OTHER COUNTRIES
146. There is significant appetite in the private sector investment community to support new Australian infrastructure projects.
The Tentative Findings assume a great financial bonanza to South Australia, but is very vague on how the costs and (assumed) profits would be carved up between South Australia and the countries sending the wastes.
And, I still wonder, if it’s going to be such a bonanza, why is no other country offering to host the global radioactive trash?
Once again, Paul Langley has expressed this question most eloquently:
Nuclear nations all have their own laws regarding nuclear matters. For instance the United States has many laws, including the Atomic Energy Act, as currently amended, associated laws and regulations. It has long been an issue that the US Act prevents full disclosure regarding “special nuclear material” – that is plutonium and uranium as used and produced in a reactor. This matter has long been a concern in the US democratic setting. For instance, see CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8.
The HLNW repository is promoted by the Royal Commission as being South Australian, owned by the government and benefitting the people of SA. To what extent then, in the course of contract negotiations, will the government and people of SA become beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure and other matters in regard a client nation’s HLNW? Will the contracts be commercial in confidence ? Will provisions alien to SA law be invoked in order to comply with contracted obligations? Will such provisions restrict our right to know and our freedom to speak? Will the full nature of the stockpile resident in the HLNW repository be secret in any way? Will the people be able to study each contract? What is an unclassified restricted document, and what happens if an ordinary person figures out it’s contents? (7)
References: Continue reading
A Submission For The Public Good – to #NuclearCommissionSAust
ABOUT SUBMISSIONS 16 Mar 16
Today I take the unusual step of publishing several extracts from one submission. The Royal Commission has allowed very little time for people to send in submissions. So – few are available to me right now.
BUT – Paul Langley of South Australia has prepared a submission. And it is a beauty! Why? Because not only does it pack a punch, but, equally important, Langley provides a wealth of information, facts, figures, and reference sources – https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Sad to mutilate such a strong and lengthy submission, but I have done so on this website. So there are 5 extracts from the submission, on today’s page. If you have time, go to the original. If you don’t have time, at least see what Langley writes about Transport of High Level Nuclear Waste, Gawler Crater, The Law and the Profits, Gaining Public Trust, AN ALTERNATIVE to nuclear industry
Transport of High Level Nuclear Waste: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “……Transport of HLNW from around the world to a SA HLNW geologic repository
The Royal Commission apparently assumes that the movements of many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from many countries around the world to the Gawler Craton will be low risk, no problems and perfectly safe. As contradictory as those stances are. I do not accept that position of default safety. Further I do not accept that the unloading of the HLNW will be perfectly safe. I do not accept that road transport from port to repository site will be perfectly safe, even on a dedicated purpose built road.
I would recommend that Super Freighters laden with the contents of countless reactor cores not sail down the Somali coast nor in the waters to the south of Thailand for fear of pirates. They should avoid man made Islands in the South China Sea. I suppose the ships will be guarded by 6 English policemen each with two revolvers between them. Rather than half the Pacific Fleet they would actually warrant. If they ever get to leave their home ports. What is the Somali coast going to be like in 40 years? Peaceful or short of rad weapons?…….” https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission: About the Gawler Craton and Ceduna sub Basin
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “……….Response to Tentative Finding 74……….
Nuclear adventurism invariably claims to be acting in order to “save the world” from one thing or another.
In my final statement I shall remind the Royal Commission of alternatives to the current proposal. A nuclear dump on Eyre Peninsular or anywhere else will not save this planet from anything, and will impose risk upon populations.
Stability The Royal Commission tentatively finds that the Gawler Craton is stable. The Royal Commission says nothing about the stability of the climate that impacts it and which will impact it in the near future. I choose not to compare SA with lands of snow and glaciers, such as Sweden and Finland. I choose a much more relevant place:
“….even in extremely arid climates such as the Yucca Mountain site, hydrologic interaction is the most prevalent [risk]. It is the primary mechanism of which contamination can occur, and is the most prevalent consequence to other risks discussed…..”
I shall show that the US concern regarding sudden climate change – including extreme rain events – and the impact of this upon arid area HLNW Repositories is much more relevant to Australian scenario than the Swedish and Finnish concerns. …….The risks posed by sudden climate change and increasing extreme weather events include possible flood events on Eyre Peninsular. This is a section of the Gawler Craton that contains no rivers (Source: SA Water Corp). Like Yucca Mountain, Eyre Peninsular appears to be internally drained……..
Contrary to the implications of the written material made available by the Royal Commission, the Swedish and Finnish models do not provide South Australians with a moral precedent or imperative for accepting the nuclear waste generated by the rest of the world. Rather, both nations conform to the principle of clearing up one’s own mess as best one can. Importing the mess of other nations would, it seems to me, be an anathema to both nations. On one hand the Royal Commission implores us to copy Sweden and Finland. On the other hand, both those nations say no in law to what the Royal Commission is proposing and recommending.
However, no doubt, both nations would happily sell their means and methods to South Australians. The cost of this sale has not been made available by the Royal Commission as far as I am aware. No doubt royalties due to Swedish and Finnish patent licenses would apply………
The Swedish nuclear authorities were given from 1977 until 2020 to consider the mandatory HLNW geologic waste dump by the people of Sweden. That’s Forty Three years.
How is it that the people of South Australia have been given only from 2016 to 2020 to consider the same issue? A mere Four years? The people of Sweden were time generous to the nuclear industry. That same industry now attempts to railroad us into a “fast buck for them” solution……
The Royal Commission has not disclosed whether the HLNW geologic repository/dump will be hot or cold. Will it be flooded with ground water as the Swedes intend for theirs?…………
Where is the groundwater coming from if in SA the repository is to be flooded as proposed by the Swedish text quoted above? Where will the ground water subsequently move to from the repository? Is there in fact any basis for an unthinking acceptance of the Swedish solution in South Australia? How wheat and mutton is produced above the deep, geologic Scandinavian nuclear sewers? Do they wish they did not have the problem at all? Yes, but sadly they do have the problem. They may have solved their problem. Is their solution to become our problem? Given we do not share much with them, either in environmental type, chemistry or need………
Tentative Finding 78
parts a – c state: “For the management of used fuel and intermediate level wastes, South Australia has a unique combination of attributes which offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuel. They include: the underlying Archaean geological structure, the Gawler Craton, at an appropriate depth for disposal. low levels of seismic activity overall and, in some parts, very low levels relative to elsewhere in the world. an arid environment in many parts of the state.”
The Gawler Craton
The Royal Commission does not provide a map that defines the area covered by the Gawler Craton. ……There are many maps showing the Gawler Craton and most of them vary radically from one another…..
The Royal Commission cannot consider the actual location of the HLNW geologic repository, other than to inform that it will be located within the Gawler Craton. While advocating for the repository, the Royal Commission cannot apparently consider Southern groundwater chemistry as compared to Swedish or Finnish groundwater chemistry or any other technical factor. The only technical data it cites in its tentative findings are promotional statements.
The Gawler Craton appears to be very big. I am familiar with some geologic events of the recent past that indicate not all places located over the Craton are “stable” in the common sense.
I refer to the Bight Basin and in particular to the Ceduna Sub Basin of the Bight Basin.
What are the hydrologic and other dynamics of the Gawler Craton? How well is it understood by modern Geology?
“Owing to sparse outcrop, the geology of the Gawler Craton is relatively poorly understood, and its boundaries are entirely subsurface, being interpreted from total magnetic intensity and gravity data combined with outcrop and drillhole information (Schwarz et al., 2006)”. Source: “Geodynamic Synthesis of the Gawler Craton and Curnamona Province” Edited by N.Kositcin, GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA record 2010/27, Australian Government, athttp://minquest.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Genesis-of-the-Gawler2.pdf……
There is evidence of instability within the Ceduna Sub Basin……..
The proposed HLNW geologic repository may be (or may not be) flooded with ground water after completion – as part of the design criteria. I have to ask how such a repository might impact occupants of the Peninsular.
“Agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and mining industries, all reliant on sustainable natural resources, contribute over $2.5 billion to the economy in an average year. Despite low rainfall and low soil fertility, around 45% of SA’s wheat and 20% of SA’s barley harvest come from the Eyre Peninsula. In addition, the region contributes 45% of the state’s seafood harvest. Some 95% of farms are broad acre, of which 85% depend on grain growing alone, or a mix of grain and livestock farming. Given all this, the Eyre Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to a hotter, dryer future.” Source: “Effective Adaptation Policy Making: A case study from the Eyre Peninsula” National Climate Change Adaption Research Facility, athttps://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/case-study-eyre-peninsula https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
The Law and the Profits: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16 “…..The Law and the Profits.
Nuclear nations all have their own laws regarding nuclear matters. For instance the United States has many laws, including the Atomic Energy Act, as currently amended, associated laws and regulations. It has long been an issue that the US Act prevents full disclosure regarding “special nuclear material” – that is plutonium and uranium as used and produced in a reactor. This matter has long been a concern in the US democratic setting. For instance, see CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, VOL 26, NO 4, MARCH 2005, PP. 1401-8.
The HLNW repository is promoted by the Royal Commission as being South Australian, owned by the government and benefitting the people of SA. To what extent then, in the course of contract negotiations, will the government and people of SA become beholden to the provisions of foreign laws regarding disclosure and other matters in regard a client nation’s HLNW? Will the contracts be commercial in confidence ? Will provisions alien to SA law be invoked in order to comply with contracted obligations? Will such provisions restrict our right to know and our freedom to speak? Will the full nature of the stockpile resident in the HLNW repository be secret in any way? Will the people be able to study each contract? What is an unclassified restricted document, and what happens if an ordinary person figures out it’s contents? ……..” https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Gaining Public Trust: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16
“……..Gaining Public Trust. Relevant Safety Assurances made by nuclear “experts” in my life time.
In the 1980s, the government of South Australia returned ownership of the Maralinga Lands:
“In 1984, the South Australian Government returned the freehold title for the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands to its Traditional Owners. Concerns over radiological hazards prevented the handback of Section 400.” Source: “Maralinga Tjarutja Lands: handback of Section 400” , The Anangu Lands Paper Tracker, at http://www.papertracker.com.au/archived/maralinga-tjarutja-lands-handback-of-section-400/
As I recall at that time the then Premier, the Late John Bannon, visited the Maralinga Lands, along with Peter Burns and other ARPANSA scientists. Peter wrote a detailed description of the problem at Maralinga in a Saturday Advertiser centre page spread at that time. Mr. Bannon was appalled and surprised at the state of some areas of the lands and though the land was handed back, it was too dangerous to permit the owners to return on a permanent basis.
Full handback was not possible until the 21st century………..
For decades the relevant nuclear experts – especially those under Professor Titterton – had assured Australia and Australians that Maralinga was “perfectly safe”. From the 1950s until 1984. Many individuals who contested the opinion of these experts were threatened with jail for breaching the official secrets act. (Source: Mr Kevin Wakefield, Ex RAN, Monte Bello Island, Mr Terry Toon, Ex Maralinga, Mr Alan Batchelor, Ex Maralinga. Mr John Hutton, Ex Maralinga.) While some ordinary people knew the truth, they were not allowed to tell it. And when they did speak out, they received threats and disbelief. It is reasonable to think, given that the RAN surveyed the Monte Bello Islands until 1975, the same would be true of the Army and Maralinga. Everyone is a Sergeant Schulz on that one.
Well it was not perfectly safe. Was it? This is one of South Australia’s formative experiences with nuclear authorities. Professor Titterton remained entrenched at the Federal level as a nuclear safety “leader” until the era of the Whitlam government.
This is not ancient history. It is for some people like yesterday. The 1984 McClelland Royal Commission records an exchange between Titterton and the Royal Commissioner. In this exchange Titterton admits he could not disclose all he knew about safety to the Safety Committee due to the fact that he was constrained by the secrecy provisions of both the United States and Great Britain. Will history repeat in this regard? What will Jay not be able to say the people of South Australia? Will silence due to “American and British secrecy provisions” reign again? The Royal Commissioner McClelland found that some Australians in authority were akin to Fifth columnists acting more in the interests of foreign lands than they were towards Australia and its people.
This earlier Royal Commission also found that nuclear experts had stated to the effect that the critical interests of “a handful of natives” were not going to “stand in the way of the BritishCommonwealth of Nations.” (Royal Commission, Conclusions, 8.4.38 – 39). Saving the world required some local sacrifice. As far away from the North as possible. The ones closest in are the ones most affected. Shall we do it again Jay W.?
Nuclear history is the art of waiting for historic promises to be exposed for what they are at some future point……..
The proposed repository is a sociological experiment. It will take decades for it to provide the history lesson. A very costly higher education.
“Perfectly Safe”, in the History of South Australia, has been a nuclear science fiction, and anyone can prove it. It has never actually true, and contaminated land remains from the time when the owners were forcibly trucked off it in the 1950s. To be concentrated in camps near the Ceduna sub basin of the Bight Basin, which overlays, in part, the Gawler Craton. Such history lies beneath the apparently solid rock statement made by today’s youngster biologists who claim expertise as nuclear people……” .https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
AN ALTERNATIVE: Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Response to the Tentative Findings of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission A Submission by Paul Langley Nuclear Exhaust 16 Mar 16
“……..An Alternative We are told Secure Base load Electrical Power is a certainty upon which our civilization rests. Not withstanding the constantly falling price of off grid generation and storage of domestic and industrial power.
As each day passes, alternatives grow in attractiveness. As usual old industries, such as nuclear industry, bemoan the competing technology as inadequate. The odds are by the time today’s five year child is twenty five they will generate, store and use their own off grid power simply, easily and at a cost that would make TEPCO and Westinghouse executives go green. At the moment though the nuclear industry remains a dedicated future-phobe. Those who call for a nuclear revival merely confirm, in the shrillness of their demands, the proven failures of the industry over time, all over the globe.
A large solar power plant, used for both day time power generation and day time sea water electrolysis, could provide 24 hour base load power. An onsite hydrogen fuelled generator station, generating at night or as required, fuelled by solar produced Hydrogen, could transform the SA economy. The benefits would not have to be weighted against risks spread population wide. This is 2016. Hydrogen is in daily use around the world. In SA there are potential energy sources as yet resolutely untapped.
A hybrid solar hydrogen power plant could be constructed with current knowledge and hardware. But of course, it would be an inappropriate icon in a state dominated by the nuclear promise.
A far thinking Parliament would not be bound to digging holes in the ground for a living. It might actually originate and facilitate something that actually could save the planet. Sadly it won’t. It does not have the creative will to do so. Such things would already be done if it had.
Such ideas are deemed crazy ones in the halls of nuclear power, in that place where thinking differently seems to be a sin against the prayer book of a compulsory religion.
No thanks, I do not wish to buy this product. It sucks very badly. Have you got anything else? Preferably something sensible and compatible with the future. Not some rust belt thing that the children of all tomorrows curse us for giving them. https://nuclearexhaust.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/response-to-the-tentative-findings-of-the-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission/
Excellent previous submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust
The website of South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, is not all that user friendly – hard to find the previous submissions. However they are at
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?query=&cat=View+all&search=Submissions&max_page_items=50&sort_by=
some of the best submissions are on THIS website, even if not complete.
Here they are, not in any particular order:
SUBMISSIONS FOCUSING ON NUCLEAR WASTE IMPORTATION
Sisters of St Joseph make a powerful case against radioactive trash dumping
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC – Management, Storage and Disposal of Wastes. also on impact of unclear waste import on Tourism etc
Christine Anderson – nuclear waste no bonanza for South Australia
Environmental Defenders Office (SA)
Noel Wauchope – Answer Points on Importing Nuclear Waste
BHP not interested in nuclear waste import
Bill Fisher spells it out on nuclear waste
Plans for radioactive trash dumping on Aboriginal land ?
West Mallee Protection – an Aboriginal Perspective
Clean Bight Alliance Australia
MORE GENERAL SUBMISSIONS
Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle
South AustraliaEnvironment Groups
South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission Issues Paper 4 – misleading and serious omissions
Dr Helen Caldicott’s Submission on all 4 Nuclear Royal Commission Issues Papers
Dr Caldicott’s submission concerning radiation
Medical Association for Prevention of War & Public Health Association of Australia
Annie McGovern Addressing questions of WATER
Construction Forestry & Mining. Also Uranium Free NSW.
Rebecca Keane Renewable Energy way ahead of nuclear
Electrical trades Union of Australia dispels the hype about Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
John Quiggan demolishes the case for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in South Australia
Ally Fricker & Bob Lamb for ENuFF
Yurij Poetzl scrutinises Questionable Integrity of the Royal Commission
City of Port Adelaide Enfield notes poor prospects for New Nuclear Technology
South Australian nuclear waste import plan simply cannot succeed
Given the wildly optimistic price for waste modelled by the mid-scenario, not to mention the 56,000 tonnes of waste left over with no costed solution, and with all the uncertainties in developing the new technologies required, the simple conclusion is that this plan is simply all risk with no reward.
No-one else will line up to take advantage of this “once in a lifetime opportunity”, because the opportunity does not exist. The plan simply cannot succeed.
The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work. THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Dan Gilchrist February 2016
“……NO GOOD OUTCOME The free energy utopia depends on two new, as yet unproven technologies: PRISM reactors, and cheap borehole disposal. The Edwards plan appears to rely on these technologies not only being successfully developed, but remaining entirely in Australian hands. Competition is certainly not addressed in the plan.
Exploding Senator Edward’s plan for nuclear waste importing
The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work. THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Dan Gilchrist February 2016The massive holes in Senator Edward’s arguments for “new nuclear” technology for South Australia
not a single PRISM [ (Power Reactor Innovative Small Module] has actually been built…. the commercial viability of these technologies is unproven
Crucially, under the plan, Australia would have been taking spent fuel for 4 years before the first PRISM came online, assuming the reactors were built on time.
if borehole technology works as intended, and at the prices hoped for, why would any country pay another to take their waste for $1,370,000 a tonne, when a solution exists that only costs $216,000 a tonne, less than one sixth of the price?
The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work. THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Dan Gilchrist February 2016
“……NEW TECHNOLOGY This comprehensively researched submission asserts that a transformative opportunity is to be found in pairing established, mature practices with cuspof-commercialisation technologies to provide an innovative model of service to the global community. (emphasis added) Edwards’ submission to the Royal Commission
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 